User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2020/February

Active discussions

Non-free image question

Hello JJMC89. You seem to know your stuff on non-free image criteria – can I ask whether uploads like File:Rosa Raoulx.png are ok? My understanding is that if you cannot find a freely available image of a deceased person, you can upload a possibly copyrighted version as long as it is used only on their biography and is low resolution (below 100,000 pixels in size). However, I just want to double check this is correct before I continue doing this. Cheers, Number 57 20:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Number 57. Yes, it is OK, and your understanding is correct. I replaced the license with a more specific one, {{non-free biog-pic}}, and the source with a better one (see {{bsr}}). — JJMC89 08:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Super, thanks! Number 57 12:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

User Rights

Greetings! Can i get back my previous user rights???  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 14:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You've already made requests at PERM, so I'll let others handle it. — JJMC89 23:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Undelete Nambirajan Seshadri page

Nambirajan Seshadri is a prominent scientist in the field of electrical and computer engineering. He is a professor at the University of California, San Diego.[1] He received the prestigious IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal.[2] I request you to kindly undelete that Wikipedia page. If there are changes or citations required on that page, I will add it.Thegreatestmanonearth (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I will not be undeleting it, but you are free to write an article about him. — JJMC89 23:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Donna Read

Just curious to understand why you may have abandoned the draft for Donna Read. I've never seen the option G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission which popped up when attempting to create a draft for her. It would be helpful to understand what happened before attempting to create another page for Donna Read. Thank you. 02:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorriBrown (talkcontribs)

G13 just means that is was left unedited for six months. It did not have any useful content, only a stub template. — JJMC89 08:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
JJMC89 Okay, thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Request to continue editing

Hi JJMC8! I am contacting you regarding the deletion of this work. I would like to continue editing it to comply with the feedback you and others have contributed. It will be rewritten in my own words and any copyright issues resolved. Thank you for allowing this newbie to contribute to Wikipedia. Edugossip (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Several indeffed autopatrolleds

Hi, since you removed Biografer's autopatrolled because of block evasion, I was wondering if any of these indeffed users who still have autopatrolled were worth looking at. They were either blocked for sockpuppetry, one per community consensus, and one for advertising:

  • Andrew Base
  • E.M.Gregory
  • Lingveno
  • Seraphim_System
  • Terriffic Dunker Guy
  • TheGracefulSlick

Hope this is something. ミラP 17:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm curious why we are removing these rights at all per WP:INDEFRIGHTS. GMGtalk 18:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Those users were indeffed and have no way to exercise autopatrolled, especially if the block reason is sockpuppetry. ミラP 18:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be listed as an exception to the relevant policy. GMGtalk 18:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: MediaWiki:Userrights-groups-help says that an administrator may revoke their rights from an account that, by being blocked, also loses the trust needed for the rights assigned to it. Sockpuppetry is a way to lose trust, therefore the rights should best be revoked. ミラP 04:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Miraclepine: This is the English Wikipedia. That is not English Wikipedia policy. GMGtalk 20:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not even going to look at them. Blocked or not, Biografer shouldn't have had autopartolled. The articles that they created were quite problematic, including issues with close paraphrasing. — JJMC89 07:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I could've done the same I did with Rtkat3 just days ago with Biografer, but Indignant Flamingo dealing with the latter at SPI made the whole thing moot. ミラP 22:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

File:UH logo3.png removal from University Hospital (Newark)

Your bot removed the file from the Wikipedia page stating that rationale was not given, but rationale is given. Andrew nyr (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Andrew nyr. A separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of a non-free file. File:UH logo3.png does have a rationale for use in University Hospital, but it doesn't have one for use in University Hospital (Newark, New Jersey) and that is why the bot removed the file from that latter article. Perhaps when you added the rationale for the file, you intended to add |Article=University Hospital (Newark, New Jersey) to the template syntax, but mistakenly added |Article=University Hospital instead. This might seem like a trivial difference, but the two are separate articles and you need to make sure you providing a link to the correct article in the rationale. If this is what happened, just go back and fix the link and everything should be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion reason?

