User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/February

Active discussions

2017 & 2018 in the United States articles

Why did you removed those images I put on the 2017 & 2018 United States articles? Matt Campbell (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove anything. The images were removed because they violate WP:NFCC#10c (no rationale for the article). Usage in those articles also violates WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 20:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Well on the history page it says you did, and what is the WP:NFCC#10c, rationale, and WP:NFCC#8? Matt Campbell (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you recheck the history more carefully. You need to read the material at those links, which you obviously haven't bothered to do. — JJMC89 20:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
For those images is there a way that we that we make the photos a public domain so that other's can use them? Matt Campbell (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
No. That's not how copyright works. — JJMC89 05:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick block

Appreciate the block of IP Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

History merges and Wikidata

Hello, thanks very much for your history-merging work. However, could you please try to clean up the Wikidata links after you're done, preferably within a few hours of the history merge? When pages are deleted here, a link to them is automatically deleted from Wikidata. They're not automatically restored however. I've fixed up a few of your recent history merges/splits. Graham87 02:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for fixing them up, Graham87. I hadn't even considered the Wikidata sitelinks. — JJMC89 02:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Climate movement

Hi, is it really necessary to delete all information about School strike for climate in the page - is seems to be really important movement in Europe in 2019. And I do not see anything wrong on activities of Skolstrejk för klimatet who expressed her/his interests at the user page... Definitely, it does not look like somebody who has profit from editing. If I would change the page in the same way, you will also revert it? Thank you. Jirka Dl (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't edited that article, and I don't know anything about that editor other than that they were blocked for sock puppetry. — JJMC89 18:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Sorry, probably my question was not clear, I was talking about this revert.Jirka Dl (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking at School strike for climate. To answer your question, no I wouldn't. — JJMC89 19:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Histories lost in page moves

Thanks for your help with Edwin Jackson. Since you know what you are doing in regard to restoring page histories, I am hoping I can ping you with a few others.

The 2006 page histories at William Wrigley (disambiguation) somehow got lost at William Wrigley.
I also think Pat Ryan is missing some Pat Ryan (disambiguation) history, but I can't see it. (same with William Kimball and William Kimball (disambiguation))
I am a bit confused by the history of Ryerson, because the history of what I created should really be in the history of Ryerson (disambiguation)

Can you clarify any of these.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've history merged William Wrigley, and I've undeleted your early Pat Ryan revisions. Neither William Kimball page has any deleted history. I don't think there is anything to do with Ryerson. The purpose changed a few times: redirect → disambig → disambig and surname → surname (with the disambig split to Ryerson (disambiguation)), so the early disambig edits could be part of both histories. Moving the edits from the former to the latter would make the former's history incomplete. — JJMC89 04:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I think some history was lost at William W. Kimball?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
When you created the disambiguation page at William W. Kimball on 19 March 2009, one already existed since 12 January 2007 at William Kimball, so they cannot be history merged. — JJMC89 04:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing license plates photos.

Why are you placing the "does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria" on so many license plate pages? In all of these cases these are the only images available so that we can show the recent history of license plates in each state where the pictures are posted, and so that we can show the progression from one license plate type to the next. The tag, "No free image could be created that would give similar information." has been placed on each of them since they were uploaded more than a year ago.

You tagged more than 10 files. One of them is: File:Nebraska 2017 license plate.JPG

What more do I, or anyone else, need to state to keep them?

Please "ping" we when you reply so that I know that you responded. Thanks! Zcarstvnz (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

