User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/June

Active discussions

Total Eclipse (web series)

It is a shame that this was deleted. The series has has significant press coverage in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Forbes, Los Angeles Times, ABC News, Seventeen, Paper, and Good Housekeeping. Can you give me access to the previous version, and I'll brush up the references? Thanks -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:   Done I've undeleted the article. — JJMC89 03:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I've added some refs and cleaned up the plot and cast sections. Do we need to update the AfD discussion? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

FK Novi Pazar 1928

Can l work FK Novi Pazar 1928. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunčević Bekir (talkcontribs) 01:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the page history. — JJMC89 01:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


Hey J89, I saw you were the deleting admin. on the MfD's of Portal:Xbox 360. That portal have 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) 17:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 01:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding non-free reduce templates

See [1]. If you're using something that generates a list of article maybe add a check that non-free manual reduce isn't in the categories. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Arg. There's too many reduce templates. I also found {{non-free manual svg reduce}}, which I merged to {{non-free manual reduce}}. — JJMC89 01:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
What's the limit there? I'll just tag those for manual directly. — JJMC89 01:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Bots template

Could you please explain why you are removing {{bots}} from a large number of articles? The reasoning is not clear from your edit summary. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That depends on the article. Generally, either the template is being misused (e.g. the bot never edited the article) or the issue it was added for is (or should be) resolved. — JJMC89 02:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
What leads you to believe that the issue it was added for has or should be resolved? Given the speed at which you are making those edits, I would be surprised if you would have the time to consider what the issue may even have been. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
In most cases the bot didn't edit the page, which is trivial to check. For issues like the one Citation bot was having with CiteSeerX links, it is easy to tell this was the problem from the bot's edit or an HTML comment. — JJMC89 03:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
In most of the cases you are removing, no HTML comment was present. Looking at the documentation for {{bots}}, I see no requirement that the bot edit the page prior to the template being added, so I am not sure on what basis you have concluded that the bot not having previously edited the page is a valid reason to remove the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
See the three billeted points at the top. In particular, in the encyclopedia spaces: (articles) Avoid using the template as a blunt instrument; If the bot hasn't edited the page, it is being used as a blunt instrument. Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community; Remove the template tag once the underlying problem has been resolved. This implies that there is a problem that needs to be resolved, which can't be true if the bot hasn't edited the article. — JJMC89 03:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. An editor can have a good-faith reason to believe that the bot would cause problems if it did edit the page, without it already having done so - for example, many of the cases you are removing were added after the bot edited pages with similar types of citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
In other words, FUD. Systematic issues like that, if they exist, should be addressed by the operator. — JJMC89 03:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
They should. But when the bot's operator refuses to address such issues, and its maintainers explicitly point to bots deny as a reason why they don't need to address those concerns, that is a legitimate use of the template. --Xover (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Like Nikkimaria, Xover and Sturmvogel, I am concerned by your mass-removal of the bots template from many articles, and also by the usage of misleading edit summaries such as "Remove {{bots}} being used as blunt instrument contrary to the documentation".
In those cases I checked the template was rightfully added to keep Citation bot from causing (further) damage to articles. This bot has meanwhile lost its credibility among many serious editors because it carries out a large number of edits which are either unnecessary, questionable, for which there is no community consensus, and for which the bot was never approved. Further, this bot allows anonymous edits, and the operators and maintainers have been mostly unresponsive to address complaints and fix issues raised on the talk page. In my experience, it has turned out to be a waste of time trying to work with the maintainers. Raised concerns are frequently just archived away as "no issue", even if raised multiple times and by different people.
Having to clean up and fix articles after bots is among the most stupid ways to waste time which could better be spent on other article work. Bots either work near perfectly, or they must be fixed or ditched. Unfortunately, Citation bot is meanwhile very far away from that. Consequently, the only reasonable measure next to forcing a global block of the bot is to permanently deny access to individual pages once it has created damage (or if it likely to create damage in the future). Removing these blocks is highly counter-productive and causes even more unnecessary work for those who actually contribute to articles.
Since the templates were added by humans for a reason, please consider a self-revert, unless you are absolutely sure that the issue for why it was added is fixed forever. If both cannot be had at the same time, it is always much better to keep a bot from editing a page (even permanently) than to lose human contributors out of frustration over having to fight against a bot instead of working collaboratively with other editors.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
In most (all?) of the cases with that edit summary, the bot never edited the article leading up to it being added (or ever). The bot may (or may not) make a new edit that someone doesn't like at some unspecified point in the future. You make a better case for the bot remaining blocked (systemic issues that the operator/maintainers won't fix) than using the template. — JJMC89 01:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
JJMC, I realize you don't mean it that way, but using the term FUD to refer to your fellow editors' concerns comes across to the recipient as dismissive and hostile. "FUD" has a reasonably narrow definition, and can be appropriate to use colloquially when refering to one of the tech giants or similar impersonal entities, but not when applied to other individual volunteers in a discussion. In fact, if they were actually engaging in FUD they would be engaged in disruptive and bad-faith behaviour, so there is actually an implicit accusation of violating policy in using such a term (i.e. it would technically fall under NPA). If what you mean is that you are unconvinced by their arguments or assess probabilities or risks of future harm differently then they (as I assume is the intent), then please just say that rather than use this term. To extrapolate from previously observed bad edits to probable future bad edits is in no way shape or form "FUD"; it is entirely reasonable and rational behaviour (one of the things that separate thinking beings, in fact). One may reasonably disagree with the probability of those future bad edits happening, or the net risk (predicated on the severity of the consequence should it happen), but that does not invalidate the argument, you just disagree with it.
In any case, if it weren't for the systemic issues outlined below and at WP:AN, the template would not be needed because the bot would not be making edits for which it had no authorization, reported bugs would be fixed when reported, and tasks that could not be fixed would be disabled. In general, making sure you have community consensus before mass-editing is a good way to avoid getting the community against you. The opposite is also true. --Xover (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of tags from FAs