Hello, yesterday i created a page name Lekhraj Bhakri however you deleted it without any specific reason. If this was done under some wiki rules then please let me know so that i can improve the article accordingly. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I only deleted a redirect, and the deletion reason is noted in the deletion log. Your work is at Draft:Lekhraj Bhakri. — JJMC89 05:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Sir, i am new to Wikipedia and i don't understand what was the actual reason for deleting a redirect. Do i need to add more source or is there any technical issue with the article in question? Thanks TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
We do not allow redirects from articles to drafts since drafts are not actually part of the encyclopedia. You would have to ask Trivialist why they moved the page, but it looks like there are notability issues. — JJMC89 05:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Text-Me-Merry-Christmas.jpg

Hi there. The image above is the first I've tried to upload, and then you tagged it with a Bsr template. I believe that I have fixed it in this diff by linking to the site that includes the article and image inline as opposed to just linking to the image url. Since I haven't done this before, I wanted to double check to see if this truly fixes the issue or not. Thanks, 2pou (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks — JJMC89 04:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

2021 Indian Premier League

Please consider restoring the article as a redirect to Indian Premier League. There have been attempts to develop the redirect into its own article a bit too soon. Most of the times, editors just restore the redirect. This time it appears it was draftified. I believe the past history of the redirect would be useful in any case, as at least one editor has resorted to socking to try and get their preferred version established. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The relevant history is at Draft:2021 Indian Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The only thing left was a redirect to the draft. You are free to create a redirect to the main article. — JJMC89 07:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
JJMC89, of course, completely escaped me that that would happen. A redirect would make sense but then the history will surely be split between the draft and the redirect, as various people try to build an article. Think I'll try to undo the draftification and see if I encounter resistance. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Abu Qatadah

Hello. i think Harith ibn Rab'i should be moved here. since its literally the same person Ahendra (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you're telling me. You didn't move the page correctly - see the note on your talk page. I've cleaned up the mess. — JJMC89 23:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Cache Craze

Hello there. Do you have any advice on how to handle the bizarre editing going on at Cache Craze? There is a series of IPv6 accounts treating that article like a test page. I RPP'd the article when this was happening a couple months ago, but now I realize that a lot of the (constructive) contributors to that article are IP accounts, so I would like to avoid semi-protection if possible. Sorry if this is the wrong forum; I don't know if this is considered sockpuppetry. If it is, I can submit this to WP:SPI.  Bait30  Talk? 21:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 for a few months. — JJMC89 23:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"Non-free" images removed from user sandbox

(Message removed. Solution: Use "simple placeholder" images from Commons in place of non-free images)

Kbhasi (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:SHORTDESC

 Template:SHORTDESC has been nominated for merging with Template:Short description. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. DannyS712 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Need help with my sandbox

Hi, JJMC89, I recently created my Sandbox to finish working on Ananta (Lohara dynasty). Once i completed working on the said article, i moved it to draftspace then to Articlespace. However, when i open my sandbox, it shows a redirect from the article. The material including text/sources are still in my sandbox. Please have a look at User:TheBirdsShedTears/sandbox TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing left in your sandbox; it is just a redirect to the article. — JJMC89 05:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

First World War centenary

Hi JJMC89. Would you mind watching this article for awhile? The same IP keeps re-adding non-free files to it as flag icons despite the fact that have been repeatedly removed by your bot and then by me. I've left a few general templates about this on the IP's user talk page, but I'm not sure they have read them. This started back at the beginning of December last year, but it was another IP doing it. Same types of edits to similar articles, so maybe the IPs are the same person. Maybe the templates I left will slow them down; if not, however, then maybe WP:PP or a stronger warning from an admin will. The problem with {{uw-nonfree}} is that it's a single level warning so there's nothing you can add that's more strongly worded than that specifically related to non-free content use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. Let's see if your note does any good. — JJMC89 07:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for watching this. I guess that IP just felt that moving to a different article and doing pretty much the same thing wouldn't be noticed by anyone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on here and why that account is editing that IP's talk page, but it seems a bit odd. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes to new logo not recognized

Hello, I'm trying to upload the new logo for ICES, formerly known as Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The new logo includes a slash in the middle that indicates the word is meant to be spelled out as individual letters. The old logo that does not contain a slash is no longer correct and should be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatSandusky (talkcontribs) 20:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi KatSandusky. I'm seeing a logo that has a slash between the "IC" and "ES"; perhaps the problem you were having was that you needed to refresh either your browser or the article itself. Sometimes you need to clear out the old information from your browser so that access the latest version of a website instead.
Are you connected to ICES in any way, either personally or professionally? I'm just curious, but if, by chance you are, please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to see whether it applies to you; please be extra careful of WP:FCOI (as explained in in meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure) if it somehow applies to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
 
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda — JJMC89 07:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Fred Opert Racing Team badge.jpg

Hi. You tagged the above image with "This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. (The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification of the article subject, contrary to the rationale.)"