All non-free images must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria. I don't think they satisfy criterion 8. See WP:NFTABLE. It is the same reason that many were removed from Vehicle registration plates of Arkansas by Stefan2. In order to keep them, you would need to establish consensus that such usage complies with NFCC. — JJMC89 20:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Should {{Non-free license plate}} be clarified somehow or deleted? As it's currently worded, most of the images that currently use that template would seem to "involve identification" on "Vehicle registration plates of" articles. Editors may take the existence of that template as evidence of consensus about NFCC compliance. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Possibly. It does say identification and critical commentary. Most files (those in lists/tables) with that license tag don't have critical commentary. — JJMC89 01:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I read "certain uses involving identification and critical commentary" as another way of saying "certain uses, such as identification or critical commentary". If that wasn't the intention, then it should be clarified. By the way, there probably needs to be a larger cleanup effort around these images: very often, right beside those images are images that were uploaded to Commons with {{PD-self}} or similar. I'd expect some of them to be {{PD-logo}}, but in a couple cases, I had previously moved some images from Commons back to this wiki under a fair use rationale, and now they're tagged as needing a stronger rationale. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) In my opinion, most non-free copyright license templates are worded for the case where the file in question is being used in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article for primary identification purposes where it's anticpated that there is going to be some discussion of the image, etc. found somewhere later in the article. In other articles where the primary purpose seems more illustrative than contextual, non-free use tends to be much harder to justify.
Anyway, the license plate template seems to be relatively new in comparison to other non-free templates; it also was created by someone who was subsequently indef'd. This doesn't necessarily mean it was created in bad faith, but there's no way to find up for sure what the creator's intent was at this point in time. It does, however, seem that this template might not have been vetted/reviewed by editors experienced with the NFCC. I searched the WT:NFCC archives and found discussions like Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Vehicle registration plates pages and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42#non-free gallery?, but I didn't find anything directly about this template. So, it might be a good idea to start a discussion about it at WT:NFCC or WP:MCQ to see if it's wording needs clarification or if it should be sent to WP:TFD for deletion. Still regardless of the wording of the template, it's really whether the particular non-free use complies with WP:NFCCP which matters. The templates were most likely just created to help uploaders avoid WP:F4 deletions and avoid them having to create a new copyright license for each file they upload, while at the same time sort of standardizing the licenses using boilerplate text to make their use a bit easier. The non-free use rationale and whether it's considered valid is how the particular usage is going to be assessed; this is why both a copyright license and a non-free use rationale (WP:F6) is required. In list articles in particular, non-free use seems near impossible to justify since the entries of a list article almost always only provide cursory information at best without any sourced critical commentary about the image, etc. which would satisfy NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
As Marchjuly suggested, please start a discussion about the license template if you think it needs to be improved/deleted/etc. The ones on Commons definitely need sorting through too. Some will be PD, but none of them should be 'own work'. — JJMC89 08:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your responses. I believe that Stefan2's objection was that I had posted too many non-free images to a table. There was no commentary on the rationale I had posted to those images. According to Images "The following list is not exhaustive but contains the most common cases where non-free images may be used ...," and it lists "stamps and currencies" and multiple other examples where these images are allowed. Why shouldn't license plates be allowed since the list is not exhaustive? What other way do we have to illustrate current license plates? The same link goes for using these images in tables. The easiest way for display license plates is in the table format. Again, while this use is not standard, nor encouraged, it is allowed on a case-by-case basis. The information at Images is very broad with many exceptions, that it seems like all of these images are in compliance with the non-free rationale.

What "critical commentary" are you looking for? Are you expecting every non-free image to be posted to a talk page, and to then obtain consensus to post to the article? Are you looking for a stronger justification for each image? Where can I find good examples to use as a basis for being in compliance?

The problem for newer editors remains that trying to figure out all of the incredibly fine details, that fact that so much information is hidden in a "WP" SOMEWHERE, the fact that so many administrators don't explain how to fix a problem in simple terms, makes it nearly impossible to be in compliance with everything. For instance, where is there an example of "critical commentary" that meets these standards? The person/administrator/bot could have pointed me in the right direction to solve the issue we are discussing here, but instead, I'm left wondering what I really need to do to come into compliance.

So back to my original question. What do I actually need to do keep these images? Thanks! Zcarstvnz (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