Please do not remove tags. They are there for a purpose: see here. If you can find a better method of preventing such damage by a bot,that will be excellent, but if not the present defence is necessary. Tim riley talk 07:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of the Rossini article (the only one discussed there) I'd guess that most of them, including the ones that I removed, shouldn't have been added in the first place since the bot did not edit the article leading up to the template being added. — JJMC89 01:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
That is not actually a requirement of using the template. If you think it should be, you're welcome to propose that - but until then please don't enforce requirements that don't exist. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Nikkimaria, Tim riley and all the folks above who have asked you not to delete the templates. Editors who create high quality articles should not have to wait until the bot damages these articles before using the template to disable it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Blunt instrument comment

Please explain your reference to "Remove {{bots}} being used as blunt instrument contrary to the documentation". I read the documentation on bots and am wondering how it is even relevant to your action, much less justification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

That language comes from the template's documentation. It is in the first bullet near the top. If the bot never edited the article, then the template never should have been added in the first place. — JJMC89 01:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
It looks like nonsense to me. If you want to prevent a bot from performing unwanted changes, would you first have to let it do unwanted changes, then you will have to revert, and only then prevent more of the (insert strong word) by installing the template? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"blunt instrument" refers to 1) not blindly denying all bots due to problems with a single one, and 2) not simply denying a bot if the bot can be fixed instead. In this instance, when attempts to get the bot fixed have failed and there are, as you note, systemic issues related to its maintenance—and where there is not just a single bug but multiple problems and over time—using the template to specifically block this one bot from articles one has edited and where one has a reasonable expectation that problematic edits from the bot observed on other pages will be repeated, is about as surgical as can reasonably be expected. There is no requirement anywhere (not in the template's docs, much less anywhere that actually carries some authority like a policy or guideline) that a bot must have edited a page before applying this template, and, indeed, such a requirement would be nonsensical. We pre-emptively apply {{Use British English}} and company; we don't wait until someone comes along and changes an article into en-US spelling.
But never fear, I see that the bot's de facto maintainer is now busy running through all the articles with this template (presumably discovered through the links you provided in the WP:AN thread about it) and re-running the bot (in Gadget mode) on them, removing {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} in the process. That is, they are running the bot on articles that specifically exclude the bot, and are reverting the addition of the template without first initiating discussion to override the local consensus at that article to use it (my stress levels are high enough, I can't follow up on that issue as well, but "`nuff said"). But even ignoring that… questionable… behaviour, this means the bot will soon have edited all the articles in question, such that the template can safely be re-added. --Xover (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot

I started a thread at the administrator's noticeboard to try to find a way forward with this, and would welcome your participation there. UninvitedCompany 17:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

After extensive discussion at WP:AN, I have unblocked the bot, for reasons I explained at the end of the WP:AN thread. UninvitedCompany 17:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Category round-robin

Hello, JJMC89,

I'm working on some category redirects and ran into some crazy cycle of moving and deleting by Cydebot and JJMC89 bot III. Here's an example, check out the deletion history of Category:Republic of China military aircraft 1970–1979 and there are a few others. Can you figure out what happened here and if there are any categories/redirects that were deleted that shouldn't have been? Many thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. Here's a summary of the events.
  1. 00:36, 8 May 2019: Timrollpickering lists Category:Republic of China military aircraft 1970–1979 to Category:1970s Republic of China military aircraft at WP:CFD/W/L
  2. 06:09, 8 May 2019: Cydebot performs the move
  3. 1970s Republic of China military aircraft is emptied
  4. 02:40, 27 May 2019: Liz taggs 1970s Republic of China military aircraft for C1
  5. 03:53, 3 June 2019: Liz deletes 1970s Republic of China military aircraft per C1 (while it is still listed at WP:CFD/W/L)
  6. 04:15, 3 June 2019: JJMC89 bot III performs the move again (moves a redirect leaving a new redirect then deleting the redirect left behind)
  7. 06:27, 3 June 2019: JJMC89 disables the bots on CFD/W/L
  8. 06:30, 3 June 2019: JJMC89 reverts JJMC89 bot III's move (without leaving a redirect)
  9. 06:36, 3 June 2019: Cydebot performs the move again (moves a redirect leaving a new redirect then deleting the redirect left behind)
  10. 07:23, 4 June 2019: JJMC89 reverts Cydebot's move (without leaving a redirect) and reverts to the intended redirect
  11. 22:46, 4 June 2019: Liz deletes Republic of China military aircraft 1970–1979 per G8
Since Category:1970s Republic of China military aircraft wasn't moved after Cydebot's initial move, I don't know how or why it got emptied, but deleting it while the move was still listed at CFDW is what caused the erroneous bot moves. I do see that Category:1970s Republic of China civil aircraft and Category:1970s Chinese military transport aircraft (formerly Category:Chinese military transport aircraft 1970–1979) were emptied too. Without any contents (or existing redirect target) they should stay deleted. @Tom.Reding: Do you know what happened to the categorys' contents? — JJMC89 02:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I do not, and have purposefully stayed away from low-level managing these as I'm not familiar with them. I brought up the Republic of China, Slovakian, and Austro-Hungarian cats @ WT:AIR#~600 categories missing navigation discussion so that someone more knowledgeable there might do that detailed work.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
From recollection, a lot of the military aircraft tree is populated by templates and in some cases categories only contain categories. It's possible there are some parts that never found contents but also when such categories are moved it often takes time to update the templates (especially the more convoluted ones) and sometimes the category gets tagged for deletion before the contents have arrived. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, it looks like I might have screwed up. I never delete empty categories that are being discussed at CFD (and I even inquired about this issue on WP Talk:CFD) so I'm not sure what happened. Apologies if I erred somewhere along this tortured edit history. At this point, I care more about the result than the process so if everything that should be deleted is deleted and everything that is to be saved is saved, then I'm satisfied. Sorry for this bother. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion was closed and the result carried out. Since the neither the original category or the new category had the contents, I think everything is OK. I've updated my bot so that it won't move redirects. Since Cydebot will still move them, it is a good idea to either not delete categories listed at CFDW or check and remove the entry from CFDW before deleting. — JJMC89 04:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Mr JJMC89, I have a question, why did deleted Portal:Empire ? Portal:Empire I'm think it that great portal. Đông Minh (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It was a redirect to Portal:Empires, which was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox. — JJMC89 01:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you your answer! Đông Minh (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

