User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/July

Active discussions


Hi, Could you explain why you've CSD'd File:IDrive Online interface 2018.png and File:IDrive Software interface 2018.png please?,
Plenty of articles have images of this nature and they're clearly showing the user what the interface looks like,
Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 20:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I hope those other images are used appropriately – as the subject of sourced critical commentary or the primary means of visual identification of the article subject (the company here). Those two weren't. The interfaces aren't even mentioned in the article, and the logo is being used for the primary identification. — JJMC89 03:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing images - commenting out or similar trace would be better

Hi, your JJMC89 bot just removed some images from a draft I'm working on, without leaving any account of what had gone in the text. Had to hunt in the history to identify and locate the affected items. Since drafts are likely to go into mainspace after a while, it'd make more sense to comment them out so they can be restored without effort at a suitable time. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

figure bot suggestion - remove extra space?

One of your bots removed a couple figures of people from Project Mohole. I think I understand why. I comment here merely to note that the bot left behind an extra space where the figure was...perhaps by design? Anyways, as I was deleting the extra spaces it occurred to me that the bot should have done that. Yes? I make that suggestion. (no reply needed) Bdushaw (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Keith Raniere and Forbes Expose

The pivotal moment in Raniere's PR was when he and his organization gave full cooperation to Forbes, only to wind up being depicted on the cover as "the world's strangest executive coach". We have innumerable sources which discuss this incident, the cover and its accompanying text, and the impact the publication had on the organization and its members.

The image itself conveys a DEEPLY anti-Raniere point of view that no text could ever replace. The inclusion of the image provides the reader with desperately needed context as to why the organization reacted so intensely to the cover and its accompanying text. 'The inclusion of this cover image significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding'. Feoffer (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you explain that in the rationale. The current one is not sufficient – the section is not about Forbes as claimed. The article has a single sourced statement about the cover photo. The cover story may be significant, but the article doesn't have any sourced critical commentary on the cover photo, only the single statement: In October 2003, Raniere was featured, cloaked in shadows, on the cover of Forbes magazine, accompanied by the appellation "The World's Strangest Executive Coach". — JJMC89 03:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your great feedback. I've written a better rationale!
It's true that the current text doesn't heavily cite the sources commenting on the actual visual elements of the cover, the Mise-en-scène if you will. But our sources do talk about the impact of the image. Consider: RSes cite that 2003 publication "stunned" members and was "the moment when Bronfmann became NXIVM's enemy" (with Raniere later being convicted of a felony against Bronfmann) -- and the cover image IS an integral part of that piece which sets the tone for the entire work. Sources don't say that NXIVM was furious over a TRANSCRIPT of the cover story, after all -- the cover IS part of the work that so upset them, that led to the Bronfmann bugging, and that led to the wiretap conviction; RSes basically draw a straight line from this publication to the subject's imprisonment. The article is most informative with the cover included. Feoffer (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey JJ, I saw your edit just now. Have you had a chance to look over the new rationale reflecting those revisions you requested? I'd really appreciate any advice you can give us editors on how to further meet your standard for include. Editors at Talk:Keith Raniere agree the the image is important and that article would benefit from inclusion, and I don't think you disagree, so hopefully there's a nice win-win here for both the editors creating the best article possible and the admins who keep Wikipedia running and compliant. I'm committed to finding it, with your help :) Feoffer (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Renamed portals

Hello, how are you? Could you use the Xunlink to edit {{Portal}} and modify the renamed portals? Portal:Sexuality -> Portal:Human sexuality, Portal:Gender Studies -> Portal:Gender and Portal:Pornography -> Portal:Erotica and pornography. And delete links to Portal:Scientology too. Thanks. Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Guilherme Burn: I've removed the Scientology portal links, but the script does not handle renames. — JJMC89 05:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Syeda Falak Article Deletion

You had deleted the article, please restore it. King John556 (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Why? — JJMC89 05:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Julian W. Lucas Page Deleted

