User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/March

Active discussions

Blocked user: is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Access revoked. Thanks for letting me know. — JJMC89 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


You template-protected this module, but it only has two transclusions. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


  The Admin's Barnstar
For various and sundry, dating to long before you were an administrator. Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, 99! — JJMC89 03:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User Talk:

You may wish to remove TPA. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblock declined by Huon. — JJMC89 03:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Greyhound logo on Orange County, Florida

Your bot needs to STOP removing the Greyhound logo from Orange County, Florida public transportation section, see the page 'Greyhound_UK_logo.png#Licensing' for the rationale why it can be used on the above mentioned article and the main Greyhound Lines Wikipedia articles. Further, be advised if this bot does another revert it will be in violation of the 3RR rule it will be reported to Wikipedia admins for action. Your cooperation is appreciated. YborCityJohn (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you need to stop violating policy, specifically criteria 8 and 10c. — JJMC89 03:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
and you just violated the 3RR rule. YborCityJohn (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
No, again. See WP:3RRNO#5. — JJMC89 05:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for help

Thanks for help with the history-merging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy to help, Anthony. — JJMC89 20:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Wikipedia:Blocking policy

Did you read the edit summary? C2216a (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes — JJMC89 20:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

  Thanks for revdelling those draft CVs! SITH (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing. RD1 requests seem to be backlogged lately. — JJMC89 20:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Port Vila Premier League

Yes, you and @Zackmann08: were correct (I got it mixed up with {{Port Vila Football League}}) but your close was potentially a SUPERVOTE and you should have waited for others to comment/me to change my !vote. GiantSnowman 07:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

My comment was en explanation of why your !vote was discounted when closing the discussion. — JJMC89 20:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for approving the Jeff Oster article!

I really appreciate your support. I am feeling more confident to move ahead on further articles! Meta in MA (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't approve it. I only removed the unneeded templates from the page. — JJMC89 23:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 MAAC Men's Basketball Tournament

File:2015_MAAC_BBall_Logo.jpg was removed by your bot for no valid non-free use rationale for this page. The 2015 logo has been the same used for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 Men's and Women's basketball tournaments. They are exactly the same logo. So should I load new logos for each season and just waste space? Or is there an easier way to edit the image? Brian (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Brian. The files were removed per WP:NFCCE because they lacked the non-free use rationales required by WP:NFCC#10c. Each time a non-free file is used, a non-free use rationale specific to that particular use needs to be added to the file’s page. So, for example, if a non-free file is being used in two different articles or two times in the same article, two non-free use rationales need to be provided. Just providing the missing non-free use rationale, however, is not always sufficient per WP:JUSTONE; the non-free use needs to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria, which is something that can be hard to do for multiple uses of the same file. For sporting competition logos such as these, the use in the main infobox of the main article about the competition is generally considered acceptable, but using the same logo in a similar manner in articles about individual seasons or occurrences of the event is typically not allowed per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. For individual event articles, a logo specific to that particular season is preferred instead; moreover, if such a logo doesn’t exist, the default is not to automatically use the main event logo. There are sometimes cases where a second use of a logo might be allowed, but none of them seem applicable with respect to these logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
So I guess just upload the same image 4 times to be used on 4 different pages is the answer. Thanks. Brian (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bgredmchn: No, that's not the answer and doing such a thing would likely lead to the additional files being deleted per WP:NFCC#3. If there are specific logos for each individual tournament (sometimes there are tournament year specific logos such as for the NCAA tournament or some conference tournaments like the Big 10 or the ACC), then uploading the logos for the specific years and using them in the corresponding articles would probably be OK; however, if there are not separate logos for each year, then the automatic default is not to simply use the same logo over and over and over again. If you feel that the use of this logo in the various individual season articles is justified per WP:NFCC, then you should add the missing non-free use rationales explaining why to the already existing file's page.
However, Wikipedia's non-free content use is quite restrictive as explained in WP:NFC#Background and, as I mentioned above, this type of non-free use is generally not considered acceptable. There have been similar discussions about similar non-free use over the years at WP:NFCR and WP:FFD, and the consensus has been not to allow the usage unless there is something specific about the logo to the particular year (e.g. an anniversary logo, or a change in branding) which is the subject of sourced commentary somewhere in the article; so, someone who disagrees with the rationales can challenge them either by starting a discussion at WP:FFD or by tagging the files with Template:di-disputed fair use rationale. In either of those cases, it will be up to you to show how these additional uses satisfy all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP and establish a consensus that they do. The MACC does seem to have separate year-specific logos for other the championships of other sports like baseball, soccer, women's soccer, track and field, etc., so maybe they have such logos for basketball; if they don't, however, then that's on them, not Wikipedia; and, that's not automatically a reason for re-using the same non-free logo in multiple articles about the tournament. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding UPE Tag