reversed move

There is a pile on of deletes, each detailing a new and inventive means of delivering a personal attack on myself [2]. This is a solution, and it spares a living person getting slandered. Please view the discussion before making another decision, and spare another user from that unnecessary discourse. This is a solution. cygnis insignis 06:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


I sent you an email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Where should I copy my proposed changes to Template:Infobox time zone UTC?

Hi JJMC89, I couldn’t edit Template:Infobox time zone UTC because it’s locked and I’m not sure where to copy my proposed changes. Can you please show me the best place to put my proposed changes down, thank you. Lachlb (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes go in Template:Infobox time zone UTC/sandbox. — JJMC89 02:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NFCCE removals

Hi JJMC89. A logo files JJMC89 bot removed from articles like here are being re-added like this by CoatbridgeChancellor. The re-added files are still missing non-free use rationales, and a number of them were previously discussed at FFD or NFCR which is why they were removed. Could you take a look at these Maybe you could look at these and see if there an option to just removing them again? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. The bot would have removed them again eventually, but I reverted and left a warning. They shouldn't be (mass) adding them without rationales and definitely not at all if they were removed per FFD/NFCR. I'm not going to take a position on whether or not the logos are appropriate if a rationale were provided since I don't know anything about the organizations, but any applicable FFDs/NFCRs would need to be overturned first. I don't think there's much else we can do other than remove them unless we get repeat offenders, which could be blocked. — JJMC89 02:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks you for taking a look at these. I only removed files which had been previously removed per FFD/NFCR; I left those just missing rationales as since I figured you or the bot would eventually get to them, or someone might possibly add a rationale. Regarding the over turning of previous closes, an argument is being made at WT:FOOTY that this might have already been done; if that's the case, then I have no problem going back and re-adding the files I removed, and then even adding rationales for the files missing ones and then re-adding them as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

tracking categories on template

Hello I wonder if you could help me please. I created the Template:s2a3 name based on Template:NPG name, Since I create s2a3 the NPG template has had some improvements to allow it to harvest data from wikidata, I have tried to make s2a3 do the same. It does seem to work, but I'm having trouble with the tracking categories. Could you please edit Template:s2a3 name so that the tracking categories work correctly. Many thanks Wayne Jayes (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 02:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm very grateful!! Wayne Jayes (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Habibani and Habibani

Hello, again, JJMC89,

I ran into Habibani which had been speedied by Creffett because it was a copy of Draft:Habibani. But when I looked at that page, it says you did a history merge with those two pages. So, in that case, that is not a valid reason for deletion. I think you know more about the evolution of this article and whether it is correctly tagged with as a CSD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I've removed the speedy deletion template now since I forgot to earlier. It was valid, but I history merged it instead of moving. — JJMC89 05:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for straightening this out. Next thing? I have to learn how to do a history merge! I've never been asked to do one but it would be convenient to know. Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Un-drafting Draft:Indigo (Chris Brown album)

I don't know if you have seen the various pings at Draft talk:Indigo (Chris Brown album) and WP:RM/TR, but please un-draft the article. It should not have been moved back to draftspace due to a decision for an old version of the page. Why are you maintaining a decision that was made three weeks ago when anyone can see more details have come to light and more articles have been published? You also unnecessarily protected Indigo (Chris Brown album) for reasons I don't understand. It wasn't "repeatedly recreated", it was moved back into mainspace now that it has a cover, release date, track list and plenty of news sources, which all meets various criteria of WP:NALBUMS. Please undo your move. Thank you. Ss112 03:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I see I have a ping to the draft talk page but hadn't gotten to look at it yet. (Danny's ping attempt didn't work.) It has been repeatedly created, but the history doesn't show it since I had to split then merge multiple page histories to get the real history into one page. I'll reply on the draft talk page. — JJMC89 04:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Indigo (Chris Brown album)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Indigo (Chris Brown album). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Because you drafted the article again. Ss112 01:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Steven Ronald Jensen