And yet there is still a long list of non-free images in Vehicle registration plates of Arkansas, a specific article that Stefan2 pointed out. It isn't just about having a lot of non-free images or the fact that they are in a table. Also from WP:NFCI, which you quoted: All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here. Use in lists like the vehicle registration plates articles generally don't satisfy criterion 8 (see WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFC#CS). The critical commentary must be in the article; I don't know what talk pages have to do with critical commentary. Most of the plates don't have any commentary, let alone critical. To depict the state's license plate. (what many of the rationales state) does not satisfy WP:NFC#CS. Plates that look similar to another (e.g. File:Arkansas Purple Hear license plate.jpg compared to File:Arkansas Persian Gulf Veteran license plate.jpg) can be compared using text, which is free (WP:NFCC#1). The only way to keep non-replaceable ones is to have critical commentary about them in the articles. Most of these uses aren't what I would call fixable. — JJMC89 08:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what Talk pages have to do with critical commentary either. I suggested it because no one explained how I was supposed to meet your requirement to provide "critical commentary." Can't you tell how frustrated I am by the fact that no one is providing a clear path to fixing this issue? And still no one has provided a single example of "critical commentary." You wouldn't expect a math student to solve a math problem without providing examples of how to solve the problem, why is resolving the "critical commentary" issue any different? I'm willing to do the work, but teach me how to do it.
Significantly, WP:NFCCP states nothing about "critical commentary" being required. Neither the word "critial" or "commentary" appears in the WP:NFCCP article. Criterion 8 merely says "Contextual significance." It is obvious that one when a state, territory, or country goes from one license plate type to another it is a significant change. That alone should suffice to meet the "contextual significance." The photo shows the change, and the table columns in the article(s) where the image is posted provide the details that you are looking to see.
If you can't show me, or anyone else, how to fix this issue, then you should remove your objection to all of the images that you marked as not being in compliance. I believe all of the images you marked for deletion are already in compliance. V/R, Zcarstvnz (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You should read the rest of the criterion, not just the words in bold. WP:NFC#CS explains how to meet criterion 8, specifically the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article. It is your responsibility to meet the criteria, not mine (WP:NFCCE). IMO, the fix for the violations is to delete the images, since I don't believe compliance will be achieved. — JJMC89 05:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Amaravati Poetic Prism

Could you please enter the name of the Anthology in the List of poetry anthologies ? It is a very good anthology.

Check the newspaper articles about it:






Please consider Atul Bhattacharyya (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I won't because I don't know anything about it, but you could. — JJMC89 04:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I did. I asked you to consider the case also because you deleted the draft page of Amaravati Poetic Prism. Maybe some more detail is required to publish the page. So far, the listing is good enough. Thank you. Atul Bhattacharyya (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The draft was only deleted because it was not being worked on. If you want to continue working on it, I will undelete it for you. — JJMC89 05:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Please undelete it. I was busy with my exams so I was not working on it. Now I can add a few things to it. Atul Bhattacharyya (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done — JJMC89 22:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


Are you able to move the page Ali Mohammed Ghedi to Ali Gedi please? It is the common name and the term used by most reliable sources. Thank you. (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Requested moves. — JJMC89 23:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


Hey there, could you please review my request at WP:RFP/AWB? Cheers! GN-z11 18:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  Already done by Swarm. — JJMC89 23:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi JJMC89, when doing imports you should have an option to "Assign edits to local users where the named user exists locally" that is off by default. If most of the article was worked on by users that are not regulars here, leaving it off is normally best - since it gives interwiki notations in the history. This is a newish feature but also makes it very clear in histories which edits were imported. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 22:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's also not perfect against the verbiage - since it doesn't really do to "where the named user exists locally" part great (it is all or nothing for the whole run if it uses the desigators). — xaosflux Talk 22:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


Hello - thank you for closing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 26#Latest stable software release template. The 2nd entry in the nomination was supposed to be Latest stable software release templates (plural) but I missed the final "s". Would you mind deleting Latest stable software release templates please to avoid a procedural RfD. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jovan Pavlovic (Minister)

I undeleted your G13 and accepted the article. He has an extensive article in the serbian WP, as is specified on the draft. DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

see also Draft:George G. Glenner, who had an obit in the NYT, and several other drafts you G13'd which I restored, either as drafts or directly to mainspace articles. It is my opinion that we should not delete these automatically without at least a quick check if a/ the draft might be good enough for an article as it stands, and b/ whether the subject is so notable, that the draft should be improved a little and kept for further improvement, even if not ready for main space yet. If you disagree on principle, this needs a discussion. (if they're just from going rapidly, I've done the same sort of thing myself). DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any objections. If you want to make the draft's contents a consideration for applying G13, that's up to you, but that's a discussion for another place. I wouldn't object to such a change, but, currently, it isn't part of the criterion. Based on G13 tag/deletion rates, I doubt that such checks are routinely done by most. Here's a recent recent batch (all deleted) that I had nothing to do with. — JJMC89 22:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Most people who do G13s do check, but it is true that the onr or two people who does the overwhelmingly greatest number oft G13s do them too rapidly to check. One in particular is a long well established and abrasive WPedian, and I have been trying to persuade him otherwise for years, and I've made a little progress. --If he does not improve further, at some point I will be annoyed enough to take to it ani and if necessary arbcom (that's an informal understanding that active arbs should not bring arb cases) . He and I do have an agreement I can revert without even notice any deletions of his I don't like, which does have the effect of keeping my complaints off his talk page. I check him every few weeks, and find about 5% to restore.
My advice to all new admins is to do as I did myself--be very conservative at the start. Follow the best and most cautious practice, not what you can get away with. For example, if it looks reasonably OK, I must admit I sometimes guess and am sometimes less than thorough in copyvio checks, but I would not advise anyone to do likewise. As for policy, it's important to always keep in mind the fundamental policy in the matter, which is W:DP, which makes it unambiguous that deletion is the last resort. This applies regardless of the procedural guidelines for each of the forms of deletion. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