Hello, the page for Julian W. Lucas was just deleted due to lack of notability and not enough credible sources. Today, literally another article was just posted via the Inquirer, one of the largest most respected news sources in the country and has won 20 Pulitzer Prizes, talking about him, his accomplishments, and his notability. The article literally has in the title that he is one of the first and only one armed models. It's one of many articles done about him that are about him and not a trivial mention and are considered "Reliable" just as the Wikipedia guidelines are stated. These are also independent sources. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, Notability is defined as "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. " As he is one of the only one armed models ever, and is legitimately successful, documented, and followed, he clearly falls under the definition of Notability, being "worthy of notice" "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" as it is literally being done from various news outlets. I would like to be able to recreate the deleted Wikipedia article and have it successfully stay published as he is clearly deserving of one, and is clearly eligible based off of the current Wikipedia Guidelines. Livewire123 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae, Onel5969, Bearcat, and Scope creep: Would this new source change you opinion on Lucas' notability? — JJMC89 05:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
As I already said in the AFD, it would take several newspaper articles before he would pass WP:GNG. One news article in a daily newspaper is not a magic notability freebie all by itself: we need several newspaper articles, in reliable source dailies, before media coverage translates into notability. If one newspaper article was all it took to make somebody permanently notable, we'd have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who once got into the local paper for finding a pig in her front yard. Also, sources have to be written in the third person by other people, not as Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself, before they count as support for notability — so this source would be fine for supplementary verification of stray facts if notability had already been covered off by much better sources than Queerty, but contributes zero points toward the GNG scale in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
No. It would need to cover WP:SIGCOV and this goes some way but it would need more depth of quality in any supposed sources and several more of the them. Up at WP:AFC three quality sources are the base standard to get the submission accepted, before other sources are used to verify specific facts in the article, so I don't accept this is anywhere enough. In a BLP article six or eight good refs from established sources is the standard. scope_creepTalk 11:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Per the above, I will not undelete the article, and it should not be recreated. — JJMC89 04:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Deceased NXIVM members

Well, since SOMEBODY is gonna delete that super-encyclopedic Forbes pic, how about pics of the deceased NXIVM members who are discussed in the article: i.e. gina and kristin. I could upload them, incorporate them in the article, let you nominate them, argue with you, let you win, and then rewrite it -- or I could just ask you upfront if you'll allow the usage. Feoffer (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There's also an arrest photo, screenshot from one of his Youtube videos, Government Exhibit Showing Raniere, Times Union photo of Raniere's meeting with Dalai Lama. Any of those seem appropriate for inclusion? Feoffer (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how any of those would satisfy all 10 NFCC. — JJMC89 04:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi admin! Please check Roman johnson (sock of blocked Sabeeh butt) and protect the creation of Jawani Phir Nahi Ani (film series), Thanks! M. Billoo 01:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock and increased the protection level on that article. — JJMC89 04:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wondering a reason for deleting my Article

Hello JJMC89, I am editing my article on my sandbox. Why you delete it? Smlhd1993 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. That was a mistake on my part due to the redirect to a nonexistent page you had at the beginning of the page. I restored it earlier. — JJMC89 04:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Samuel Kunz

Hello JJMC89, I am rudyguy21, the author of the Samuel Kunz entry. I corrected the complained parts. You reverted the entire revision back to a status before the corrections. How can I correct the entry when the corrections are reversed? Please let me know so that this entry can get back to the public. Thank you. Rudyguy21 (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You are not permitted to edit it while it is blanked for a copyright investigation. — JJMC89 03:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


Do NOT edit my user files. Perhaps if I misunderstood the "public domain" tag on the image and you feel that the sign should be corrected, I suggest that you boldly revert that as you see fit. Mandsford 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Mandsford 17:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
If you didn't violate policy, then it wouldn't be necessary. The file is clearly labeled as non-free. The retouching is the only PD part there. Your reaction and behavior are poor, especially for an admin. — JJMC89 03:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


Hey JJMC89, if you have a minute could you review this acc request [1]. Thank you for your time, and i look forward to hearing from you.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The ACC admin team will review your request in due course. There are other requests ahead of yours in our queue. — JJMC89 03:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89, Thanks for the reply. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello, JJMC89,

Two questions: 1) Why are you now deleting pages created by this editor who has been blocked for over 2 years? That's ancient history and the pages have probably been edited by other editors at this point. My understanding is that we delete pages created by blocked editors if no other editor has made contributions to them. It seems odd to be looking back two years to find blocked editors and then going to delete every page they created, regardless of whether those articles have been edited by other people. Each page should be evaluated individually.

