User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/May

Active discussions

Deletion of the Astute Tutors Page

The Astute Tutors page for a well known tutoring company was recently deleted by you and the reason provided on my page was: "Unused logo, which would be out of scope on Commons." Please explain to me the real reason for the speedy deletion because the logo was not misused. Also, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with the source code for the page within the archives. Sazhnyev (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The deletion reason is listed here. You can also use the logs link above. I will not be providing the deleted content. — JJMC89 02:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible evasion?

...by an account you blocked a few days ago. DavidBeli8 (talk · contribs). Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I realise that there might seem a promotional nature, however, it is a fairly new specialty that only this quoted organisation started and many of the information in the quoted paragraph have been taken from there... I believe the edit should be accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBeli8 (talkcontribs) 18:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked. Sorry for the delay, and thanks for the heads up, 99. — JJMC89 03:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Wondering how

I saw that you removed the links to Portal:Micronations using PHP7 and I was wondering how you did that. Unlink doesn't work on those links. Is there a script or tool I can use?--Auric talk 14:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Auric: I used Evad's Xunlink. The PHP7 tag is for an unrelated beta feature. — JJMC89 03:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Subpages II

Hey J, I saw you were the deleting admin. on Portal:Butterflies and moths. That portal had a bunch of subpages as well; can you take care of them or do I have to tag each subpage with CSD G8 myself instead? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I got 'em. ♠PMC(talk) 14:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Serial Box

Hello, Could you please restore this page so that I may make the appropriate edits to launch this? Draft:Serial Box — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.85.7.170 (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No. Copyright violations are not permitted. — JJMC89 00:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I was planning to fix the copyright violations. I cannot do that if I cannot see the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthreadgill (talkcontribs) 16:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
You'll have to write it offline. Copyright violations are not permitted, even temporarily. — JJMC89 02:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I have created a new draft with no copyright violations here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Serial_Box. Sthreadgill (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Russian Rural Localities 3: Son of Localistein

Hey, if you've got a minute, wondering if you could do another one of your bot-sorted lists for me from Category:Rural localities in Arkhangelsk Oblast? As always, no rush, eternal gratitude, will provide peeled grapes and palm fans upon request etc etc :) ♠PMC(talk) 00:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey PMC. Its at User:JJMC89/Rural localities in Arkhangelsk Oblast. — JJMC89 05:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Cheers! ♠PMC(talk) 12:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if there's any way you could show me how to do these myself so I don't have to keep bugging you every time I need to sort one of the categories? There's almost 90 federal divisions in Russia and I would hate to ask you to do all that work if there's any way I could learn to do the work myself. ♠PMC(talk) 23:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@PMC: Below is the process that I have been using.

Process
  1. Get a list of articles from the category.
    • I use AWB for this.
  2. Save the list in a spreadsheet. (Column A)
  3. Determine the {{tmpv}} call needed to get the district.
    • Syntax: {{subst:tmpv|article|infobox|1|parameter|1}}
  4. Use a spreadsheet formula to set it up for all of the articles. (Column B)
  5. Use the visual editor and copy columns A and B into a table.
  6. Switch to the wikitext editor to remove any <nowiki>...</nowiki>.
  7. Copy the second column back to the spreadsheet. (Column C)
  8. Cleanup any extraneous []| characters in column C. ({{tmpv}} is not perfect.)
  9. Fill in any missing districts in column C manually.
  10. Use spreadsheet formulas to create wikilinks. (Columns D and E)
  11. Use the visual editor to copy columns D and E into a table.
  12. Cleanup any bad links in columns D and E.
Spreadsheet formulas
A B C D E
1 Locality Tmpv District Locality link District link
2 Solza, Kargopolsky District, Arkhangelsk Oblast ="{{subst:tmpv|"&A2&"|Infobox settlement|1|subdivision_name3|1}}" Kargopolsky District ="[["&A2&if(SUMPRODUCT(-- isnumber(search({",","("},A2)))>0,"|","")&"]]" ="[["&C2&if(SUMPRODUCT(-- isnumber(search({",","("},C2)))>0,"|","")&"]]"
3 Svarozero ="{{subst:tmpv|"&A3&"|Infobox settlement|1|subdivision_name3|1}}" Kargopolsky District ="[["&A2&if(SUMPRODUCT(-- isnumber(search({",","("},A3)))>0,"|","")&"]]" ="[["&C2&if(SUMPRODUCT(-- isnumber(search({",","("},C3)))>0,"|","")&"]]"
Spreadsheet view
A B C D E
1 Locality Tmpv District Locality link District link
2 Solza, Kargopolsky District, Arkhangelsk Oblast {{subst:tmpv|Solza, Kargopolsky District, Arkhangelsk Oblast|Infobox settlement|1|subdivision_name3|1}} Kargopolsky District [[Solza, Kargopolsky District, Arkhangelsk Oblast|]] [[Kargopolsky District]]
3 Svarozero {{subst:tmpv|Svarozero|Infobox settlement|1|subdivision_name3|1}} Kargopolsky District [[Svarozero]] [[Kargopolsky District]]
Wikitable
Locality District
Solza Kargopolsky District
Svarozero Kargopolsky District

