User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2018/March

Active discussions

Infobox anatomy series

JJMC89, you have just used the template wrapper with a whole group of templates, eg {{Infobox bone}}, etc. Each template has a unique set of parameters, some of which are shared with infobox anatomy. The intent is not to have them all have every parameter available, as this leads to a lot of confusion, vandalism and unnecessary duplication. It also leads to AWB abuse whereby parameters that are not and shouldn't be used on every template are plopped down on every page, and I have just spent the last 1-2 months, and about 500-1000 edits, fixing this up.

I feel given your edits on these templates in the last months you must have noticed me working on them over the last 1-2 months, including discussions on the talk pages and at WT:ANAT, and therefore I am surprised that you didn't think to discuss these edits with other editors at any of these locations first.

Whilst I appreciate your edits and understand they are in good faith, I will undo your edits, and we can maybe think of a way to use a nice template wrapper whilst ensuring that not all templates have access to every parameter. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

They are all wrappers of {{infobox anatomy}}. The point of using Module:Template wrapper is to reduce maintenance – not having to add/remove parameters from each wrapper when {{infobox anatomy}} gets updated. The intent is not to have them all have every parameter available [...]. That isn't mentioned on the template talk or doc pages that I saw. [...] as this leads to a lot of confusion, vandalism and unnecessary duplication. Confusion: maybe. Vandalism: doubtful. Unnecessary duplication: What would be duplicated? I don't see how that makes any sense. The contents of the template has no impact on what users do with AWB, so that is irrelevant. I came to the templates from your bot request, not from following edit history or the WikiProject. So, no I didn't notice; I only noticed that they were all {{infobox anatomy}} wrappers with only |type= set. If you want do deal with the template overhead, be my guest. — JJMC89 06:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: non-free files are only permitted in articles

For this edit, could you link to the policy which says that? Thanks. --E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@E to the Pi times i: WP:NFCC#9 — JJMC89 05:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
While I can understand how that applies to a normal user page, it seems strange to me that it would be applied to a draft. The draft is part of the process of being integrated into the article; the image is not being used as an aesthetic component for my enjoyment, but in a functional way so that I can see how the image (caption for example) will affect and mesh with the content. The policy states:

8. 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.

My use is consistent with the spirit of "contextual significance", if not necessarily the specific wording. As part of the article preparation process, it has the potential to affect these things, as its inclusion in the draft may affect the ability of the entirety of the content to be evaluated in the context it will be presented. But perhaps I am trying to weasel word my way around the policy. In any case, it seems like an overly strict application of the policy in this context, and I'm unsure what the benefit is in this case, but if it's of great legal concern, I can restrain myself. Draft pages should probably be allowable as an appropriate context for the use of non-free images, since in most cases, the editor is working for the future benefit of the readers, only in the edge case are they using a draft as an excuse to display an image in their userspace, and not even in a part of their userspace which is a curated representation of them. Is it consistent application of the policy to similarly target other non-free images in draft articles? --E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 06:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@E to the Pi times i: All 10 criteria must be met. WP:NFCC#9 only permits use in articles. — JJMC89 06:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


Please do not edit my sandbox again. Thank you. I don't care for pedantic petty ridiculous guidelines. So please spare me a rant about how the world will end if an image is placed temporarily in a sandbox, etc. Surely you can find plenty of other things to do on Wiki that are actually or more useful and don't piss other editors off. Djln Djln (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Djln: Better JJMC89 get involved than an admin. --NeilN talk to me 15:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: OMG, how fucking petty can you be. Please do not threaten me with an admin. It is hardly a capital offence. It is so sad that a small number of editors have nothing better to do then piss off editors like myself who make positive contributions on a regular basis. Please bugger off and try tackling some serious issues like vandalism, badly written or poor articles etc. Djln Djln (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Djln: Thank you for your contributions. You're aware of policy now so I expect this matter can be dropped. --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: What part of bugger off and I don't "care for pedantic petty ridiculous guidelines" did you not understand. You and JJMC89 seriously need to get a life. Are you and JJMC89 sockpuppets. Djln Djln (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Djln: I'm not going to argue policy with you. If you want to change it, go to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Usually I give one warning for violations and then an indefinite block (until the editor indicates they are willing to abide by our policy) if a violation is intentionally committed again. --NeilN talk to me 16:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Djln: Clearly you have an issue with understanding basic written English. So here is some help. "Bugger off" = go away and stop being annoying, I have more important things to do then care about pedantic petty ridiculous guidelines. Also please stop issuing threats. It is totally inappropriate and an abuse of admin power. If you continue, I will have to make an official complaint about your behaviour. I am sure there must be guidelines about issuing threats on Wiki which I guess you are well aware of. Djln Djln (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't have policy violations, I won't need to. NFCC is a policy with legal considerations, not a guideline. Frankly, your attitude leaves much to be desired. Thanks, NeilN. — JJMC89 03:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


