User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/April

Active discussions

Play Entertainment logo file deletion

Will you please review the deletion of Play Entertainment logo file. You termed it copyright violation but I took it from a public forum, i-e their official page on Facebook where it was free to download. Moreover adding a logo to a page about channel on Wikipedia and that too from their own Facebook page, how come it be a copyright violation... (Usama Ahmad 10:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saamikhan01 (talkcontribs)

Something being available on the Internet does not mean that it is free or that you can license it as you choose. Unless you can prove otherwise, you should assume that everything you find online is copyright. — JJMC89 04:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing File:PHP 50 obv.jpg from 2 articles

Hi. Please review your reasoning for removing the File:PHP_50_obv.jpg from two articles (Philippine fifty peso note and New Generation Currency Series) because it has a valid non-free use rationale and has satisfied requirements for WP:NFCC, as with other legal tender banknotes uploaded with similar copyright tag. Thanks. Moonrivers (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove it from either article. It has a rationale for one article, Banknotes of the Philippine peso, so criterion 10c is not satisfied for those two articles. — JJMC89 04:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Moonrivers: You're making a common but very important mistake. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be met for each use of a file. One of these criterion is WP:NFCC#10 which states that a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use of non-free content; so, this means if you use a non-free file multiple times in the same article or in different articles, you need to provide a non-free use rationale for each additional use. Moreover, it's the obligation of the person wanting to use a non-free file in a particular way to provide the missing rationales, or the files can be removed per WP:NFCCE. Another important thing to understand is that providing a non-free use rationale doesn't mean that the other nine non-free content use criteria are being satisfied as explained in WP:JUSTONE; in other words, if even one of these other criteria is not met, then the file can be removed or nominated for discussion at WP:FFD. So, before you provide any of the missing rationales, please take a look at WP:OTHERIMAGE; one particular use of a non-free file being justified in one particular article doesn't automatically mean that additional uses are going to be justified for the same reason(s). So, the non-free content use rationales you provide should address the particular non-free use specifically, and not just be copied-and-pasted or slightly tweaked rationales which were used for another use of the same file. I've gone around and tagged a number of files you added to various articles which are missing the required rationales; please add these rationales as soon as you can before the files are removed per NFCCE. If you have questions about this, you can ask JJMC89 or at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Apology to @JJMC89: for blaming you for this mishap. Thank you @Marchjuly: for educating me about the do's and don'ts of WP:NFCC. Moonrivers (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Not asking for any assistance

