Open main menu

This user has opted out of talkbacks

This user prefers to be notified by Notifications. Please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} when you reply to this user. No talkback messages are needed.


By Year categoriesEdit

Hey, JJMC89,

It looks like a lot of categories have been moved by your bot but not the contents. For example, the original category was Category:Years in surfing but it was moved to Category:Surfing by year and it was turned into a redirect. But the contents of the original category are still there. Will the bot get to that eventually or does this need to be put on a CfD page for action? Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Liz. The bot is currently going through the categories and updating {{year by category}}. The categories that were moved are listed at WP:CFD/W/L while they're still processing. — JJMC89 04:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The bot moved 1938 to 1992 from Category:Years in African football to Category:African football by year. The old category still has 1993 onwards and the new category was not created. I haven't seen the move listed anywhere (I don't object to the move). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
That was my fault. I've reverted them back to the original category. It should probably be moved for consistency with the others though. — JJMC89 01:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletionEdit


The reply you made here [1] (and the thread itself) seems to have been instantly archived/deleted for some reason, making it hard for the questioner to find, is that how it should be? They caught my attention at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Wikipedia_Page_Undeletion, and since their goal is hard enough, I don't want it to be unnecessarily hard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The section is there. It looks like someone edited an old version of the page instead of the current version, so it was temporarily not there. — JJMC89 02:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
So it is, thanks! Another question: it seems the article won't be refunded/draftified/whatever, but creating a new draft and submit for approval (preferably with COI-declarations etc) would be ok in this case? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
If notability can be established, then a draft is a good route. Winged Blades of Godric may be able to advise on whether or not Kumbhar is notable now. — JJMC89 05:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking. WBGconverse 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. I found these two [2][3], not enough but I think they "count". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Something about AfDsEdit

Winged Blades of Godric You are closing AFD discussions which isn't helpful at all. AfD discussions are kept for 7 days. This type of behaviour is considered disruptive. It is not WP:PROD. Thanks. Sincerely, Masum Reza 07:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is this here, and what are you talking about? — JJMC89 03:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

30 for 30Edit

Hello, could you please take a look at this page: , and make a decision on what should be done? Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Ditch Brodie for a week. — JJMC89 05:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Life Cycle Events.jpegEdit

Hi JJMC89. Could you take a look at this file? I'm not sure what the uploader is trying to do, but their last bit of editing not only removed the {{nrd}} template I add, but also removed the file's copyright license. Maybe they are trying to have it deleted per {{db-g7}} or maybe they are trying to claim that the file is not non-free. I could tag it with {{nld}}, but that actually would give them one more day before the file would've been deleted per F5 or F6. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what they were trying to do, but I've restored the previous version so that it can sit until next week. — JJMC89 04:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Nepal districtEdit

A bit surprised at this close. Sure, there was a clear majority for deletion, but no arguments were given other than the generic opinion that consolidating infoboxes if a good idea. There were specific arguments why consolidating the infobox in this particular case would be a bad idea, and none of them were addressed. I'm not interested in taking this any further (all transclusions appear to have already been removed, so it's going to be quite an effort to do anything about it), but I don't like what this says about our discussion culture. I mean, why do we bother having these discussions at all, if the arguments don't seem to matter? – Uanfala (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The others didn't agree with you. I do wish people would actually discuss instead of just polling though, especially when it comes to rebutting points others have made. — JJMC89 23:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
So that's the GIGO argument then? You know it works both ways though: people aren't going to have much of an incentive to discuss matters and present arguments if the closer of the discussion is going to let them have their way anyway if they're in the majority and completely ignore them if they aren't. – Uanfala (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Anthropology PortalEdit

