User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2020/March

File:Cmopromoart2.jpg
The rationale for why the image satisfys NFCC #8 is given here, where I've had a similar discussion with another administrator on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookatee (talk • contribs) 08:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on that talk page, since the deletion date for the image is in less than a few hours I'd like to get a response on the topic and a request to removed the tag of it violating NFCC #8 as I went into detail as to why it doesn't violate said NFCC (and to get input from you if there is anything else I need to resolve.) I simply wish to not have to repeat this entire process with another admin once I reupload the image after it is automatically deleted for reasoning that I've stated (with no refutation from you thus far) isn't valid.Tookatee (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Do not delete File:Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Medals.jpg and File:Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games Medals.jpg !
Please do not delete the files File:Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Medals.jpg and File:Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games Medals.jpg as I added an appropriate explanation or rationale in their main pages. Please read their entire pages. Thegreatestmanonearth (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Miss Universe Philippines 2020
Would you mind watching Miss Universe Philippines 2020 a bit? JJMC89 bot will probably pick up on things as well and I've tried to explain things here, but not sure if the other editor is looking at their user talk page. There's no record of them making any edits to user talk pages, and their only post to an article talk page was back in 2006. It would be nice if there to figure out a way to sort this out that doesn't involve ending up at AN3 since they don't appear to have ever been blocked before. Maybe hidden notes or an edit notice for that particular article/section might help? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Watching —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Move/A New History of Western Philosophy
Hello, does Draft:Move/A New History of Western Philosophy need cleanup? Regards --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. Taken care of. —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Cachelouie
Hi, JJMC89,

Just curious, how did you know this editor was a long-time troll/sockpuppet? Anyone I would have run in to before? Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting at AN/I about religious usernames is one of Nsmutte's habits. —&thinsp;JJMC89 04:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'm glad you were around to spot it! Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * Please help translate this message into your local language via meta.

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Baltijos Futbolo Akademija
Hi, normally the logos as primary use of identification of an organisation are okay under free use rationale, what is your reasoning for deleting it? Wolfmartyn (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it. You should read the edit summary of the edit that did remove it. —&thinsp;JJMC89 03:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The bot reduced the size and deleted the larger image. You have orphaned the new image so it got deleted. There was a tag about JPEG, but the message reads 'If possible, please upload a PNG or SVG version of this image', so it is still okay to keep JPEG. Am I missing something? Wolfmartyn (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't orphan the image. I only marked it as orphaned. You can keep the JPEG, but it would be better it use the PNG from the original source. —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

David Weild IV
Hi, I want to improve this page according to WP:Paid, so please remove. The fact that I publicly declare a conflict of interest will help other discussants to objectively evaluate my edits on this page. --Serghiy Hrabarook (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your "declaration" does not give you the right to remove the template. (You haven't even done it properly.) The template is there because of another editor. You should not be editing the article since you have a conflict of interest. —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

BMW: blue and white
You may not have noticed, but in the middle of BMW logo 2020.svg should not be blue and transparent, but blue and white. Furthermore, what is going on the Wikimedia Commons with BMW.svg (look at the file history)? Sincerely, --2001:999:42:19B1:11F8:14EE:A4C5:7516 (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, but you'll have to take the coloring up with the original uploader, Conor M98. I only reduced the nominal size. As for Commons, editors were overwriting the file when they shouldn't have (c:COM:OVERWRITE). —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications
Hi, a few days ago I tagged you in a bunch of edits asking you to clean up after your move, without realizing that JJMC89 bot III operates fully automatic. A few hours ago some more pages were moved (Dune related categories), again without cleaning up the disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications that were left behind. Should user:Ymblanter not have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working&diff=944838052&oldid=944794332 requested these moves]? Should the bot refuse to process pages with DISPLAYTITLE modifications? --–bdijkstra (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither. The modifications should be cleaned up (before or) after the moves. Or, better yet, don't bother modifying the titles in the first place. —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But who is primarily responsible for the cleanup? The bot operator or the requester of the move? --bdijkstra (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The admin who lists the move at WP:CFD/W. The bot is performing the close on their behalf. —&thinsp;JJMC89 06:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkish Heritage Organization
Hi, Our non-profit organization's page was deleted almost a month ago. We're sorry about that and we have notified our editors to enrich the article with more reliable sources. What is the next step we should do? Want us to create another article or we can restore the old one? Thank you in advance! T19670000 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither. I will not restore it, and you should not be editing on about your organization since you have a conflict of interest. —&thinsp;JJMC89 00:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Alex16x08final.png
As mentioned in File talk:Alex16x08final.png, I think this image should not be up for deletion as I think it does not fail the Criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria (Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.) Since the page it is included (Leave a Light On (Grey's Anatomy)) has its most relevant information to be about the departure of one main character, the picture shows the last physical appearance of that main character it is talked about on the page for better understanding of the article. If there is something I should to to improve this situation, or might be up for deletion anyway, let me know. — emaponche (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Same discussion applies to File talk:Meredith16x16.png and it is addressed in its talk page — emaponche (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be doing this for a number of articles with images that do illustrate the topic and were important to the article, like you did for the Sylvia Rose Ashby article newspaper, low quality illustrative image. I don’t think you spent much time reading the article as it directly related to what I wrote about. Please stop. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Illustration or merely mentioning something is not the same as critical commentary. Chris, don't remove speedy deletion templates in violation of policy. —&thinsp;JJMC89 04:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was critical commentary. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:EA Bowles.jpg
"This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically: Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding"
 * Before I discovered this illustration it was not known that EA Bowles had created any botanical illustrations. So I think it DOES 'significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic'. cheers Paul venter (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. I have removed the tag. If you feel that it should be deleted, please feel free to take to FFD. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerns with your tagging
I am getting quite concerned with your tagging of images. Specifically you are tagging images as to be deleted under NFCC#8 on images that appear to quite easily meet the test, or could be argued that they justifiably illustrate the topic at hand:


