User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2020/April

Category deletion

I'm sorry if this is the wrong administrator that I'm speaking to, the bot itself caused the deletion. I request the reconsideration of putting in the Category:American liberal people or I would at least like to see a compromise for the category. NihonBlue (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• @NihonBlue: The consensus is not to have this category. Not once, but twice, there have been discussions on this type of category. Please read WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OPINIONCAT....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• JJ, I nominated this category too for speedy deletion if you want to take care of it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a better compromise than I expected, though may I ask what took you guys so long on deleting the Category:American conservative people, it would have been nominated for deletion much sooner before it had over 1,000 pages. NihonBlue (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    • That's not a compromise. I didn't know these categories existed till you edited Robert Kastenmeier which I have on my watch list. Whether somebody is liberal or conservative is an opinion and the consensus is that categories aren't supposed to be subjective. Frankly some of your entries were off. Oliver Wendell Holmes and Felix Frankfurter don't really fit the label. Sam Ervin wasn't any liberal and there was no proof the label fit Hugh Quincy Alexander either....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I would still see this as a compromise. Though Sam Ervin was considered a "liberal hero" and Hugh Quincy Alexander had a "somewhat liberal voting record", I admit that some of the entries were off. And to be truthfully honest with you I thought that many admins. weren't that nonpartisan as Wikipedia claimed to be and had a favorably view on the US conservatism template and the subject in general which is why I thought in making the liberal category. NihonBlue (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • William, I've deleted Category:American conservative people. The bot is emptying it now. — JJMC89 07:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks. You may want to consider salting both Category:American conservative people and Category:American liberal people. These categories, Category:American conservatives and Category:American liberals have been salted because of them being created multiple times....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

NihonBlue, to appeal the speedy deletion of Category:American liberal people per WP:G4, you would need to discuss with Explicit. The bot just carried out his instructions. — JJMC89 07:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Bongo (antelope)

Hello, I was just wondering, should Bongo_(antelope) just be deleted per the notice on its page? Clearly it has been much longer than a week and this issue is not resolved.

"Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, the problematic text or the entire page may be deleted one week after the time of its listing." Noah^Talk 15:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

There is (always) a backlog at WP:CP. The article will be evaluated when an admin gets to it. If you want to rewrite it, you can do so at the temporary page indicated on the template. — JJMC89 00:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding denied rollback request

You denied my rollback rights request and stated that you didn’t believe I had enough experience. I’d like to inform you that I’ve been editing as an IP user since 2017, I mostly deal with vandalism by reverting edits (and I’m sure you know that they don’t count as mainspace edits). I’m also an extended confirmed user with over 500 edits (including reverts). Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 19:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't have enough verifiable experience. Reverting vandalism to articles most certainly counts as mainspace edits. Your anti-vandalism efforts are only in the past few days, and you are not issuing warnings. — JJMC89 04:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I’ve warned User:Lil rat man and reported him. He was blocked. I’ve also warned User:Kirkland2000. I get what you mean by verifiable experience, I’ll continue editing until I have over 200 mainspace edits on this account and get back to you. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 10:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I have over 200 mainspace edits right now, should I re-submit mr rollback rights request? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 07:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If you think you have sufficient experience now, you can. It isn't just about numbers. If you do, I will leave it for another admin to evaluate. — JJMC89 00:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing CFD template

Hi, after moving a category page, the bot only removed part of the template in this edit.[1]

It might be that on this occasion user:Rathfelder pasted and edited the template, making it slightly non-standard, rather than subst'ing the usual one – that used to cause Cydebot to behave likewise.

Or perhaps this outcome is to do with the category being proposed for a merge, whereas the close was instead to rename (move) it, so the bot looked for CFR when it was CFM that was present. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of having done anything with the template at all. At least not knowingly. Rathfelder (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

​The begin and end HTML comments in {{cfm}} were changed. I've changed them back since those are what the bot uses to find the beginning and end of all substituted cfx templates. Just removing {{cfx full}} is the backup for when it cannot find the begin and end comments. — JJMC89 00:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Aha. Follow-up message left for the requester at Template_talk:Cfm#Template-protected_edit_request_on_21_March_2020. – Fayenatic London 07:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It was my Edit Request. I had used T:CFM regularly by subst:. In there some other problem arose (anchor link from the Cartegry-pages did not work; caused by unclear parameter instructions), and when I tried to solve that manually, I saw that template:cfm in the subst:ed comment was referred to as "<!-- BEGIN CFD TEMPLATE -->" [2]. I found this incorrect and confusing, so I made an edit request [3].