@JJMC89: noticing your revert, I was wondering why. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The image is most likely a copyright violation. The uploader claimed they could prove otherwise but has not done so. — JJMC89 01:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

TfD closure detail

About this TfD closure you made. The result is correct & OK with me, no problem in there. Now as I and esp. Doc James wrote in the discussion, the replacement is not "procedural" as the nom wrote (that is, it's not blind replace editing). In your closing, the readers might miss this, as it is not explicitly in there. You think it could be made more explicit? (like: "replace with Template:Infobox medical condition (new) or Template:Medical resources, depending on the content (as ws ...)". -DePiep (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added clarification there. — JJMC89 01:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. All fine. -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


If an RfD has no discussion after a week, then the default action is to delete rather than relist, per WP:RGUIDE. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to note it here, but I closed the two that I had relisted that should have been deleted. — JJMC89 01:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! — JJMC89 01:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, You edited the initials of the poet on my user page. Any better ideas? Shawarma 21:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawarma98 (talkcontribs)

Sorry, I didn't mean to remove those. I've put them back with what I assume is a quote. Do adjust as necessary. — JJMC89 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you close?

Was curious if you could take a glance at the only remaining TFD that is open on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6. I am an involved party so I cannot close it. Since you are not, would love your unbiased opinion on whether it can be closed or whether it needs to be relisted. Thanks! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid reading that discussion. Since you asked, I did. I decided to support instead of closing. I'm not sure if a relist would generate more discussion or not. Perhaps Primefac will take a look. — JJMC89 08:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
HAHA!!!! Yea... I know the feeling of wanting to simply avoid a discussion. Thanks for the info. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
At some point I'll see about closing it. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: much appreciated! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding a CSD rejection

Hi, I nominated the page Draft:Dr. N.G.P. Institute of Technology for deletion under G5. The creator was blocked for promoting the NGP institute, doesn't this page too be considered for deletion as it was created by the same banned user, and its purpose too looks to be promoting NGP??. Daiyusha (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

For G5, the creation must be in violation of the block/ban. The page was created before I blocked, not banned, the user, so G5 does not apply. — JJMC89 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Why was an edit of mine reverted?

I am asking because you used the rollback.--Myrtonos (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't know what JJMC89's reasons were, but I'd agree that it's not necessary to delete the page, because redirects are cheap; and as noted in the template on the page, "This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." Jc86035 (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
There were multiple issues with your deletion tag. Jc86035 outlines some, but the main reason for the decline is that your deletion reason did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. — JJMC89 18:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Vijay Kumar (treasurer)

Hi. May I ask if there are any similarities between this new article and Draft:Vijay Kumar (treasurer) which you G5'd last month? Thanks, Flapjacktastic (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It was largely the same except the article was missing the 'Education & career' section and infobox that the draft had. I've blocked the account and deleted the article. — JJMC89 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Bot and fair use

Hi, just flagging up this edit by your bot. I would have assumed that the use of a picture of a book cover in an article about the book qualifies as fair use, so this seems like a false positive. – Uanfala (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

When you moved the article the other day, you didn't update the rationale to use the new article title. I've updated the rationale and restored the cover. — JJMC89 00:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Oops. Well, the mediawiki message displayed after a move says just that, I should have paid attention to it. Thanks for fixing it! – Uanfala (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, congratulations and thank you

I didn’t realize you’d gained the administrative mantle. Congratulations!🎉 Cheers from 99, on the road. (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, 99. Enjoy your trip. — JJMC89 05:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Criminal Minds (season 15)

