User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2020/August

Active discussions

bot edits

Hello! I am enquiring about this edit by your bot. [1]. I have zero problem with it. I was just curious to find out the story behind the decision. But when I followed the links I could not find the discussion or find any method of searching to figure out why the change was made. Maybe I am just dense, but maybe there is a way to make things easier to find for enquiring minds? --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slp1: Per Special:Diff/970814582/970868769, the category was renamed to match the title of Stratford Festival per WP:C2D. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Please revert the incorrect move from Category:Peace mechanism to a misleading category name

Category:Peace process was originally named Category:Peace mechanism for a good reason. Please restore the category name to Category:Peace mechanism. I'm not an admin so I can't.

Category:Peace processes is for peace processes such as Category:Bangsamoro peace process‎ (8 P), Category:Basque Country peace process‎ (3 P), Category:Bosnian peace process‎ (6 P).

Readers will get totally confused if individual peace mechanisms are categorised as elements of Category:Peace process, because that is not normally a category - it's a specific realisation of a peace process. What you have done is the equivalent of categorising city, province, constituent stategovernment, culture as elements of Category:Country. It's true that countries almost always have cities, governments and cultures, and often have provinces and constituent states; but Category:Country was deleted 11 years ago.

Thanks. Boud (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I am reversing this. See WP:CFDS#Opposed requests; please carry on the discussion there. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

We coincided at the undel request page

Your edit should prevail, but I think edit conflict means mine did. I will leave this to you. Apologies Fiddle Faddle 08:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


I'm at a loss to understand why it was that I was blocked by you for 10 months. I try to be a productive contributor, making small corrections and citing sources. If you can help explain to me why you blocked me I would appreciate it. Apologies for anything I've did incorrectly. Peoriamorris (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Peoriamorris:. The account Peoriamorris shows no record of ever being blocked by JJMC89 or any other administrator. In addition, JJMC89 doesn’t seem to ever have edited your user talk page for any reason. Are you asking about another account perhaps? — Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Peoriamorris, As stated above, there are no active blocks affecting your account that we can see. In order to help, we would need the exact message that you try to get when you attempt to edit. SQLQuery me! 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