And 2) How do you delete dozens of pages in the same minute? Are you using some kind of script? Because I think that should be used cautiously. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz. The pages were created by socks of that editor, the most recent of which is Dramanrama who active within the last day and just blocked. As long as there weren't substantial contributions by other editors, they are eligible for G5. Of the pages deleted, they generally fell into the following categories: only edits by a sock; only edits by a sock, bots, and an admin doing routine maintenance (e.g. template removal after F5); or edits by one or more socks of this master with non-substantial edits by others. If you saw anything that had substantial contributions by others, please let me know so I can recheck it. Special:Nuke allows us to mass delete recent page creations. — JJMC89 02:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Code of Honor, Dramesi book cover

Thank you. Hey I would very much appreciate it if you might have a moment or two to help me assemble the appropriate non-free rationale for this image. I'm a bit lost. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argus218 (talkcontribs) 04:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally, a non-free book cover is only permitted in article about the book, not the article about the author. See WP:NFCI#1. — JJMC89 04:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

Page protection needed on American toad. Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I blocked a couple IPv6 ranges instead. — JJMC89 05:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

2019–20 U.S. Città di Palermo season

Hi. Why doesn't WP:CSD#A7 apply? Seems to me a sports season is an event, which a7 covers. The tagger had originally tagged the article as a11, which I declined, in part because a11 cannot be used as a substitute for a7 (all tangled). Actually, the tagger's real reasoning behind why the article should be deleted is weird, and I think it would best be handled by an AfD (the amount I know about sports notability you could put on the head of a pin), but it wouldn't surprise me if they complain about the mixed signals from admins.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Hi. Well, it was tagged as an organization, which it definitely isn't. Maybe it could qualify as an event. In any case, given that there is a series of season articles for the club and that the club is notable, I'd say that AfD is a better venue. I'd think the not being in Serie D as opposed to Serie B (from last season) would just be an error that can be corrected by editing. I don't get the part about being a different club though. GiantSnowman, so you have any guidance here? — JJMC89 01:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this is suitable for CSD; AFD is where to go. GiantSnowman 10:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Midwest University both party violate 3RR

Hi JJMC89 - Greetings. I am not an involved editor of the above page and just a note here as did advice user on Teahouse of they concerned - see Editor with COI behaving like s/he "owns" page. As per Midwest University, I notice user Tbum777 has been blocked. As per Midwest University history page, both user Tbum777 and Eyer violated 3RR and not only one party. I have filed a RPP for the page - see Midwest University. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The protection request was declined by CambridgeBayWeather. — JJMC89 04:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


I watch your talk page. I noticed this edit. Why would you appeal for a block? Or is it that someone impersonating you, appealed for a unblock on UTRS? Masum Reza📞 06:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It is a LTA abusing UTRS. 43 requests today and counting ... — JJMC89 06:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Can't you just block them on UTRS? Masum Reza📞 06:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I would if I could. — JJMC89 06:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Samuel Kunz

Hello JJMC89, sorry for my late answer. You said on 10 July: "You are not permitted to edit it while it is blanked for a copyright investigation". Okay, I understand. But how can I repair the article? To your recollection: The copyright issue is only about the first section (where I accidentally copied the source and not my own editorial work). The other parts are correctly crafted, according to editorial rules. I repeat: this Wiki entry is the most complete article about Samuel Kunz in regard in regard to the sources. Take the German entry as comparison: de:Samuel Kunz So please tell me, how to proceed. What is your recommendation? Thank you. Rudyguy21 (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

To deal with the copyright issue, you should follow the instructions on the page. For anything else, you'll need to wait until the copyright issue is dealt with. — JJMC89 04:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello JJMC89, I followed the instructions to write an alternative entry on a temporary page. Regrettably, the visual editor, with its benefits for casual Wiki authors with limited time budget like me, is not available (at least I didn't find it). My question is if it would be helpful for the entire process if I write a completely new entry. I saved the original texts already; the efforts seem to be the same as repairing cumbersome the current entry. Please recall, the copyright issue is only about the first paragraph where I mistakenly copied the source (trial international) and not the redacted text into the entry. The rest is my own literature research about the issue and you will hardly find a more complete presentation about Samuel Kunz anywhere. So what is your recommendation? If I would write a new entry, how to get rid of the present? Rudyguy21 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Hi JJMC89! I noticed you removed a short description because you did not seem to understand its purpose. I thought I'd take a second to clarify why English Wikipedia decided to import short descriptions for all its pages instead of relying on Wikidata shortdescs.

