User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2018/November

Active discussions

University crest

Hi, I saw that you removed the logo or crest from List of McGill University people. That list was patterned after List_of_Yale_University_people which has their logo/crest there. Did you remove it from their page, too, and if not , shouldn't you do the same? My thanks.Tansyderby (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be. The Yale arms is freely licensed (PD), but the McGill arms is copyright. Since it is copyright, it is subject to the non-free content policy. As such, each use must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria. The bot removed it for not having a rational for that article (criterion 10c). Even if it had a rationale, it wouldn't satisfy criterion 8, contextual significance. — JJMC89 04:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Understood. I will just replace it with the same McGill crest that is freely licensed like the Yale arms, as I found one in Wikimedia. Thanks for the advice.Tansyderby (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Please Discuss Your Citation to a Subjective Policy

Instead of merely copying the text of a policy that includes subjective terms as your reason to delete the good-faith efforts of other editors, please discuss why you believe the subjective goals of the policy have actually been violated. See:

Thank you. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll echo Doomsdayer520's request for additional information. A drive-by deletion tag or content removal with nothing more than a wave at "NFCC#8" isn't really sufficient, and although I'm not going to template a regular, you're edit warring on Cambodian rock (1960s-70), where you have removed content three times without any attempt at discussion or clarification, as far as I've seen.
There are two separate issues, as far as I can see: the images and the recordings.
For the images, it is the case that non-free images of people are typically only permitted in the article about that person, and only when other conditions are met (most frequently, when they have died). Likewise an image of a movie poster can only be used in the article about the movie. I think that ultimately JJMC89 has a point with those.
I'm less clear on the recordings, and tend to disagree (or, at very least, think that any outstanding issues could be resolved such that discussion, not just removing and tagging for deletion, would be ideal). My presumption is that the issue is the specific songs are not the subject of specific commentary in the article (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples). For Yol Aularong, this has been remedied already, and I would appreciate it if you would remove that tag. For Pen Ran, I imagine Doomsdayer or I could fix this as well, by adding some song-specific sourced content, but a heads up as to the reason and how it should be addressed would be helpful. For Cambodian rock (1960s-70), however, we're looking at the other criterion: not specific coverage of the song, but that the subject is a particular style of music that requires audio to fully understand. The artists themselves are thoroughly covered in the article such that I imagine the context could be addressed via caption that explains how the clip is representative of the style. Is this accurate? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Doomsdayer, good faith or not, they are still policy violations, which means they get removed.
Rhododendrites, no, I'm not edit warring – I removed the non-free files once, and my other edits to the article were completely unrelated. (For reference see NOT3RR regarding the blatant NFCC violations, which most in the article were.) Also, the onus is on editors using non-free content, not those enforcing policy (WP:NFCCE).
Given the two ways of satisfying the contextual significance criterion, only one is applicable to Cambodian rock (1960s-70): the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article.
  • Images: None of the covers, posters, or pictures of people themselves are discussed in the article, so they can't be the subject of sourced commentary.
  • Recordings: "Yuvajon Kouge Jet" and "Srolanh Srey Touch" aren't even mentioned in the article, so they can't be the subject of sourced commentary. I see that the artists are mentioned several times, but the article should address how/why the sampled songs exemplify Cambodian rock in the 60s.
Thanks for addressing the other articles, Rhododendrites.