[ "If you close your eyes Does it almost feel like nothing changed at all?"] --Bastille]--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"If you close your eyes Does it almost feel like nothing changed at all?" --Bastille @Dlohcierekim:  usernamekiran(talk) 22:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


Can you describe these reverts[1][2]? BLPCAT matters only for living people, not those who are not living for more than years now. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

They are part of a mass revert of that IP's edits from an ANI discussion. Even though not living the categories still should have been removed for not being supported by the article. — JJMC89 17:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Transcluded categories

Hi JJMC89. You helped me out with a similar issue at WT:CATP#2018 Virginia Beach City FC season so I'm wondering if you can also figure out how the categories are being added to User:Nokib Sarkar/sandbox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Fixed with this edit. — JJMC89 05:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Maciej Frączyk to Maciej Frączyk history merge request

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Rejected requests March 2018. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, my bad. I should have noticed that. Thanks, AA. — JJMC89 14:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


Hello! I just edited Draft:Deeper (film) today and you nominated it for deletion. And before that, it was edited five months before. What's wrong with you....when criteria is of six months? --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 14:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I missed your edit earlier. (I can't check.) If so, the deleting admin did as well. Would an admin watcher care to check? Prior to that it wasn't edited since 2017-09-20, which is six months ago. — JJMC89 03:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It happened to a few drafts before but I remained silence. Please inform me first before nominating a draft for deletion next time. It'll be a favor aside draftspace policies. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 06:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


Do you really think it a reason application of Denying Recognition to delete all the directory pages for the Child ballads by a banned editor. I'm removing the tags. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Banned means banned. The index part of a one (banned) person sub-WikiProject. — JJMC89 15:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


Did I do the rationale properly here File:Otzma Yehudit web.png? ShimonChai (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've switched it to use {{Non-free use rationale logo}} since the last two elements were missing in that one. — JJMC89 16:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2018

Looks like the special notification job ran, can you tell if the email actions were successful? — xaosflux Talk 00:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Emails were sent successfully. The bot will only mark it if they are successfully sent (or don't have email enabled). I also received copies of the emails. (cc enabled for the trial.) — JJMC89 00:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! — xaosflux Talk 00:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

File:R. A. Hardie.jpg

Sorry, I was not aware that a non-free image could not be used while a page was in draft. Is this photo still up for deletion? I have moved R. A. Hardie to article space. It is not complete but there is enough to publish now. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I've untagged the image since it is no longer orphaned. — JJMC89 06:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your message to List of awards and nominations received by Peter Gabriel