Just blowing off steam. [1]. Once again, I'm a vandal by virtue of editing as an IP. But I will venture that if there's any history of that, perhaps rollback privilege can be reconsidered. Best, as always, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Oy vey, I saw the exchange on your talk page. Unless he gives me more cause, I'd rather not go digging through his contributions, but I've had a word. — JJMC89 04:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Very much appreciated, thank you. I'm not proud to admit that there are times I get pissed off to the point of marginal coherence. Well, let's say even more marginal than usual. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63.... if you would have talked, you would have found that I'm an agreeable person. You chose to delete the conversation instead of talk, and I let that go too. After all, that's your talk page and I respected your wishes. Now you are asking for help here instead of talking with me directly.
JJMC89.... please do dig. I spend about half an hour a day rolling back/undoing vandalism. I'm happy to stop and let the cruft & crap take over again. That's not to say this particular edit we're talking about was either, of course. But until the 'pedia does something to stop IPs messing up articles, things like this will happen.
So let's all take a step back and consider what actually happened here: an edit got rollback'd and was restored by the original editor... and that's the end of it. Markvs88 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Markvs88: I think when JJMC89 says "dig", they mean "see if you demonstrate a misuse of your rollback tool on a regular basis". You see, if they did, they might find—just from the last couple of days—[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], all of which are either stylistic OR MOS-related edits, and none of which are—per WP:ROLLBACKobvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The presumption is persistent that ...until the 'pedia does something to stop IPs messing up articles, things like this will happen. Direct discussion with Markvs was futile, as is evidenced here. Still hasn't said 'my bad.' Well, things like this thread happen, too. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 - Yeah, that UConn edit was horrible, how I reverted my own mistake in less than a minute and all, huh? The ongoing I-95, CT Route 63 edits and other highway edits were not merely stylistic, they have variously been with incorrect information as well, please do another comparison if you want to see what I mean. As for Sloan, that's what we're already talking about, why relist it? Why list I-95 again... or are you just trying for numbers? As for Mystic... please explain how I was somehow abusing rollback by restoring the deletion of a point that was triply-cited with government data? Also, I look forward to you now doing the reverse and pointing out of my rollbacks which are "correct".
2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, and again, I point out that once you queried (in the edit summary) why I did the rollback that I took no further action other than to try to discuss it with you. Complaining and not talking to me is not going to get you an apology. When I tried to discuss this with you, you shut down the discussion. That's your right as it was on your talk page, but then you started this needless drama. At the end of the day what we're talking about is an edit summary that I didn't understand on an edit I genuinely thought was vandalism. I'm still happy to discuss it, if you wish. Markvs88 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Markvs88, regardless of your justifications (or otherwise), you are commonly using rollback on things that should not be rolled back. It is literally as simple as that. And, no, we are not simply " talking edit summary that [you] didn't understand"; we are talking about you misusing the most powerful tool in a non-admin's kit, with the very real and very present danger of bitig newbies in a single click. The link between poor rollbacking and retention is not often made, I know, but it should be; if I was you—with your very respectable tenure and edit count—I would not like to be the object lesson as to why. Happy editing! ——SerialNumber54129 14:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I took the time to chat with you all and that you're all so open to the exchange of ideas. I'm glad to report that since my POV has apparently not been considered by anyone that I flatly reject the three of yours. I came to talk in good faith and received none. Ciao, Markvs88 (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem whatsoever, Markvs88; I suppose your edits might be scrutinised in future. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 13:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Comme ça, I suppose :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
You ain't nothin' but a hound dog. Markvs88 (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
For the watchers, I've revoked rollback. — JJMC89 03:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo World Report

Hi, I saw you removed links to Hardcore Gamer in some kind of automated fashion, and was wondering if you could run the same process for Nintendo World Report (and the page it redirected to, but I can't remember the name)? The page was deleted a month ago but the links were not removed. Thanks TarkusABtalk 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 01:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! TarkusABtalk 15:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Somehow I missed that the IP was blocked after making that edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries — JJMC89 05:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Diligence
For fixing my fuck ups -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Your thoughts welcome

On a couple of topics I just posted at my talk page. Since I've spent too much time at the keyboard on a beautiful day, I'm off for a while. Hope you're enjoying fine weather, too. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Tuxipedia

I deleted User talk:Tuxipedia/Archive 1 at the same you were declining the CSD. I figured since it wasn't created by page move, a lenient reading of DELTALK would let it be deleted by user request. If you have any hesitation about this, please feel free to restore it. Cheers, Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Feezo: I don't recall declining CSD for the archive, and I don't see a deleted edit for it. I declined one for User talk:Tuxipedia, and ST47 declined one for the archive. In any case, I don't have any objection to deleting it. — JJMC89 03:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't notice that it had been deleted. It's true that the talk page history is still preserved, so I also don't have any objection to your deletion of the archive. ST47 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Zounds! I got the wrong talk page. Glad my post found its way to you anyway, ST47. Cheers, Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tagging

Thanks for tagging hundreds of the portals listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox.

I had started from the top, but they are v slow to save, so I hadn't even got half way. I am just doing a final scan, but it looks like all 1426 are now tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. They are all tagged now. FYI, there are some disambiguation pages in there Portal:Cranes, Portal:Santiago, Portal:Tools, and Portal:Civilization. — JJMC89 21:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, JJMC89. Those were all caught when I did an explicit check for pages that are not automated portals. They have all been struck from the list, and untagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Town AT