— JJMC89 02:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I wasn't accusing you of violating 3RR, but: 1, 2, 3. Two are by your bot, which would make it either edit warring by the bot owner [responsible for the bot's edits] or a problematic bot that repeatedly makes edits after they've been challenged). Merely citing a policy when another experienced editor (Doomsdayer in this case) disputes it is not license to repeatedly remove (or for your bot to repeatedly remove) the content while just repeating your original rationale, without discussion/further explanation. That's really all I have to say about that, though. I'm not looking to make this into a big deal -- I'm just just urging you to please discuss/explain when someone contests your removal in good faith.
Regarding Given the two ways of satisfying the contextual significance criterion, only one is applicable to Cambodian rock (1960s-70) -- why do you say only that one is applicable? The article isn't a history of Cambodian music, focused on a certain era, but rather a specific genre as it existed in a specific era. The article goes into detail about the style/sound. That is not something that can be sufficiently explained in text, and I do not see why clips representative of the genre should not be used if there is no plausible free alternative. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I posted a similar response at WP:MCQ#NFCC at Multiple Pages, so I'm just going to point out that per WP:NFCCE it's the duty of those wanting to add a non-free image to an article to provide a valid non-free use rationale for the respective use. While there may be some disagreement over what constitutes "valid" in many cases (maybe a case such as this), I think when a file is removed by another editor who contests the rationale (excluding obvious cases of WP:VANDAL), then it's up to the editor wanting to use the file to justify their reasons by engaging in discussion before re-adding the disputed file. Simply claiming "I added the missing/required rationale" and re-adding the file is not automatically sufficient as explained WP:JUSTONE. If one-to-one discussion doesn't lead to a resolution, then the person wanting to use the file can start a discussion about it at WP:FFD. A non-free file which is orphaned will not automatically be deleted (there's a seven day grace period) per WP:F5 and FFD discussions typically are allowed at least seven days for comments before an administrator will close them; so, that seems more than enough time for a discussion on the file's use to be at least started. Simply re-adding the file after it's been removed without addressing or seeking clarification is not really helpful in most cases, and often only leads to the file being removed again by either the same editor or another editor for the same reasons as before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm the originator of this discussion and thanks everyone for chipping in, but it will take me some time to digest everything. Here are a few initial comments. The statement from JJMC89, and I quote, "None of the covers, posters, or pictures of people themselves are discussed in the article" indicates a massive failure to actually read the article. Every single person/thing appearing in a picture that I used is discussed prominently in the article, and the song files were by artists also discussed prominently. Meanwhile, I have been called out for the simple statement "I added the missing rationale" which may or may not be insufficient. But I only did that once. Meanwhile, JJMC89 whipped out vague and useless variations of "violates NFCC" three different times. Everything said by JJMC89 in this discussion could have been said at the article's talk page, or even in edit comments, three edits ago. The "Just naming a policy" error, not committed by me, is still an issue here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you reread what you quoted. The albums, films, and people might be discussed, but the covers, posters, and pictures are not. The is an important difference. Had you pinged me to the talk page (remember the onus is on you), I would have happily had this conversation there. (I don't watch most articles that I edit.) — JJMC89 04:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Not only did none of the rationales claim identification, but for identification only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion. — JJMC89 04:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

