User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2020/October

Active discussions

Oppose merge from Draft:Laycon into Laycon

I saw that you merged the history of Draft:Laycon into Laycon. I'm opposing the merge, because the history of Draft:Laycon is problematic and has many issues and is also different from the version I created. It is now having a new user as the creator of the article instead of me. I'll prefer a simple redirect instead. Thanks. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 03:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Why even bother posting here if you're just going to run to someone else? — JJMC89 05:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

About Rollback request

Hi.. I think i possess enough qualifications for rollback rights. I don't know why no answer on my request is provided by any of the admin until now .Heba Aisha (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your request was declined by Anarchyte. — JJMC89 01:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok....i will again come after gaining more experience.thanks Heba Aisha (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg

Would you mind watching this file for a bit? It was added to various FC Barcelona team articles, but removed by JJMC89 bot for NFCC#10c reasons. Some one added the missing rationales and re-added the file to the team articles, but the reason there were no rationales had to do with Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg. There is a notification of this on the file’s page, but obviously the bot can’t see that and the editor who added the additional rationales probably missed it. There should be no problem with anyone starting a discussion about this at FFD if they feel the NFCR close should be re-considered, but I think that’s what’s needed even though NFCR technically no longer exists. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The above also applies to File:Real Madrid CF.svg per Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 68#File:Real Madrid CF.svg also involving the same editor. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Watching — JJMC89 01:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Bot edits to files up for deletion

Feature request for your bot: can you make tasks 18 and 19 not run on files while they're up for deletion? For example, Special:Diff/981674261 seems like it's just making unnecessary work. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Jackmcbarn. A lot of non-free content work does seem to be overlapping, but that’s probably because there are different non-free content criterion involved. The bot is tagging files for reduction per WP:NFCC#3b, whereas you’ve tagged that file for deletion per WP:NFCC#1. Since the file is no longer being used anywhere another bot is likely going to tag it for WP:F5 speedy deletion per WP:NFCC#7 fairly soon. There probably is a bit of redundancy in all of this, but the bots tagging the file for other things don’t know whether it will end up deleted per F7 at the moment; so, they just go about doing their jobs. If the F7 deletion is challenged, the file could end up at WP:FFD for further discussion, which means the other issues would still be issues so to speak. Though it seems highly unlikely, if the file you tagged with {{rfu}} is kept by chance for some reason, those other issues will need to be resolved; so, maybe it’s better to let the bot’s do their thing because all ten non-free content criteria need to be met and even failing WP:JUSTONE might cause a non-free use to be considered non-policy compliant. A file tagged for rfu can be deleted after two days. Most file reduction is also done by bots. So, if the file is reduced before an admin reviews the F7 tag, that admin will just delete all of the versions of the file as part of the process. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jackmcbarn. I can, but I'm not inclined to do so. As Marchjuly notes, files marked for deletion may not get deleted. I don't see a good reason to delay enforcing some parts of the policy while compliance with other part is contested. As far as work goes, the majority of cases are fully automated (tagging, reduction, and revision deletion). — JJMC89 01:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Invalid SVG - fixing

Hi, if an image is tagged with {{Invalid SVG}} by JJMC89 bot (talk · contribs) and I then fix the SVG (in this case File:Question book-new.svg) and upload my revision, what's the procedure after that? Do I remove the {{Invalid SVG}} or leave it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. The bot will recheck after a new version is uploaded. So long as the new version doesn't have any issue that make the validator not able to validate (There are some of these, which are not tagged.) and the page is not protected, the bot will update the template. In this case, I added the template since the page has cascade protection, so I've updated the template. You can always remove it though. — JJMC89 01:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Guðbjörg Guttormsdóttir

Hello JJMC89 I would ask you to clarify on why you have deleted the page for Guðbjörg Guttormsdóttir. I have recieved no word as to that this was imminent and why.Pottablom (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Pottablom. Are you talking about Guðbjörg Guttormsdóttir? That article hasn't been deleted. It appears that you mistakenly created the page as Wikipedia:Guðbjörg Guttormsdóttir in the Wikipedia namespace which is generally reserved things like Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, etc. Articles or drafts of articles, etc. shouldn't be created in that namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89 and Marchjuly and thank you to the latter for the clarification. I thought I had already done that and appologize for the misunderstanding. Thank you for pointing it out to me.Pottablom (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


Hello, I wanted to ask why U:GIO and U:GIOGUCH were deleted. I made those shortcuts for convenience, so that instead of typing "User:Gioguch," one could just type "U:GIO" and go to the page. Also what does "(Tag: Twinkle)" mean? If you can please let me know, that would be great, and thank you. Gioguch (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

They were cross-namespace redirects from mainspace to userspace. The tag indicates the tool used. — JJMC89 04:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
But I never intentionally used Twinkle, so are you saying that they were deleted because the purpose of the shortcuts violated cross-mainspace redirects? Gioguch (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I used Twinkle to delete them. They were deleted because they were cross-namespace redirects from mainspace to userspace. — JJMC89 06:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know! Gioguch (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Please Allow Edits

Please allow edits on this page: Template:Efn native lang. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You should already be able to edit it. — JJMC89 05:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Bot down?