If it is a regular need, I could write a bot script to do all of the work. — JJMC89 03:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your process (and oh my god, thanks for doing all that as a favor to me). I could do that myself I think, but a bot or script would be hugely helpful if it's not too much trouble for you to make. There's about 90 federal divisions of Russia, most of which seem to have 100-200 localities at a minimum. While some lists currently only have a few entries, that's because I was working off what articles existed at the time. Nikolai Kurbatov is powering through creating articles for every single locality, so lots of the lists are out of date and will need updating, not to mention the ones I never got around to creating. A method of automatically sorting the output by district would be incredibly helpful for me in updating and maintaining the lists of rural localities in Russia - but only if it's not too much trouble. ♠PMC(talk) 20:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It shouldn't be too much trouble. If all of the articles use the same infobox, then it is easy to get the districts. Articles without infoboxes or with a different infobox are a little more trouble. — JJMC89 05:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Even if it gets most of them that would save me a ton of work, I don't mind doing outliers by hand. ♠PMC(talk) 15:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
PMC, I've updated User:JJMC89/Rural localities in Arkhangelsk Oblast with an automated version. It isn't perfect, but please let me know what you think. — JJMC89 22:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Ohh, that's really cool. It basically builds the whole article, and then I'd just need to check it over and fill in the details. I did a spot check compared to the current list and it doesn't look like it missed any or put any in the wrong spots. Two questions: what does it do when it finds something it doesn't understand (ie the district parameter is blank or there's no infobox at all)? And is the script something I could operate, or does it require a little bit of technical sophistication to run? ♠PMC(talk) 11:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@PMC: Currently, it looks for a link in the lead if it doesn't find it in the infobox parameter, e.g. Pustozersk. It looks for districts and okrugs. You could run it yourself. It is a python script that requires pywikibot and mwparserfromhell. You can check it out here. — JJMC89 20:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Eep, I've never done any coding or scripting. I'll go install the stuff now and see about muddling through, but it may be a bit out of my reach, technically speaking. Guess I'll find out, lol :) ♠PMC(talk) 04:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
If you don't want to bother with it, I'm happy to run it for you when needed. — JJMC89 06:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Less not wanting to bother and more not being sure if I could manage it, to be honest. However with some help I managed to get pywikibot all set up. I ran the script as written for Arkhangelsk Oblast and it outputs fine. But if I try to substitute another category in the run command (ie "python pwb.py rus_loc.py -catr:'Rural localities in Murmansk Oblast' > draft.txt") it has a fit and gives me this error message:

pywikibot.exceptions.InvalidTitle: The link does not contain a page title 
CRITICAL: Exiting due to uncaught exception <class 'pywikibot.exceptions.InvalidTitle'>

The person helping me got the same error. Any idea what's up with that? ♠PMC(talk) 23:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@PMC: It was a bug. Specifically, I didn't make sure the infbox parameter wasn't empty. I've updated the script to fix that and another bug I noticed. — JJMC89 03:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It works now! I tried it with a couple different categories and it worked on all of them :D I can't thank you enough for your time and energy on this. If I can ever do anything at all for you in return, please let me know. ♠PMC(talk) 06:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Happy to help, PMC!   This is the kind of thing I like doing. — JJMC89 06:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yemen portal

Hi, sorry for the reverts, Could you revert the removal of portal:Yemen from the articles you have removed so I dont have to annoy you with the revert notifications? I was not notified about that deletion and I see it really unfair I will start improving the portal.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't care about the reverts (My notifications for them are off.), but I'm not going to revert my edits. Recreating the portal within hours of deletion without addressing any of the concerns in the MfD wasn't a good idea. As you already know, I deleted it again. As for a notification, the portal had a MfD notice on it for a week. There is no reason that you would receive a personal notice, especially since you never edited the portal prior to the MfD. — JJMC89 07:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Overzealous redeletion?

I am a bit unsure why you felt the need to immediately speedy delete Template:Ellipsis. It was inconsiderate and antagonizing to swoop in and redelete it within hours of its recreation, without engaged in any discussion. The template's contents were purely functional, and there was no pressing need for the template to be deleted again.

It was not a recreation in bad faith; it is true, I was not initially planning to recreate it myself, as can be seen by the following diffs, 1, 2, 3, but I ultimately thought my version of the template would probably not be sufficiently identical. We can argue over what "sufficiently identical" means, but since I can't see the previous version of the page, I have no idea how close or far away it was; I can only evaluate the deletion discussion. But I guess you've decided for me that it was so close to a template deleted five years that it was imperative that this template be deleted immediately. And furthermore, even if the template-code itself was "sufficiently identical", the documentation was almost certainly different; I doubt the previous version's documentation even mentioned MOS:ELLIPSIS.