English Wikipedia wants control of its content. Every Wikidata-defined shortdesc needs reviewing and import into Enwiki. It'll be a slow process but we'll get further and further. Like Dabsolving it'll never be a complete thing. Quoth parts WP:SHORTDESC: "After concerns were raised about their accuracy, suitability, and the potential for sneaky vandalism on Wikidata, the ability to define short descriptions directly on Wikipedia was added. Wikidata has English descriptions of a significant fraction of Wikipedia articles. Where these are good, they may be copied to the relevant article. If a Wikipedia short description for an article is not defined, as of May 2018, the Wikidata description is still used. The Wikidata descriptions are all public domain, so there is no need for attribution. At some point, the Wikidata fallback will be removed. Once Wikipedia editors write ~2 million descriptions, we'll switch to entirely Wikipedia-hosted descriptions." Your guess is as good as mine as to how quickly or slowly the 2million mark will be reached. However on any page currently using a Wikidata-defined shortdesc, we need to import it (or edit-and-import) since at some point anyways the Wikidata-defined shortsdescs will stop being usable. Ben · Salvidrim!  13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I get that this is by far more useful for article content than project pages however, so I'm looking forward to further discussion on shortdesc usage outside mainspace in the coming months. Ben · Salvidrim!  13:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    I know exactly what the purpose of short descriptions are. A short description of "Wikimedia project page" or even "Wikipedia project page" (since this is Wikipedia after all) for project pages is the same as adding a short description of "article", "Wikipedia article", or "Wikimedia article" to an article. It is useless since it tells you nothing about the page that the title doesn't already tell you. I have no objection to short descriptions in general, but they need to be useful or there is no point in adding them. — JJMC89 00:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Except the point here is that we're not ADDING shortdesc to project pages. Project pages already have shortdescs. Only they're being provisioned by Wikidata (i.e. outside of enwiki), and importing them means they will now be on-wiki, which is what the community has decided is the preferable option for shortdescs (to avoid abuse and make it easier to edit, etc.) I know what you're saying and I don't disagree that in principle project pages probably don't need shortdescs at all. Ben · Salvidrim!  00:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know that they are necessary, but I'm fine with project pages having short descriptions; however, importing "Wikimedia project page" is completely useless. An appropriate one for say NPOV/N could be "noticeboard for discussing neutrality issues". — JJMC89 01:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


I don't see any abuse since yesterday. Do you mind unblocking?--v/r - TP 23:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done You could have unblocked yourself. Please consider requiring OAuth for account unblock requests to prevent this type of abuse. — JJMC89 00:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I saw your note but I'm still hesitant to unblock my own account. DQ is in the middle of coordinating with a non-profit coding school to develop a UTRS 2.0. I'll pass on this idea.--v/r - TP 01:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Frederica von Stade album articles: cover art deletions

Hi! I've noticed that you've deleted several images of album covers from Wikipedia pages that I created about recordings made by Frederica von Stade. This puzzles me, as I got the impression from Wikipedia's upload wizard that including the official cover art of an album in the infobox of the album's Wikipedia page was OK. It would be kind if you could please spare a moment to explain where I've been going wrong. (Please forgive me if this message is in the wrong place or in the wrong format - I'm very old and a Wikipedia novice, and I find its complexities terribly confusing! Niggle1892 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you're referring to edits that my bot made. That usage is acceptable if you have provided an appropriate non-free use rationale. Based on your post and the response here, you are not putting the correct article in your rationales. — JJMC89 01:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so quickly, and for explaining where I tripped up.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you delete photo

Why did you delete the photo of the Authors XI book? It was being discussed on the FFD page and was nowhere close to reaching a "delete" consensus. The original poster and I gave our points of view and disagreed and ONE person voted "delete". One person does not constitute a consensus (this was said to me recently by an administrator). This was not an appropriate closing of the discussion or action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 (talkcontribs) 03:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It was the end of the 7-day discussion period, and the discussion was not ongoing – stopped the same day that it started. There was consensus among the editors whose opinions are supported by policy. — JJMC89 18:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent Deletion of LLamasoft Article

Hi JJMC89,

I was looking through my recent edits and image uploads on Wikimedia Commons and came across the LLamasoft logo I uploaded a few months back (I enjoy adding and maintaining logos on Wikipedia). I noticed that it was not referenced in any articles, so I did a bit of digging and came across the deletion request for the LLamasoft article that was completed a few weeks ago. I did a bit of extra research on the company to see if it is notable enough to warrant an article, and I think it may be worth re-creating the article to (1) provide information on one of the main competitors to Kinaxis and JDA Software (which both have articles), and (2) prevent confusion with Jeff Minter (the man who currently comes up when someone searches LLamasoft on Wikipedia). Furthermore, I have come across a number of reputable third-party references on the company that can be cited if we decide to proceed with the article re-creation.

