User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2022/September

File:Second Revolution Flag 2x3.svg
Hi JJCM89. I came across File:Second Revolution Flag 2x3.svg since it was flagged for a NFCC#9 review. I was going to remove it from someone's user page, but I not quite sure this needs to be non-free. All of the individual elements are simple or PD, and even combined together its pretty much File:Betsy Ross flag.svg with the roman numeral "II" added; so, I can't see how this would need to be treated as non-free. If there's something I'm missing and it does, then fine and it would then need to be removed from that user page. If not, then maybe the file only needs to be relicensed. I'm posting here because I sure your bot will also eventually find this and end up flagging it for removal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Marchjuly. Yes, it should get relicensed to PD. I don't think adding II like that to a PD work would create a new copyrightable work. —&thinsp;JJMC89 16:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Any ideas as to which PD license to use? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The recommendation at COM:VP/C looks reasonable to me. —&thinsp;JJMC89 06:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Non free image size
Hello JJMC89. I saw the notice about image size in the edit summary of File:The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, bookcover.jpg The current image size is 404 × 502. How much smaller must the image be for it to comply with non-free content criteria? It doesn't say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sizing is outlined at WP:IMAGERES (linked in the template my bot added and my bot's edit summary). Another bot has already taken care of rezzing for you. —&thinsp;JJMC89 06:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

File
The other day, the Georgia Historical Society sent an email to Permissions, concerning this file saying that it was released under a commons license. It is Ticket#2022082410008981 - that should clear up the problems. Is it OK? (I took the photo and uploaded it.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Until it is marked as such by a VRT permissions agent, it is not OK. —&thinsp;JJMC89 04:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was sent to them on August 29. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III (disambiguation) technical request
Hi JJMC89; the disambiguation page Charles III (disambiguation) was moved only a few hours ago; it seems like a straightforward application of reverting to the status quo until there is a consensus to change the status quo. Can I ask why you declined it? BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For one, the request was incomplete – the article at the intended target also needed a home. More importantly, there is already an open RM, and reverting it would just be bureaucratic and confusing, especially given current events. Should the RM close without consensus, then it should be moved back. —&thinsp;JJMC89 04:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I personally think the current position is more confusing, where we need a consensus to keep the current title, rather than consensus to change the title, but I can understand your position. I should note that I have opened a related discussion on Earl Andrew's talk page, as while I didn't realize it earlier there appears to have been wheel-warring taking place. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Bot action seems wrong
On Found Light, your bot removed File:Laura Veirs - Found Light.jpg for not having a rationale, but the file has both Non-free use rationale album cover filled out and. Is there something I'm missing here? Why did it do this? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Copy-paste error: I figured it out.o ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

G5 discussion
Hello JJMC89, question for you at WT:Requests for undeletion. Jay 💬 07:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Continuing... Jay  💬 10:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Awaiting response. Jay  💬 13:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your bot ... The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I have worked in the code so others who are like your bot.... who want to say thank you for your amazing work..

the code is below

have a tremendous day

david adam kess

nice work to the coder on the bot ,, had no idea on the license for the photo in wikimedia did not jive

all the best.. have an amazing day coder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.124.227.194 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

bot won’t stop removing images
Idk how to get it to stop but stop ur bot from removing the single cover to a single i get it’s the same as the cd edition album cover just get it to stop Ytzesza (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the pic can only be used in one article, and its already used in Shout at the Devil. So you would have to upload a new file --FMSky (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The response given above by was almost certainly made in good faith, but it's not correct; so, please don't upload a new file because it will only likely end up deleted. Anytime you try to use a non-free file on Wikipedia, its usage needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. More specifically, there are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free file needs satisfy for its use to be compliant. One of these criteria is criterion #7 and this criterion states that non-free content is required to be used in at least one article, but it doesn't state that it can be used in one article. A non-free file can be used in more than one article, but each of these other uses also need to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria for it to be considered OK. The reason why the bot is removing the file isn't really because the file was being used in more that one article; it was because you added the file to the article about the single without adding a separate specific non-free use rationale for said use to the file's page. Non-free use is just not automatic; it needs to be justified (shown to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria). The way to try to show that a particular non-free use is justified is to add a non-free use rationale explaining why to the file's page as required by criterion #10c. This is why the bot removed the file and included a link to WP:NFC in the edit summary when it did. It's also why it will keep removing the file each time you or anyone else re-adds the file without providing a rationale for its use in that article on the file's page.Adding a missing rationale is only one of the criteria that need to be satisfied, but it will stop the bot from removing the file. A human editor, however, could disagree with the rationale you add, challenge it or event tag the file for speedy deletion. If that happens, you should follow the instructions given on the file's page (usually there's a template added to the file's page when it's rationale has been challenge) and try to resolve the issue through discussion. Continuing to try and force add the file to the article is eventually going to be considered edit warring which can lead to your account being blocked. Edit warring of any type isn't very wise (no matter how right you think you are), and trying to discuss things via edit summaries is not going to be considered acceptable. Edit warring with a bot is like banging your head against a brick wall: a bot will keep doing what it's been tasked to do as long as there's a problem it feels needs to be fixing and it won't read or respond to your edit summaries.Finally, you need to be careful about using album cover art in articles about singles from the album, particularly ofr songs from the pre-Internet days. In many cases the cover it isn't the same (or might be have never existed) and it doesn't seem to be common Wikipedia practice to use album cover art in such a way just to do so. I've asked about this at WT:ALBUM since one of the members of WP:WikiProject Albums might be able to help figure out whether the cover art is the same. You need to be kind of wary of websites which show the cover being used as such because they could just be using the album cover instead for decorative purposes. If you can find an official website controlled by the band or its management that uses that particular cover art, then that might be OK; other sites like fan sites, Amazon, Apple Music, however, might not be seen as a reliable way of verifying that the cover art originally used for the single is the same as the cover art originally used for the album. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