Just curious why you deleted Criminal Minds (season 15). I had created this redirect and pointed it to the main Crimnal Minds page because it seems like a likely search term. Why would WP:R2 apply to that? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a redirect to Draft:Criminal Minds(season 15) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). See its history. Feel free to create the redirect again. — JJMC89 01:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I am confused, the redirect I created 2 days ago was not pointed to that draft, unless someone else changed it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Galatz, there are only 2 edits to that page, one being deleted. The first one redirected to the draft. You never touched it. The second edit, which is yours and live, redirects to the main article. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I found Criminal Minds(season 15) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), note the missing space. — JJMC89 15:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Isaac Arthur

Accepted drafts at AfC get redirected by the program to the article talk page, When there is a draft that has the same title as a main page, and was presumably used for a copy-paste to the main article or a preliminary version of it, it too is usually redirected to the talk page, not the article itself. (though some aadmins simply delete it if it does not actually form par tof the article history) . I adjusted the redirect target here to match the usual convention. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting to a talk page makes no sense. — JJMC89 02:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Need Approval

Hi, I am ZaxoteZ. Need a draft page to approve. Draft:Zee Keralam ZaxoteZ (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone will review it in due time. — JJMC89 02:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Avijit Roy.jpg

Hi JJMC89. Could you take a look at this file? It has been overwritten twice in the past day by the same editor. The first overwrite was undone, but I'm quite sure how that was done. My AGF guess as to what is happening is that Shamsun N Tushar is a new editor who is unfamiliar with uploading images and who for some reason (perhaps there's a COI of some kind) feels that the originally uploaded version of the file needs to be replaced. It's hard to tell where these new files are coming from, so it's hard to assess their copyright status. Unlike free files, overwriting a non-free file is essentially a defaut-deletion of the older versions per WP:F5; so, it might be better for this editor to discuss the image on the article's talk page to see if there's a consensus to change it. If there is such a consensus, the image can either be replaced or updated accordingly. Since the two images are so different, it might be better to upload the replacement image as a separate file altogether. Anyway, just wondering if you could restore the older version, and then I can post a message on this editor's user talk explaining what they should do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do all that. I posted a general message about this on the uploader's user talk page. If I left anything out or got anything wrong, please feel free to add/correct as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Looks good to me. — JJMC89 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89, The photo is not being used in the Avijit Roy page anymore, I have uploaded a new photo of the person with his wife (not overwriting). Shamsun N Tushar (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89, What should be done to this photo as the photo is not being used in any article. Shamsun N Tushar (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing for now. It wouldn't surprise me if someone reverted you since you haven't discussed changing the image on the article's talk as multiple editors have requested. — JJMC89 05:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving the "Infobox medical condition (new)" template

Makes it such that the translation tool does not work. I have thus moved back. Not seeing were the discussion was. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Then fix the tool. It should be trivial to update them template name or follow redirects. A discussion didn't take place as noted in the move summary. — JJMC89 18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
It is not trivial as far as I can tell. I have sent weeks / months working on getting these templates to work across multiple languages as it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
If it isn't trivial, then the tool wasn't coded very well. — JJMC89 00:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Why did you delete the photo from Edgewater Beach Hotel?

JJMC89, I did not understand that I had to make my comments on this page here. Another editor Alanscottwalker and I changed the article about Edgewater Beach Hotel to highlight that photo in contrast with a photo with the hotel & resort removed, replaced with boxy high rises. I have not been involved with photo deletions before, and do not appreciate what you have done. I see that the discussion is closed, but I think you should re-open it, and include comments from and the editor who made use of that photo. We do not see a replacement for it. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The consensus in that discussion was clear – no one advocated keeping the image. There was no evidence the the photograph is PD, and non-free use was clearly disputed. The change to the article was considered by the participants. Given that the discussion was already open for an extra week, I'm not inclined to reopen it. — JJMC89 05:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me please?

Hi, I'm not sure if you can help me at all, but I've got a user giving me abuse on my talk page, all because I did something wrong on Wikipedia.

Is there a way to block this person from contacting me?

They've basically told me "enjoy my last days on wiki"...

If you go to my edit history on my talk page, you will see what they said.

I can't be bothered to argue over something I made a mistake over.

Thanks L1amw90 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


Hey, do me a favor and have a look at my AIV report. It's an edit warrior from Australia, across a variety of IPs in a variety of articles. They just reverted again on Larry Elder--and I have to go deal with some Nipponese Dog fool... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Email coming. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Mail received. — JJMC89 05:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2019/February".