I’d be happy to jump start the new LLamasoft article if you agree with my proposition.

Thanks, JC713 (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The article should only be recreated if the new article could address the reason for deletion: not satisfying the relevant notability guideline. Given how recent the discussion was, I doubt that would be possible. — JJMC89 04:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I am looking at the Kinaxis article, and LLamasoft seems equally as notable from what I have read. I am reading through their site and some of their customers seem to include Unilever, Dow Chemical, Michael Kors, and Wayfair. Also, on their CrunchBase, it states that the company received funding from TPG Capital, which has funded startups such as Lyft, AirBnB, and Uber. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to create a stub article, at the very least, that can be expanded upon as the company grows in size and notability? Kinaxis and JDA Software both have small, similarly-sized articles, and I do not see why LLamasoft, a competitor, should be left out. Thanks for taking the time to read my proposition. JC713 (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Notability is a requirement to have an article, including a stub. The deletion discussion determined that the company is not notable. — JJMC89 03:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJMC, apologies for the late response--I have been quite busy the past week. I spent the past couple of days doing some more research on the company to see if I could find more notable coverage on it and to understand if it could warrant an article. I found the following articles, among others, that have mentions or notable coverage about LLamasoft:
Sorry for being so adamant about this article. I just really believe that the company is notable, and I think that my research provides some reliable and noteworthy sources to back up that claim. I wish that I could have posted these articles in the deletion discussion, but I did not come across the deletion request until a few weeks after it had been completed. Thanks again for the consideration. JC713 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Mentions do not establish notability. 1 is not about the company. 2 is not independent. 4 and 8 are by a contributor, not staff, meaning they are generally unreliable. 5, 6, 7, and 9 are not significant – mentions by name only. — JJMC89 18:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

How free images work

About Shibusawa's image, why was exactly removed? Should I have added a rationale to implement it into Dead Apple or it's not possible. I mean, Atsushi and Dazai's articles have real people images but I don't know if they need to be removed. I thought only nonfree images needed to have rationales for usage in multiple articles. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What file and article are you talking about? Shibusawa does not exist. — JJMC89 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Well both Atsushi Nakajima (Bungo Stray Dogs) and Osamu Dazai (Bungo Stray Dogs) were based on writers named Atsushi Nakajima and Osamu Dazai which led to add images of both real authors to the fictional characters. They also have their own voice actors there but I don't know if it's okay. Also by Shibusawa I meant Tatsuhiko Shibusawa whose likeness was used to make the villain from Bungo Stray Dogs: Dead Apple. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
File:Shibusawa Tatsuhiko.jpg is not a free image according to the file description page, so its use must comply with all of the non-free content criteria. The other two are free, specifically public domain, images. — JJMC89 03:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixing double redirects

Hi, I spotted your bot fixing double redirects to categories after renaming. That's an improvement over Cydebot – thank you! – Fayenatic London 07:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Jack Reacher(film series)

I suspect the IP is back, because an IP reverted my reversion of the re addition of the page Jack Reacher(film series).(man that is a confusing sentence) I suppose they might just be a new IP who is super enthusiastic but doesn't realize that I wasn't the one to remove the page, but I do not have the mental energy to deal with that. Hope you don't mind me letting you know, because idk if you watch listed the page or anything. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Image use policy

I'm not too familiar with image use policy. Regarding this image, is there a way to figure out whether it's fair use, creative commons, public domain, etc.? I found the picture on two sites, Computer History Museum (where it says "Courtesy of the Atalla Family") and National Inventors Hall of Fame.

Also, what rationale would be needed to include it on the MOSFET article? Isn't illustrating the inventors of the MOSFET a good enough rationale? Or would I need to elaborate further on the rationale?