As I understand now, it broke the bot's working, so of course reversal is OK, and I apologise. Maybe improvements could be made in the CfD doc to prevent need of manual intervention at all. Fayenatic london -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Bot sleeping

Hi, JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs) seems to be observing the shutdown. Perhaps processing CFDs is not within the Government definition of essential work. Could it perhaps be encouraged to work from home? – Fayenatic London 10:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

An hour ago, it made a single edit, then stopped again. – Fayenatic London 17:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's working again, thanks! – Fayenatic London 17:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There was something odd going on on Toolforge. I found a bunch of stuck jobs when I checked on this. — JJMC89 02:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion?

Hi JJMC89! Hope you're doing well. I'm requesting undeletion of the old version of The Post Millennial deleted by this discussion. I made a new version of the page with (I hope) much better sourcing, and I figured that I might be able to lift some of the language from the old version to fill out my new version.

Since there was some discussion about deletion, I thought that Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion might be the wrong venue, so I came directly to the admin who performed the deletion (that's you!). Please let me know if additional considerations/statements are needed from my end.

Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

​ Done FYI, Bearcat in case you want to re-evaluate the topic. — JJMC89 02:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Not much to add from that draft, but I appreciate the undeletion. Have a good one. Jlevi (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

A cup of tea for burning through that backlog of CSDs I was stacking up. Thanks! Sulfurboy (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Move

Hey, just to let you know that I moved Waterloo (village), New York again per WP:USPLACE. Minorax (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

​You shouldn't have moved it or the other one. KingSkyLord should have opened an RM since their bold move was contested by reverting the first RM/TR request was declined. — JJMC89 03:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems moot now that I've already moved it and that "specify the type of local government unit in parentheses before the comma" is clearly stated at WP:USPLACE. Still, I will take note of this in future. Sorry. Minorax (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Being right is not an acceptable excuse for move warring. — JJMC89 03:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I won't do it in future. Minorax (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I saw you had a problem. That should not happen again, the script takes care of it.  :-) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Beetstra — JJMC89 06:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:ICD-11 MMS tiny portion.png

Hi JJMC89. I have undid your tagging of File:ICD-11 MMS tiny portion.png, and instead put it up for discussion. I do not believe this image should be deleted, and have explained why in the FfD entry. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Love me some bot

File:LOVE (Indiana).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. At Love (sculpture) the bot has twice removed the fair use image of the original sculpture, is there a work around for this? I'll leave it off for now, so please look at the history for the image. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a non-free use rationale for that article. Even if there were one, it shouldn't be used there per WP:NFCC#3 / WP:NFC#UUI #6. — JJMC89 03:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi JJMC89 and Randy Kryn. After seeing this discussion and noticing that there are quite a number of similar photos of this sculpture uploaded to Commons, I decided to ask about it at c:COM:VPC#en:Love sculpture. It's quite possible that this non-free file may actually not need to be non-free, unless the only reason it was licensed as such is because of the photo, not the sculpture. If the photo is the reason, then a non-free photo of the sculpture would pretty much never be allowed per WP:FREER because anyone could take an equivalent photo and release it under a free license. The editor who uploaded File:LOVE (Indiana).jpg seems to no longer be active, but the source of the photo shows it being available on Flickr under a license that Commons accepts; so, all that might need to be done here is to add a PD license for the sculpture and then WP:MTC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Balconville Book Cover Image

The book cover is from the publication of the play. This usage of the image IS allowed under WP rules. Please stop removing the image from the article. 12:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crath (talk • contribs)

I never removed it. You failed to provide the required non-free use rationale when you uploaded the cover and added it to the article; therefore, it was automatically removed to enforce policy. — JJMC89 05:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Internet Archive Bot

Hi there, concerning your recent reversion of my attempts to protect articles from this bot - the problem is that IAB, although often useful, also does some pretty inane things which need to be blocked from time to time. In particular (as it affects me), I carefully locate and isolate urls in Googlebooks for verification of particular bibliographical references, where the copy is nice and clear, and if possible to show the relevant run of pages - and then the bot comes along, puts in a robotically-selected page from an IA source which is sometimes just as good and sometimes not, and sometimes completely wrong owing to the eccentricities of pagination in Internet Archive - and, to add insult to injury, it does not correct the original reference to say it has shifted from (Google) to (Internet Archive), so it fouls up the reference and link completely. Even more annoying, if this is reverted manually, the bot just comes along and repeats its first action, so there is a Sisiphan task of perpetually going round undoing the bot's mistakes. I cannot think of a better way of dealing with this than to block the bot on articles where this problem arises, but since you do not approve that action, I'd be grateful for your guidance on how best to prevent this nuisance. Thanks, Eebahgum (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The only reason that I even looked at them was because you didn't follow the {{bots}} documentation correctly. {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} is not the correct syntax. Also, see the three bullet points at the top of the documentation. As for your issue, I wouldn't depend on Google Books because the content available there varies by geographic region and other factors. — JJMC89 06:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed logos of Guatemalan Ministries