Hi, you closed the TFD discussion for {{Infobox Town AT}}. Given the outcome of more recent discussions about similar templates (for instance Infobox German location), I think it should have been kept (probably with some cleaning up). Could you restore this template, for instance in User namespace? Or should I start a deletion review? Markussep Talk 13:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Zackmann08 said he stands by his opinion regarding {{Infobox Town AT}} in the Infobox German location TfD, and Darwinek supported deleting {{Infobox Town AT}} but keeping {{Infobox German location}}. Given that and the clear consensus in the discussion, I'm not inclined to restore it. — JJMC89 03:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Utah Polygamy and Law Since 2000

Hi JJMC89. Thanks for helping to sort this out. The student who created the draft, however, has re-moved their sandbox once again. This time they did add it to the mainspace at Utah Polygamy and Law Since 2000, but the move created some new issues. Perhaps you can suggest ways to sort these out at User talk: Shalor (Wiki Ed)#User:Utah Polygamy and Law Since 2000? — Marchjuly (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This looks resolved for now since Shalor has moved it back to the user's sandbox. — JJMC89 03:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


You're right. When I check the article logged out, it does appear fine. Thanks for explaining, I'll know now to check logged out when a layout or format displays oddly before making the change. Schazjmd (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

California's 27th congressional district

Hi you deleted the image: File:Everett-G-Burkhalter-of-California.tiff. I am a bit confused as to why. I got the file from wikimedia and it seems to be covered by fair use. I may be wrong so I guess I am just looking for an explanation? Benawu2 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That file has never been deleted. However, it was removed from California's 27th congressional district for not satisfying WP:NFCC#10c. Even if it did, it wouldn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in that article. — JJMC89 02:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Yep I see your point thanks for explaining. Benawu2 (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

James N. Weinstein

COPYVIO has returned. Thank you for taking a look.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Nuked — JJMC89 21:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion

Hello. Your behaviour is atleast not okey. The discussion is not over. You are even doing it again after reading of my atention. Eurohunter (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm suprised of your negative behaviour. This is my last attempt. I restoring my thread and I expect your answer. No removing discussions without answer. Eurohunter (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion was over. I'm sure Legacypac would have replied before my close if he had intended to at all. Doing what again? You're the one that edited a closed discussion despite the clear notices that say not to. — JJMC89 04:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what this is about. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Its about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Basshunter. — JJMC89 06:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes I say that ping to me but I'd already explained myself so many times there was no point posting further. No one else felt like responding either. The portal was clearly deletable and there is all kinds of precedent. We are deleting even the most famous singers and bands as too narrow scope. Portal:The Beatles is up for deletion as is Portal:Micheal Jackson and Portal:The Rolling Stones just to name some off the top of my head. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: I mean WikiProject:

A wikiproject for one singer is not going to be able to gain and hold participemts. It's ju–st to narrow. We can move the page into your userspace or you can copy the key info there but no WikiProject in Wikipedia space makes sense for this narrow topic. Legacypac (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is many wikiprojects for one singer so it's not argument. Eurohunter (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Only because no one has bothered to seek deletion. Most Wikiprojects are dead anyway Legacypac (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Would you see deletion of Christina Aguilera, Kylie Minogue or Rihanna wikiprojects? Eurohunter (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe... if they lack activity and are better handled under a wider scope wikiproject Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Schould I find more participants then? Eurohunter (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
You made precedent. Eurohunter (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: The discussion is clearly over; by being fixated with the issue you're not really going to achieve anything at this point. A WikiProject means nothing if no one is around to maintain it. Many of them are now almost pointless, and even most of the active ones only serve as discussion forums for people in the topic area. If you couldn't find anyone with which to discuss Basshunter in the last six months, there's nothing we can do about that, the project has probably run its course, and if someone else shows interest an admin can restore the deleted page. Jc86035 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Then could you restore WikiProject page just for limited time (6, 12 hours?) so I can copy needed stuff? Eurohunter (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: I'm not an admin. Jc86035 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