Hello, How and when UPE tag is removed if added on a page? Can editing with more reliable sources help in it. Please tell. :-) Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It can be removed when the article satisfies our content policies. That can help depending on the issue. In many cases the sources are unreliable or not independent or the language and/or content is promotional. — JJMC89 20:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou a lot

Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding OTRS permission

Hello JJMC89, I had applied for an OTRS permission via mail. Would you plz check and assist? Ticket link is here. Thank you. --Gpkp (utc) 07:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't know what and why this permission is required? Could you tell me what it is JJMC89?
Masum Rezatalk 09:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Masumrezarock100:, OTRS is to verify and archive licensing permissions of media files hosted in Commons. More info can be found here.--Gpkp (utc) 18:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gpkp: The ticket was closed by another agent since we received a bounce when the automatic reply was sent. I also question whether the images are in scope. — JJMC89 03:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89, Thank you for the replying the status. We have contacted the hosting's customer-care to fix the DNS-zone mail-bounce issue. Will mail another soon on same images. Please see whether they can be considered under the scope as because they belong to many events, cube arts etc. --Gpkp (utc) 16:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89, we have resent the permission mail from the same email-id (once after fixing the dns-zone issue which caused mail bounce). Request you to check. Thank you. (pinging Krd)
--Gpkp (utc) 16:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The new email didn't bounce, so that's good. I'm going to let someone else handle the ticket. Perhaps Krd will since you've pinged him. — JJMC89 20:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you JJMC89. --Gpkp (utc) 15:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Article review: Sabana Grande (Caracas)

Hey. The Wikipedia article Sabana Grande, Caracas has been vandalised by Jamez42. 100,000 characters have been deleted and several quotes/sources from relevant authors and academicians.

Please, I kindly ask you to review the article.

--QuinteroP (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@QuinteroP: Why did you write to 14 editors and didn't ping me? The edit was not vandalism, and you have already opened a peer review of the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It was not vandalism. I'm not going to get involved. — JJMC89 04:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


Could you please explain why you decided to close Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 March 5#File:Silvercitycasino.jpg as delete? Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Neither use satisfied all of the WP:NFCC as was made clear by Whpq. As you explained, the source does not specify a specific free license. As you know, it must have a specific free license or satisfy all of the NFCC. If someone is able to get a specific free license specified or write an appropriate rationale, I'll be happy to undelete it. — JJMC89 04:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Article           = Silver City Casino
| Portion           = The entire image is used in order to show the building's sign and facade
| Low resolution    = The image is at a high enough resolution for readers to identify the subject of the article but at a low enough resolution to not devalue the original work.
| Purpose           = The image is used to identify the subject of the article
| Replaceability    = As the building has been torn down, it would be difficult to create a free image that depicts the subject. No freely-licensed images of the building were found.
| Other information = 
Please copy the description (if useful) and the source from the deleted file page and restore the image to Silver City Casino. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I've restored it relisted the discussion. Thanks for providing the rationale. — JJMC89 01:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Could use your help--mass attack. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I'll look at the accounts/IPs in a bit. — JJMC89 00:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
They've migrated to Nicolai Reedtz. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
That one doesn't have much activity, so I'm leaving it unprotected for now. Please let me know if it starts up again. — JJMC89 01:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
For sure. Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk:WikiTalk

Why did you delete Talk:WikiTalk? My point, in this talk page, was - as per procedure - to ask for the undeletion of WikiTalk. Apokrif (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It was an orphaned talk page. Getting a page unsalted or undeleted does not involve posting on its talk page. Per the notice that you see attempting to edit WikiTalk, you should ask the protecting/deleting admin, Daniel Case. This is best done by creating a draft, e.g. Draft:WikiTalk, to demonstrate that an appropriate article can be written. If that doesn't resolve the issue, then deletion review is the next step. — JJMC89 20:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Adminstartion

Why you removed my answer there? Ted hamiltun (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you look at your edit? You removed other content from the page. — JJMC89 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Arena Pro Football.png