On the page List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, an organization’s logo was deleted by this bot. I added it back twice and said that if anyone still wanted to delete it, to please use the talk page. For some reason, the not still deleted it. Someone please look into this. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That is because it is a blatant policy violation. I've blocked you for repeatedly violating policy. — JJMC89 21:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Lima Bean Farmer: The files weren't deleted; they were only removed from an article where they were being improperly used. Non-free logos can be uploaded and used per item 2 of WP:NFCI, but that's pretty much only when they're being used for primary identification at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone articles like The Lincoln Project and Natural Resources Defense Council. Adding those organization's logos to basically a list section of another article because it "looks good" is clearly a case of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use that is not going to be allowed per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFLISTS and MOS:LOGO. Re-adding the file after the bot removed the file the first time could've just been a good-faith mistake because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is complicated and lots of people make mistakes; edit warring with a bot, however, wasn't a very wise thing to do not only because the bot was correctly removing the files but also because edit warring pretty much never resolves anything. If you would've asked about this like the bot suggested in the edit summaries it left each time it removed the files, someone would've been happy to explain what the problem was to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but I just wanted to ask why this qualified for an indefinite block. I clearly didn’t understand this policy and came here for some clarification. I was hoping that someone here would either fix the problem or that I would be pointed towards why those files shouldn’t be there. Clearly, the latter was true. However, instead of being pinged on why this was an issue, you decided to indefinitely block me. I clearly didn’t understand this policy as I have never broken it before and I have no warnings about it on my talk page. I am ready to move on as I do not like to hold grudges and I have better uses of my time. However, I would just like to point out that an indefinite block was a harsh way to handle this situation. It was a pain for a good faith editor, like me, to have to go through the unblocking process. If you left me a warning on my talk page, I would have been happy to take a look at the article and stop reverting the bot edits. Please consider this next time an editor comes to this page asking for clarification. Kind regards, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Coming here for clarification would have been fine had you not reinserted the policy violation, which is clearly identified in the edit summary. After coming here you still proceeded to edit war to restore the violation and added a second one. When it comes to copyright related blocks, I almost always block indefinitely. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, and I expect those who can convince a reviewing administrator that they understand the relevant policies to be unblocked. — JJMC89 02:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Well I was clearly confused. You blocked me before ever explaining the bot actions or even one warning on my talk page. I just don’t want any future editors who may be confused about this bot’s actions to receive an indefinite block before gaining the comprehension to work alongside this bot Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Admins aren’t required to issue a warning before blocking someone; they can issue a block at any point if they feel it will stop further disruption. Copyright related matters are one of the areas where some admins will issue indefinite blocks right off the bat because of the potential serious problems that can ensue if a warning or an otherwise short block is issued instead. Admins who do this generally want to be absolutely sure that there will be no repeating of the same behavior. An indefinite block doesn’t mean forever but it does mean that in order to be unblocked that the blockee has to demonstrate they understand why and agree not to repeat the same behavior again; in other words, the blockee can’t just wait until the block runs out and then go back to doing what they were doing before.
The bot left the same edit summary each time it removed the file. If you didn’t understand the reason why the file was removed the first time, then that would’ve been a good time to ask. Instead you continued to re-add the file each time the bot removed it because apparently you thought the files you were adding looked good in the article. Perhaps you wouldn’t have re-added the file again if you knew it would lead to a block, but even your first post in this discussion seems to indicate that you thought the bot was wrong for some reason. The best advice that I can give you or other editors faced with the same situation is to not edit war with a bot and to not re-add images removed by a bot; instead try and find out why the bot did what it did first. Don’t continue re-adding files removed by bots until you’re warned to stop because in most cases the bot is doing what it’s supposed to be doing and you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I know that now, and I promise I won’t do it again. However, I wasn’t warned to stop or even told that what I was doing was wrong. In the future, this admin should consider a warning to an editor who has never broken this before. I completely agree that what I did was wrong, but an indefinite block seems excessive to a user who broke a rule they didn’t even know they were breaking. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
In general, Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD when we edit; so, the first time you added the file(s) to the article that's what you were doing. You almost certainly added them because you thought doing so somehow improved the article. It's OK to keep assuming that per WP:SILENCE until someone comes along and WP:REVERTs (either totally or partially) the "improvements" you made; however, once that happens the changes you made have become contenious and the WP:ONUS then shifts to you to establish a WP:CONSENSUS to make the changes. This is often referred to as WP:BRD (i.e. be bold, be reverted and start discussion). So, if you're bold and are subsquently reverted (even after a long time has passed), you then discuss things and don't revert back unless you absolutely positively certain that reverting back to your preferred version is going to be considered an exception to the three-revert rule. So, normal practice is WP:BRD not WP:BRRD (i.e. be bold, be reverted, revert the reverter, and then ask the reverted to start a discussion).
Someone added the files to the article in good faith, but they were subsequently removed by the bot, which in turn left this edit summary. The bot's edit summary explained why it removed the files and included a link to the relevant policy page (WP:NFCC), a link to a section of a guideline page further clarifying why (WP:NFC#Implementation), and a link to a noticeboard (WP:MCQ) where questions could be asked by anyone who didn't understand why. Even though it wasn't explictly worded as such, the edit summary the bot left was essentially the first warning being issued about the file's non-free use. Did you look at any of the pages that the bot added links to? Did you understand why the file was removed? Did you ask for help at WP:MCQ if you didn't understand why the file was removed? Did you just assume that the bot had to be wrong somehow which meant it was OK to re-add the file without addressing the reasons why it was removed? From the edit summaries you were leaving (here, here, here, and here) it does kind of seem as if you just assumed the bot was wrong and that you were right or that you mistook what the bot was doing as some kind of dispute over content when it had nothing to so with such a thing at all.
Since you re-added the file without addressing the reasons why it was removed, the bot removed it again and left the same edit summary. Another editor seemed to undersand why the file was removed when they left this edit summary, but you still re-added the file once again without addressing the reasons why it was being removed. The bot removed the file again, and you re-added the file again. WP:BOTs are automated and only do the things they are set up to do, which almost always are to address clear cut policy or guideline violations. A bot can't discuss things or give its opinion on an article talk page; so, if a bot is doing something, then it's doing so because that's what it's supposed to do unless it somehow has developed a bug or has started thinking on its own. So, the bot kept removing the file leaving the same edit summary each time (which were essentially warnings about improper non-free use) and the file(s) continued to be re-added the file(s) without addressing the reasons for removal. You did post above asking for clarification, but that was only after ignoring multiple edit summaries and continuing to re-add the file. Perhaps, you would've stopped if JJMC89 the admin had told you the next time you re-add the file(s) would lead to an indefinite block, but an admin doesn't need to give you that final warning if they feel a block is needed.
Even after you were unblocked, you still didn't seem to undrstand why. You made two unblock requests that were declined. The first one was declined because you didn't address the reason why you were blocked. You were blocked for "Non-free content use policy violations" (not "edit warring"), but you still didn't seem to understand that. Your second unblock request was also declined by a different administrator for pretty much the same reason as the first. Blocks are intended to be preventive, not punative; so, at least three admins felt that (1) the block was appropriate to prevent further disruption and that (2) you still didn't fully understood why you ended up getting blocked which meant there were still real concerns about you repeating the same behavior.
Your account was blocked for a little over 72 hours because that's how long it took you to convince an administrator that you could be unblocked. An "indefinite" block doesn't mean "forever", but it does mean that the some administrator feels the relevant issues are serious enough that it should be clear that the account being blocked understands that they need to acknowledge and change their behavior if they want to return to editing. A 72-hour or shorter fixed-duration block might seem like it would've been the same thing, but those blocks automatically expire even if you don't make an unblock request and even if you don't acknowledge the mistakes that led to your account being blocked. In this case, the blocking admin felt that the community need to reassured that you understood the problem and would do your best to not repeat it. I've seen other admins also issue similar blocks for similar reasons, but you can seek further review at WP:ANI if you truly think you were somehow singled out or unfairly blocked in this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Conservation in X