To those here in favor of file deletion, I will take on the burden of proof but I must point out that all of the pages you have pointed to are vague on what constitutes an acceptable usage rationale for a file beyond the first article in which it appears. Also, I don't like the old other stuff exists argument more than anyone else, but the article under dispute is a music genre article, and those articles almost always have photos of the musicians discussed therein, and often with non-free images borrowed from from the musician's own article. So the article I'm working on has been selectively targeted, and the arguments about not using files beyond the first article are pretty unconvincing. But regardless, I'd love to see an actual example of a usage rationale that has been deemed acceptable for using an image in more than one article. When Admins and Watchers conduct a discussion with a bunch of impenetrable acronyms that point to pages with more impenetrable acronyms, that's not particularly helpful to the good faith contributor. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the time to check every article, so I check things if they come up on a report or I come across them during other editing. I noticed the article because of the large number of NFCC#10c violations. To me, it sounds like many others have violations (like many of the visual arts articles), but that is not an excuse. Most non-free content shouldn't be used in more than one article. The point of the policy is to limit the use of non-free content in what is supposed to be a free encyclopedia. — JJMC89 04:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@doomsdayer520: While there are most likely other music genre articles using non-free images of musicians or non-free album covers, such uses shouldn't automatically be assumed ot be policy-compliant. There are almost almost 900 thousand existing files (many of which are non-free content) in play for editors to add to articles/pages, with more being added daily. Most of the time the non-free ones are added to articles in good faith, but doing so doesn't make their use policy-compliant. Sometimes they may go unnoticed for a very long time, but again that doesn't make their non-free use policy-compliant. Personally, I don't see any way to justify the use of any non-free album covers or any non-free images of a musician in genre articles since there is mostly likely a free equivalent (for reference, text or a Wikilink can be considered a "free equivalent" in this context) which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose per WP:FREER. Others may disagree with this assessment which is why there is WP:FFD and usually a grace period before any file is deleted. Non-free audio files are a bit more complicated since they may be seen as representative of a particular audio style or techinique common to the genre and hearing them might greatly enhance the reader's understanding of the corresponding article. Ideally, there should be some sourced critical commentary in the article which the clip is intended to support which specifically mentions the song as being representative of the particular genre, but often there isn't; disagreements over these files often are best resolved at FFD to get feedback from others.
Finally, I don't think you were being selectively targeted in any way; what usually happens is that a bot or an editor flags an image for review for one reason or another, and then other uses of the same file are given a closer look. It's not the most efficient process for sure, but there are only so many editors willing to review such files which is why bots are being used a lot and which is why it can take awhile before anyone notices a possible problem. It's quite possible that JJMC89 did check you contributions history for other possible similar NFCC violations, but this is not really out of the ordinary or inappropriate because editors acting in good faith often make the same mistakes in good faith. One of the files JJMC89 tagged with {{Di-fails NFCC}} is File:PenRan PyschFunk.jpg. You uploaded this file claiming that its "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question", which would be fine if the file were being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the album itself. That's not, however, how the file is being used; it's being used Pen Ran (the artist's article) in a manner which doesn't come close to meeting the context for non-free use typically required for album cover art. Then, you wanted to use the file in the genre article; so, you added a non-free use rationale for that use; this took care of WP:NFCC#10c ((the reason why JJMC89 bot originally removed the file from the genre article, but adding a missing rationale doesn't mean all ten non-free content criteria are automatically satisfied. You did something similar with this rationale you added for File:Ros Serey Sothea discogs.jpg. All of these things I'm sure you did in good faith, but that doesn't make a file's non-free use(s) policy-compliant which is why JJMC89 tagged some files for review and removed others from articles altogether. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
All fine comments so far, and all has (eventually) been explained in sufficient detail, but this contentious discussion was caused by miserable procedures. I will remind everyone here of the edit history of the article where this all started: Cambodian rock (1960s-70). JJMC89 noticed the use of files at that article but did not convene a discussion at that article's talk page or anywhere else. His/her only explanation was the aforementioned minor variation of the useless "violates NFCC" in an edit comment, which is pure just pointing, which in turn is a procedural violation of its own that has not yet been sufficiently addressed in the giant wall of text above. JJMC89's next edit comment happened to mention NFCC#8 with no further detail, so I went to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for advice on dealing with #8. I was pointed to a procedure and did it. So I was told about #8 and handled #8, and then JJMC89 deleted the images again with the usual "violates NFCC" plus a pointer to the exact same policy pages that I had been pointed to before. The discussion on this here page is the first mention of any policy provision other than #8. We are here now because JJMC89 relies on bots for alterations to other people's work, and bots can't have a good faith discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
On a different procedural matter, as noted above I was only cited for violating NFCC#8 before the discussion ended up here. That policy says "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." That policy has the subjective terms "significantly" and "detrimental". I attempted to address those subjective terms, and the only result was being pointed to more policies that had not been mentioned before. I suggest that Admins and Watchers adjust the wording of NFCC#8 to get rid of those subjective terms if they can be debunked by simply pointing to other policies in the same list. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Unless you asked more than one question at MCQ, the one I responded to wasn't about NFCC#8 at all; it was a general question about adding another non-free use rationale to a file which already had one. You didn't mention a specific file or a specific article; so, you were just given a link to WP:FUR in the first response to your post. If you had been more specific and asked for an assessment of the way you wanted to use the files in question, you might've received a more specific reply. My assumption is that you (carefully) read through the FUR page and self-assessed that the additional uses of the files complied with policy and only were missing the rationales. Providing a rationale helps others understand why a file is being used in a certain way and helps them to assess whether the use complies with relevant policy; however, it doesn't automatically make the use compliant and another editor may dispute the rationale by tagging it for review/speedy deletion or simply removing it from the article. For sure, such an assessment can be seen as subjective and there can be disagreements over whether a use complies with policy which is why additional feedback can be sought at WP:FFD to see if a consensus can be established either way. You can start an FFD discussion on these files if you want.
If you think the wording of NFCC#8 or any other parts of WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or even WP:FUR is unclear or that the policy in general needs to be changed, then the best place to discuss that would at WP:NFC. At the same time, if you think JJMC89 use of bots or his approach to enforcing the NFCC (WP:NFCCE) is a problem, then the best place to discuss that would probably be one of the WP:ANs. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of alumni photo