NACD and TfD

Hi. I wanted to ask you about this edit with the summary revert delete closes done contrary to WP:NACD. I realize that I made a mistake with the tagging of the category for deletion, but can you explain how this is contrary to NACD? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: The relevant part of NACD is below. Those closes only required deletion, not orphaning, so a non-admin should not close them as delete.
  • Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages.
    • Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphan.
Additionally, itAs an aside, such closes just makes more work for admins since WP:XFDC can't be used if the discussion is already closed. — JJMC89 02:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: I have read that policy, and have observed other non-admin closes. I have realized that "orphan" means "delete once all transclusions are removed". For the relevant background, See Special:Diff/695098674, where the TfD exception was first added to NACD, Special:Diff/716267935, where it was partially corrected, and Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD, which proposed that non admins be allowed to close TfDs as delete (Consensus in favor of this proposal would interpret the WP:NACD guideline as permitting delete closures of uncontroversial discussions by experienced editors where enacting the short-term outcome is within the technical ability of non-administrators.) and was closed as consensus in favor of implementing that idea (However, there is clear support for at least trying out the alternative proposal. I recommend looking into a trial of the orphan/CSD mechanism, and if this fails to resolve the issue then the first question can be revisited.). Since the templates were already orphans, the CSD mechanism applied. There is no evidence that the closes are limited to orphan only when templates are still transcluded, and since orphaning a template is the same as marking it ready for deletion, I merely skipped the step of listing it as "to orphan" and then immediately moving it as ready for deletion and tagging the templates individually. While I understand you point about XFDC, I don't believe that you desire to use it warrants undoing my close with a summary that says I violated a wikipedia guideline. In short, as far as I can tell you reverted my close claiming I violated a guideline that I believe I followed, and then proceeded to make the same close yourself. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Orphaning a template is just removing all tranclusions. It is a prerequisite for deletion. Something that has no tranclsuions does not require orphaning, thus NAC is not permitted. The initial proposal in that RfC (delete NACs) did not have consensus, only the alternative proposal, which allowed orphan NACs. XFDC was just an aside about increasing the amount of work needed and had nothing to do with reverting your close. (Clarified above.) — JJMC89 05:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Would you be okay with moving this discussion to WT:TFD? I disagree with your interpretation, and believe that NACs can close a discussion as delete even when there are no transclusions. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
NACD would just say Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphandelete. if that were the case. Discussing the interpretation of NACD there is fine. — JJMC89 21:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Auckland railway lines

@JJMC89: Hi. You recently removed an image at Western Line, Auckland with edit summary NFCC. There are three other Auckland rail lines and the same image was inserted in their infoboxes by the same user. The articles are Eastern Line, Auckland, Southern Line, Auckland, and Onehunga Line. Please take a look at them too. Akld guy (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've tagged the file for deletion, since a free image is available and being used for visual identification. — JJMC89 21:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The images have now been removed from all four articles. Akld guy (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Maureen Walsh

Hi JJMC89, can you protect this, please? Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for looking out, 99. — JJMC89 03:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Request to have the first edit of a page be unseen due to a inappropriate link that was changed to a porn link (or rather the location changed)

I found this page Somewhere in Palilula looking on the search engine and I clicked on the link I removed in the edit-it sent me to a REALLY disturbing page for porn (likely the URL changed) so can the original edit be not seen so nobody clicks on it? Thanks. Wgolf (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  Gone — JJMC89 01:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


Hey J, I saw you were the deleting admin. on Portal:Pensacola. That portal had a bunch of subpages as well; can you take care of them or do I have to tag each subpage with CSD G8 myself instead? Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  Gone — JJMC89 01:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900

Thanks for addressing the issue of the edit-warring IP at this article. Would you consider undoing the IP's last edit, which removed content from the article without explanation or justification (the removal being what they were edit warring over)? I cannot, since I am at 3RR. General Ization Talk 06:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: I understand, but I'd rather not get involved. — JJMC89 06:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, according to this page: File:SealofMumbai.jpg, the MCGM logo can be used in the relevant articles if required. What was the motivation behind removing the icon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousboii (talkcontribs) 10:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it can only be used on Coat of arms of Mumbai per WP:NFCC#10c since it only has one non-free use rationale. Additionally, since it is the CoA for Mumbai, I doubt WP:NFCC#8 is met for Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. — JJMC89 23:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The Coat of Arms of the MCGM/BMC is the same as the one for Mumbai. I know this as a resident because of the CoA being on place such as signboards, public toilets etc. Look at photos of the BMC building for proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousboii (talkcontribs) 10:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