First, I put the content which was from the Peter Gabriel article before. Second, if you click on the links, for example the nomination for British Album you find the information in the wikipedia article behind. Third, I put the Grammy, AMA, Brits, MTV Video Music Awards, Oscar, Golden Globe sources as External Links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It needs inline citations, not external links. Peter Gabriel may have had the information sourced elsewhere in the article, so the awards tables didn't need them. See List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift for how it should be done. Also, there shouldn't be links in the section headings. — JJMC89 17:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
In the List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift article there are citation from the LA-Times. In the List of awards and nominations received by Peter Gabriel article I put sources from the,,, Question 1: Are these reliable sources in your opinion? Question 2: If yes, would you help or would you tell someone to put these sources into a citation form? Because I don't know how to put it in the right form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schorsch.landmann (talkcontribs) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
IMDb is not a reliable source. and are not independent sources. I don't see anything that indicates that Rock On The Net is reliable. I wouldn't worry about the source formatting; just add <ref>url</ref>. — JJMC89 00:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Now most of the sources have been put into correct citation I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schorsch.landmann (talkcontribs) 11:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
If you are an expert of reliable sources of awards then tell me which sources dealing with awards are reliable in your opinion especially those award ceremonies which took place more than thirty years ago. Do you need a copy of a nomination or award-winning document by the NARAS or the Academy of Arts and Science? By the way are the articles in the List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift more reliable than, and in your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
You need reliable sources that are third-party, independent, and secondary (or tertiary). Generally, the Los Angeles Times is a third-party/independent secondary reliable source. Rock on the Net is not reliable. and are primary and not independent. — JJMC89 03:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you should look to the List of awards and nominations received by Stevie Wonder. The only source put there is And nobody has so far said this article is not of reliable sources. In terms of List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift there might be hundreds of third-party sources because the awards took place in recent years. Stevie Wonder is just an example. Look to the List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson and the List of awards and nominations received by Elton John. Not even one Grammy or American Music Awards source. Look to all Academy Awards ceremony artices for example 1981, 1982 and so on. was named as a source. Is it really a third-party source? Look to all Grammy Award ceremony articles for example 1981, 1982 and so on. was named as a source. So I would like to encourage you to find third-party sources of important award ceremonies taken place more than thirty years ago. And not only about the winners but about the nominations too. But I guess no common wikipedian can find such third-party sources so not me.
Don't get me wrong, I respect you but as a responsible high-standard wikipedian you should also be advised to post corresponding "Reliable sources missing" in further articles starting with List of awards and nominations received by Stevie Wonder and List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson and several Oscar, Golden Globe, Grammy articles. Otherwise your request of only using reliable third-party sources does not seem to be believable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schorsch.landmann (talkcontribs) 21:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It took you 26 edits to write the above. Please use preview. I don't have time to look at all 5,596,879 articles. Yours was a new page, so it caught my attention. The condition of other sub-par pages is not an excuse for another page to use sub-par sourcing. — JJMC89 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes it took me 26 edits to write that. But that doesn't make it more untrue what I said. And I guess you haven't read what I wrote. I didn't use the sub-par sourcing as excuse but I asked you to name third-party sources of (more than thirty years) old award-ceremonies. But if you don't know any then you shouldn't expect me to bring such sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Contemporaneous news would be appropriate. I'm not going to do your work for you and search for them. (I see you still can't remember to login, sign, or indent properly.) — JJMC89 03:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Boxing

Hello There So I opened a discussion to review the Boxing Notability as we have done so in the passed with Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing about a year ago. The discussion took place Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing. discussion took place between 21st of march and the 28th of march. The vote took place between 25th of march and 28th of march. All member were welcome to the discussion and vote but the main people who freely contributed were RonSigPi, PRehse, Michig, Okeeffemarc. Now we have done this before exactly the same way. I don't see why the changes that we edited, discussed and voted on were reverted. Could you please explain this to us?--Bennyaha (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

We already had a chat with Oknazevad i don't know why you came in and reverted it --Bennyaha (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Contrary to what was written in the revision, the WikiProject does not own the (section of) the guideline. The statement of ownership is the worst part of the revision. Additionally, a vote by a very small number of people does not constitute a community discussion, which is how guideline changes are determined. Additionally, I don't see a discussion demonstrating that most (99%) people meeting the new additions satisfy GNG. — JJMC89 16:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Most guideline changes seem to happen as a result of a discussion between a small number of editors, and to be honest most of the changes made were no-brainers. Whether or not 99% of people satisfy GNG is irrelevant - the guideline under discussion is not the GNG. --Michig (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
There wasn't much of a discussion, and WT:NSPORTS, where the discussion should have occurred, wasn't even notified. It was a local vote by very few people. The point of NSPORTS is to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, so it is relevant whether nearly 100% would satisfy GNG. (Also, see the NSPORTS FAQ.) — JJMC89 23:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2018/March".