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.

Cardumen Capital Deletion ReviewEdit

Dear user:

I just realized you deleted the entry I created for Cardumen capital due to the following reason: "Weak delete. There is some sourcing ([1], [2], [3]) but (1) I am not familiar with these papers and (2) even if they are reputable, the coverage seems fairly routine and is not a clear pass of WP:ORGIND". Please let me explain you the reliability of the sources mentioned: Source [1]. Globes is a daily business and financial publication that has been the oldest and largest of its kind in Israel. Approximately two hundred thousand people read "Globes" daily. Source [2]. Israel's leading financial newspaper Calcalist launched an English-language news site dedicated to Israeli tech. or CTech. CTech is a tech news website focused on the Israel's vibrant technology hub. It delivers in-depth coverage of the latest technology trends. Source [3]. El Referente is an information newspaper for entrepreneurs and startups. It was formed by a premature group of communicators, which seeks to bring the reality that surrounds them and interests the youngest people in Spain and the entire World.

The first two sources are really well known and reputed newspapers in Israel. The third source is a smaller newspaper, born in 2009 in Madrid, to cover the startup ecosystem of Spain.

You can google all the information that I just gave you to confirm these facts.

Hope we can put the wiki page back and continue to filled the venture capital ecosystem of Israel in Wikipedia which I noticed was underrepresented.

Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alerogue (talkcontribs) 07:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You should have partipated in the discussion instead of waiting until it was closed. What you've stated may address reliability but does not address independence. — JJMC89 21:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
hank you for your message. I'm sorry I got into the discussion once it was closed, I did not notice it before. Regarding independence, both Globes and Calcalist are well known national media. I believe both are independent sources according to Wikipedia rules. El Referente, is a younger and smaller newspaper, created to covered the entrepreneur and startup ecosystem in Spain and around the world. The sources are not press releases or newspapers that depend on advertising revenue. I believe that none of the three fall into the category of non-independent sources stated by Wikipedia (Owner, employees, corporate website or press release, sales brochure, competitor's website). I hope we can put the wiki page back. Thank you!! Alerogue (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
They are redressed PR. The second is basically a bunch of quotes from the leadership. — JJMC89 02:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I honestly can tell you they are not undercovered PR and I really encourage you to do a quick search on Google. Regarding the second source, Globes, it is one of most popular daily financial newspapers in Israel, founded in the early 1980s. Here, all English speakers who work at the tech ecosystem read it to keep track of the Israel's business arena. Globes has about 45,000 subscribers representing Israel's elite in management, investment, technology ,marketing, etc. Alerogue (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to search for anything. The popularity of a source is not relevant. — JJMC89 23:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not popularity what we are discussing. Firstable, you claimed the sources were not independent and I explained you that articles 1 and 2 were coming from strong national independent newspapers really well known in Israel. About the 3 source, it was coming from a smaller newspaper but also independent and not depending on advertising revenue. In second place, as explained, any of them are redressed PR. Calcalist and Globes both have an entry in Wikipedia I encourage you to visit. I hope this info helps. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alerogue (talkcontribs) 15:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
That does not make the references independent. Whether there is a Wikipedia article about the publisher is irrelevant. — JJMC89 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I know that doesn't make the references independant. I didn't say it does, I was only providing you with more information. I already explained why the references I selected are independent according to Wikipedia in my previous messages. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alerogue (talkcontribs) 07:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Then you are wasting my time. Nothing you have said here makes them independent. — JJMC89 06:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

CFD merge to same categoryEdit

In an edit before this one, a category was accidentally listed for merger to itself. This was unexpectedly processed as a deletion, see e.g. [1] (member page) and [2] (category). Please can you revise the functionality so that the bot would simply skip this instruction in any similar future cases? – Fayenatic London 20:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london:   Updated. Thanks for letting me know. — JJMC89 02:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Didn't seeEdit

Didn't mean to edit that. Hadn't seen that it had been closed whilst I was formatting my post. Games of the world (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

RfA voteEdit

I saw your revert of my vote at Ajpolino's RfA. Would you mind if my vote will still be allowed? I edited that page just less than ten minutes before its scheduled closing time, and Maxim has not yet closed that RfA when I opened the edit window. It appeared that I placed my vote at 13:03 UTC, which is also when he closed the RfA. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would I revert it if I didn't mind? Your !vote wasn't considered when the discussion was closed, so it shouldn't be added in as if it were. — JJMC89 06:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
How about this? The closure there was premature, but a late vote was still allowed to stand. The difference between my vote and Maxim's closure was less than one minute, and I have not seen the closure before I placed my vote. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Ajpolino's was not closed early. The fact that you didn't see the close is irrelevant. The closer would have needed to consider your position, which clearly didn't happen. — JJMC89 07:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

JJMC, that vote was within the seven-day time stamp (13:03 is the time I transcluded the RFA) to close and probably should be included, due to edit conflict. I left a message for Maxim yesterday about restoring it, but they have not yet edited. Please stop edit warring over something that Maxim can resolve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Face of mankind wrongful bot editEdit

There was an incorrect edit of the old game Face of Mankind it was reversed by a member of the community and I told them I'd look into the edit

The edit was done by JJMC89 bot III

Face of Mankind was a first and third-person massively multiplayer online action role playing game (MMORPG) set in a futuristic persistent world, controlled by the almighty Seraph. The game is played from a variety of points of view. It was designed to emphasize roleplay and community, using a faction system and player-driven politics. It was developed by German studio Duplex Systems.

controlled by the almighty Seraph. is incorrect and should not be added and was reversed unsure if your bot had incorrect information or not. However, you did upset old members of the community who from time to time ensure that the Wikipedia page is accurate just wanted to make you aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddysds1 (talkcontribs) 20:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Daddysds1:. I don't think JJMC89 bot III re-added that information to the article because (1) that's not what the bot is set up to do and (2) it was clearly re-added with this edit made by a different editor more than three months before the bot made its edit. The edit made by the bot can be seen here any only had to do with replacing a deleted category.
I'm not sure who the old members of the community are that you're referring to, but nobody on or outside of Wikipedia WP:OWNs an article. Any member of the Wikipedia community such as yourself can freely edit the article or discuss any issues they find with the article on its corresponding talk page. So, if "controlled by the almighty Seraph" is incorrect, then start a discussion about it on the article's talk page and see what others think. If nobody responds in a few days, then you can be WP:BOLD or seek input from WT:VIDEOGAME. If you do the latter and nobody still responds, then you can just be WP:BOLD and make the change you think is appropriate and leave an edit summary clearly explaining why (even mention the talk page discussion you started).
Disagreements over content are expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, not edit warring; so, if you establish a WP:CONSENSUS that it should be in the article, other editors will be expected to respect that consensus or establish a new consensus that it should. This consensus needs to be established among Wikipedia editors according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not outside Wikipedia among fans of the game. On the other hand, if you or others simply keep removing the content each time it's re-added without providing and Wikipedia policy or guideline based reason why, you run the risk of having your edits reverted as possible disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Safeguard soapEdit

Is the Commander Safeguard (character) article legitimate now that it is being created by a new user, or is this person also suspicious? Thanks, Soap 01:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the overlap in articles and prose for that editor, I've blocked and nuked. — JJMC89 19:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for taking on my botreq!Jonteemil (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)