Don't shout, its rude. Wikipedia does not permit the use of non-free images in that way. Use of an album cover in an article that is not about the album, almost always fails to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. See WP:NFC#CS, WP:NFCI#1, and WP:NFC#UUI#2 for more information. — JJMC89 03:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Bunch of edit requests

Hi JJMC89, can you look over all the ".. icon" pages here: User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable - looks like you were the last editor on them. — xaosflux Talk 22:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ACC Access request


I had been active in WP:ACC having handled quite a few requests. Due to personal reasons, I was not active in any wikimedia project for about 10 months (including being inactive in the tool of course) leading to my account being suspended. However I am now back and plan to stick around, and would like to continue helping out in this venue. I have read the guide again, and my access to nonpublic personal data has been restored after me signing the new agreement, so I would like to request that my account is unsuspended and my +accountcreator flag is restored.

Thanks in advance! --Kostas20142 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kostas20142:   Done Please check your email. — JJMC89 05:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, most common, I get it

Most common for the whole page... Makes sense. I took it to mean most common for the section which I guess doesn't work. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Citations for Biographies of Living Person

Hi, I'm not sure what the issue was with my citations? Additionally, I'm not sure what on the page violated copyright. I copy-pasted from a word document that I wrote. Can you also clarify if the issue was with the citations or with the copyright? I'm confused from the history on the page. To clarify, I mean what is the copyright violation that still exists after the user Bledwith removed the information from thanks.Ataylorg (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with the content the you added.
  1. Copyright violations from multiple sources:,
    Bledwith removed copying from the first, and I removed copying from the second. In regard to you copying from a document that you wrote, you must have copied material when you wrote that document.
  2. Unsourced (particularly personal information) about a living person
  3. Citations not supporting the material that you claim (by citing them) that they do
  4. Name-dropping, especially supported by primary sources
— JJMC89 23:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

added media rational to File:IPadOS 13 Screenshot.png

Hi @JJMC89:, you flagged File:IPadOS 13 Screenshot.png as needing a non-free media rationale, and just wanted to let you know that I added one. GeekInParadise (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot - admin message list

I wanted to let you know that there may be a bug in the bot's task to update Wikipedia:Administrators/Message list. In the extremely unlikely event that the case arises again, it appears to fail on admins who are desysopped and then resysopped within 24 hours - see Special:Diff/901596499. The actual change was only 1 removed, but the summary was Update MassMessage list: 1 added, 2 removed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only does it have to happen on the same date, but there needs to be some other change on that date too. If it were a quick change, I'd fix it, but I don't think it is. If I hadn't already known what happened with Floq, the change count would have made me check it out. — JJMC89 00:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Change bot instructions?

This bot edit is basically correct, since we shouldn't display nonfree images in projectspace. But would you be able to give the bot special instructions for Graphics Lab pages? There needs to be some sort of link to an image in order for the graphist to know what image to work on, and entirely removing the image leaves the graphist unable to do anything without combing through the page history. I wonder if you could instruct the bot to replace a file display with a link (e.g. changing [[File:Example.jpg]] to [[:File:Example.jpg]]), so that the image remains easily accessible? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not keen on adding special cases for certain pages. Namespaces, maybe, if its really necessary. For the Graphics Lab, its not something simple to change since the conversion would be from <gallery>...</gallery>, which could contain multiple free and/or non-free files, to image syntax, not just inserting a colon. The header and editintro for new requests have a reminder to use {{GLNF}} for non-free media. I just added it to the preload too. Maybe that will be sufficient? — JJMC89 01:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) There is a template {{GLNF}} which can be used at WP:GL/P. It says so at the top of the page, but this often get's overlooked by people posting requests and those answering requests. I've occasionally gone in there and converted the file syntax to this template, but I don't use a bot. Perhaps there's a way to strengthen the wording of the GL page's header to further emphasize that non-free files can be discussed, but that they should use the GLNF template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