@JJMC89:: Your bot automatically deleted File:Madraiwiwifatiaki.jpg ( from University of Adelaide when it met the following conditions stipulated for fair use of the image: 1. To illustrate the subject in question (the image/file does so as it illustrates the subject as a famous graduate of the University of Adelaide) 2. Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information (that is the only image available on the subject) 3. On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (image is used only in the English-language Wikipedia)

What should be done to indicate the above fair use rationale (in parenthesis above) and where should the rationale be indicated for the image? Help pls. Thank you. Jacknpoy (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Jacknpoy. I've sort of answered this at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:CJJONIM.jpg so I'll try not to repeat things too much. Wikipedia does allow non-free files of deceased person to be used per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but pretty much for only when the file is being used for primary identifiction purposes in a stand-alone article about the individual in question. The non-free use of such images in other articles is much harder to justify and typically only is considered acceptable when the image itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. The use of such non-free images in lists, galleries or just for indentification purposes in other articles (or sections of other articles like a "Notable alumni" section) is pretty much never allowed per WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. (Sorry for all the Wikispeak; these are all short-cut links to relevant pages containing nore specific details.) Moreover, in this particular case, the file itself might not be able to be kept per WP:FREER since a free equivalent is being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ratu J. Madraiwiwi, Supreme Court of Nauru.jpg. If that Commons file is kept, then pretty much no non-free image of Madraiwiwi is going to ever be considered acceptable per WP:NFCC#1, and File:Madraiwiwifatiaki.jpg will be deleted. If that happens and the Commons file is kept, then you can add the Commons file to the university article if you like; however, you might need to establish a consensus to do so on the article's talk page if another editor subsequently removes it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thank you for your detailed and helpful response in explaining where a non-free image can be and cannot be used. However, as you will see from the Oct. 27 discussion on that other image you cited above, c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:CJJONIM.jpg, I asked the admin there if I could use the file you just deleted ( "for the WP article on the University of Adelaide, particularly the Notable People section." His reply was "Yes, of course." So was he mistaken in saying that it did not violate non-free use? Thanks.Jacknpoy (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Commons and Wikipedia are sister projects and there is some overlap when it comes to image licensing policies, but Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type (Wikipedia does accept some) and Commons is only concerned with how files uploaded to it are licensedcopyrighted, not how they are being used in the various language Wikipedia. Each project has its own policies and guidelines and files uploaded to Wikipedia must meet Wikipedia's, which in this case are WP:IUP and WP:NFCC. I don't think Patrick Rogel is a Commons administrator (both projects have separate administrators as well though some editors are administrators on both); however, even if he is an administrator the advice he gave you was mistaken for the reasons I posted above in my original post and also for the reasons I posted in that Commons deletion review. If you'd like other opinions on this, you can ask at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC; however, the consensus against this type of non-free use has been pretty well established through various WP:FFD and WP:NFCR discussions over the years that I'd be kind of surprised if an editor experienced in non-free content use (like JJMC89 is) would tell you something different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify how "copyrighted" was used in this context. -- 21:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)]
Got it. Thanks for your very helpful explanation.Jacknpoy (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving short description