Maestro2016 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the image use policy. I can't tell from either of those sources that it is PD, and neither has a CC license, so that leaves non-free. IMO, there isn't a rationale that could be written that would show that WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied in that article. Illustration is not an acceptable rationale. — JJMC89 05:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Eliane Montel

Hello @JJMC89:, this article was written by historian of science Natalie Pigeard-Micault, from the Curie Institute (Paris). I just added the last three lines. What do you mean by "still no"? Is it possible to discuss about it? Greetings. Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It refers to the last time you did the same thing. According to the article history you wrote the article. Did you write it or did Natalie Pigeard-Micault? — JJMC89 05:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89:, Natalie Pigeard-Micault wrote it in french (except the last three lines I added). You can see the name "Nima942" something like 20 times in the history of the article in french. I translated it in english. Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
You started the French article and made various contributions to it, so I wouldn't say Pigeard-Micault wrote it all. I've added the required attribution for to the original Fresh article since you failed to do so. As you've been previously advised, you should not be editing articles about your family. — JJMC89 05:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

KBLZ-FM Winona, Texas article

Hello, your bot is continuously removing the valid station logo from the KBLZ article, which is copyrighted by Reynolds Radio, owner of both KBLZ and KAZE in the Tyler-Longview market. They are simulcasted facilities, and share the same logo, branding, studios, etc. Could you please reprogram your bot to stop doing what it is doing to this article? Thanks JJMC89, and hope the day you have is a great one! Joe Polichino (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi Joe Polichino. First, I've moved your post to the bottom of JJMC89's user talk page. New posts (i.e. new discussion threads) should go at the bottom of talk pages. The easiest way to do this is by clicking on the "New section" tab at the top of the talk page. Next, the bot is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing and doesn't need tweaking (at least not in the case). The "problem" is that when you're adding the file to the KBLZ-FM article, you're not adding a corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular non-free use to the file's page. This is explained in the WP:NFC#Implementation link the bot is leaving in its edit summaries when it removes the file, but I'm pointing it here in case you missed those. Each use of a non-free file is required to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP, and one of these criteria (more specifically one part of one of these criteria) is WP:NFCC#10c. NFCC#10c requires that a separate specific non-free use rationale be required for each use of the file; so, if the same file is used more than once (either in the same article or in different articles), it requires a non-free use rationale for each of its uses. Since no rationale has been provided for the KBLZ article, the bot will keep removing it no matter how many times you re-add it. Per WP:NFCCE, it's the burden of the person wanting to use a non-free file in a particular way to provide a valid justification for its use (i.e. show how it satisfies all of the aforementioned ten criteria. Providing the required non-free use rationale is only one step, but it should stop the file from at least being removed by the bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Roohi Afza

Hello, I noticed that you deleted an article Roohi Afza, under G5, which was also created by me. I want you to restore my creation edit. Mr. Smart LION 09:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, Mr. Smart LION! I somehow missed the first entry in the page history. History merged pages (there's quite a few merges in that one) end up with multiple 'creators', and I arrived there from AR.Dmg's contributions where he's listed as creating the page. I've reversed my incorrect deletion. — JJMC89 04:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

RE: Cuban Revolutionary Navy

Hi, I notice that this article was deleted due to it being created by a banned user. I was wondering if it would it be Ok to turn this article into a redirect to Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces#Cuban Revolutionary Navy (Marina de Guerra Revolucionaria, MGR), so that any other articles that link to the deleted one can reach the existing page on this topic?— Nohomers48 (talkcontribs) 15:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Go for it – you're free to create a redirect or write an article. — JJMC89 03:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Cheers for that, I felt it would be good to clarify first in any case.— Nohomers48 (talkcontribs) 04:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you please block user: for disruptive editing (second offense). CLCStudent (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked (earlier) — JJMC89 02:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Municipality BR

Hi, you just closed the TfD about {{Infobox Municipality BR}}. I don't think this discussion was ready for closing, because it had several flaws:

  • the discussion was started in a holiday season, in which I had very limited access to internet, so I could not repute some of the IMO wrong statements done by other users, including the nominator
  • the (anonymous) nominator did not put a tfd tag on the template, so I only found out about the tfd when another user tagged it some days later
  • the nominator did not notify me, as creator of the template
  • I suspect the only participant to the discussion that actually contributed to Brazilian municipality articles is me
  • some statements in the discussion were irrelevant or really wrong, for instance:
    • in Brazil time offset is not determined by the state (IP, probably the nominator) - yes it is, see Time in Brazil, the only exception is a part of the state Amazonas. This false argument convinced other users to opt for "replace and delete"
    • No other Infobox settlement wrapper used in Latin America (nominator) - irrelevant, Brazil has by far the most municipalities of all Latin American countries (5000+)
    • Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template (nominator) - this argument has been used in several previous discussions (like the ones about French and German municipality infoboxes), and was not convincing then
    • Except for a minority of municipalities, Brazil uses Infobox settlement (nominator) - when I created this template, this was not the case. Most articles did not have an infobox at all.
    • Then he converted some pages from Infobox settlement to his new box (IP, probably the nominator) - irrelevant, it is quite reasonable to replace a general infobox template with a dedicated infobox template
    • the "Brazil place infobox usage by type" table (nominator) - irrelevant, this discussion was about the template for municipalities. There are far more municipalities than states, regions, etc., so for those other subdivisions there is less benefit of a dedicated wrapper template