Anyway, I've filed a deletion review. But if I may ask, could you consider restoring the previous contents in some way so that I actually have the means to fully discuss this? eπi (talk | contribs) 10:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what G4 is for – not discussing deletions of content previously deleted at XfD. You were told and acknowledged that you should talk to Plastikspork and then possibly go to DRV. In spite of that, you recreated it anyway. If an uninvolved admin wants to undelete the history for the DRV, I have no objections, but I won't. — JJMC89 03:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Upon some reflection, I regret the way I have handled this. I am sorry I brought this up in such an aggressive manner on your talk page, and I appreciate your courteous response.
Respectively, I differed on my interpretation of G4: I did not think that my version would be sufficiently similar to the previous based on my reading of the deletion discussion. But re-reading it, I suppose the IP's improvements during the TfD were sufficiently similar to my version? Or is it simply the shared function of rendering ellipsis? eπi (talk | contribs) 00:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The IP did basically the same thing you did. They also added , but I'm not sure how it fits in with the ellipses. — JJMC89 22:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remove my Wiki account

It appears you don't truly want to immprove history!!!! In the BMX history, I attempted to share, and was going to added pictures with dates, etc.. That history is extremely poor, generalizes a Socal start, and time, poor history. I am an older guy approaching 60, so I don't know how to do all of this. I won't try to participate on Wiki ever again! I would have self deleted, but just couldn't figure out how to do it! Good bye! Thank you! Derek Ekas — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCracingCA (talkcontribs) 19:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, accounts cannot be deleted. — JJMC89 22:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

10,000 most common passwords

WP:SECUREADMIN warns that admins may be desysopped if found to be using one of the 10,000 most common passwords, but does not link to the list. I incorrectly attempted to link to 10,000 most common passwords using [[10,000 most common passwords]] . The current link to most common passwords was added by user:QuackGuru in response to my incorrect attempt to link, but does not solve the issue since that article only lists the most common 25 passwords.

The list is actually at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10,000_most_common_passwords where you moved it in 2017. Should this actually be an article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10,000_most_common_passwords or is this "wiki/Wikipedia:" just something I'm not familiar with (and don't know how to link to)? This issue may explain why the page has almost no watchers and vandalism by IPs is going unreverted. It's more than a bit odd that we threaten desysopping for using passwords that are on an unlinked list that is not being maintained. Meters (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies if I've done something incredibly stupid by not being able to figure out how to link this (without resorting to convoluted piping). Meters (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You can link to things in other namespaces by putting the namespace with a colon in the square brackets, like so: Wikipedia:10,000 most common passwords. If you want it to look tidier, you can hide the namespace by putting a pipe character after the title inside the brackets like this: [[Wikipedia:10,000 most common passwords|]]. That will automatically hide the namespace in the output, like this, 10,000 most common passwords. ♠PMC(talk) 01:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Self-trouting now underway. Meters (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

IP vandalism goes back years. The Wikipedia:10,000 most common passwords page would benefit from some type of increased protection. QuackGuru (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Subpages III

Hey J, I saw you were the deleting admin. on Portal:Celtic Studies. That portal had a bunch of subpages as well; can you take care of them or do I have to tag each subpage with CSD G8 myself instead? UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  Gone — JJMC89 03:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Abysskiss

Hello mate. You deleted an article that I created for the Adrianne Lenker album "abysskiss" - presumably your reasons were in accordance to Wikipedia policy, so I'm not disputing that. However a cursory Google of the album or the artist will show that both have been extensively written about in mainstream media and easily pass notability criteria. What do I need to do to a) get the article back up, and b) ensure that it isn't deleted again? Thanks. Clicriffhard (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The article had no indication of why it is significant, let alone notable. It basically just stated that it exists, which isn't enough for an article. — JJMC89 22:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough - it's not easy to understand the difference as in plain English they're basically synonyms, but I'm sure I can figure it out. Could you possibly point me to a copy of the deleted article so that I can hopefully improve it enough to be worth re-creating? Clicriffhard (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:African Union

Hi JJMC89. Can I ask for the undeletion of Portal:African Union as per this mass nomination and deletion? I am shocked that when people were mass nominating or deleting they didn't go through the merits of individual portals. Why would anyone with even a slight ounce of common sense delete the African Union portal which is one of the most important organisations in Africa with several related articles? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey @JJMC89: — This issue was brought to my attention on my talk page by @Senegambianamestudy: I decided to follow the link and deletion discussion and found out that you were the closing admin. Can I request an undeletion of this portal or do I have to go through deletion review? As noted by Sen, the portal is rather important and covers broad topics which I am willing to help redesign and curate. Failing that, please can you draftify? Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The deletion didn't have anything to do with whether or not the portals were an appropriate topic for a portal, only that they were redundant to navboxes ({{African Union}} in this case). I will not be undeleting it. You could go to deletion review, but it is unlikely to be successful since the close (in line with the unanimous consensus) wasn't made in error, and nothing has changed since the discussion took place. You can create a draft using {{subst:basic portal start page}} without needing the deleted history. If you don't change what that template gives you, it will likely be deleted again. — JJMC89 18:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
What on earth do you mean by "I will not be undeleting it"? You were the one who deleted it without looking at the scope of the portal and other similar portals irrespective of the navbox. Even the discussion made it clear that some editors couldn't even be bothered to go through the individuals portals because they are too many but just wanted a mass deletion. I will always take it upon myself to go through each indidivual page when a group of pages are nominated for deletion - so what happened here? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what is confusing about that statement to you. Scope wasn't the reason for deletion, so the scope is irrelevant. — JJMC89 23:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Disable talk page access, please