Hi JJMC89, In a recent edit to Richard Dawkins you moved the short description fron the top of the page to below the hatnote. Was this intentional, or did it just happen as an artifact of the edit system you use? If intentional, why? (there are functional reasons why a manually added short description must remain before any transcluded version, which are not visible to all editors). Please ping with reply, Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: It is intentional since MOS:ORDER specifies that hatnotes are to come first. Since nothing else in the article transcludes {{short description}}, it doesn't matter where {{short description}} is placed. — JJMC89 05:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. It may become necessary to amend MOS:ORDER at some stage, but not until it can be shown to make a practical difference. In the meanwhile, the short description gadget puts the SD right on top, so that is going to continue to happen unless the gadget gets changed, which is not a thing I can do. Apologies for any inconvenience. Thanks for the clarification, Cheers · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Paola Velardi's bio page: maintenance template put by you. Is it accurate now? + Help to avoid duplicate references

Hi JJMC89, thanks for calling me for the due actions to improve the bio page of Paola Velardi. I am writing to you with respect to the Recognition Section specifically, which you kindly signaled on October 13. I added references which support the statements I put in the section, with the hope to make the section's contents accurate. If you deem it so, please consider removing the Maintenance template for that section specifically. Paola Velardi herself warned me about the maintenance sign. She is going to use her Wiki page in two applications and she cannot do so until the page is accurate, which is my first and foremost duty to take care of. Because of this reason too, I am working hard to make the page more accurate, but on the other hand I would need you to remove the maintenance sign if the new outlook of the page can have this change "granted". I am now working on making a second section more accurate, which is the "Current Employment". I should signal that the only reason why I did not put any reference to it is because I (mistakenly) wanted to avoid a duplication of references which I used at the very beginning of the introduction text. I have now understood that a reference must be put anyway, and I will be doing so soon. A piece of advice on avoiding reference duplicates would be highly appreciated. I will signal you when the job is done, so that this second maintenance post can be removed. Thanks a lot, Best wishes Ilaria —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tangia Zaman Methila


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tangia Zaman Methila requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for templating a regular, but could you please have a look. The bots are not expected to create articles amenable for speedy deletion, something must have gone wrong here. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed – T193833 strikes again. In general, it shouldn't create pages and definitely not articles. In this case, it was supposed to null edit the page since it was in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. Since the page was moved without a redirect between when it read the category and got to that page, it unintentionally recreated the article with the content that was there before it was moved. — JJMC89 15:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I see, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

ACC request

Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for this, I was unaware there wasn't a refimprove stub. I'll add it to AWB! SITH (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop

You have been moving pages into Draft only because a sock accepted them via AfC. There is no demonstrated issues with these pages. This burdens AfC reviewers amd confuses new page creators who thought their page was done but all of a sudden see it deleted. You are also screwing up the number of weeks delay reported on 1600 AfC pages. So please stop or if you really feel this is important get consensus at AN or AfC for it. Legacypac (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC). I started a thread here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#frayae accepts and declines Legacypac (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Given Dysk's history of undermining Wikipedia, they need to be reviewed correctly. Issues include non-NPOV / promo, lack of sourcing (especially for BLPs), unreliable sourcing, and notability. They should have been reviewed by an AfC reviewer in the first place, so it is not a burden to AfC. The estimated time to review is easily fixable. — JJMC89 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Bill Milkowski

Why did you delete the Bill Milkowski page? I looked at the history and couldn't understand what you are doing.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

See the thread above. That BLP is almost completely unsourced. — JJMC89 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


For god's sake help a brother out... Lol! I was in the process of trying to debug it... How would I go about adding the category WITHOUT it being substituted? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Why is the category needed? Can't you just use Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox single? If you need to, you should use something like {{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />ifsubst|2={{main other|[[Category:Foo]]}}}}. (Please test in the sandbox.) — JJMC89 03:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Technically it isn't... But the nice thing about a category is it lets me easily track my progress. Check out my userpage... I have a bunch of category counts I'm tracking. Anyway, in this case I was mostly just pissed I couldn't figure it out. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


