User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2018/June

Active discussions

User:JJMC89 bot

Hello. I'm currently going through Wikinews portals (which are being deprecated in favour of categories). I was alerted to n:Portal:Drink, which I'd redirected to n:Category:Drink, but it appears the portal is being used by your bot to update {{Wikinewshas/Drink}}. The bot also updates {{Wikinewshas/Film}}, {{Wikinewshas/Hawaii}}, and {{Wikinewshas/Indiana}}. Could the bot be re-coded to retrieve information from the relevant Wikinews categories, so we can proceed with redirecting these portals? Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: I inherited the code for that task from Misza13. This should take care of it. — JJMC89 04:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User Welcome

Thanks for the user welcone! MARY G. Mary G. (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nepal Communist Party

The political party is called Nepal Communist Party (NCP), with the brackets. That's the official name. It's not unnecessary to include the brackets. Please restore the previous page. SimulationWig (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Not according to the party website. — JJMC89 04:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The Election Commission of Nepal released a press release stating the name change. [1] here is the link if you can read Nepali. They also have a post on their Facebook page (also in Nepali) dated June 7 of their name change. SimulationWig (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
That might be so, but I'm not convinced that it should be the article title. You should request a move, keeping in mind WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, and WP:NCPP. — JJMC89 01:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:FireFly Balloons Logo.gif

You have repeatedly removed this logo from the Firefly Balloons article and now finally tagged the image file for lacking a list of articles it is used in and/or insufficient rationale. I have asked you to discuss instead of reverting, but you have continued to revert. I have checked the image file and it seem to have a standard template rationale and also lists the sole article it is used in. I hope this will address whatever your concerns were, but if not then please detail them, or better yet, fix the image file, so this can be resolved without removing the logo file. - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Ahunt: You or someone else seems to have mistakenly added Logo for the |article= parameter which probably explains why a bot or JJMC89 kept removing the logo. Minor thing perhaps, but it is still a NFCC#10c violation. It's probably something you didn't notice when you checked the rationale and re-added the file to the article the first time around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. It wasn't my upload, so I didn't catch that in checking it. It would seem to make sense to simply fix that. What needs to be changed to fix it? - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see you have already fixed that. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The onus is yours, not mine (WP:NFCCE). Thanks for taking care of it, Marchjuly. — JJMC89 01:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
No need to be snarky. The onus is not mine, as I was just watching the page; I'm not the original logo file uploader. That file seems to have been uploaded by an editor who is no longer active. WP:NFCCE notwithstanding, edit warring to remove a logo, without an adequate explanation of what the issue was, when just one word needed to be fixed in the rationale, is not helping to build the encyclopedia. I am grateful to User:Marchjuly for identifying what the one word error was, when I couldn't figure it out, and fixing it instead. I spend a lot of time fixing errors that other editors leave behind, it is just part of the process of collaboration in building this encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yea, that was a little snarky. Sorry about that. With the large large number of violations that I am going through, I usually don't remember which ones I've removed previously. But you're right, I should have fixed this one. — JJMC89 02:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Collaboration works! We really all are on the same side here. - Ahunt (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ahunt: In all fairness to JJMC89, little things like this are easy to miss when you're checking lots of images, especially for things like NFCC#10c violations. Moreover, sometimes the fix isn't as simple as changing the name of the article parameter. The uploader might have uploaded the file for use in article A, but someone else came along and decided to also use the file in article B. Then, there are times when images are simply just re-added almost as a reflex to their removal without any regard being given to the reaosn why the file was removed. (I'm not suggesting the latter is what happened here at all) Anyway, the file was going to keep getting flag by a bot as a "NFCC#10c violation" as long as its rationale and actual usage file didn't mesh; which might have just would've led to to someone else possibly removing it again for the same reason. Finally, one lthing to remember is that the onus is not really on the uploader per se, but rather the person wanting to use the non-free file in a particular way; so, yes the onus was technically on you since you re-added the file to the article. This was a pretty simple case to resolve, but when in doubt as to why an image has been removed (especially repeatedly removed), it often helps to ask for opinions at WP:MCQ. NFCC#10c removals are, in principle, are covered by WP:NOT3RR, whereas re-adding files are not. FWIW, I'm not try to exacerbate things; just provide a little more clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for you explanation here. Those are the reasons why I brought it here to ask the editor removing what the issue was. Thanks for fixing the file - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


Could I ask why you did this removal? The image seems perfectly appropriate to me. DS (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi DS. The logo did not have a rationale with a link to (or title of) the article. I've provided a new rationale and replaced the image. — JJMC89 01:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Bot report

Would you mind running this report again? User:JJMC89 bot/report/AfC decline counts It just got much more useful now that WP:NMFD has been modified by RFC. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing, Legacypac. Do you want me to run it on a schedule or just once? — JJMC89 01:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Umm let's see what a current one looks like. Can you add a column for "AfC pending"? That would surface the ones to target for deletion. Anything under 4 rejects could be ignored. The report is too long to load easily. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Updated. Let me know what you think. — JJMC89 02:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thank-you. Sure loads a lot faster. I've sent a few to MFD starting with those pending with the most declines. Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Page about musicologist Paul-Gilbert Langevin