And rev/delete the genius' work. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

TPA revoked and talk page deleted — JJMC89 02:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Have a good night, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 28#Apple (Japan)

Can you please reopen and relist this discussion? In my opinion my "retarget" option has not been sufficiently considered. Thanks, feminist (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 02:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Subpages IV

Hey J, I saw you were the deleting admin. on Portal:Bandai Namco. That portal had a bunch of subpages as well; can you take care of them or do I have to tag each subpage with CSD G8 myself instead? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  Gone — JJMC89 02:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Your help is requested

Hello J. The Template:Other people3 is ready for deletion. I cannot switch to a speedy template as it is fully protected. If you could place this <noinclude>{{db-xfd|fullvotepage=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 14#Template:Other people3}}</noinclude> on the page when you have a moment that would be great. Now it might get deleted eventually but I've been told that adding the speedy tag helps move things along. Oops you are an admin so you could delete it yourself if you want. I guess I've rambled on a bit so I'll just say thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  Already done by Fastily. Thanks. — JJMC89 02:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look and more thanks to Fastily for the delete. MarnetteD|Talk 03:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Southern Netherlands

Hi, I noticed that you had closed two related CFDs on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 27. As I have some experience with such pages, I'm willing to implement the changes, if you like. – Fayenatic London 20:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thanks for offering to help. Would you implement the second one? I'll check to see what you do so that I know for the future. I think I got the first one done correctly, but would you double check. — JJMC89 21:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi: good work, thanks. Here's what I did to implement the second one. (Note that what needs doing on such categories varies depending on which templates are in use.) After that I found some related stuff to do, which you can see from the "Newer" link; only some of it was fixing links following your work today – other edits were consequential follow-up after my own work on those categories back in 2015. – Fayenatic London 10:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Fayenatic london — JJMC89 03:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Florida Gators logo.svg

Hi JJMC89. Can you take a look at this file? It appears that a bug is causing it to be displayed as File:Florida Gators script logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

T30299 strikes again due to c:File:Florida Gators logo.svg being a redirect to c:File:Florida Gators script logo.svg. I've move the gator logo to File:Florida Gators gator logo.svg. — JJMC89 01:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look and cleaning this up. i figured it was a bug of some kind. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

John Dehner revert

Is there a particular reason why you reverted me here, but left an entire section full of similar unsourced claims? Usually, appearances in television series are their own sources, and don't need other sources. Commentary about the appearance being a fan favorite, which I did remove from the original IP's addition her, would need to be sourced. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Read the policy. — JJMC89 06:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your cooperation. Per the policy, I've removed all unsourced statements from that section. - BilCat (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions regarding the deletion of Portal:Webcomics

Hi! My apologies for the trouble, but I am intending to bring Portal:Webcomics up for a deletion review. Seeing as you are the closing editor, I would like to discuss the subject with you before I go through such measures. The reasoning I have typed up is as follows: I believe there were substantial procedural issues regarding the deletion discussion for this page. Specifically, I believe the inclusion criteria for portals are unclear and do not understand why one portal would be kept and another would be deleted (a total pageview count? Activity of editors? Regular news activity? Size of the related project?). This is a repeated argument from the deletion discussion, but I hope it meets WP:DRVPURPOSE regardless. @MJL: motivated me not to give up on this just yet. JJMC89, I would like to know what you think about this issue. Thank you very much for your time either way. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, portal inclusion are not clearly defined, and WP:POG isn't really helpful. From closing portal MfDs, I would say that the below is an incomplete list of criteria.
  • covers a broad topic
  • sufficient content (articles)
  • actively maintained
  • not redundant (especially to navboxes)
The recent MfD trend shows what the community doesn't want and some places where it is undecided. Further discussion is needed. I would suggest one well attended open-ended work-shopping discussion at a VP to see what the community wants (and doesn't want) for portals. After that concludes, a group of editors should take the feedback and produce a set of inclusion/exclusion criteria. Setup another VP RfC to adjust WP:POG to those criteria. (If certain criteria are more likely to be discussed/disputed, !vote on each in a subsection.) [If you haven't, read through WP:ENDPORTALS before starting on any of this.]
That doesn't help you now, but I think it is a good path forward. For the portal at hand, couldn't webcomics be covered by Portal:Comics? On DRVing, I don't know if it would be successful or not. You're welcome to try if you'd rather not wait on wider discussion.
— JJMC89 03:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind advice. I will consider my options well and act accordingly. Going through all the endportals discussions would probably be too much for me, though, so I'll have to see what kind of role I could have and want to have in this situation. As for the portal at hand, I and a few others are simply very passionate about webcomics and consider it a distinct medium from comics. There is the selfish pride of showing it off combined with using it to motivate myself further (I've been in a Wikipedia rut since the portal got deleted, honestly). I am not interested at all in presenting webcomics in a comics space. So DRVing would probably be my only option, and thank you for not opposing the idea of me doing that outright ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Helstrom