Hello, Would you be able to review my draft for Sirio at: Draft:SIRIO before I move it to the main space? If you can't, do I need to add a template? --Ilirtoska (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't generally review drafts. It is currently waiting for a reviewer, please be patient. — JJMC89 03:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

More Jeffrey Kaufman copvio

Hey! Related to the speedy deletion at Jeffrey Kaufman, I noticed the exact same copyvios at User:Jeffkauf2 and User:Jeffkauf2/sandbox so they should probably be deleted as well. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, MarkH21. I've deleted them. Please let me know if the user adds any more copyright violations. — JJMC89 03:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Vicky Kadian

Hi. Thanks for your quick action there. Would you please salt Vicky Kadian? It was previously salted, but an admin moved another page there; so I think the protection expired with that. I had accidentally created it, but I deleted it immediately. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like the perfect candidate for the Carthage treatment to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion: Dave Schulz (musician)

Hello, I would like to request the page Dave Schulz (musician) be restored. I am a follower of Schulz's music and had contributed to the page in the past. I recognize there were recent edits that seemed much more promotional, and may have had copyright violations. (I didn't verify the copyright violations or not). There were also questions about notability.

I rebuilt the page yesterday following the standards of other musicians similar to Dave Schulz. In doing so, I added multiple attributions in my first draft, with intent to spend more time on it later to continue adding references and cross-link to other Wikipedia articles. I believe my new version was free of copyright and certainly not promotional in nature. If there are continued questions about notability, I would welcome a discussion on the talk page of the article.

Could you please restore my work? 99Perfectos (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No. You'll need to ask RHaworth to restore your work from 19 April 2019 since he deleted it. (Edits prior to that should not be restored since they contain copyright violations.) — JJMC89 22:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I tried that but he is not very responsive. Do I go to the next step of asking for a deletion review? @jjmc89 99Perfectos (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that would be your next step. — JJMC89 01:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Portal:University of California, Berkeley and Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln

I noticed that you have deleted these portals per a batch miscellany for deletion nomination which proposed to simultaneously delete a large number of portals. A similar discussion involving these portals, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, recently closed with a caveat that these particular portals should be kept.
This appears to have been an unintentional case of double jeopardy, but only in the above discussion were the involved portals specifically addressed. It would be greatly appreciated if the content may be restored per the linked MfD.
Thank you. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox had unanimous support for deletion and was started after that MfD closed, so it is reasonable to delete them despite the first MfD. BHG, did you intend to overturn the first discussion with the second. Since you closed the first discussion, Amory, what are your thoughts? — JJMC89 03:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I was not aware of the details of the prev discussion. It was my nomination of one page, which was hijacked by another editor to add dozens more pages, and it became such a mess that I ignored it. When I built the lists for the mass nominations, I checked only for the stated criterion -- being built on on a navbox, and not currently at MFD -- and not for previous MFDs. My list-making process is documented in unprecedented detail.
However, the two mass nominations were exceptionally well-attended for MFDs, and established a very clear consensus that portals based on a single navbox are WP:REDUNDANTFORK.
It seems to me to be a bizarre piece of wikilawyering to argue that a trainwreck of a hijacked discussion should somehow take precedent over the unanimous decision at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox.
I note that BrendonTheWizard's request doesn't acknowledge the very clear decision on the principle of redundancy made both at the Second batch MFD, and by even more editors at the extraordinarily well-attended fist batch discussion: WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox. That principle seems to me to represent an exceptionally clear community consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
PS Please note that both pseudo-portals listed here are driveby spam created by a now topic-banned editor. TTH created these portals in between 60 and 120 seconds each (Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes))
The discussion on this page alone has already taken far more editorial time than was ever involved in creating the pseudo-portals. Also note that the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox was explicitly based on a bolded proposal that propose that these pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.
So the only purpose that could possibly by served by @BrendonTheWizard undeletion request is to restore the pages as pseudo-portals of a type which has been clearly deprecated, instead of making real portals which actually add value (or better still, working on pages which readers actually read; the viewing figures for portals are abysmal, almost all in the range 1/100th to 1/2000th of the views of the head article). I struggle to see any good faith reason why Brendon would want that outcome, because it is very clear that any such restoration would be aback at MFD as soon as permissible, forcing the community waste yet more time on spam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I merely noted that a discussion which addressed the specified portals case-by-case had a consensus among involved editors that those particular portals are fine enough to remain on the encyclopedia, and for that I've been maligned as a bad-faith wikilawyer? If you struggle to see how such a suggestion could possibly be made in good faith, then you simply struggle with WP:AGF. I do not intend to continue this discussion any further on another editor's talk page. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 06:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@BrendonTheWizard, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intent. It just looked very like the layers of gameing which too many fans of the portalspam have been playing, and my patience is running thin. So I'm v happy to accept that you were unaware of the overwhelming support for deleting driveby portalspam which is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of a navbox. Sorry again.
I hope that the extra info I have provided sets the context for why the previous discussions are rendered moot by the very clear decisions on the principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I basically agree with the first paragraph of BHG's first comment. That is, the MfD I closed was particularly unhelpful, and as I noted in the close, I had to work hard to get there. The latter bulk MfD was, as BHG says, very well attended and essentially unanimous, so I see no issue with a well-attended discussion with a strong consensus overriding a less-well, less-unanimous, and earlier discussion. In general, if a page is nominated for one reason and kept, but is then nominated for a very different reason and deleted, that's fine; that's basically what the ideal argument would be at DRV, timing aside. Clearly nobody checked the page history of all ~2500 portals in the two bulk single-navbox MfDs, but that's sort of the point in each. Good deletion by JJ. ~ Amory (utc) 09:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Given the comments above and that the second discussion was unanimous and well attended, the deletions stand per the second MfD. — JJMC89 01:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User page policies