Noticed you have been cleaning that category out. FYI there are some Twinkle templates you can leave on user talk pages if you so choose. {{Uw-thumb1}} & {{Uw-thumb2}}. :-) --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to remember the name name for that template series. — JJMC89 05:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Anytime. I spent a LOT of time on that project. When I started there were over 10,000 pages in the category. I got burnt out dealing with it but it is still one of the categories I watch on my userpage. {{Category count}} might also interest you. You can see it in action on my userpage. Turns red if the category has any contents (or more than a number you supply). --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi, can u explain why you redirected all those pages ? I can't see any discussion about them resulted in redirecting. the only discussion which is ongoing is here where the majority "so far" agreed to redirect/delete the U23 pages but keep the senior one. Mohsen1248 (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to guess which pages your talking about by your reference to the AfD. Dom sums up my thoughts on them there quite nicely. — JJMC89 05:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of a photo for Mary-Kate and Ashley: Sweet 16 -- Licensed to Drive

Hello @JJMC89: the file I uploaded for identification purposes on the Mary-Kate and Ashley: Sweet 16 -- Licensed to Drive Wikipedia has recently been marked for deletion. I'd like to know why and if the recent changes I've made have fixed the issue File:Mary-Kate And Ashley, Sweet 16 Licensed to Drive.jpg DoogeTube (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-free use rationales must indicate the article they are for. (WP:NFCC#10c) Prior to your edits there was only a rationale for the list, not the article the file was actually used in. Yes, it is now resolved. Another editor has made further revisions. — JJMC89 05:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wind Tre

Dear @JJMC89:, I do need your help with as your bot removed the image/logo (File:3-brand.svg) of the brand Three (Tre in italian) from the page Wind Tre; considering that the company Wind Tre is the owner of that brand and is, in turn, owned by the same CK Hutchison Holdings, I would know if it is right/possible to restore it in the page.
See also: "Wind Tre – Our history". Retrieved 20 November 2018. and "Brand Tre 3". Retrieved 20 November 2018.
Thanks for your help & attention. Regards --BOSS.mattia (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it would not be acceptable to restore the image per WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFCC#10c. — JJMC89 05:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Change in redirect resulted in loss of content?

Hi JJMC89, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what happened, but it looks like you edited a redirect from Kara Language (Papua New Guinea) to Kara language (Papua New Guinea), removing the erroneous capital L. All well and good, but somehow it seems content was lost? Check this diff. I can try to revert this but I wanted to ask you about it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavonjon (talkcontribs) 06:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

First, please don't post at the top of talk pages – new posts go at the bottom. Second, please sign your talk page posts using ~~~~. We don't want two article's on the same topic, so you should not revert the edit. If you want to add any content, please to it at the correct page. — JJMC89 06:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • JJMC89, I think you deserve a WP:TROUT for this: we shouldn't throw away good content because it happened to be at a miscapitalised title.
  • Kavonjon, the new article should be merged into Kara language (Papua New Guinea) (as that's the older article). That's something that anyone can do, but it's best if you advise your student to do it: that's better for preserving attribution, and they probably know better than anyone else which parts of the old article need to be ditched. – Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    I think it is better to allow new editors, especially students, the opportunity to fix issues like this themselves for the reasons that you just pointed out to Kavonjon. If they don't I can go back and do it later. — JJMC89 05:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

First sentence of Home video - comment on dispute, please?

Greetings! I'm bothering you because you are a recent contributor to the Home video page. Might I ask you to weigh in at talk:Home video#First sentence? Thanks in advance for any response! Jeh (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Commented there. — JJMC89 05:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Pi Sigma

Anything worth saving in there? I think that and can probably be enough to make an article from though. I'd like to find something that isn't the inquirer, while certainly a newspaper of note...Naraht (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to write a proper article from that source (You linked the same one twice.), go for it. What was there before was not encyclopedic. — JJMC89 05:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2018/November".