Could please restore Draft:Helstrom as other editors have contributed to it. Thanks! - Brojam (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi JJ, just following up on this. I actually created this draft and put together all the content. The blocked user merged a draft that they had created with mine, but retained my content, so it appeared that you were deleting their draft but really it was my work (plus that of a few others who've helped out since) that was deleted. It would be great if this could be restored! Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. The (deleted) history of that draft is a mess due to parallel histories. Another admin deleted Draft:Helstrom (Adamstom.97's work) on 4 May 2019 and the sock moved their draft (Draft:Marvel's Helstrom) over that one. I've undeleted Adamstom.97's work. — JJMC89 00:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! - adamstom97 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration

Hello Sir, on 3 May 2019 you have declined the removal of techved.com from the spam blacklist. I would like to tell you that techved.com is indeed an authentic website.It is listed on https://www.siliconindia.com/ux-ui-companies/TechvedConsulting-catid-50-cid-648.html. It is a properly established firm in existence since more than 10 years now.I would like to request you to please reconsider this and visit the website or call on their number to find out whether they are really spammers or authentic website.Once you have done the investigation and you find that the website is legit and genuine, then request you to remove it from the spam blacklist. Your Sincerely, Manish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishmohitews (talkcontribs) 08:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

My talk page isn't the place for this conversation. If you want to appeal my decision, you can try at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § techved.com. Since you still haven't provided an encyclopedic use for the site, I doubt it will be successful. The site was spammed on Wikipedia. — JJMC89 00:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, JJMC89. I need this portrait in original size, could you sent me the deleted version to pamyat at list.ru? thanks. --Алый Король (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Алый Король: You can get a copy of the original at https://ibb.co/qkFHwc5. — JJMC89 00:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Алый Король (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Subpages V

Portal:Disney Princess also has subpages. Thanks in advance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  Gone — JJMC89 05:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

AfD removal

Why did you remove the AFD !vote here? StAnselm (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It was from a LTA. — JJMC89 09:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. You should have included that in the edit summary then. I almost reverted you. StAnselm (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Night King.png

You deleted the image File:Night King.png, on the grounds it was created by a sockpuppet. However, could you restore it please, as I believe the use of it would be a useful use of non-free media to show the character depicted in the image? Thank you. --TedEdwards 00:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I will not. Undeleting it would delete the purpose of deleting it in the first place. The existing non-free image used in Night King, File:Night King - Game of Thrones S6E05.jpg, can be used to identify the article subject. The additional image would not satisfy WP:NFCC#3a. — JJMC89 19:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Non free Reduce

Help! why Non free images are being reduced? - CptViraj (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

They are reduced to comply with WP:NFCC#3b. — JJMC89 19:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Oh, Okay Thanks! Regards - CptViraj (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

30 for 30

Hello, could you please take a look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=30_for_30&action=history , and make a decision on what should be done? Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Ditch Brodie for a week. — JJMC89 05:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

Hello!

The reply you made here [1] (and the thread itself) seems to have been instantly archived/deleted for some reason, making it hard for the questioner to find, is that how it should be? They caught my attention at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Wikipedia_Page_Undeletion, and since their goal is hard enough, I don't want it to be unnecessarily hard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The section is there. It looks like someone edited an old version of the page instead of the current version, so it was temporarily not there. — JJMC89 02:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
So it is, thanks! Another question: it seems the article won't be refunded/draftified/whatever, but creating a new draft and submit for approval (preferably with COI-declarations etc) would be ok in this case? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
If notability can be established, then a draft is a good route. Winged Blades of Godric may be able to advise on whether or not Kumbhar is notable now. — JJMC89 05:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking. WBGconverse 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. I found these two [2][3], not enough but I think they "count". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Something about AfDs

Winged Blades of Godric You are closing AFD discussions which isn't helpful at all. AfD discussions are kept for 7 days. This type of behaviour is considered disruptive. It is not WP:PROD. Thanks. Sincerely, Masum Reza 07:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is this here, and what are you talking about? — JJMC89 03:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Life Cycle Events.jpeg

Hi JJMC89. Could you take a look at this file? I'm not sure what the uploader is trying to do, but their last bit of editing not only removed the {{nrd}} template I add, but also removed the file's copyright license. Maybe they are trying to have it deleted per {{db-g7}} or maybe they are trying to claim that the file is not non-free. I could tag it with {{nld}}, but that actually would give them one more day before the file would've been deleted per F5 or F6. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what they were trying to do, but I've restored the previous version so that it can sit until next week. — JJMC89 04:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Anthropology Portal

Hi JJMC89, I am concerned about the deletion of the Anthropology portal. I would have commented on the Discussion had I known it was up for deletion. The portal had been abandoned, but all it needed was a new editor and no anthropologists probably realized that. This is a major academic discipline with large member organizations for its numerous subfields -- new editors could be found by appealing to one of these organizations. I can facilitate these efforts if you could grant the portal a little more life. Thanks, – Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The WikiProject was notified of the discussion. As mentioned at the end of BHG's nomination, there is no prejudice against recreating a properly curated and maintained portal. — JJMC89 23:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Kochartech