PKP Pecheneg machine gun

@JJMC89: Hi! There seems to have been a slight Snickers with the PKP Pecheneg machine gun page in that I raised a copyvio at the same time as contacting the original author of the text in question by email. He emailed me back to say he was fine with it as long as his website containing the relevant text was properly cited and sourced (this appears to have been the case, though that depends on whether "properly" was really prominent enough). Based on his email, I removed the copyvio tag and explained the situation on the appropriate page.

Unfortunately, a day or two later the text in question and all references to it were deleted anyway, which wasn't quite the outcome I'd intended nor anticipated. Can the deletion be undone? Should it be undone? As someone who's just an occasional editor it's been a rather confusing experience so if you can clarify things that would be most welcome. --Vometia (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Vometia. I think you might find the information contained in Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources helpful. If the website is considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, then you might be able to summarize relevant content from the website in your own words and then cite it as the source. Copying and pasting content from the website, however, is going to require verification that's goes beyond simple verbal or email permission per WP:MYTEXT between you and the website's creator. Even then, it might not be a good idea to copy and paste such content because content written on external websites tends to be written in a way that doesn't comply with WP:NPOV or other parts of MOS:MOS, which means it might end up being re-written by someone else anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much Marchjuly! (I hope I've got this pinging thing right...) Your explanation is very helpful and I think it also helps settle my own remaining ambivalence about whether the page should've contained almost verbatim text from someone else's website. In this instance I assume the original is a reliable source as the author is widely recognised as an authority on the subject and is a published author about the same, but even without that concern your other points remain. --Vometia (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 June 10. If you still want to use the text and the author puts an appropriate notice on their website or emails OTRS, then please let me know. — JJMC89 00:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks JJMC89. That answers yet another thing I wasn't really sure about! I did ask in reply to his reply if he has such a notice on his website but he hasn't (yet) responded. I think I shall leave the matter until such a time as he does so rather than pestering him or anybody else any further. Thanks again, both of you, and apologies for blundering about in a rather confused state! It has been a learning experience for me. :) --Vometia (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


Request userifcation of article Yubnub ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YubNub (2nd nomination) I had already run added one link but reFill didnt work on that link and I needed to work it manually and had lost track of it, IAbot has also being playing up as well which while not relevant here is relevant for some others at AfD. Unfortunately nom. had nominated several articles for deletion and I didn't have a case ready for this one, I'd added one decent ref to the article and it's also on WikiBooks and WikiData. One option is I will work this , a second is a more generic something like Web search command line tools in which case it might be a redirect. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Another review I forgot to add was here ... something RL turned up. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that it is notable, but   Done at User:Djm-leighpark/YubNub. — JJMC89 05:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Akihabara massacre

Hi!, I thought it was a unique event of the massacre and needed to be addressed since Kato is never shown in the article and unfortunately he has not yet been executed so we could use a fair use of him. Delete it freely if you think so. I am getting used to hostility on Wikipedia, from people not paying attention to FP candidates needing feedback to tagging without warning. But, still, a nice place. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty standard arrest to me, which can be covered by (free) prose. The article can be understood easily without it. — JJMC89 05:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


Hi admin! The page Jawani Phir Nahi Ani (film series) was recreated by Ahmed mohid (sock of blocked Sabeeh butt) following same violations. Kindly check again, thanks! :) M. Billoo 16:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked — JJMC89 16:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for helping out at CfD and being willing to copy over my NACs DannyS712 (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! — JJMC89 02:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