Hi JJMC89. Do you think this needs to be licensed as {{non-free logo}}? It seems fairly simple to me though the white lines in blue part might be intented to represent the stiching on a football or the yard lines of a football field. Even so, it still seems to be less complex that some of the examples given in c:COM:TOO#United States. If it really does need to be non-free, then the non-free use doesn't seem to meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Just for reference, same uploader as with these logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. It is probably below U.S. TOO. — JJMC89 01:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I'll be bold and convert to PD-logo. I'll found out soon enough if someone disagrees. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Yeeted Or Yote

I've warned this editor a couple of times about adding non-free files to User:Yeeted Or Yote/sandbox, the last time just yesterday when I also removed File:Secret Intelligence Service logo.svg from their sandbox. There was no response except to re-add the non-free file once again. I could bring this to ANI, but perhaps as an administrator and as an editor (actually it was your bot9 who has also removed non-free files from this sandbox, perhaps you might have better luck communicating with them. I'm not sure what they are doing in that sandbox, maybe testing or maybe WP:NOTWEBHOST kind of stuff, but they don't seem to be grasping that non-free content cannot be added to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Same file mentioned above re-added to sandbox after I removed it. JJMC89 bot removed it again and then the entire entry was removed by Yeeted Or Yote; so, maybe they are starting to understand. You've reverted these already, but those strange and random edits to User:SomeDudeWithAUserName, who has not be active sine 2011, made by Yeeted Or Yote might indicate that there's something else going on besides NFCC#9 stuff. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I've left a message. Please let me know if they add another non-free file. — JJMC89 01:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:PASL Pro Logo.png

Hi JJMC89. While I agree that this file doesn't meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4, it might be a good idea to watch the uploader's user talk to make sure a notification is posted about this. The last time some files got tagged like this (see User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/January#Discussion at User talk:Explicit#Arena Football League logos), FastilyBot failed to add any notification to the editor's user talk page; so, it would be good to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen again.

As you can see from User talk:NostalgiaBuff97501#Deciding to leave, this editor is feeling frustrated that others are taking issue with some of his contibutions. While I do think there are issues that need addressing, perhaps it might be best to try a more friendly approach in explaining why these issues are being pointed out; otherwise, this is going to eventually end of at ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a notification on this. I mentioned the file in part of a post I left, but it was buried in the middle. The formal notification works better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Fnaf happiest day.jpg

Can you check this file to see whether it's just a reupload of any of the files you deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 February 17#Non-free screenshots in Five Nights at Freddy's? If it is, then it would seem to be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G4 unless it's be undeleted per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or WP:DRV. The file name is different from the ones discussed at FFD, but the image seems familiar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: That one isn't, but File:Fnanf 2 closing.jpg was a reupload of File:Fnaf closing.jpg. — JJMC89 05:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. What about File:All 3 animatronics fnaf.jpg and File:FNaF 1 Anim.jpeg? The second file was deleted per the FFD discussion. The captions used for both files (Special:diff/JJMC89 bot/880187667 and Special:diff/Beatleswillneverdie/888750157) are pretty much the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: They weren't exactly the same, but they were sufficiently similar. — JJMC89 02:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. The uploader of these files didn't participate in the FFD discussions, but was notified. I'm not sure if the re-uploads mean they don't realize why the files were previously deleted or they just don't care. This is one of those editor whose user talk is basically one long string of notifications (mainly image related). They never respond to any posts made and simply blank their user talk every now and then; moreover, their only edit in the talk space was was inappropriate. Not sure what to do here, but maybe a closer look should be taken at more of their uploads since that seems to make up the bulk of their edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for implementing the dozens of edit requests I filed simultaneously, and for doing so so quickly. DannyS712 (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw the queue blow up from all the requests. Since they were simple, I decided to handle a bunch before logging off. — JJMC89 02:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi JJMC89,

Thanks for those speedy deletions. I seem to have stumbled upon a group of COI/UPE editors in

HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Cxckim (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is probably related too. I've blocked two of them for a week for copyright violations and warned a third. I've UPOL/spam blocked another. There is a strong intersection here. I would file a SPI for a CU to look at it. — JJMC89 02:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I didn't know whether they would be using the same proxy so I was hesitant to start an SPI although the behaviour is obvious. Thank you so much for your speedy fingers. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
If nothing else it will served as documentation for non-CU blocks. — JJMC89 02:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a few others I have stumbled upon at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChinoXL63. I believe ChinoXL63 (who created DRL10 Pavilion) might be the first. However, it was so long ago he might be stale. Anyways, it can be moved. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