Hi JJMC89, Hope you are doing well. You deleted Kochartech by saying that, "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" This is a company that helps enterprises achieve better customer experience and this also provides customers to find out their solutions by themselves. I believe this is something big contribution to the current development of the world and should be notable on the internet as well. Allow Kochartech on Wikipedia to let the world recognize the capacity of kochartech. Looking for positive hearing from you. Thanks Prabhsahni (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89, by the sound of it, I assume it's also got connections to the processed meat industry... ——SerialNumber54129 10:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89, Honestly, I did not get that. processed meat is a food industry, Kochartech is an IT company. Ok, let me know why do not you allow kochartech as Wikipedia page. what is wrong with the subject name? this is the name of the company. Kindly allow kochartech as Wikipedia page. As I already mentioned the reason in my above message. This is a trusted company and should be notable on the internet via Wikipedia page.Thanks-- Prabhsahni (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked this user for sock/meatpuppetry; Draft:Kochartech was just recreated by Mahirb18. MER-C 12:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, MER-C. — JJMC89 23:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, and the processed meat came with dirty laundry. — JJMC89 23:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of File:Natsumeatari.png from article

Hi JJMC89. Your bot seems to have removed the image in the headline from the infobox for Natsume (company) for lacking a NFUR, even though it has one on the description page (in fact the bot fixed it pointing to Natsume before removing it from the article). I've gone ahead and undid that edit since I don't see any reason for it to have been removed, but I just want to make sure that a) it doesn't happen again and b) that if there is a problem with it, it's made more clear what it is so I can avoid repeating it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonictrey (talkcontribs) 21:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That was my fault. I was testing something and screwed up the order of operations. The link on the file page was the only thing that should have been changed. — JJMC89 22:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

For any pages you've been edit warring me on, I've explained my justification for my edits, which you seem to have ignored. Can you answer my issues? If not, I'm going to revert the edits and it's you, not me, who may be in danger of being blocked from editing. Buh6173 (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Per policy: The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it.WP:CSD Further, the template instructs if you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page. — JJMC89 04:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I've initiated discussion on the image's talk page. Buh6173 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Replied there. — JJMC89 05:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Undo edit

I need it if you can't find the lyrics. If you undo it again you will get blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CuteDolphin712 (talkcontribs) 12:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@CuteDolphin712: You do realize that JJMC89 is a Wikipedia administrator which means if he undid one of your edits then he probably had a very good policy or guideline based reason for doing so. In addition, some of the comments you made on your user page about another editor named Diannaa being a vandal could be seen as a personal attack and it's good thing that you removed that comment. Vandalism has a very specific meaning when it comes to Wikipedia which means you need to be really careful when accusing others of vandalism as explained in Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Just in case you didn't know, Diannaa is also a Wikipedia administrator and if she removed any content from a page, then she too most likely had a very good policy or guideline based reason for doing so. If someone makes an edit that you don't understand, then it's OK to ask them to explain why; pretty much all administrators will be happy to explain exactly why they made a certain edit; it's not, however, very wise to going around accusing a Wikipedia administrator of wrongdoing just because you don't understand or don't agree with something they did because, unlike you or me, an administrator can actually block another editor for making false accusations or for other types of disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
First, stop putting copyright lyrics on Wikipedia pages. We do not permit them. Second, your vandalism and disruptive editing will lead to a block if you don't stop. — JJMC89 22:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
And someone besides me is trying to vandalize the page. I don't understand why the lyrics are copyright! Maybe due to controversy?--CuteDolphin712 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@CuteDolphin712: Vandalism has a specific definition when it comes to Wikipedia editing; so, the first thing you need to do is make sure as best as you can that an edit is actually vandalism as explained in Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. Sometimes editors make edits that we may not think are improvements or that we may not understand, but that doesn't necessary make such editors vandals. If after taking a close look at the edit and at relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you still think the edit is vandalism, please follow the advice given in Wikipedia:Vandalism# How to respond to vandalism. Some types of vandalism you may be able to undo yourself, other types might require administrator assistance. As long as you assume good faith and try to resolve the issue in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you should be OK. You only find yourself having problems if you start accussing others of being a vandal or undoing edits as vandalism, when neither is really the case.
As for lyrics, pretty much all creative work is going to be considered to be protected by copyright unless it clearly states it's not or it clearly is not eligible for copyright protection for one reason or another (i.e. Wikipedia:Public domain). Artists who paint pictures, authors who write books, poets who write poems, playwrites who write plays, musicians who make music, and songwriters who write lyrics, etc. all create new works that are almost always going to be considered protected by copyright. It might be possible to include certain lines from a poem, play or even a song in a Wikipedia article per MOS:QUOTE, but almost always it's never going to be OK to include all of the lyrics of a song in article for copyright reasons as explained in MOS:LYRICS. In some cases, you may find the lyrics posted (either partially or in their entirety) on some other website, but that's not really Wikipedia's direct concern. If you're going to add content to Wikipedia, you're going to have to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