The bot hasn't processed any category changes that have been on the working page for several hours - has it gone down? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: Thanks for the ping. One of my other bots was hogging all of the resources for some reason. I killed everything shortly after you posted to get things up and running normally. I also made some adjustments so hopefully it doesn't happen again. — JJMC89 08:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


Please restore File:Joint_Force_Command_Norfolk_badge.png to Template:NATO_command_structure once the non-free previous versions are deleted. This is so that it matches the other JFCs. If not please edit my upload so that the file can be added. Thanks.

BlueD954 (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi BlueD954. Non-free files can only be used (i.e. displayed) in the article namesspace per WP:NFCC#9; this means that non-free content cannot be "used" on user pages or user talk pages, article talk pages, drafts, templates, etc. That has nothing to do with any non-free previous revisions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Can you change it so that the file can be displayed as with the others which are displayed? It is nonsensical. BlueD954 (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
You can ask or propose such a thing at Wikipedia talk:NFCC, but I don't think you're going to have much of a chance establishing a WP:CONSENSUS to change a community-wide policy just to add a non-free file to a template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@BlueD954: As I explained above, non-free files can only be used in the article namespace; they can't be used on pages like Template talk:NATO command structure per WP:TPG#Non-free images. If you want to discuss a non-free file on a talk page, you can do so but you'll need to provide a link to the file's page instead or displaying the file itself. The way to do that is by using the "colon trick" like I did here. If you continue to use non-free files on talk pages or other pages where they can't be used, the files are going to continued to be removed by a WP:BOT like was done here and here. If you made this mistake once, maybe twice, then it's no big deal; if you keep making this mistake, on the other hand, then an administrator might see it as a case of not listening and repeatedly violating Wikipedia policy on the use of copyrighted content, and thus decide to take action to stop you from doing so. The best thing to do before adding any file to any Wikipedia page is to check the file's licensing; if the file is licensed as non-free content, then you're going to have be careful how you use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Not fun. End.BlueD954 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment


If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject on open proxies discussion

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)

How Do I Fix An Improper SVG?

Hello. I'm having trouble with creating a proper SVG. If one of your bots are available or you know how to explain the procedure, please respond back. File:Mickey Mouse.svg. Thank you. LocalContributor281 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to vectorize that image. All it does is introduce copyright issues, and the PNG does the job just fine. — JJMC89 04:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not even a true SVG image - it's a PNG image disguised as an SVG. The underlying PNG is of far too high a resolution to satisfy WP:NFCCP#3b. The height multiplied by the width must be less than 100,000 pixels, and 1,600 * 1,600 = 2,560,000. By comparison, File:Mickey Mouse.png - which is a true PNG image, undisguised - is 265 * 370 = 98,050 pixels, just within the resolution threshold. More at WP:IMAGERES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for resizing the Mickey SVG. However, there is a small issue. When I made the SVG, everything came out displaced and choppy. Is there any way that I can have you convert the PNG to a clean SVG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalContributor281 (talkcontribs) 20:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No. As I already said, the PNG should be used. — JJMC89 04:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please help

Please help to block (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). The range contains numerous IP vandals including those who constantly bully me. He also uses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), which is currently blocked for only 1 month. I think it should be blocked for far longer. The addresses are Indosat and originated from Surabaya/Sidoarjo, East Java. Please consider. I am tired of being abused here almost everyday since June. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Cover art