RFPP Ted Kennedy

There is persistent vandalism from an IP hopper. Could you please protect the page? S0091 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. Materialscientist took care of it. S0091 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved page IDFC FIRST Bank to IDFC First Bank over redirect: revert undiscussed move

IDFC First Bank move was discussed earlier on its talk page. After taking suggestions from other Wikipedia editor we've redirected this page to its new location IDFC FIRST Bank. K23.namrata 10:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion concluded with a result of not moved, meaning the article is to retain the original title. Copy and paste moves are always inappropriate, and moving it by any means after a failed RM agaist the new title is even more so. — JJMC89 19:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of the Catholic Church image removal

Criticism of the Catholic Church... could you review your removal of the Crossing the Threashold of Hope image. I think there is a valid use for the image.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Use in that article doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 19:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Sloppy close

After spending too much time on this, my close stands. I've reinstated BHG's edits. — JJMC89 19:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I commented on the sloppy close at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_16#Template:Three_Men_in_a_Boat.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I believe the reason the close has not been completed is because there is not really as sensible way to do it because BrownHairedGirl completely misrepresented the facts in the nomination. Is she aware that only 2 of the 8 links in the nominated template overlap with the 6 links in the merge destination. She nominated the Templates as if she mistakenly thought the movie adaptations at Template:Three Men in a Boat were all included in Template:Jerome K. Jerome. I think she may have made a mistaken nomination that was blindly followed by @JarrahTree, Legacypac, and Chiswick Chap: who all also failed to notice the mistake.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The merge was quite simple:[1]. @TonyTheTiger, a little civility and AGF would be appreciated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
      • BrownHairedGirl, Of course you can do a merge of links into a template. The point is that you misrepresented the Templates as if there was a lot of overlap when there was almost none and everyone blindly followed you. Are you aware that you described 2 out of 8 links as massive overlap and everyone followed your lead?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmmm.
Tony at 03:05: there is not really as sensible way to do it
Tony at 03:53: of course you can do a merge of links into a template
Maybe you could ask the Tonies to talk to each other and see if they can reach a consensus before they post from the same account?
Yes, I miscounted the total size of the set. Sorry about that. But you miscounted too, by omitting the head article, and the fact remains that only 4 of the 7 links in the unmerged Template:Jerome K. Jerome were unique (not 2 out of 8).
Anyway, we've all miscounted (and Tony has done so again here), so should all take more care ... I hope the two Tonies can agree that the merged navbox is an improvement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, thanks for the colorful response. Maybe you have forgotten that the nominated template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_16#Template:Three_Men_in_a_Boat was actually Template:Three Men in a Boat, which had 8 links in the main body, 2 of which were overlapping.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Tony, it's a merge between two templates, so both were nominated. And in Template:Three Men in a Boat, 3 of the links overlapped. (You seem not to count Jerome K. Jerome in your tally).
As before, please do calm down, and do a little more reflection before venting.
I also suggest that you change the title of this section "Sloppy close" is not a civil way to address the closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
N.B.:Since BrownHairedGirl has attempted to serve as both the nominator and the closer, I have reverted her closing edits.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This is getting silly. Please calm down, @TonyTheTiger. You reverts look like a refusal to accept the consensus, which is not a good place to go. I suggest that you reconsider your reverts.
The closer's role is to evaluate the debate and close it. JJMC89 did so here[2], at 07:50, 24 March 2019 . Tony, it's simply untrue to say that I attempted to serve as both the nominator and the closer
However, the closer is not required to personally do all the spadework, and it is quite common for the nominator to implement the closer's decision. So in these 6 edits[3] implemented the closer's decision here.
JJMC89, if you were intending to perform the merge yourself, I'm sorry for jumping the gun. However, the merge had not been performed 44 hours after close, which is why I went ahead.
You may wish to review those 6 edits of mine. You may want to implement the close differently, but I note that Tony makes no substantive objection to the mered template[4]. obviously, I will not editwar ... but as of now, with Tony's reverts still in place, the close has not been implemented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • BrownHairedGirl, I am quite calm. I have been around a while to and am quite active in the Template arena. I used the word sloppy because the closing note stated a Merge decision, but the closing edits seemed to be equivalent to a No consensus or Keep decision. Do you really stand by a statement that even 3 out of 10 links constitutes a massive overlap? I am not even sure what consensus is. There were no cogent policy based points made by any of the discussants and your nomination bore little relation to the truth of the content. I do object to a close based on an untruthful nomination and no policy-based discussion. Are you really going to make me slog through a WP:DRV to point out that no discussant made a reasoned statement (let alone a policy-based one) and you untruthfully discribed a massive overlap.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @TonyTheTiger, it is the closer's role to evaluate the consensus. The closer has done so.[5]