@JJMC89: Hello! You recently deleted my user page, and I was wondering what I could do to avoid this in the future. I had created the page with a redirect according to this suggestion on the user page guidelines:

If you prefer to put nothing here, then you can redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors. You may also wish to create a global user page that will display on all Wikimedia projects where you have not created a local user page.

Should I also add some dummy content to the user talk page before doing this to avoid deletion?

Thanks for your help, Ian's Wiki Account (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The only problem was that the redirect's target, your talk page, did not exist. Now that it has been created, I've restored the redirect. — JJMC89 04:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:G. Finknottle

Hi JJMC89. Would you mind watching G. Finknottle in case he re-adds File:Richard Garnett as Gussie Fink-Nottle.jpg to his userpage again like he did here. His userpage (WP:UP#GAMES) and username (Gussie Fink-Nottle) might also be a questionable as well, but probably no harm at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Given their response on their talk page, I think they understand the issue. Hopefully they won't re-add it. — JJMC89 03:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I saw that response. I meant to update my post here, but never got around to doing so until now. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Hey JJMC89,

In regards to Template:Tl5/User:MJL/tl5, {{tlp}} is certainly an adequate template for what it's worth. I just would prefer the alternative of having the entire parameter linked to the main template (like so: {{tlp|tl5}} ). The current use of {{tl5}} is woefully inadequate, so I hope we both would agree it should change (I mean, it literally takes more effort to type {{tl5|example}} than {{tl|example}} or <nowiki>{{Example}}</nowiki> (assuming you just click <nowiki></nowiki>). I'd at least prefer {{tl5}} becoming a redirect to {{Template link with parameters}} like {{tlp}} than maintaining the current nonusage. Would that be agreeable? –MJLTalk 13:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so this is closer to {{template link 2}} than {{tlp}}. Pppery redirected {{tl5}} to {{tlf}} now, which is good. If you really think we need yet another template-link template, feel free to move yours to a different name. — JJMC89 04:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes it pretty much does the exact thing that {{temt}} does without wrapping <code></code> around the thing you link. I also know it is very childish for me to think this, but I really do believe we somehow need a 45th internal link template. Therefore, I moved MJL/tl5 to {{tl7}}... –MJLTalk 03:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Belo Horizonte