I am working on articles for UK top 40 singles which have not yet been created, and you have flagged all the cover art I have uploaded with the fair use rationale, they are the only way of illustrating the article and it is the official cover art, surely these count as fair usage. Example the articles for Dinner Guest, Miss Me, I'll Be There etc. How do these have a chance of becoming good articles without the cover art - what makes it different to the million other articles with copywrited cover art included. 03md 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi 03md. I think if you read WP:NFC#Implementation and the {{nrd}} template JJMC89 added to the files, you'll find your answer. A non-free file needs two things: a file copyright license for the file itself and a non-free use rationale for each use of the file. You seem to have provided only a license for these files when you uploaded them, and either forgot or didn't know about the non-free use rationale. I you take a closer look at the {{Non-free album cover}} license, there's a section which begins with "To the uploader" that also explains this. Technically, it's the responsibility of the person uploading a non-free file or adding such a file to an article to provide the required non-free use rationale for each use, and you probably can use {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} to do that. Providing the missing rationales is still no guarantee that the files won't be challenged, but it would make the files no longer eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F6. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Is there not a bot that can do this? I have spent time adding them to the articles and now they have been removed so I have to go back and forth between the template the article, add them in again. My time is better spent writing the content and its put me off adding images anymore (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi IP Assuming this is in relation to the above, there's no bot that can do this because non-free content use isn't considered automatic when it's comes to Wikipedia and there are ten specific non-free use criteria that need to be met for each non-free use for said use to be considered acceptable. Some of these criteria (e.g. criterion #7) can be assessed by a bot, but some of them (e.g. criterion #4, criterion #10a) simply are beyond the capabilities of bot and require the uploader or another editor to address. Part of providing a non-free rationale is to explain how the intended use satisfies these ten criterion and a bot has now way of knowing what that intent is. There are examples of how to write a proper non-free use rationale and how to add them to file pages given in WP:FUR; in addition, templates have been created over the years by various editors for typical types of non-free use to try and make things easier. So, regardless of whether you decide to write out your own non-free use rationale or use an applicable template, the files need non-free use rationales if you want to avoid them being deleted per WP:F6.
If you didn't know any of this, then that's OK; however, now that you do, you should try and make sure any non-free files you upload have both a license and non-rationale from hereon. Other editors might be willing to help you out this time; however, if you're not not willing to make the required effort in the future and expect others to clean up after you every time, then you probably should avoid non-free content altogether from hereon because you're likely going to end up blocked if continue to repeat the same mistake over and over again. There are editors who feel that their time is better spent writing content as well, and they might be put off by having to go around and cleanup non-free files you upload because you are unable to do things as relevant policy requires.
When an editor adds new content to an article or revises existing content in such a way that significantly changes the article, they're expected to also provide a citation in support in accordance to allow verification; if they don't, the content is unsourced and can be removed at any time by any editor. Sometimes, the content can be fixed by others by their finding a reliable source which supports the "new" content and adding it as a citation; other times, an editor may add a template like {{citation needed}} or {{Unreferenced}} to the article depending upon the specifics to alert others that there's an issue that needs to be addressed. There are even cases where the content in question may be removed outright per WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPSOURCES depending upon how contentious it might be. In either case, it's the responsibility of the person wanting to add the content to provide the citation; if all they expect to do is go around adding unsourced content to article and expect others to search for and add required citations, then they're going to quickly find their work challenged by others and having other problems with others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@03md: Please see User talk:03md#Non-free use rationales for reference, but all you've done is to add "empty" {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} templates to file pages; you need to fill in the parameters of the templates to avoid the files from being speedily deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sotto Fascia Semplice

I made the talk page to ask people to create the page.-- (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not the place to do it. You could try Wikipedia:Requested articles. — JJMC89 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

One more copy of the Anton Vujanic spam draft

Hey, just wanted to let you know that you missed one of the copies of the Anton Vujanic spam draft while you were clearing them out: Draft:Toni Vujanic. Thanks for the quick response! Nathan2055talk - contribs 07:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 5a.jpg

Hello JJMC89,

please look here: User talk:Gisel#Replaceable fair use File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 5a.jpg

and the diskussion of that file.