Hello JJMC89! I started editing the Ministries of Guatemala table having placed the under construction tag. I haven't finished it as the tag was still there. I have added logos of the ministries using these articles as reference:

• United States federal executive departments
• Cabinet of Mexico
• Cabinet of Peru

All of the above mentioned have logos in the table. Can you please explain why in the Guatemala case they are not acceptable. Thank you. Less Unless (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question. These logos are all essential parts of the ministries. Not only that, but you removed the external links, which was good info. Can you explain why you did this? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

These logos are all essential parts of the ministries. Are you serious? Surely what is essential is what the ministries do. External links should not be used in the body of an article.^{WP:ELPOINTS #2} — JJMC89 02:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your examples are using free images, which are not subject to satisfying the non-free content criteria. For non-free logos, the most current logo is allowed in the lead of a standalone article about an entity. Cases beyond that need critical commentary about the logo. — JJMC89 02:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I understood. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Dujone (2009 film)

Hello JJMC89, I draftified Dujone (2009 film) based on WP:NPPDRAFT, for it to be improved following the AfC process since it did not have any sources. I notified the author (see here), but for some reason that user removed the AfC template and some other information. I noticed that you moved it back to main space. Was draftifiying that article a bad call on my part? Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

​I don't have an issue with your decision. Royyaazzz recreated the article on top of the redirect left when you draftified the article. I just moved the redirects out of the way and history merged the draft back into the article. — JJMC89 04:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Roag (TV series)

Hello, I see that you G5'd this article back in July. Do you think that you could restore it to my userspace, so that I can see whether I can salvage an article out of it? Thanks, Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 17:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Moaz786. It was just a redirect to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital. — JJMC89 02:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thank you! Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 03:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Galerie Chalette

Hello JJMC89--I have, despite my best efforts, run up against the removal bots in my article, and I am quite sure that I am going to be doing this more than once as I try to figure out the best way to improve visual arts entries here on Wikipedia. This is not because I am trying to violate Wikipedia copyright policies, but because I am new here and working on topics that necessarily are going to run up against the edge of Wikipedia's policy in this area.

I am writing about late 20th c. Art and Artists and Art Galleries. The bulk of the visual supporting material remains under copyright. This has led to a general avoidance of developing quality articles on these subjects, because it is not really possible to understand these visual topics without illustrations of the work in question.

While I respect these elderly and dead artists' estates (where such exist) copyright, it will not be possible to broaden either appreciation or understanding without some minimal visual representation of the work and context in which that work was produced.

The Galerie Chalette is a particularly interesting case, as neither owner, owing to Nazi attrocities, was survived by living heirs. Yet, as collectors, they left a valuable estate of artwork and papers that provided a defining snapshot of artistic life at a particular time and place in America. As refugees in America trying to make a new life, they developed a distinctive, bright, and forward-looking style with which to present their artists. This optimistic outlook deserves its footnote in history. What is the best way for me to state what I believe to be fair use of these covers in a way that does not violate Wikipedia's spirit and particulars?

Beyond the exhibition catalogue covers, the image of Arthur Lejwa is evidence of the Lejwas' progress toward a larger scale gallery and of the gallery's expanding influence. It records the prestigious citing of their new gallery space on Madison Avenue, and their growing influence on the arts scene in New York, however the viewer may choose to interpret it.

I am, of course, still learning how to write for Wikipedia, and have been working on honing my tone/selection of facts to include. Looking at other articles and your comments here has definitely improved my learning curve in this area. But notable visual art did not stop being made circa 1923, and I would argue that the artists who do not have paid gallerists, or lazy art historians to put up information to puff the notability for their work deserve attention. Which, given the form of their material, need to have visual citations.

In any case, thanks for the work you do, and hope you will consider some of the above for review and feedback. Sicklemoon (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the catalogue covers, you've created a gallery of non-free images, which is usually unacceptable. The problem is that none of the images are themselves the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article. — JJMC89 05:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hola!

Thank you for the feedback. I very much appreciate the time you put in to looking the situation over.

As I'm sure you can tell from the Galerie Chalette page, the work I'm doing with this is in part an exercise for me as I try to adjust myself to Wikipedia's style and content guidelines.