2600:1000:0:0:0:0:0:0/28
Hey I want to give you a heads up that the range you blocked says that it has gone over the CIDR limit of /32. 184.56.62.31 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not something they can control but just a limitation of Wikimedia. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the block of a /28 allocated to a major U.S. wireless provider is overkill. Yes, vandalism happens, but Verizon isn't like T-Mobile in how they structure their network; blocking the individual /44 or whatever that is causing trouble is better. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  21:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you actually blocked a large part (all?) of the United States. This user appears to be in Wisconsin. But I just checked my phone, and I'm inside this range too, on the west coast. In my experience, no matter how many times I reset my phone, I get bounced around roughly a /44. The only way to escape the range is to physically travel somewhere. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also blocked by this in Ohio. This is the entire Verizon Wireless netblock, and the block should be removed ASAP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

All: Sorry, yes, blocking the /28 was definitely too wide. I incorrectly assumed that the existing block that I had expanded was the appropriate target. Something smaller would have likely worked. The target, who was disrupting a number of pages, has hopefully moved on. Any admin could/should have lifted it (sooner) as an obvious error, especially since I wasn't around. —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I was just made aware of this block.  What was going on that justifies a block of a /28? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the above, I have unblocked this range — the pBlock may need to be reimplemented — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for unblocking TNT. I don't think the partial block is needed. —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Blacklisted
Hi! How come change.org links are blacklisted on Wikipedia? 2A00:23C5:CE25:5101:45D2:AE6C:7522:561C (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are asking me. You should be able to find the answer in the archives of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot III
Hello, JJMC89,

I have a question for you. Is it common practice for JJMC89 bot III to not leave a category redirect when it moves a category? Is this true even if there are existing category redirects to that page? For example, look at this version of the Broken Redirect list and see all of the broken category redirects. This is not uncommon to see on that bot report and if there are just a few instances of this, I'll correct the broken redirects to point to the new category page title. But in this case, the admin chose to delete the old redirects that were no longer pointing to the right targets.

Would it be possible for the bot to leave a redirect in cases where there is an existing redirect or would this be unnecessarily complicated? I don't think category redirects are valued very highly on the project but they can be worth preserving in some cases. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Liz. The standard action is to not leave a redirect unless one is requested in the entry on WP:CFD/W. Part of the admin closing instructions is to check for links/redirects and update them, so I'm not sure why the closing/processing admin is neglecting that part. I could implement checking all of the backlinks for redirects. Since redirects were the subject of some discussion when I created the bot, I'd rather leave it to be handled manually unless the CFDW regulars want to change how it works. —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

More about your G5 restoration decline.
Hi. I'm concerned about your actions regarding Requests for undeletion/Archive 378 and more particularly this archived thread where was seeking additional information. Reading through the long history of this case, it looks like there is considerable feeling by a number of admins both at the WP:RFU thread cited above and during the unblock discussion that undoing the G5s would be reasonable after the unblock.

I'm not saying that your closing of the RFU as "Not done" was entirely unreasonable, but legitimate questions were raised, which deserve to be answered. I find it particularly disturbing that you were pinged on your talk page 3 times over the course of a week by Jay, politely requesting that you respond. When I first looked at this, I saw that you had been inactive for a while and that the thread had aged off your talk page, possibly before you became aware of it. To ensure that you had actually seen it, I unarchived it and followed up with email to make sure you were aware of it. I see that it has again aged into your archive after you again declined to respond to Jay's query. Could you please do so now? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Roy. Magnatyrannus was advised during that unblock discussion that undeletion should be discussed with the deleting admin. The deleting admin did not undelete when requested, so why should another admin unilaterally reverse the action at RFU then? I wouldn't say that I declined to respond. I responded after the first one, but, yes, I hadn't yet replied after the second/third since I hadn't really been active. FTR, I have done so now. —&thinsp;JJMC89 03:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Plastique Tiara
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Plastique Tiara. Because you closed Articles for deletion/Plastique Tiara, back in April 2019, you may want to participate in the deletion review. JBW (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Overwriting category disambiguation page
Please can you program JJMC89 bot III not to overwrite a category disambiguation template with a category redirect? I thought it would not do this. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The bot doesn't currently do any checks for disambiguation, but I'll add it. Category disambiguation also needs to be updated since it isn't actually marking them as disambiguation pages either. —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fayenatic london: This is done now. —&thinsp;JJMC89 03:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Superb, thank you very much. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)