By Year categories

Hey, JJMC89,

It looks like a lot of categories have been moved by your bot but not the contents. For example, the original category was Category:Years in surfing but it was moved to Category:Surfing by year and it was turned into a redirect. But the contents of the original category are still there. Will the bot get to that eventually or does this need to be put on a CfD page for action? Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Liz. The bot is currently going through the categories and updating {{year by category}}. The categories that were moved are listed at WP:CFD/W/L while they're still processing. — JJMC89 04:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The bot moved 1938 to 1992 from Category:Years in African football to Category:African football by year. The old category still has 1993 onwards and the new category was not created. I haven't seen the move listed anywhere (I don't object to the move). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
That was my fault. I've reverted them back to the original category. It should probably be moved for consistency with the others though. — JJMC89 01:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, JJMC89. And God bless bots who do so much manual work for us so we don't have to. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Me botching up a move

Hi JJMC89

Can you help a dolt? I was trying to move the article Iron Eagle on the Attack to Iron Eagle IV the actual theatrical release title of a feature film, where Iron Eagle on the Attack was the DVD title when the film finished its limited theatrical release. I accidentally made the move title: Education Program:Iron Eagle IV because I did not notice the drop down menu had listed the title as "education program". Can you change the article title to Iron Eagle IV. Many thanks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not around much right now, but Anthony has taken care of it. — JJMC89 19:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 European Parliament election in Bulgaria

Hey there, I reverted the party thumbnail edit before I realized the bot account was tied to an administrator one, apologies for that. But why is it that these specific images cannot feature on the opinion poll table, yet they are placed within the boxes on the respective parties' Wiki pages? Skycycle (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

All uses of non-free media must comply with the non-free content policy. In this case, there is no non-free use rationale for the article in question (criterion 10c). Even if there were, such use wouldn't satisfy criterion 8, see WP:NFTABLE and WP:NFC#CS. — JJMC89 19:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Nepal district

A bit surprised at this close. Sure, there was a clear majority for deletion, but no arguments were given other than the generic opinion that consolidating infoboxes if a good idea. There were specific arguments why consolidating the infobox in this particular case would be a bad idea, and none of them were addressed. I'm not interested in taking this any further (all transclusions appear to have already been removed, so it's going to be quite an effort to do anything about it), but I don't like what this says about our discussion culture. I mean, why do we bother having these discussions at all, if the arguments don't seem to matter? – Uanfala (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The others didn't agree with you. I do wish people would actually discuss instead of just polling though, especially when it comes to rebutting points others have made. — JJMC89 23:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
So that's the GIGO argument then? You know it works both ways though: people aren't going to have much of an incentive to discuss matters and present arguments if the closer of the discussion is going to let them have their way anyway if they're in the majority and completely ignore them if they aren't. – Uanfala (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89, it was Uanfala that didn't discuss in the first place.
  1. The proposal said: "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" - and s/he wrote "Is there any problem that this is trying to solve?".
  2. S/he wrote "sex and literacy" is important in that part of Asia. It was replied that this data also exists outside Nepal and the parameters could be added to IB settlement directly. Fact checking revealed that the parameters were use on 9 articles. Sic: 9! For these "important" parameters. And it was never explained why they would only be relevent on the district level and not the others. Looks all more like trolling. Also "if an article gets created about the sex ratio in Nepal (the way there is one for India), then it can be linked with a single edit" - if the parameter would be in IB setttlement one would not need any specific edit in other infoboxes. Complete nonsense.
89.12.203.15 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox townlands

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 15#Template:Infobox townlands - could you close it? 77.11.54.17 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 03:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for closing this TfD. Just a question though: why should the template be replaced with {{infobox settlement}} rather than {{Infobox UK place}}? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk)

This was explained in the discussion. 77.183.25.35 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The only thing that was said against using Infobox UK place was a claim that it isn't used on NI articles. And that was shown to be incorrect. – Uanfala (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
You are not stating the truth. Are you doing that on purpose, i.e. are you lying? 89.12.15.31 (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
A strong argument wasn't made for either one, so I went with the one that had more support. {{Infobox townlands}} already used {{infobox settlement}}, so its also less change compared to before the TfD. If someone wants to use {{infobox UK place}}, I don't have any objection. The TfD outcome shouldn't be used to bind consensus for each article to {{infobox settlement}}. — JJMC89 02:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 16#Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan - a wrapper with just 49 transclusions. Discussion is only about these 49, not about the 1000+ transclusions of Infobox city Japan. (Japan one of the few countries with more than one wrapper.). 77.183.25.35 (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: Uanfala seems to watch your page. Only after I wrote here, s/he went to vote Keep. 89.12.15.31 (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion has been relisted since your request. — JJMC89 02:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits

Thanks for your edits to File:Microsoft Research Homepage Screenshot.png.

