User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2022/May

Red-Haired Shanks vote
Thank you for your edits to the Red-Haired Shanks article. Currently a user proposed it is an article for deletion at Articles_for_deletion/Red-Haired_Shanks. Feel free to make your opinion known. --Plumber (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Remove Macherla Niyojakavargam page From Draft
Shoot as been started on 10 September 2021(reliable sources) 

First Teaser Out and They Mentioned Release Date also (independent Sources) Shiva20202020 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Recently history merged
Hi, Please see this and give some feedback about this. Thanks and regards! Fade258 (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Bot stopped?
The bot hasn't processed any categories since yesterday morning - has it stopped or is there some error on the working page? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This was due to phab:T308189. —&thinsp;JJMC89 03:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Undue comment?
Hey, this isn’t to appeal the outcome of the request or anything but I felt it was super undue to say “take a moment to learn what counter vandalism is” and such when I have over 1000 contribs with most of them counter-vandalism. I don’t appreciate being belittled, although I’m sure that wasn’t your intention maybe. It could also even be a general format/template but if that’s the case you should think better when to use it maybe. Kind regards. Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 06:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that you came here to badger the declining admin confirms exactly what I thought: you're not ready for rollback. You're obviously very eager for rollback, but you don't have an established track record (< 1 month old account), roughly a week's worth of experience reverting vandalism, and a bunch of warnings/notices on your talk page pertaining to misguided attempts to help fix copyvios.  In case it's not abundantly clear by now, you need more experience.  Is that a bad thing?  No.  We all have to start somewhere.  But if you start demanding rollback when not one, not two, but three admins have passed on the opportunity to action your request, then perhaps it's time to acknowledge that the problem lies with you.  Like I said, go spend some time contributing to other areas of the project, learn how Wikipedia works, and only then start thinking about making another request for rollback.  -  F ASTILY   07:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not badgering anyone, WP:AGF please. I just came here to clear a comment up that happened to be in the decline. It's not about the decline itself, I explicitly said that. I also don't know why you're inserting yourself here, but okay. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 14:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You literally said "this isn’t to appeal the outcome of the request", and then proceeded to appeal the outcome of the request. If you're going to say something silly like that, then don't be surprised when others call you out for it.  -  F ASTILY   20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol no I don't even want the rollback anymore. I just wanted to say I think the phrasing is a little demeaning. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 20:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, so now this is all about JJMC89 hurting your feelings? You do realize that this is Wikipedia the online encyclopedia, and not daycare?  -  F ASTILY   20:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to keep this conversation going because you're just being rude af, and I'd like in the future if you could not reach out to me except if necessary for editing or admin reasons. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 20:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

About two pages on Citrus Series and Beltway Series
My question is why cannot add this picture on those series is not a violation of this logo feel free to answer this question I just asking why? 63.143.200.6 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See the edit summary where they were first removed. —&thinsp;JJMC89 18:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks for your information I get it. 63.143.200.6 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

BagBalm refund?
I missed the deletion of last year. I think it's a better picture than the one that is currently in use on the article. Could you restore it so I can add a proper rationale and fix any other fair use issues? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . If the other image you're referring to is File:Bag balm.jpg that's being used in Bag Balm (which appears to be the case), then it's unlikely a non-free image is going to be allowed per WP:FREER. The image currently being used was uploaded to Commons under a free license, and there's no way a non-free is going to be accepted if that licensing is accurate. Of course, the Commons file may be mislicensed and actually need to be deleted, but this is not clear at the moment. Product labelling generally falls under c:COM:Packaging, but there is also s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. to consider in that a photo of the entire tin might be OK for Commons even if it includes a copyrightable logo. Such a thing will probably need to be sorted out over on Commons first before a non-free image can be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy pinging of since he's the administrator who deleted the local file last November. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, read the history too quickly the first time. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually things might be more complicated than it seems per c:User:Clindberg and the Commons file may not be able to be kept (at least not as is). A lot depends on the copyright status of the primary logo being used by Bag Balm on its product labels. It looks like it been used for quite some time and it's possible that its copyright was never renewed. If that's the case, then a better photo of the product could be uploaded to Commons and used instead of the current one. They key might be to avoid isolating the company's logo from the rest of whatever's on the label (the problem with the Commons photo currently being used is that it seems to trying to isolate the label) and simply show the entire product with its label. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I did - take a picture of the whole container to show what it looked like, rather than focus on any one part of it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you licensed it as non-free because you thought that's what it was, then it would've end up deleted per WP:F5 shortly after it stopped being used in any articles. Perhaps you should try to ask about your photo over at c:COM:VPC and see what others might think. If most feel such a photo should be OK, then you probably can just re-upload it to Commons under a c:COM:CC license of your shoosing, and make mention of Ets-Hokins for the label in the file's description. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Bot question
Hi JJMC89. Since you run a bot, perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2022/May. I'm trying to figure out why reduced File:Youth Olympic Games Third Version.svg and tagged it with orfurrev since the file isn't and never seems to have been licensed as non-free. I think it might have something to do with this edit (which seems to be a mistake), but I'm not sure. The deleted revisions were subsequently restored by, but it's still not clear why the file was reduced and the oilder revisions tagged for speedy deletion per F5 in the first place. Do you know whether files tagged with Non-free reduce simply reduced regardless of the file's licensing? I have basically zero knowledge of how bots work, but I'm assuming there's something about a file that tells a bot its non-free. Just for reference, the reason I stumbled upon this file was because it was flagged as a NFCC#9 violation for some reason, and I thought that could also be due to adding of "Non-free reduce" to the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean mistakenly tagged it with Non-free reduce and DatBot subsequently reduced it, is it anything weird with that? I didn't restore anything, nothing was ever deleted.Jonteemil (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There wasn't any weird or wrong with what you did; you just unhid the "deleted" versions. What I found weird was that DatBot resized the file and then tagged the old versions for deletion. The file was also flagged for a NFCC#9 violation as well since it was being used in a template. None of those things should happen to a file that is not licensed as non-free. I don't know if the reason was simply because of the mistakenly added "Non-free reduce" template or some other reason. If it's just because of the "Non-free reduce" template, then that doesn't seem like it should happen since such a mistake is relatively easy to make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * you just unhid the "deleted" versions No, nothing was as I said ever deleted. If I hadn't removed Orphaned non-free revisions then the versions except the most recent would have been deleted. If it's just because of the "Non-free reduce" template, then that doesn't seem like it should happen since such a mistake is relatively easy to make. Yes, that mistake is the reason. I don't think that mistake is done very often, but I mean if it happens again it is very easy to reverse it, so I don't think this should be given such a high priority, but yes, optimally DatBot would check both if Orphaned non-free revisions is there and if the file is non-free.Jonteemil (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies. You're correct in that no versions had yet been deleted. I'm not sure why I thought that, but it was an error on my part. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)