I usually don’t like talk to other users like this but after what I ended up seeing. I practically wish I never signed up here sometimes. That Al-Quaeda thing just scares me. The sniper scares me. I know he might've said it as a threat. But it just scares on how evil some Wikipedians can be. I never thought I would ever see something like that in my entire existence. I really am glad that you helped take care of the problem because he could've said something worse. I'll be scared for a couple of days because of that writing. A.R.M. 03:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@ARMcgrath: I've emailed the Wikimedia Foundation about the threat, and it has already been hidden. Unfortunately, we can see the worst of people sometimes. — JJMC89 03:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Bepositiveraces

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 02:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

MCQ discussions

Hi JJMC89. Some files that JJMC89_bot removed were posted about at MCQ yesterday (WP:MCQ#How could I use an image for more of one related article?). Feel free to clarify or correct any of the responses I gave, but it seems to be pretty standard stuff. Also, YGM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I removed the Revolution one from the Hasbro articles. But yea, standard 10c removals. I saw the email – I'll look into it when I've got time. — JJMC89 04:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. I think the specific issue mentioned in the email is being discussed now, right? If not, poke me about it. — JJMC89 02:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Military of the United States

Hey Looks like your script is removing the wrong links. See for example. Did I miss something? Hydromania (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, Hydromania. Apparently Xunlink doesn't like {{subject bar}}. I've gone through my contributions and fixed the errors from today. — JJMC89 05:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Permitted size for File:Best Georgians GPB ad December 2008 redo.png?

Hi. I uploaded File:Best Georgians GPB ad December 2008 redo.png, and I intentionally used a large enough size to (I hoped) overcome objections that an earlier image (File:Best Georgians GPB ad December 2008.png) was too small to convey any useful information for the article in which it appeared. I understand the concerns in general about using a too-detailed image under non-free circumstances, but if this one is replaced by something significantly smaller, I'll probably get the same objection all over again. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. I'll try resizing the image to 320x240, and add a rationale for not going any smaller to the image's talk page. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Generally, non-free images should be no larger than 100,000 px (0.1 MP). There is more detail at WP:IMAGERES. I don't think either one satisfies criterion 8 though. — JJMC89 01:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Reduced image size for Ely Marathon

Thanks JJMMC89! I uploaded the reduced size. Can you delete the old version for me? Not sure how to do that. Comm260 ncu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 04:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A free image could be created...

So does that mean that anything that exists somewhere in the world is off limits for fair use, because someone could create an image of it? It doesn't matter how inaccessible? File:Kong ring (គង់រេង) tube zither.jpg Jacqke (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly. It is about a free equivalent being possible. (See WP:NFCC#1 and WP:FREER.) For something like an instrument, someone (local) could freely license a photograph a photo that they take. — JJMC89 05:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Jitp33 and copyvios

Hi JJMC89. Would you mind taking a look at Jitp33 and perhaps try advising him about WP:COPY? I've tried before at User talk:Jitp33#Last warning, but they just made this edit and re-added the file again. They seem to have problems with also with c:COM:L as well since they just uploaded File:अखिल भारतीय फुटबॉल महासंघ.jpg as "own work" and tried to use it here. Their Commons user talk is pretty much nothing but image-related notifications (including one where bascially the same file was previously deleted as a copyvio) so this doesn't seem to be a first time mistake. As always, they can discuss the FFD close with the closing admin (I mentioned this as well at User talk:Jitp33#Non-free use of File:All India Football Federation 2016.png), but they don't seem to have tried that yet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

They don't seem to be willing to respond to any of the many concerns on their talk page, so I've blocked them. — JJMC89 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Seal of Baguio

HI! Would just like to clarify the removal of the seal of Baguio recently? Thanks!--Ejeigh123 (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific than that. — JJMC89 07:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


I believe I have enough experience to use JWB. Could you review my request of AWB? Masum Reza📞 06:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No. Stop hat collecting and admin shopping. — JJMC89 07:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I will stop. But I believe I already have demonstrated that I will actually use JWB to help improve Wikipedia. Masum Reza📞 07:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2019/June".