All things are done well. --Gisel (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing there or in the NFUR justifies the use of the file. A free photo can be taken (by someone else); therefore, a non-free one may not be used. — JJMC89 05:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) Hi Gisel. I'm going to disagree with you and say that all things are not done well with respect to that file or File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 4.jpg. The first problem is that File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 5a.jpg has no copyright license and files lacking a copyirght license are subject to speedy deletion per WP:F4. The second problem with both files has to do with WP:FREER. There's pretty much no way we can use a non-free photo of a living person per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, except under some very limited circumstances (none of which seem to be relevant here). A free equivalent doesn't need to be created by the same person (i.e. Kevin Hart) who took the photos the photos you uploaded; it could another photo of Neidich or of the basset clarinet taken by someone else uploaded under a free license that Wikipedia accepts which is capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as the two non-free ones taken by Hart. Moreover, the article on the clarinet doesn't need a non-free image of Neidich per WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8 even if it shows him holding a basset clarinet.
Wikipedia can only request that a photographer release their work under a license that it accepts; sometimes a photographer agrees to do so, but many times they don't. At the same time, Wikipedia isn't obligated in any way to use non-free photos taken by photographers who don't wish to release their work under a free license, no matter how good of a photo they are. Such photos still need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which these two clearly don't in my opinion. You can disagree with me if you like. If you do, you can give your reasons why on each file's talk page. The administrator who reviews the files will see your comments and decide what to do. You should, however, add the missing copyirght license to "File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 5a.jpg" as soon as possible because the file is almost certain to be deleted if you don't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Just going to add that I know pretty much nothing about clarinets, but a Google Images search of "Charles Neidich Schwenk & Seggelke clarinet" show a couple of other photos of Geidich apparently playing the same clarinet; so, if he performs live and plays that clarinet, it's would not be considered unreasonable to expect that a free equivalent image taken by someone attending the such a performance could be created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to waste my time here on fruitless discussions. I only want to say one thing: We are not discussing legal provisions on copyright here, but about homemade restrictions of a few people who have the say in Wikimedia and Wikipedia, restrictions whose meaningfulness is definitely doubtful and those of the free authors who want to illustrate theirs articles, make life difficult.
The administrator can decide what he wants. My compromise suggestion: delete photo 4, keep photo 5a. Gisel (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are homemade in that they apply only to content (text or images) being used on Wikipedia. Many are quite restrictive perhaps and many are open to different interpretations, but in the end all editors are expected to comply with them as best as they can. If you think a particular policy or guideline is too restrictive or is meaningless, you can discuss it on its talk page. Perhaps you'll be able to establish a consensus that it is. If you think either of these files should be kept based upon how a policy or guideline should be interpreted, you can discuss it on its file talk page or at WP:FFD and try to establish a consensus that it should.
Finally, authors don't "have" articles per WP:OWN per se; if they want to truly "have" their articles, then perhaps they need to try something other than Wikipedia. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
To have or not to have
An author who writes an article on his PC and perhaps invests a lot of effort and research to do so will in the end "have" an intellectual product created by him. He is the owner of the work, he has the copyright.
By posting this article in WP, he grants Wikipedia and everyone a “Creative Commons Attribution / Share Alike” license to "his" work, just like a photographer who uploads an image to Wikimedia Commons. The author can also use the article - his article - for other purposes, e.g. at a lecture, in a book or in a magazine. He “has” the rights to the work, regardless of the fact that WP and others have a right of joint use due to the license granted. --Gisel (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, but the author doesn't have any final editorial control over the content he adds to Wikipedia after he clicks "Publish changes". For sure, he and anyone else can reuse that content pretty much any way they want as long as the terms of Wikipedia's licensing are met; however, any disagreements over article content with other editors are going to be expected to be resolved per relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, regardless of the wishes of the original creator of the content. Once a person adds something to Wikipedia, it's there for anyone to edit and try and improve upon. As long as their edits are considered WP:HERE and supported by WP:CONSENSUS, they're unlikely going to be reverted simply because the original creator of the content might not agree with them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Kevin Hatt emailed me permission to use the photo on Wikipedia in February. Would this or a similar explanation be helpful here? Gisel (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
No. That is not a free license. — JJMC89 21:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Can user: please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Done (earlier) — JJMC89 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Please redact

Will you redact this vandalizing act because it is a WP:PA as it mentioned my real life Twitter accounts. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flix11:   DoneFayenatic London 14:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Question per Requested moves/Technical requests

Hello! It appears that you declined to move Cottrill's Opera House to Cottrill Opera House, per my recent request at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests. Your edsum said "decline 1: moved to current title from proposed title via RM". I don't understand what this "means"....sorry...

Background: In the course of correcting curly apostrophes, I moved the original curly apostrophe article name to a straight apostrophe name. Afterwards, while reading/checking the sources, I realized I should have dropped the apostrophe s, but couldn't make the second move. Would you explain why you declined the move from Cottrill's Opera House to Cottrill Opera House? I was just doing routine maintenance, so I am not terribly bothered either way....but would like to understand the reasoning, for future reference. Thanks so much! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: the apostrophe s was approved by a formal Requested Move discussion at Talk:Cottrill's Opera House#Requested move 12 October 2020. – Fayenatic London 14:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think to ck the tp until after I made the above comment. Request withdrawn....Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 20:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2020/October".