See also previous discussions about Infobox French commune, Infobox German location and Infobox Albanian settlement (the latter tfd was probably nominated by the same anonymous user, who apparently has a problem with templates I created en masse). Regards, Markussep Talk 09:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  • the discussion was started in a holiday season, in which I had very limited access to internet, so I could not repute some of the IMO wrong statements done by other users, including the nominator - personal holiday season is hardly a reason in any TfD
  • did not put a tfd tag on the template - because it was edit protected?
  • the nominator did not notify me, as creator of the template - is there any policy about it? If you are still interested in Brazil municipalities or have the template on your watch list, you would have found it, not?
  • I suspect the only participant to the discussion that actually contributed to Brazilian municipality articles is me - but certainly you are not the only one having contributed to Brazilian municipality articles and maybe the dozens of other contributors to Brazilian municipality articles that did not use your template were not aware of the discussion, because your template even in 2019 was never seen by them, not to speak of on their watchlists?
  • in Brazil time offset is not determined by the state - This false argument convinced other users to opt for "replace and delete" - is it false? No, it isn't as the case of Amazonas state demonstrates, and it can happen for other states as well. No law is prohibiting it. But your extra structure makes it harder for editors to edit that information - especially if data is stored in the template itself - which as stated above is edit protected ... and where is your proof that this convinced "other users"? Especially, when only two voted, one before you made your time zone statement, and the other with a longer reasoning...
  • No other Infobox settlement wrapper used in Latin America - irrelevant - well, no, because people editing Latin American entities will not have to learn how this extra template works ... Brazil has by far the most municipalities of all Latin American countries (5000+) - what is the argument here? "Municipalities of Mexico: 2448", double of that means "by far"? Then what is six- or nine-fold as in Townships of China: "In 1995 there were 29,502 townships and 17,532 towns (a total of 47,034 township-level divisions) in China"? - and all of China use Infobox settlement....
  • Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template - this argument has been used in several previous discussions (like the ones about French and German municipality infoboxes), and was not convincing then - "several previous" - and then you pick two discussions, "French and German municipality infoboxes" - which have above 10000 transclusions ({{Infobox French commune}} 37,458; {{Infobox German location}} 13,381) and are used for all items of the type they are made for - below is a list of some of the templates that have been deleted recently, maybe you find some case where that reasoning was convincing
  • Except for a minority of municipalities, Brazil uses Infobox settlement - when I created this template, this was not the case. Most articles did not have an infobox at all. - "Brazil uses Infobox settlement" does mean, if there is an infobox, then it is Infobox settlement.
  • Then he converted some pages from Infobox settlement to his new box - irrelevant, it is quite reasonable to replace a general infobox template with a dedicated infobox template - but not if this is not generally accepted. And even in 2019 it was not done for all municipalities, only in three states (!!!) over 50% of the entities had your box. Elsewhere it was as if usage was randomly distributed, some no box, most Infobox settlement and few Infobox Municipality BR.
  • the "Brazil place infobox usage by type" table (nominator) - irrelevant, this discussion was about the template for municipalities. There are far more municipalities than states, regions, etc., so for those other subdivisions there is less benefit of a dedicated wrapper template - that does not make the argument irrelevant. E.g. for Germany there is - you yourself cited indirectly - "German location" which is used for different types of entities. For Brazil one type was picked. What is next, Infobox Neighbourhood BR, that may have even more entities to stick it on?
  • See also previous discussions about Infobox French commune, Infobox German location and Infobox Albanian settlement ... and as announced before it follows the list of some of the wrappers that have been deleted since ca. August/November 2018
Some of the deleted wrappers since ca. August/November 2018