You can of course go to WP:DRV if you want to ... but given your own repeated miscounting, your lack of any substantive objection to the merged template, your assertion[6] of WP:OWNership, and your unilateral reverts of an implementation of the close, that might not be a comfortable experience for you.
Your call, but I think you would do much better to take a deep breath and read WP:OWN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
PS. @TonyTheTiger claims that the closing edits seemed to be equivalent to a No consensus or Keep decision.
Here are the three closing edits: [7], [8], [9].
I look forward to Tony's explanation of how any of them was in any way equivalent to a equivalent to a No consensus or Keep decision. I am sure that a DRV would enjoy that too. It's not often that a DRV sees WP:OWNership expressed through so many passionate counterfactuals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Tony, how else was I supposed to close that discussion when the merge had unanimous support? If you wanted to oppose it, you should have done so while the discussion was open. What would you call a WP:PAG-based argument for that discussion? The template guidelines cover very little, and I don't see how merging goes against them or any other policy or guideline. If you can provide a policy/guideline that supports not merging them, then I'll consider relisting the discussion so that you can discuss it with others.
Implementing mergers is often left up to the nominator or others by listing it in the holding cell. This one was no different. {{Three Men in a Boat}} was also marked as being merged. As the closer, I don't need to have any part in merging the templates. I don't have any issues with BHG's merge, and seeing as it wasn't incorrect/broken/etc., reverting it was just disruptive.
— JJMC89 06:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @JJMC89. It is indeed odd to criticise a closer for closing per unanimity.
Since you say you are OK with the 6 edits[10] I made to implement the merge, would you like to reinstate them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
When this discussion is over, sure. — JJMC89 05:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89, I apologize, that I am no longer a very active WP editor these days. Of late, I have only been monitoring my watchlist and a editing in the WP:BBALL and WP:CBBALL topic areas paying little attention to most of my other past interests on WP. I had not checked in on my User talk page in some time and missed the proper notification of this discussion. In terms of policy, When there is truthfully "Massive overlap" templates are nominated as WP:T3. However, since only 3 of the 10 links in Template:Three Men in a Boat were preexisting in Template:Jerome K. Jerome, BHG could not actually make the type of policy-based nomination that a true massive overlap would follow. The reason for a separate template is clear. If a reader is interested in the Three Men in a Boat subject area, a separate template enables the reader to isolate on links with encyclopedic content on that subject. Merging template content into a broader subject area renders that focused subject area navigation less useful because the reader then is being sent to links on broader subjects. At User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created you can see the several "Multimedia franchises (from novels)" templates that I have created. The most common policy-based reason that such templates have been deleted in the past has been WP:T3. Wikipedia:NAVBOX names 5 useful reasons for navboxes on specific subject matter and then later names disadvantages and advantages for navboxes. Policy-based discussion would have been based on either the 5 useful reasons for NAVBOXes or the advantages and disadvantages below that. The 5 useful reasons for separate NAVBOXes were largely met by Template:Three Men in a Boat, it is supported by the advantages at NAVBOX and no one mentioned any of the disadvantages at NAVBOX or anything related to WP:TG in the discussion. A WP:PG discussion in support of a merger of templates should be supported by either WP:TG or WP:NAVBOX issues. This discussion did not touch upon any such PG-issues.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger those arguments which you could have made at TFD, but didn't.
But I see no policy-based reason there to make a choice either way.
You argument seems to boil down to making each navbox more focused. However, the addition of 3 or 5 extra links is not a significant loss of focus, and it should be offset against the positive gains of reduced navbox clutter on 3 pages.
If you are claiming that Three Men in a Boat subject area is a separate subject area to JKJ, then that seems a bizarre argument.
Do you have positive policy-based argument why readers are helped by a set of only 15 pages being served by two overlapping navboxes? What exactly is policy-deficient about the merged template?
This does seem to be a rationalisation of some severe WP:OWNership issues, and a completely excessive drama about a small navbox.
Oh ... please do remember to strike the false assertion that I acted as both nominator and closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