Hi JJMC. Portal:Belo Horizonte was mistakenly included in the nomination here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/People Portals A-C, which you closed as "delete". Belo Horizonte is not, of course, the topic of a "people portal". Would you please restore the page, as the deletion discussion cited was not applicable to it: Bhunacat10 (talk), 13:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done, but I can't say that someone won't nominate it again. FYI, Legacypac. — JJMC89 04:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

IPL Knockout and IPL Playoff templates

Hi. Can you please take care of Template:IPL Playoffs & Template:IPL Knockout templates based on the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 5#Template:Cr-IPL? Thanks in advance. Sa Ga Vaj 20:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done I missed cleaning those up correctly. Sorry about that. — JJMC89 05:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Woervrye

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 15:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Sabeeh butt

Hi admin! See this please, and you are well aware of this user's edits on Jawani Phir Nahi Ani (film series). There was a dispute going on in Jawani Phir Nahi Ani 2 page and I made an RPP. Still, that user is not willing to understand their mistakes. Please guide what to do, only reverting their edits will not make them understand. Also, can the user be warned of logged-out edits? However, they have a lot of warnings on talk page too. Thanks! M. Billoo 23:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi admin! This user is still active at Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ Also, Special:Contributions/ suspected. M. Billoo 18:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked the first IP for block evasion. I agree that the others are like the same user, so let me know if they become active on those IPs again. — JJMC89 03:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi admin! See the unsourced page Jawani Phir Nahi Ani (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again. All IPs there suspected to be the same user. Special:Contributions/ Special:Contributions/ Special:Contributions/ (Check Special:Contributions/ also) Thanks! M. Billoo 17:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
IPs blocked — JJMC89 00:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


Please archive that to WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bont, thank you. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 03:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 14#Template:Infobox Singapore neighbourhood - should be straightforward? (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  Closed — JJMC89 17:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 3#Template:Infobox South African municipality - more than one month since start and 25 days after relist. (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  Closed — JJMC89 20:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


In your admin duties, which I understand, you revoked my access to AWB. Does this revocation only apply to Wikipedia? Commons has given me AWB access for work on Commons, which I have not yet used, as I don't want to be seen as trying to evade any decision made in Wikipedia. Is it ok to use AWB in Commons? Thanks Hmains (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hmains: It only applies to the English Wikipedia, so it is OK to use it on Commons. — JJMC89 20:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, now the practical step. AWB in Commons and the Commons Admin says I have do this: "COM:AutoWikiBrowser says: "To use it on Commons (if you have access), go to Options -> Preferences -> Site -> Project and choose "commons""". Which I can get to, but the setting does not save. Is this because I must log on to AWB first, which I cannot do? Or something else? I am using my same userid both in Wikipedia and Commons. Hmains (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to change the default to Commons, I think you need to save a settings file or update the default settings (under File) after you change that setting to commons. — JJMC89 21:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
That is exactly what I had to do; I seem to be ok now. Thanks much. Hmains (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


Hey J, I saw you were the deleting admin. on Portal:Alphabet. That portal had a bunch of subpages as well; can you take care of them or do I have to tag each subpage with CSD G8 myself instead? UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 00:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Phoenix Labs and creation of Phoenix Labs (game studio)

Hi, Phoenix Labs is an inactive software company that hasn't been active for over a decade. Phoenix Labs is also the name of a video game studio in Canada founded 4 years ago. Phoenix Labs the video game studio doesn't have a Wikipedia article. This is especially problematic because Wikipedia is feeding incorrect information to Google in search consoles. Wikipedia is mixing together information from both companies (one company's description paired with the other's logo - an incorrect and unacceptable use of the game studio's logo).

Is it possible to set the video game studio as the primary subject since that company is active and operating? If not, is it possible to redirect Phoenix Labs to a disambiguation page that lists both the active video game studio and the inactive software company?

Disclosure, I'm an employee of Phoenix Labs the game studio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpowpow (talkcontribs) 06:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No. There isn't an article about the other company, so the only existing article should remain at the current title. Also, you must comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. — JJMC89 06:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2019/April".