 * File:The black hammer.gif - historical image cover, has detailed fair use rationale but you tagged it otherwise
 * File:Scott Pilgrim the Videogame Soundtrack.jpg - a cover of the video game soundtrack, probably might be disputed but certainly not uncontroversial, you tagged it as NFCC#8 when it is easily arguable that the image of a soundtrack cover is quite important to the topic
 * File:DOTMSentinelPrime.jpg - The article this is used in shows this as a side-by-side comparison with Sean Connery. So this at the very least meets the transformative usage criteria, but seems to directly contradict your tagging of NFCC#8 violation
 * File:Seattle Reign FC crest (alternate), 2013.png - you claim the article does not talk about the old logo, when it does.

These are only four examples I have seen. It looks like you are rapidly going through a list of images without carefully checking the articles themselves. For instance, you did this on the article I spent a long time in writing, Sylvia Rose Ashby and I feel there is no way you could have come to the conclusions on the image you nominated if you had have read the article itself. Please be more careful. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What's clear to mean is that you don't understand the policy. For example, the first two in your list are blatant violations of criterion 8. The fourth is a trivial mention, not critical commentary. —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And the third? But you clearly don't understand "critical commentary", as there is quite a bit of that in my article on Sylvia Rose Ashby about "Mrs. Right and Mrs. Wrong".
 * Where is the "Contest this speedy deletion" button, incidentally? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree that JJMC89 is in danger of an abuse of power..... Paul venter (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The only possible way this would be an "abuse of power" would be if JJMC89 not only tagged a file for deletion, but then also subsequently deleted it. Any editor can tag/nominate a file for deletion much in the same way that any editor can tag/nominate an article, template, etc. for deletion. There's pretty much always a review for any page that's tagged/nominated for deletion and almost without question a different administrator is going need to actually be the one to review the page and do the deleting when another administrator WP:INVOLVED. Even in cases where a page is deleted, then is a procedure in place for review things per WP:REFUND or WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. JJMC89 has the same power as you, me or anyone else when it comes to cases like this, and the fact that he's an administrator would only matter if he actually was deleting the files he nominated. So, unless you or others can provide diffs of him doing such a thing, you might want to be careful of even implying that he might be abusing his administrator power. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that many of the taggings can be questioned. You shouldn't tag something for speedy deletion if there might be some dispute about the utility of the work. The biggest problem with NFCC#8 is that it's entirely subjective on the nominating it. For instance, the image I added to Sylvia Ashby about Mrs. Right and Mrs. Wrong had a detailed discussion about the image, but when I review the tagging log I can see that he literally tagged it with other articles almost within seconds of tagging the next article. It's is quite remarkable that I can spend a week writing the article, agonize over the image choices, and within seconds he can tag the image I carefully chose on the article, seemingly without even reading the surrounding text. That's certainly not an abuse of admin tools, but it is an abuse of automated tools like Twinkle.
 * For instance, that image File:The black hammer.gif is a highly racist image on a well known book with a foreword by a Mormon preacher. Now you could try to describe it, but to fully understand that first edition cover is to see the image of a decapitated black man's head dripping with blood behind a Soviet style sickle, with the text "A study of black power, red influence and white alternatives". It should at the least have been taken to FFD. There is no way he can justify that it fails NFCC#8. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. it would be good if could respond on WP:AN/I. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Swiss cheese
It was unwise and against process to just move this back - the 2015 discussion was a totally different proposal, for a merger with actual Swiss cheeses. The American stuff is very clearly not primary (did you look at the views?). But I will do an RM, as you should have done. Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was boldly moved without discussion. It is well within process to revert it if someone opposes it. —&thinsp;JJMC89 23:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
You may want to rev/delete some December edit summaries as well at Annapurna Pictures; I'm not even looking at the other article histories. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:75BB:4BD0:D3CD:79D (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ —&thinsp;JJMC89 04:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Bot retain error
The bot is declining to process entries at Categories for discussion/Working. I'm not sure why. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The bot only recognizes certain things for the discussion action/result:
 * no consensus (for|to) action
 * not action
 * keep (The action is assumed to be delete.)
 * If it doesn't find any of those, then it will try to determine the action and result by parsing the closed discussion. I should write some docs for the syntax. —&thinsp;JJMC89 00:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It's stalling again on both some retains and some mergers (although the latter is complicated by templates). Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the merge issue, it could not handle the templates that categorize. Those need to be handled manually. I fixed the issue with the retains – one of the category pages had an that it choked on. —&thinsp;JJMC89 06:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Image deletion
Hi -- I saw you tagged File:Knap Hill Camp map M.E. Cunnington 1911.png for deletion based on replaceability. I know that copyrighted maps can always be marked as replaceable because free mapping software exists, though one might have to add labels and so on. I was under the impression that it was not possible to simply trace a map, since that would reproduce the underlying copyrighted form mechanically, so the traced copy is a derivative work. So what's the mechanism by which a duplicate could be legitimately created here? There's no underlying map data, and a freehand copy would not be accurate enough unless it took care to match the form, and the position of the letters, exactly. And surely that would turn it into a derivative work, since the only way it could do that is by measuring and replicating the original's layout?