I see that you are moving categories from "Conservation in X" to "Nature Conservation in X" as a speedy move. Can you direct to me to the discussion on this, as I sadly missed this? To take as an example, Category:Nature conservation in Scotland clearly includes both nature conservation and heritage/built environment, and the lead article, Conservation in Scotland, is written to reflect this.Grinner (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ignore, I got an answer at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Grinner (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:NV-CA Boundary Dispute.jpg

You recently removed the Wikimedia file "File:NV-CA Boundary Dispute.jpg" from the article Territorial evolution of California. After reading the specifics about the file, I do understand why you removed the file. However, I am left wondering why the file is on Wikimedia at all, and why it can be used in the article Roop County, Nevada, but no other article. Can you help me understand this better? I would appreciate it. It turns out I found an alternate file that will serve the purpose of the deleted file. Thank you for your help. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. My bot removed it becase it lacks a non-free use rationale for that article. Did you read the policy linked in the bot's edit summary? I don't think it is suitable for either article and have marked it for deletion. — JJMC89 02:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did read it. That is in part why I was wondering why it was left to remain on the original article. I wasn't objecting to its removal, just wondering why it hadn't been completely removed. Thank you for explaining. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Sir, if I have a picture which has not been updated on internet, how to I tag copy right? Sadeeqzaria (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That is to vage of a question to give a good answer. I suggest you ask at WP:MCQ and provide more details about the image when you do – who took it and when/where was it published. — JJMC89 21:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Bot request