The problem, as I see it (please correct me if I'm wrong), is that the Fred Opert article effectively covers two subjects - Fred Opert, racing driver, and Fred Opert Racing, a team he founded. The logo is used as the primary means of visual identification of Fred Opert Racing and I stated in the Purpose section (which you have since changed) that "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the section of the article discussing Fred Opert Racing, a subject of public interest" (emphasis added). Is this not allowed? If no, is there any other rationale we can use? --kingboyk (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC) (would appreciate a reply here and a ping, thanks)

Also, I don't see anything in even the full guidelines at Wikipedia:Non-free content which says that the image must be at the top of the page. --kingboyk (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The change in the rationale was unintentional; I only intended to cleanup the substitution since the template shouldn't be substituted. I've restored your language and adjusted my rationale accordingly. The issue is that the article subject (per the title) is the person, not his racing team. It is easy for the reader to understand that without seeing the team logo. — JJMC89 07:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Cover of 1964 edition of the journal Physics.jpg

Your bot has just requested that I lower the resolution of the file I uploaded again. Is this done by you or is it automated? The file is already quite small, and the text barely readable. Tercer (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It is automated based on WP:IMAGERES. — JJMC89 07:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:IMAGERES is not helpful, as it doesn't give a precise resolution that I should use, so I can't know what the bot is complaining about. Nevermind, though, another bot came and resized the file already. I just hope that one is compatible with your bot and the file will be left alone now. Tercer (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Creative sparks all four.png

Hi there,

Is your problem with File:Creative sparks all four.png with the original version or with the later version that MrMajors uploaded?

I think that the second version was overly prominent; mine was fairly small and made the point without being excessive.

It's not clear whether you wanted the old version deleted (which your original tagging suggests) or whether you disagree completely.

I think there was a clear rationale on the original.

Ubcule (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It applies to both. Having a rationale and being policy-complaint are not the same. — JJMC89 03:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Solar System probes

Hi, your bot removed a link to File:Mars Global Remote Sensing Orbiter and Small Rover (2020).png in the above entitled list. Since the PNG image file itself and its use on the Mars Global Remote Sensing Orbiter and Small Rover page appear to be OK, I assume that the use of this file on the list page triggered some sort of possible minimal use violation; this seems a bit strange to me since the list entry for the probe is essentially an abbreviated version of the probe page. If minimal use is indeed the issue, please let me know. Also, if you and your bot are adamant about the image file's usage being a violation of minimal use, I think I can live it; just like to know this for future reference.