I'm willing to create a free copy, but I have to admit I don't see how to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Do you know when this map was first published? If it was published prior to January 1, 1925, then it may fall within the public domain per c:COM:HIRTLE and thus not need to be licensed as non-free content. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The citation is Cunnington, M.E. (1912). "Knap Hill Camp". Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine. 37: 42–65. That volume was published in December 1912, and included the 1911 and 1912 proceedings of the society that published the magazine.  My understanding is that British copyright law means that anything published prior to 1912 is now out of copyright, but this was published in 1912.  By the time of Cunnnington's death in 1951 the term was death of the author plus fifty years, but that was extended, in 1995, I think, to death plus seventy, so this was included in that extension.  If that's right, then according to COM:HIRTLE this is PD in the US but not in the UK, so it can be hosted here but not on Commons -- is that correct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:PD-ineligible-USonly is a license that is sometimes used for local files which are PD in the US, but which are not (or perhaps not) PD in their country of origin. I wasn't able to find anything in c:COM:United Kingdom about any 1912 cut off date, but 70 years p.m.a would mean this would be PD in the UK possibly next year, but almost certainly in 2022. If the 1912 date is correct, then even in that case this probably would become PD in the UK next year. Commons needs the file to be PD in both the US and its home country to host it, whereas local files on Wikipedia need to be PD only in the US. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because if in can be hosted on Commons, then that's definitely is where it should be.As for the file's non-free use in Knap Hill, I think you might also have trouble justifying it per WP:NFCC (WP:NFC); so, even if WP:NFCC isn't an issue, only one of the ten non-free content use criteria needs to not be met for a non-free use to be considered non-policy compliant. There's not a lot of content in the article already, but there's really nothing specifically about this map so to speak. If you can find sourced critical commentary about the map itself and add that to the article, then perhaps using the map would make sense, at least for NFCC#8 purposes. You probably should try to avoid MOS:SANDWICH issues as well even if the copyright stuff eventually gets sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I missed the 1912 publication date, which makes it PD in the US. You didn't have a license, so I added PD-US-expired-abroad. 70 years p.m.a. would make it PD in the UK on January 1, 2022. —&thinsp;JJMC89 06:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The Hirtle chart was new to me; I'll use that in future. @Marchjuly, yes, there's plenty of material to add that refers to the diagram -- I'll be adding it over the next few days.  Thanks for the help, both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Bot deleting instead of redirecting
Hi, there's currently an instruction at CFDW (permalink):


 * REDIRECT Category:Films directed by Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao to Category:Films directed by K. S. Prakash Rao

However, the first category was deleted by the bot.

Although I asked for it to be redirected, I'm not bothered in this case after all. However, was it a malfunction for the page to be deleted? This was a merge rather than a move; does the REDIRECT instruction only work for moves? – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . It currently only works for moves. I could implement it to replace with category redirect for merges with one target. —&thinsp;JJMC89 23:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha. Well, the clue is in the heading, "Merge then delete". However, I would welcome that additional functionality. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks – I confirm that this is working on the live page. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

But it does exist!
See Template:Heli-Sport aircraft re: this. Yes, I accidentally created tge talk page first, but by the time you deleted it, the navbox had been created for an hour and a half. I didn't want to recreate it without letting you know first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about my error. I've restored it. —&thinsp;JJMC89 07:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll try to be more careful myself next time. I made 2 navboxes concurrently, and added the talk pages after finishing the first one. It took about 10 minutes to finish up the second one. - BilCat (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

RDraft deletions
I asked on IRC about tagging draft redirects if they haven't been touched for 6 months or more, and he said that they would be eligible. The log:  Dragonfly6-7, if a draft article is stale for 6 months and only serves as a redirect, is it eligible for CSD  pretty much Additionally, if you look at my list of manual CSD's you can see that the draft articles that were redirects were deleted under G13. I feel there is no need to have redirects from draft space, and whilst I have made a proposal at the Village Pump, I figured I'd be bold and go ahead with tagging them regardless, with no resistance until now. I ask that you please reconsider my CSD's due to this, unless you wish to wait for wider consensus.  Thepenguin9 (talk''') 16:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirects are not eligible for WP:G13. Additionally, redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained. There has already been an RfC on this topic. —&thinsp;JJMC89 16:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)