Hi JJMC89, I am concerned about the deletion of the Anthropology portal. I would have commented on the Discussion had I known it was up for deletion. The portal had been abandoned, but all it needed was a new editor and no anthropologists probably realized that. This is a major academic discipline with large member organizations for its numerous subfields -- new editors could be found by appealing to one of these organizations. I can facilitate these efforts if you could grant the portal a little more life. Thanks, – Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The WikiProject was notified of the discussion. As mentioned at the end of BHG's nomination, there is no prejudice against recreating a properly curated and maintained portal. — JJMC89 23:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of KochartechEdit

Hi JJMC89, Hope you are doing well. You deleted Kochartech by saying that, "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" This is a company that helps enterprises achieve better customer experience and this also provides customers to find out their solutions by themselves. I believe this is something big contribution to the current development of the world and should be notable on the internet as well. Allow Kochartech on Wikipedia to let the world recognize the capacity of kochartech. Looking for positive hearing from you. Thanks Prabhsahni (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89, by the sound of it, I assume it's also got connections to the processed meat industry... ——SerialNumber54129 10:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89, Honestly, I did not get that. processed meat is a food industry, Kochartech is an IT company. Ok, let me know why do not you allow kochartech as Wikipedia page. what is wrong with the subject name? this is the name of the company. Kindly allow kochartech as Wikipedia page. As I already mentioned the reason in my above message. This is a trusted company and should be notable on the internet via Wikipedia page.Thanks-- Prabhsahni (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked this user for sock/meatpuppetry; Draft:Kochartech was just recreated by Mahirb18. MER-C 12:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, MER-C. — JJMC89 23:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, and the processed meat came with dirty laundry. — JJMC89 23:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Undo editEdit

I need it if you can't find the lyrics. If you undo it again you will get blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CuteDolphin712 (talkcontribs) 12:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@CuteDolphin712: You do realize that JJMC89 is a Wikipedia administrator which means if he undid one of your edits then he probably had a very good policy or guideline based reason for doing so. In addition, some of the comments you made on your user page about another editor named Diannaa being a vandal could be seen as a personal attack and it's good thing that you removed that comment. Vandalism has a very specific meaning when it comes to Wikipedia which means you need to be really careful when accusing others of vandalism as explained in Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Just in case you didn't know, Diannaa is also a Wikipedia administrator and if she removed any content from a page, then she too most likely had a very good policy or guideline based reason for doing so. If someone makes an edit that you don't understand, then it's OK to ask them to explain why; pretty much all administrators will be happy to explain exactly why they made a certain edit; it's not, however, very wise to going around accusing a Wikipedia administrator of wrongdoing just because you don't understand or don't agree with something they did because, unlike you or me, an administrator can actually block another editor for making false accusations or for other types of disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
First, stop putting copyright lyrics on Wikipedia pages. We do not permit them. Second, your vandalism and disruptive editing will lead to a block if you don't stop. — JJMC89 22:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
And someone besides me is trying to vandalize the page. I don't understand why the lyrics are copyright! Maybe due to controversy?--CuteDolphin712 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of File:Natsumeatari.png from articleEdit

Hi JJMC89. Your bot seems to have removed the image in the headline from the infobox for Natsume (company) for lacking a NFUR, even though it has one on the description page (in fact the bot fixed it pointing to Natsume before removing it from the article). I've gone ahead and undid that edit since I don't see any reason for it to have been removed, but I just want to make sure that a) it doesn't happen again and b) that if there is a problem with it, it's made more clear what it is so I can avoid repeating it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonictrey (talkcontribs) 21:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That was my fault. I was testing something and screwed up the order of operations. The link on the file page was the only thing that should have been changed. — JJMC89 22:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warringEdit

For any pages you've been edit warring me on, I've explained my justification for my edits, which you seem to have ignored. Can you answer my issues? If not, I'm going to revert the edits and it's you, not me, who may be in danger of being blocked from editing. Buh6173 (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Per policy: The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it.WP:CSD Further, the template instructs if you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page. — JJMC89 04:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I've initiated discussion on the image's talk page. Buh6173 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Replied there. — JJMC89 05:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89".