I acknowledge that I am pushing it somewhat with these multiple exhibition covers, but I'm not doing that simply to be contrary. If I felt I could have shown what needs to be shown here with just one catalogue, I would have done that.

The catalogues are not simple-looking because the gallery was being cheap. The catalogues were simple looking because they defined an aesthetic that was being developed at that particular place and time. Taken alone, I (personally) think those catalogue covers look like--cheap crap. With a few lined up together--the expense and thought that went into their production becomes more obvious. Additionally, the gallery stuck to this aesthetic for decades.

When I originally wrote the piece for Wikipedia, there were at least a few sentences more that tried to describe the aesthetics that the gallery was trying to promote. The language was... just not quite right. Or not carefully enough cited. The editor who helped me with the piece cut it back. So--I have been taking some time to... try to return the elements that make Galerie Chalette notable for its specific time and place rather than simply a successful commercial gallery with good business contacts. The sales work the gallery did for geometric abstraction, particularly insofar as sculpture was concerned, was a big thing for its time and place. I'm still trying, in this article, to find the right combination of words and images to get that point across.

In... a brief and well-cited way.

Apologies for the verbosity of this response. Best, K Sicklemoon (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:ADISON POWER

A tag has been placed on User talk:ADISON POWER requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Passengerpigeon (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, and I hope you don't mind, I've revoked TPA and changed it to a hard block. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated syntax for syntaxhighlighting

Hi. You don't need to flood recent changes with the manual edits, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 70 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ricky_Ponting,_2019-07.jpg

I see you removed the image I uploaded to 2006 ICC Awards because the page doesn't have any valid non-free use rationale. Please let me know what I need to do for that image to remain because I get the feeling that I simply don't possess the information necessary to meet the criteria. For future reference, is it possible you could provide with some recommendations or suggestions? — 29cwcst (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi 29cwcst. Unfortunately, there's not really anything you can do here. Non-free images of still living persons are almost never allowed per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and there are a number of freely-licensed images available at c:Category:Ricky Ponting that can be used instead of this or any other non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Vipul7732

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 18:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

File:2018 AMC (logo).png

Stop removing the page File:2018 AMC (logo).png please. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I never removed it. It was automatically removed because it was not being used in an article (draft and user namespaces) and did not have a non-free use rationale for the article that it was used in. — JJMC89 18:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Bongo

Hey, here's an idea...instead of just blanking the entire Bongo page, how about you just remove the copyright-violation? You've had months now to figure out what it must be, and it's (I hate to say this) stupid that it's not been removed and nothing's been sorted out. Are you just content in letting the Bongo have no article, even though literally every other animal has one? 2.100.3.83 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've resolved this case— Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa! — JJMC89 18:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Userfied copy of John B. Evans

You deleted an article for John B. Evans as having been created by a blocked user. Evans is unquestionably notable, and I would appreciate the opportunity to rehabilitate and recreate the article starting for a userfied version of the article that you had deleted. Would it be possible to ask for a copy of the deleted article in user space? Alansohn (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Generally, I don't undelete pages created by banned users in violation of their ban. These are the two reference that were used in the article.

• "John B Evans". The Guardian. April 6, 2004.
• Gilpin, Kenneth N. (April 6, 2004). "John B. Evans, 66, Publisher Of Village Voice in the 1970's". The New York Times. p. C15.

— JJMC89 18:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thank you very much for deleted of spawn the animation

Blackknight1234567890 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Great!

I see you are fixing Special:UncategorizedFiles and Wikipedia:Database reports/File description pages shadowing a Commons file or redirect. I tried to do that yesterday and was about to ask for help on WP:AN :-) --MGA73 (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Image copyright problem

Hi there. Your bot removed the cover for Legend of the Lost Spatula from the SpongeBob SquarePants video games article, and I believe it is fair use. If we can talk it out, can I put the image back in the article? Osh33m (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary and Marchjuly already told you why it was automatically removed: there is non-free use rationale for that article. Even if there were, criterion 8 would not be satisfied there. — JJMC89 01:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The answer that Marchjuly gave led me to believe that the bot edit does not have to be the final say. criterion 8 is not exactly satisfied here but there is other rationale for including the image which I explained to Marchjuly and would happy to explain to you as well. For now though, I included a substitute. --Osh33m (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

File:The Garibaldi School logo.png

You've tagged a file for deletion when it clearly states the non-free rationale in the initial upload {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. Also admitted to be oversized and anticipated that the bot would adjust. Please explain here if I'm wrong. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A non-free use rationale is not a license. — JJMC89 00:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I missed a bit (it's been a while).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop tagging my file please.