Hi, I recently created Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace. Since your bot is cataloging such moves, can it also add the category to the draftspace pages? BD2412 T 17:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: It could. I see the category is added with {{Drafts moved from mainspace}}, which is good since bots/scripts would incorrectly disable it otherwise. I suggest having Evad37 adjust User:Evad37/MoveToDraft to add the template in the same edit that adds the AfC template. This would catch most cases, and the bot could add it for others. — JJMC89 21:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
That sounds excellent. I am also thinking that we will want to make the category a container for subcategories parsed by month, although setting up such a thing is beyond my skillset. BD2412 T 21:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I've done the setup for dated subcaegories. — JJMC89 22:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
JJ, you're the Governor. BD2412 T 23:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for vector SVG replacements.

Hello, JJMC89.

I saw the message that you left on my talk page. According to Photoshop and Illustrator, I rendered the files with vector graphics. I'm not sure why they are coming out as raster SVG's. If available, please replace my work with vector SVG's. Thank you. LocalContributor281 (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that my personal apps keep registering the files output as raster when it says it's vector. How would I be able to fix that issue? LocalContributor281 (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to stop bot flagging file for reduction

Hi there. Your bot is visiting this file: File:Jean Belette Spells for Planting.jpg and flagging it for size reduction. The image is already in my view of quite poor quality, despite its resolution, partly because what it shows is complex and has numerous subtle colour variations. I believe it needs to stay at the current level for the viewer to be able to make it out meaningfully. I removed the bot's flag but it keeps putting it back. Is there a way to deal with this? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your upload was 50% larger than the guideline (100,000 px), so I've reduced it. The painting isn't even mentioned in the article – that's a problem. — JJMC89 21:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but as you will see from my message, the guideline is not helpful for this image - the guideline is only a guideline. If you look at the image you will see that the reduction has made an already low resolution image of subtle colour and shape gradients appreciably more difficult to make out. You are right about the lack of text reference, and I have fixed that now, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been clearer - i propose to revert unless you want to add further? hamiltonstone (talk)
I have reverted for the reasons above. But i could still use advice on how to stop the bot from just pinging this every day. Any suggestions? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, JJMC89/Archives/2020. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


hi, i did not make that edit you mention... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Help talk:IPA/Sicilian

 Template:Editnotices/Page/Help talk:IPA/Sicilian and related templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Alice Eduardo page improvement

Hi @JJMC89:, Good day! I keep on editing the page, but the team keeps on removing/undoing my edits. What can I do to make the necessary improvements? The page has been purged, and yet every section was accepted before the purge. I added the Philanthropy and Awards sections in October 2019 but were removed again. What else can I do to recover those sections? Thank you. Jenv Corre (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I will not help you with promition. — JJMC89 02:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg

Hi JJMC89. On its most recent run, JJMC89 bot flagged this for quite a lot of 9 and 10c violations. However, the file is licensed as PD, or at least PD-inelgible-USonly and it seems the only reason the bot picked it up was because some recently added a non-free use rationale to the file's page. This was probably done in good faith but the license wasn't changed to {{non-free logo}}; so, I not quite sure why this editor thought the file needed a non-free use rationale. If the file was incorrectly licensed to begin with, then a non-free copyright license is needed; if not, then a non-free use rationale isn't needed and the {{Information}} template can be restored. The person who added the rationale did so when they updated the file, but it's basically the same as the version it replaced that was uploaded in 2011. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I asked about this at User talk:Debitpixie#Question about an edit you made to File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg to try and find out why a non-free use rationale was added. From the first reply I got, I think it was just done by mistake. The same editor, however, subsequently uploaded File:Airtel logo.svg as non-free content; this latest version if essentially the same as the other version, which means it might not really need to be non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The bot operates based on Category:All non-free media. As long as it is present, it is considered non-free. The file should be licensed as one of {{PD-logo}} (not {{PD-logo}} + {{PD-USonly}}), {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, or {{non-free logo}}. The first two without an NFUR and the last with one. I'll leave the TOO debate to you. — JJMC89 02:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying things. The TOO matter will eventually be sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2020/August".