Hello JJMC89, I think the issues about this page have been solved. I don't know what you think about it. The page is similar to those of the author's noted colleagues Harry Halbreich, Pierre Vidal (composer) and Marc Vignal. Maybe you can suppress the frame about issues after checking and reading the page once more. Kind regards, Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Since you are connected to the subject, you shouldn't be editing the article. — JJMC89 01:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Your answer is really strange. I asked Brian Newbould, a famous british director, about it, but although he considered the page was fully available, he couldn't manage the problem, because he is 82 years old and does not use internet daily. Maybe I should find another english or american music specialist who could check every fact and manage the page. There are more than 150 pages on English wikipedia about 20th century French musicologists, and this page appears to be a problem of general notability, although the author worked in this field for more than 30 years and is a noted specialist of Anton Bruckner and Franz Schubert's works in France. It is astounding. Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey JJMC89, my understanding is that the non-free logo in question is the File:European Court of Justice.png for the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is one of the 7 official EU institutions, and that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is a child organisation that uses the same logo. Currently the ECJ article uses the logo, but the CJEU, which represents the whole judiciary, and to which the logo ultimately belongs does not. The logo is synonymous with both. Luxofluxo (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

A separate rationale is required for each article (WP:NFCC#10c). — JJMC89 05:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, how do I add it? Luxofluxo (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Implementation and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. — JJMC89 05:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.Luxofluxo (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot


Hi, just noting that JJMC89 bot appears to have stopped replacing BSicon redirects again (although the process was running when I checked it). If it is working the file here should be replaced soon. Jc86035 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: The process was running but stuck with the last action on June 13. I gave it a kit, so its working again now. I don't know why it got stuck though. Thanks for the heads up. — JJMC89 02:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Tagging files for FFD

Hi JJMC89. I'm not discounting the reasons why you've nominated files such as File:Otto Dix Sy von Harden.jpg for discussion at WP:FFD. In fact, I agree they probably need to be discussed, and that this discussion is over do. However, just based upon past personal experiences in similar discussons, these types of FFD discussions can get very contentious fairly quickly and often devolve into "common sense image user" vs. "image nazi/deletionist" type of discusisons. That doesn't mean these discussions shouldn't take place just to avoid the chance of things getting a bit nasty, but there might be little things that can be done to try and lessen the chance of that happening.

So, it might be a good idea to either add {{ffdc}} to the individual files, or perhaps a more general notice like {{Please see}} to the article talk page or to the relevant WikiProject page. Not many people are probably watching the file pages as the articles themselves and the uploaders often aren't the editors adding the files to these various articles. Which means there is almost always someone who shows up later claiming they weren't properly notified. These additional notifications are not mandatory per WP:FFD, but they don't really take any extra time to do and nobody can try and make an issue out this later on. Anyway, just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Under attack for an example of what I am referring to above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Marchjuly. I have a feeling that tagging the images would likely be reverted, especially given that they're "under attack". Definitely a discussion that needs to be had. I only started with ones in galleries in a handful of articles. There are others in those articles that should be discussed too, but they can wait. — JJMC89 02:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
FFD discussions sometimes do heated, and there's not much you can do about that. If you tag a file caption and someone subsequently removes it, then nobody can blame you later on for not notifying others. Besides removing the tag may actually increase the chances of a file being deleted because it makes it that much more difficult for those watching the article to be made aware of the discussion or to let others know about it like someone did here, so it's completely counterproductive to do so. Another option would be and just add a {{Please see}} to the article talk pages where the file is being used. This is completely OK per WP:CANVAS, and removing constructive/infomative comments made by others from an article talk page are much harder to justify. Anyway, none of this is mandatory, but it can sometimes prevent discussions from immediately being turned into an "us vs. them" debate which has very little to do with relevant policies and guidelines.
One other suggestion that sometimes helps is trying to be a little more specific when you're nominating a file for discussion. Lots of non-free files are being used in multiple articles, so it can help clarify things when you briefly explain which uses seem to be non-compliant for which reason. Sometimes one criterion may apply to a particular use, whereas another may apply to a different use. You don't have to write walls of text like I tend to do, but explaining that you're only suggesting "remove" for some uses and not "delete" for the file itself can sometimes help. FFD used to be "Files for Deletion" before WP:NFCR and WP:PUF were merged into a year or two ago, and many older editors still see the "D" as meaning "delete" instead of "discussion". That's probably while you'll find people !voting "keep" or "delete" and not much more else, when nobody is really suggesting that the file(s) being discussed be deleted to begin with. Some immediately see red when a file they uploaded or which they added to an article has been tagged, and automatically assume that means it's at risk of deletion without even looking at reason why the file was nominated for discussion; so, any clarifiction you can provide from the start can sometimes help to avoid this type of misunderstanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Useful queries?

Any of these useful for image patrol?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. I'm just focusing on NFCC, mostly 10c right now. Bot report here, if you're interested. — JJMC89 04:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


The bot that used to generate user talk page messages for drafts that would soon be eligible for G13 deletion (roughly at the five-month mark, I think) doesn't seem to be working. It might be a good idea to delay tagging eligible drafts for G13 until after the five-month warning messages have been sent. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 06:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eastmain. I'm aware. I don't intend to stop tagging since notification is not required. — JJMC89 06:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Squad template

Thank you very much! Rhinen —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How Many More Years

Can you explain this edit to me? Is it simply that the image file is linked to the wrong article title ("How Many More Times" instead of "How Many More Years") - which presumably can be readily corrected as a simple error - or is there another reason? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That and the fact that WP:NFCC#1 and #2 were not addressed in the rationale. I've replaced the rationale to address all three issues and restored the image in the article. — JJMC89 00:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2018/June".