Cheers, Spotty's Friend —Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think they are only supposed to be in the article about the subject of the picture. Not sure. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
It was removed because there is no rationale for the list. Even if it had one, use in the list would not be policy-compliant. See WP:NFLISTS. — JJMC89 03:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. Thanks, the Wiki Policy on the use of non-free images in lists is understandable. On your statement regarding lack of rationale for use of the referenced image in the list article, I'd like a clarification if you don't mind; let's say hypothetically the referenced Mars probe failed in some spectacular manner such that the failure warrants a separate Wikipedia article, does it mean that your bot will delete the image file from the new hypothetical article unless someone provides a new rationale specifically to justify its use in the new article? Spotty's Friend (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Non-free use is not limted to a single use per se; it's that even a single use of non-free content is already considered somewhat exceptional which means that any additional uses tend to be considered even more exception, and thus require an even stronger, different type of justification. For example, a non-free album cover is usually considered OK when it's used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone article about the album itself, but others types of non-free use or uses in other articles may require a stronger justification. If the album cover art is considered to be representative example a particular artistic technique or the artist who created it, then it might be possible to justify the non-free use of the cover art in an article about the artist or the technique, but the justification would be different than that for the article about the album.
Wikipedia's non-free content use criterion #10c requires that a separate, specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use because that at least gives others something to assess; simply providing a non-free use rationale doesn't automatically make a particular use OK, but it does at least give others something to assess and discuss. It's the responsibility of the person wanting to use a non-free file in a particular way to provide an appropriate rationale, and files which are missing rationales for certain used can be removed per WP:NFCCE. Sometimes, the reviewer may simply add the missing rationale because they feel it's fairly obvious, but when things aren't so clear they may tag with {{di-missing some article links}} to allow someone else to provide the rationale. In certain cases, the reviewer may feel there's really no way to possibly justify the file's non-free use and remove the file instead. Regardless of what is done, files which are removed can usually be discussed at WP:FFD if someone disagrees with their removal.
In your particular example, it might actually be easier to justify a non-free photo of the failure of the probe (if any such photo existed) than a photo of the probe itself, but it might also be possible to justify re-using the same photo of the probe again in the article about the failure; it would, however, be realy quite hard to justify re-using either type of photo in a list article of various probes or various probe failures since the main focus of the article is not one specific probe or failure, but a more general article devoted to probes or probe failures. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy would generally allow the non-free logo of a professional baseball team to be used for primary identification purposes in an article specifically about said team, but it wouldn't really allow the same logo to be used in list article or a more general about professional baseball teams or professional baseball. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Marchjuly! I understand and accept that the use of said non-free image in a list may not comply with Wikipedia policy; the policy appears to be an attempt to enforce the minimal use doctrine from intellectual property law. Now in my prior hypothetical, if there's no other available image of the spacecraft failure, and I'd like to reuse the prior non-free image on a new page that deals specifically with the hypothetical failure, how would I go about adding an additional (stronger?) rationale for its use on the new page? Currently I only know how to add rationales during the initial image upload using the image upload wizard. Spotty's Friend (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to answer your question since it's sort of like asking, how do you make something Wikipedia notable so that an article can be created about it? You can't really make anything Wikipedia notable, and you can't really make a particular non-free use policy compliant; in either case, it either sort of already is or isn't. My way of looking at it is that you can't manufacture a jutification for non-free use for something whose non-free use cannot really be justified; in other words, you can't write a brilliantly worded rationale for a use that is simply not going to be justifiable. This is a certainly subjective way of looking at things, and that is generally why one person doesn't typically decide such things on Wikipedia.
In an article about the crash of a spaceprobe (or a plane, train or automobile), the primary focus is on the crash/accident itself; so, whether significantly seeing a picture of the probe (particularly if a stand-alone article about the probe already exists when such an image can be seen ala item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI), then it's debatable as to whether the additional use of the file is OK; so, even if I say it's OK, someone else may disagree. Basically, if you think a non-free use is justifiable, you add a WP:FUR for the particular use explaining why; ideally, the rationale should try and address all ten non-free content use criteria, particularly #8, and not just some copied-and-pasted boilerplate rationale claiming "fair use" or "illustrative purposes". It might be helpful to try do a little preparation and try to anticipate any possible objections to the particular use (particulary if it's a already existing file being used in another article), and avoid assuming some of the things listed in WP:AAFFD. It's important to remember that non-free use isn't automatic, but considered exceptional when freely licensed content is either not available or is eseentially insufficient to serve the same that kind of purpose as the non-free content; it's also important to remember that "free equivalent" is not limited to a free version of the exact same non-free content, but only a equivalent (including simple text) that serves essentially the same purpose. If you do go and add a rationale and someone then disagrees with it, they then can tag it for review or ask for other opinions at WP:FFD. If a consensus can be established in favor of the addtional use, the file will remain in the article; if not, it will be removed. Like anything on Wikipedia, there are bound to be people who disagree with whatever the outcome is, but there are also ways to challenge that outcome and ask for clarification/review.
File:N76ILL S-76 State of Illinois.jpg is a fairly actual recent example of a non-free file which was uploaded in good faith, but then deleted because it was not deemed not to meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The file was a non-free photo of the helicopter involved in 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash and was being used in the main infobox. The photo was taken years ago and just showed the craft on some tarmac. The photos was being used in a number of news reports about the crash as sort of a stock photo; most likely because it was the craft and also because media outlets often just liberally use things just under fair use in a way that Wikipedia has elected not to do. Anyway, the file was uploaded and then added to the article, used for a few days, but then deleted by an administrator per WP:F7. Someone then replaced the deleted file with the freely-licensed File:M-ONTY Sikorsky S-76B Helicopter Trustair Ltd.jpg showing the same type craft, but this image was later replaced with File:The debris field (49456020157).jpg showing the crash site. That might not perfectly apply to your hypothetical, but it seems sort of similar. You can ask the adminsitrator who deleted the non-free for more specifics, but F7 deletions usually have to do with WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. Conversation carried over to Marchjuly's talk page. Spotty's Friend (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Vasas logo.jpg