My file, File:CityEdgeForever.jpg, has been falsely tagged over and over from you. Can you stop please, I've inserted my reasons why it does help the reader. Also, can you explain why it doesn't help the reader understand what the article is?. Thank you. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 02:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Per policy, you are not permitted to remove the notice. You can contest the deletion on the file's talk page as indicated in the notice. — JJMC89 02:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

JJMC89, But I did, and you keep on tagging it anyways without responding. I will insert more context on the file talk page. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 02:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk page context added

Hey JJMC89. I've added a lot of context on File talk:CityEdgeForever.jpg. Go read it please to understand why it shouldn't be deleted. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 02:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Croatian synagogues

According to page history took most of the images out of List of synagogues in Croatia: JJMC89 bot What is the reason? Are the pictures not good? 12akd (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As is stated in the edit summary, there is no non-free use rationale for that article. Even if there were WP:NFCC#8 would not be satisfied. See WP:NFLISTS. — JJMC89 06:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@JJMC89: That's how I start to understand. The pictures were not in the commons. 12akd (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

TAFI bot

This weeks TAFI article was not added to the talk pages of the TAFI participants this week. I wonder what could have happened.BabbaQ (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an error at User:MusikBot/TAFIWeekly/Error log, but I don't know if it is related. You'll have to ask MusikAnimal. — JJMC89 04:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras deletion

I'd like to recommend this article be undeleted. I think this happened too quickly and without enough discussion. It was an incredibly valuable page. Cause given was "possible fancraft", but it's widely referenced by photographers, web sites, and camera stores precisely for its unbiased encyclopedic value. I'm not sure where else other than Wikipedia an evolving data table like this could be hosted more reliably. I've also posted the same comment at the similar Canon deletion page. Thanks for your consideration. User:JJMC89 Digitect (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was open for the standard length of time (7 days), so it definitely wasn't too quick. There was no opposition to deleting the article in the discussion, so there was no other way to close it. I'm not going to overturn the consensus of the participants​​​​ based on some vague hand waving. it's widely referenced by photographers, web sites, and camera stores precisely for its unbiased encyclopedic value — JJMC89 04:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind "fancruft". I do mind how-to-do guides. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Suprotim.jpg, apparently re-uploaded as File:Suprotim1.jpg

Hi. I noticed that you have deleted File:Suprotim.jpg per WP:CSD#F9, which I spotted yesterday (my local time) with no source, license etc. However, I just spotted apparently the same file being re-uploaded as File:Suprotim1.jpg. I have now nominated this file for deletion per WP:CSD#F7 (since the file is apparently sourced elsewhere, the image of a living person should be freely licensed) in addition to F9. The editor has been notified. Ntx61 (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've deleted it abd blocked the editor. — JJMC89 06:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Hi. You recently deleted an article I created about singer Michael Beatty - because of (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace). Please explain. I'm a relatively new contributor and would appreciate any help. Thanks! Placidmate (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It was never a real article. You moved your sandbox to mainspace. CrazyBoy826, rightly, moved it back since it didn't contain any content. I deleted the redirect that was left behind as a result of CrazyBoy826's move. — JJMC89 05:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ahhh I see. Great - got it! Thanks so much for clarifying. Step by step I am learning. Placidmate (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

CFD Retain

Hi, I had trouble getting JJMC89 bot III to process some Retained categories yesterday; it was doing some while skipping others.[4]

Does it require a single asterisk listing for the Retain function? It accepts double asterisks (etc) for some other CFDW processes.

If there is any other required syntax that could usefully be documented, that would be appreciated. But while I am here, thanks again for this workhorse that does so much so well! – Fayenatic London 09:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: The asterisks don't matter. The bot doesn't understand purge as a result. Insects was processed since the bot figured out the action and result from the discussion itself, but it couldn't for the others. User:JJMC89 bot III/tasks/CFDW explains how the bot works. If anything there needs clarification, please let me know. — JJMC89 21:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; for reference, I have added a link to that page in the Bots section at WP:CFDW. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is now at WP:AN3

Please see WP:AN3#User:BFDIBebble reported by User:Kevindongyt (Result: ). Recently you protected the page for a week. Judging from the strong feelings expressed in the AN3 debate, it is my guess that either we will need a long spell of full protection or an admin willing to issue a lot of blocks. The Uncyc.ca people are sure they are the true descendants of Uncyclopedia, and ditto for Uncyc.co. Due to the unimportance of the issue, I'm unsure whether it deserves a great deal of admin attention. Still, if you want to comment at AN3 you would be welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The outcome there is reasonable. I've watchlisted the article incase further action is needed. — JJMC89 03:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:BFDIBebble is now blocked for socking. Aasim 05:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)