I have tried to scale down images in the past (Special:ListFiles/Awesome Aasim), but I think DatBot knows the appropriate resolution :-) Awesome Aasim 03:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And I figured it out with Paint 3D. Awesome Aasim 03:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I expect DatBot to handle most of the images that I tag for reduction without editors needing to worry about it. — JJMC89 02:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No point in updating Listeria lists

Hoi, when a picture is used in a Listeria list, the image is on Commons and it is used in Wikidata. So no, you have it wrong and you cannot permanently remove something from a Listeria list permanently. By definition. Fix Commons and Listeria will follow. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No. The bot is adding non-free images that are on Wikipedia, not Commons. If I had to hazard a guess, the name is the same as an image on Commons. When that happens, the Wikipedia image takes precedence. There isn't anything for me to fix on Commons. The bot's code needs to ensure that this doesn't happen since it is a policy violation. Continuing to violate policy will result in a block. — JJMC89 02:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) ListeriaBot does add non-free images to pages outside of the mainspace every now and then. I've asked about it before at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 154#ListeriaBot adding non-free images to Wikipedia namespace page and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 154#ListeriaBot again, but it still keeps happening. Sometimes it's because of file shadowing (someone uploads a file to Commons that has the same file name as a non-free one), but other times it might have to do with metadata or something. Shadowing can sometimes be fixed relatively easy by a file name change or having one of the files deleted, but I have no idea how to fix the other stuff. I'm not sure how LB distinguish between free and non-free images, but perhaps there's a way to tweak something so that it can better recognize not the add non-free files to any pages at all. Typically, a non-free file mistakenly added by LB will get flagged as a NFCC#9 violation and then removed by someone working with files or another bot. The problem is that LB will simply re-add the file again, then next time it updates a page. Maybe there's a way to let it know not to re-add files which have been removed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Psychic IP!

Regarding spam1, spam2. Okay, the weird thing is I was just looking at merging List of Presidents of Ethiopia with President of Ethiopia not 10 minutes ago, I kid-you-fuckin-not. I mean, what are the odds! Imagine my shock. (I see you are out of town, but I had to get it out my system.) El_C 08:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@El_C Why they were doing this? Masum Reza📞 09:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Who knows. The mystery of psychic IPs runs deep! El_C 09:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
So true. Masum Reza📞 09:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Psychic indeed — JJMC89 03:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Atlantic City Blackjacks Helmet.png

Hi JJMC89. I prodded this file awhile back and you deleted it. It's been re-uploaded by the uploader as File:Atlantic City Blackjacks Helmet.png, but the same issues remain as before. Do you consider the re-upload to be a defacto WP:DEPROD requiring FFD or would it be OK to prod the file again? FWIW, this kind of thing has happened with this editor before (see File:Chicago Slaughter Helmet Logo.png, File:Philadelphia Soul Helmet 2019.png (now at File:Philadelphia Soul Helmet.png), File:Arena Football Logo 1987-2002.png , File:AFL Shield.png, etc. (You deleted the two arena files per WP:F7, but they've also been reuploaded.) The editor seems to be editing in spurts, but they seem to be being notified when one of their files are tagged for issues and their user talk page looks like one long list for file related notifications. The files ultimately end up being deleted for for failing NFCCP, but then sometimes just get re-uploaded because either the uploader doesn't understand why the file was deleted or because they don't feel the file should've been deleted in the first place.

I'm not sure what to do about this anymore since multiple editors have tried posting on their use talk to explain the NFCCP problems and other issues that they seem to be running into, but nobody seems to have been able to make any progress so far. Not all of the files uploaded by this editor are problems, but they seem to be having a particularly hard time understanding how non-free team logos can be used. It's not a problem of whether the logos exist, but whether multiple non-free files of the same logo are needed per NFCC#3a. They also continue to up load files that require reducing despite be advised not to do so multiple times before; that wouldn't be so bad if they tagged their own files, but they still aren't even doing that even though it's been previously suggested to them before. There also may be some issues as to whether some of these helmet files are actually official files created by the teams themselves, or files taken from other third-party websites, which may or may not be partially user created.

Anyway, I was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at all of this stufff and perhaps see if you can figure how what (if anything needs to be done), or at least how to try and guide the editor to be more careful with their uploads. Finally, just for reference, this editor's reuploads has come up before at User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/March#File:PASL Pro Logo.png and User talk:Explicit/Archive 31#Arena Football League logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment by Marchjuly. I'd suggest sending all re-uploaded files to FfD. I'll issue the uploader a formal administrative warning in the meantime; if they continue to ignore WP:NFCC, let me know and I'll block them -FASTILY 21:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be resolved. — JJMC89 03:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking anyway. I meant to post an update, but never got around to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Asline Ward

I was about to create an article on this chap rather than delete his entry in Ward (surname), and find that one has been deleted, possibly by you. He was editor of the Sheffield Independent and kept a diary, later published, which may now be a source for history of Sheffield. He was mentioned in a poem about reformers by Ebenezer Elliott. Doug butler (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug butler: Feel free to write an article if you believe that the subject is notable. If you would like the sources from the deleted version, please let me know. — JJMC89 02:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Ta. Doug butler (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bhutan national football team image

In case you weren’t aware, the infobox image was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png and removed as a result; so, it’s more than a case of just a missing non-free use rationale. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed – the bot isn't going to figure that out though. — JJMC89 03:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there possibly a way to tweak how a bot looks at a file, perhaps by adding a parameter or something to whatever makes it work, so that it can "know" when a file has been "discussed" at FFD or NFCR and then flag the file for further review by human editor? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Since your bot had been removing the file and you also close discussions at FFD, you might be interested in WT:FOOTY#Bhutan national football team. Perhaps you can suggest a way to move forward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2019/May".