Hi JJMC89. Would you mind checking this file's page again? I'm not sure why a non-free license and non-free use rationale need to be added to the local page of a Commons file, particularly one that's OTRS verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why that was done either. — JJMC89 06:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thigambara Samiar

I had sought to delete the article and recreate it because every single revision contains almost blatant copyvio from this source. Though it wasn't me who plagiarised, but an incompetent Sangavitamilmani who is indefinitely blocked. A March 2018 article said, "the entry on this film has also got a storyline which should be held up as an example of bad English in all schools". I believed deleting and recreating is a form of purification, and similar to a phoenix's rebirth. But never mind, I've used the {{copyvio-revdel}} template now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

RD1 done. You weren't the only one working on the article, so the history needs to be preserved. — JJMC89 06:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Technical Barnstar
Thank you for alerting me about an image copyright issue via your bot. History DMZ (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

UFC 244 BMF Belt Picture review

File:UFC 244 BMFBelt.png JJMC89 can you review this picture if i am using the right Licensing and free form copyright issues? Regice2020 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The source that you listed for the image is not freely licensed. — JJMC89 01:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

move coords to infobox

It's been 10 days, and there has been just one cautionary comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Bot to move coordinates into infobox. Should this go to WP:BRFA now? MB 05:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it can. I'm going to start on the code first though. — JJMC89 05:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
That means you will do the request and there is nothing else for me to do at this point?
Also, I assume this will end up with "display=inline,title" in the infobox, even if the coords are already there. I mention this because sometimes the coords are in the infobox, but with "display=title" only, "display=inline" only, or even no display. I'd like the bot also to change |coor= to |coordinates= if that is present. (as far as I know, |coordinates= always works). There are some infoboxes that support |geo= also - replacing those with |coordinates= is another possibility. Something else I see occasionally is coords mistakenly in |location=, could you "move" those to |coordinates=? Lastly, sometimes there are unformatted coords (using |coordinates= with raw numbers, without {{coord}}. Could those be added to a new maint category for manual fixing? I think that's my entire "wishlish". Will certainly be glad to help out with any manual cleanup of odd-ball cases. Thanks. MB 05:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Nothing at the moment. I'll ping you if I have any questions while coding, and I'll let you know when I file the BRFA. My intention was to move/merge {{coord|...|display=title}} from the body to the infobox as {{coord|...|display=inline,title}}. When that happens, I can rename the parameter to |coordinates= too. I'll see what I can do about tracking raw coordinates. — JJMC89 07:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@MB: I think the code is mostly ready. The issue I'm running into is that it is not safe to move coordinates to all infoboxes.
  1. {{infobox country}}'s |coordinates= are for the capital, not the country itself. (There are other similar cases.)
  2. Some articles with {{coord|...|display=title}} don't have an infobox that uses coordinates. Example: {{infobox company}}
To solve this, I need a list of infoboxes that bot can safely use or a list to ignore. Also, how close should two sets of coordinates be to be considered the same? Right now I'm using 5 decimal places (after converting from DMS if necessary). — JJMC89 06:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree we only need to run this on articles transcluding certain infoboxes; those with coords. No reason to go through the tens of thousands of company articles, of which only a tiny minority have title coords. I would like to, at least initially, try in on one (e.g. {{infobox shopping mall}}. There are some other special cases, like {{infobox river}} that have multiple coords (mouth and source) - it is the mouth coords that go in the title. So I agree think we should develop a list of infoboxes to use. I can work on this.
On precision, 4 decimal points is about 30 feet. I think that is probably more than close enough. 5 decimal points is 3 feet, which can pinpoint a specific entrance to a building. That is more than we need since our articles are about buildings or bigger things. What happens when the two don't match. Can the bot add Category:Articles with ambiguous coordinates so these cases can be manually fixed? MB 01:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I ran a simulated run for articles with {{infobox shopping mall}} using four decimal places. There would be 523 edits, 14 coordinate mismatches (e.g. Puente Hills Mall), and 6 cases where the primary coordinates are used inline outside of the infobox (e.g. Stanford Shopping Center). Currently, in the last two cases, the bot just logs the issue. It could categorize instead. — JJMC89 07:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, this seems like a very reasonable rate of bot-moveable to manual cleanup needed. I looked at Puente Hills Mall and the coords in the title were the dead-center of the mall, while those in the infobox were about 100 feet off. It wouldn't have been terrible to use either one, but of course it is best to manually check these.