T3 is irrelevant since we're talking about a merge and not (speedy) deletion. You're other templates are too. Most of what is written at WP:NAVBOX is not relevant, especially the advantages and disadvantages, since merged or not they're navboxes. For the first 5 numbered points there, I'd say they're satisfied whether or not the templates are merged. — JJMC89 05:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89, I don't understand your point that "Most of what is written at WP:NAVBOX is not relevant, especially the advantages and disadvantages, since merged or not they're navboxes." That they are NAVBOXes is why WP:NAVBOX is relevant. You stated above "If you can provide a policy/guideline that supports not merging them, then I'll consider relisting". That guideline is the policy that I feel was relevant to the content at issue is it not. Other considerations are the essay WP:NBFILL, since the merger leads to a navboxless Three in Norway (by two of them). The whole discussion which was founded on the false assertion of "massive overlap" seems to be guided by a section of an essay (Wikipedia:Avoid_template_creep#Do_we_have_two_or_three_templates_where_one_would_do?).
In terms of policy, if the argument is some kind of clutter-based rationale (keep in mind no policy was asserted in the discussion above), remember that this merger is a correct policy based decision when there is actual massive overlap rather than a false assertion of overlap. The resulting merger has 4 types of effects here:
  1. 3 articles with actual overlap: go from two templates with a total of 17 links (including 3 which are duplicates) to one with 13 links (all of which are related) losing connection to one link. (total reduction of 12 links)
  2. 6 film articles in which there was no preexisting overlap in the merge source template: go from a template with 10 links (all of which are related to the same article) to one template with 13 links (9 of which are related) (total addition of 18 links)
  3. 4 novel articles in which there was no preexisting overlap in the merge destination template: go from a template with 7 links (all of which are related as works by the same author) to one template with 13 links (7 of which are related) (total addition of 24 links)
  4. 1 source article in which there was no preexisting overlap: goes from having a template with 10 links (all of which are related as works it insprired) to no template (total reduction of 10 links)
Note that because there was a false assertion of massive overlap, the first line is small compared to the other lines and the result is an overall bloating of 20 links rather than a reduction of links with this merger as well as the loss of connection of an article to 9 other articles with related subject matter. In the case of actual massive overlap, line one would be the large effect. Here with a false massive assertion of overlap the reduction is small in comparison to the link bloating resulting in a misguided attempt to declutter WP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger, this massive angst and wikilawyering over how to organise a grand total of 15 links is extraordinary.
And all this wikilawyering a bizarre counting evades the simple central question: how on earth are readers helped by splitting that set of 15 closely-related links across 2 navboxes?
This is all getting spectacularly silly. If it doesn't end soon with a decision by @JJMC89 on whether to sustain and implement their close, I'll take it to DRV as is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, in short in cases such as this where there is minimal overlap, splitting the links across two templates results in fewer total links on the pages in question (20 fewer in total in this case) and avoids having unrelated links on many pages. I don't think you have standing at DRV.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm tempted to take it to DRV anyway, just to give you a forum to repeat that bizarre assertion that the merged template propagates "unrelated links on many pages" and the participants in the TfD and its closer were so daft to overlook this that the discussion needs to be reopened. It would be cruel but funny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I said I would consider it. I've considered it, and my close stands. — JJMC89 19:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please userfy the preTFD Template:Three Men in a Boat for me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, verify that the history of the template will remain following all closing procedures.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't closed as delete, so the history shouldn't be going anywhere. I'm certainly not going to delete it. — JJMC89 02:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Three Men in a Boat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Three Men in a Boat. 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. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Apology and thanks

Hey JJMC89. I want to thank you for catching my hasty mistake in granting perms to User:Quail Armor. I did it way hastily, more than I should have. Mea culpa. I am glad you caught it. I do have the user watchlisted for a while to monitor progress. Cheers! -- Alexf(talk) 16:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. The user has now been CU blocked as a sock. — JJMC89 18:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Just saw. Egg on my face. Feel bad I screwed up (though I did not suspect socking). A good lesson never hurts. -- Alexf(talk) 19:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about it too much. Its not the first time this one has gotten rights on a sock account. — JJMC89 19:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Not asking for any assistance

Thought it was one of those LTAs who'd relentlessly taunt you guys and all, hence why I reverted it in a whim. Apologies for my mistake though. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

99 is one of the good ones. Thanks for the apology. — JJMC89 04:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2019/March".