Some items blue in the list, due to redirects
Template Transclusion count
{{Infobox Austrian district}} 88
{{Infobox Bangladesh district}} 63
{{Infobox Belgium settlement}} 31
{{Infobox Bulgarian province}} 30
{{Infobox Canton}} 27
{{Infobox Chaco}} 25
{{Infobox Chilean region}} 16
{{Infobox County Romania}} 19
{{Infobox District PT}} 17
{{Infobox District Slovakia}} 80
{{Infobox Egyptian Governorate}} 29
{{Infobox England region}} 11
{{Infobox Finnish former municipality}} 82
{{Infobox French region}} 32
{{Infobox fylke}} 20
{{Infobox Fylkeskommune}} 19
{{Infobox German Regierungsbezirk}} 33
{{Infobox German state}} 23
{{Infobox Greek prefecture}} 13
{{Infobox Helsinki subdivision}} 90
{{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} 306
{{Infobox Kelurahan}} 1
{{Infobox Kenya county}} 3
{{Infobox Korean settlement}} 448
{{Infobox Latvian district}} 28
{{Infobox Latvian municipalities}} 114
{{Infobox London Borough}} 34
{{Infobox Luxembourg commune}} 119
{{Infobox Luxembourg former commune}} 20
{{Infobox Maldives}} 234
{{Infobox Maldives atoll}} 30
{{Infobox Neighborhood Portland OR}} 95
{{Infobox Nepal district}} 75
{{Infobox Omaha Neighborhood}} 1
{{Infobox Palestine municipality}} 434
{{Infobox Partido Argentina}} 214
{{Infobox Peru region}} 26
{{Infobox Philippine region}} 18
{{Infobox Prefecture Japan}} 55
{{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}} 29
{{Infobox Province Peru}} 191
{{Infobox Province Spain}} 38
{{Infobox Province TR}} 81
{{Infobox region of Italy}} 21
{{Infobox Russian city district}} 1
{{Infobox Russian governorate}} 40
{{Infobox Scotland council area}} 35
{{Infobox Scotland county}} 23
{{Infobox Singapore neighbourhood}} 119
{{Infobox South African municipality}} 296
{{Infobox South African town}} 2,114
{{Infobox St. Louis neighborhood}} 79
{{Infobox Town AT}} 2,411
{{Infobox townlands}} 87
{{Infobox UAE community}} 83
{{Infobox Ukrainian oblast}} 26
{{Infobox Ukrainian raion}} 400
{{Infobox Uruguayan Department}} 19
{{Infobox Venezuelan municipality}} 216
{{Infobox Venezuelan state}} 23
{{Infobox Vienna District}} 27 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox has country-specific code, for instance automatic time zones if state is given." : why would timezone information not be relevant for other things than municipalities? Why would that be coded into an infobox, so there is information in articles, in Wikidata and additionally - for some municipalities - in an infobox? (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Established practice - Articles having Infobox settlement before fork/wrapper creation, examples:
  1. 2009-06-22 (!!! i.e. long ago), conversion from Infobox City to Infobox settlement (i.e. even longer ago a world-wide usable template was in use):,,,,,,,,,,_S%C3%A3o_Paulo&diff=prev&oldid=297956626,,, ... (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
To address your list of points, Markussep:
  • Your (or anyone's) holidays are irrelevant.
  • The discussion was closed more than seven days after the template was tagged, so I hardly see how the delay matters.
  • Notification, while a good idea, is not required.
  • Irrelevant
  • You should have pointed those out in the discussion, not here on my talk page. Just because you don't find something to be convincing doesn't mean that others also don't.
I'm not going to weigh other IB discussions into this. You'll find many other discussion where the result was the same as this one. — JJMC89 03:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record to have it in one thread, some research regarding the en masse (probably not a neutral wording) wrapper creation by Markussep:

  1. currently there are 27 wrappers [2], either they have been created 2010 or before, or they have been created 2014 by Markussep:
    1. 17 March 2014 : Cape Verde
    2. 19 August 2014 : Portugal
    3. 18 December 2014 : Albania
  2. of those deleted I only know
    1. 13 October 2015 {{Infobox Municipality BR}}
  3. On his user page under "I've been working on:" there are five boxes, one deleted, so creator and creaation time not public:
    1. Deletion discussion, the only participant not supporting deletion was Markussep: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 17#Template:Infobox Town AT - but it seems to have existed already in 2007

I did not check other deletion discussions. (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Samuel Kunz

Hello JJMC89, I still wait for an answer about the entry Samuel Kunz. I have made several proposals from which a new entry would be the best guess. What are your thoughts, your proposals? I would be grateful for a timely response to continue. Thank you.

Rudyguy21 (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2019/July".