When you say "edits", is that just moving to infobox? Or does the bot do things like change the display to inline/title if they are already only in infobox but with display=inline only?

I looked at Stanford Shopping Center and the inline coords were used to display the coords in the EL section at the bottom. This is non-standard usage and I deleted the EL, another manual job since there was a "*Map:" before the coords that had to go also. You have chosen to not do anything with these. I think it is safe for the bot to add these coords to the infobox, providing there is only one inline coord in the article and the inline instance is left there (with display changed to inline only if necessary) pending manual removal.

This brings up another issue. In settlements, it is not that uncommon to see text in the article that says "anytown is located at 12°20′42″N 67°53′24″E / 12.345°N 67.890°E / 12.345; 67.890. These always appear distracting to me and are redundant with the coords in the preferred location (infobox and title). If you categorize these, I could start a discussion to try to get consensus to (manually) remove such text. This should be a different category than the one for mismatches.

I've started working on the infobox list. It looks like there will be 200+ infoboxes to process. (Many of the ones I am removing are for people with burial coords in the infobox that never go in the title.)

On the precision issue, I have found that there is {{Infobox artwork}} where 5 digit precision may be appropriate. Can you handle that differently that the rest? MB 15:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It is only moving/merging {{coord|...|display=title}} from the body to the infobox as {{coord|...|display=inline,title}} (or categorizing raw infobox coordinates, which didn't happen in that run). I don't know about setting |display=inline,title when there aren't coordinates in the title already. IIRC, I've seen some editors not want coordinates in the title. For the |display=inline,title outside the infobox case, yes, I can make it do that. I'll take a look at categorizing the inline only case. One way or another, I will be able to handle different precisions. How I handle it will depend on whether {{infobox artwork}} is the only special case. — JJMC89 07:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
With the updated code, we get 541 edits, including adding categories. — JJMC89 07:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Leigh Snowden

Hi

As for Leigh Snowden picture. I have added a tag that the status is being disputed.

Best regards, Lamro (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that you have removed the rationales for File:Lebanon Football Association (LFA) logo.svg and File:Korea Football Association logo, 2020.svg to be used in their respective NT articles. The motivation you provided isn't entirely clear to me: you stated WP:NFCC#8 as a reason for their removal. "Contextual significance" states that, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't see how this applies to the two logos in question, and why we should only remove them from the national team articles, and keep it in the federation's. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#UUI #17. From what I can tell, the logos are the associations' not the national teams'. — JJMC89 07:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Part 2

Hi, in order for File:Lebanon national football team logo.svg to be viable, what should be changed? From where should I obtain the image from? Nehme1499 (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to source it from the copyright holder. Neither of the sources that you provided show that it is the national team's logo as opposed to the association. — JJMC89 06:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Part 3

This is getting ridiculous. I must have provided something like 7 different sources for File:Lebanese Football Association (LFA) logo.svg, and none of them seems to satisfy you. I have used the website where the SVG file is uploaded, and it's not OK. I used Soccerway.com, a reliable source for association football, and it's not OK. I used the official Lebanese Intellectual Property website, and it's not OK. It's very evident that whichever source I put, you will just paste the same "There is no evidence of previous publication by the copyright holder. (WP:NFCC#4)". Be very clear with what you want, and what source I should use. Give me a very specific example. Nehme1499 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You should be using the logo from the association's website, and sourcing it to said website. This is already done correctly at File:Lebanese Football Association (LFA) logo.png. The twp logos are not the same: different shard of red, different tree, and different ball. Details of the one on the IP site also differ from both of the ones uploaded here. — JJMC89 01:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@JJMC89: The Lebanese Football Association's website is extremely outdated: that logo hasn't been used in a long time. They have just recently started re-publishing news there (from February 2020); I know the people in charge of both social media and the website. The logo at File:Lebanese Football Association (LFA) logo.svg is the one being used on the kits/jerseys, with the correct tone of colours. Examples: official kit presentation, kit alone, kit during the 2019 AFC Asian Cup (a), kit during the 2019 AFC Asian Cup (b). There is no shadow of a doubt that File:Lebanese Football Association (LFA) logo.svg is the correct logo. I can accept the fact that it shouldn't ALSO be used for the national team (unless you believe that File:Lebanese Football Association (LFA) logo.png is the association's, and File:Lebanese Football Association (LFA) logo.svg is the national team's, which is fine by me...) Nehme1499 (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra links. Apparently they keep their Twitter more up to date than their website. Though the white dots in the red band are sometimes present and sometimes not (depending on when/how it is used?). — JJMC89 05:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Also, considering that the "new" version of the logo isn't in the IP website, is it safe to say that it isn't copyrighted and that it is in the public domain? Nehme1499 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The IP website is for trademarks, not copyright. Copyright doesn't require registration. — JJMC89 05:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

concept aircraft fair use pictures

@JJMC89: I'm pretty baffled that you think those pictures cannot increase readers' understanding.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

They may, but they don't meet the rest of criterion 8. — JJMC89 05:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@JJMC89: "its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding" ? Of course it would be detrimental. Would you put on hold the deletion request, as they will be deleted on Friday, but you take 4 days to reply : a discussion will take more time than that. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. If you want to contest the deletion, you should do so on the file's talk page. — JJMC89 06:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I might know why Cydebot went berserk last month

Someone put "delete" in "no consensus to delete", and the command ending in the word "delete" caused Cydebot to empty the categories. If you unblock Cydebot and add a warning not to add "delete" lest it makes Cydebot remove the categories, it should operate perfectly. ミラP 00:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That someone was me. "no consensus to delete" is an acceptable part of the bot instructions, so such a warning would not be appropriate. It also wouldn't fix the issue. Cydebot doesn't know how to handle (or at least ignore) the retain section. Since then other sections have changed, and Cydebot doesn't know how to handle those either. — JJMC89 06:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

This is just a courtesy notice to notify you I have contested your non-free speedy tag of File:MontrealExposcap2004.png. Thank you. Have a magical day. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 17:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

List of micronations

Hi JJMC89. Could you add an edit notice for non-free content use in list articles to List of micronations? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89 05:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You might want to do the same for List of proxy wars since your bot has had to remove non-free files from that article on multiple occasions as well, and I've done the same thing manually in the past. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be very frequent, so I think it is OK without it for now. Let me know if that changes. — JJMC89 06:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed some Logos

Hey why you removed South Asian Games and Commonwealth Youth Games Logos? Zoglophie (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. What files are you talking about? — JJMC89 06:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kabir Helminski

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kabir Helminski. 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. Danthedervish (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This picture require your attention

Click Here Regice2020 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Responded there — JJMC89 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike Matthews17

Reason why I asked for a CU check is because I believed there are a few more accounts. When I read User talk:Mike Matthews17 top post just now about wanting to edit a locked article, that sounded pretty fishy to me considering the turn of events. This user goes on to tries to frame other people with fake signatures. My gut is just telling me there is more down the rabbit hole! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: Struway2 thinks the CU blocked Cez Cherry25 has been spotted as a very similar name to Cez2Cherry25. I wasn't certain who that might have been but it is now more clearer. I've also seen the number of contributions and the dates on when they happened (Dec 19), I suspect that the user tried to do exactly what Mike2Matthews17 did and speak to a group of users before having the autoconfirmed level to move pages. So Struway2 thinks they pulled one out of the rabbit hole whether it is sock or meat. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23, you CU blocked Cez Cherry25. Is there anything you can tell me about other connected accounts? — JJMC89 19:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Not really, other than the ones you already know about.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2020/February".