User talk:JJMC89

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Running the Commons PoTD bot at Basque Wikipedia

Hello! I was just messing around and trying to find out how the bot works, but before starting installing it at Toolforge (which doesn't seem something easy), I would like to ask if there's any change to fun the bot at Basque Wikipedia directly. Would it be possible for you? Thanks! Theklan (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It should work without any changes. I could run it on Basque Wikipedia for you. — JJMC89 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! What do you need to make it happen? AFAIK you have bot permissions at euwiki. (Please, ping on answer) -Theklan (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Request

It would have been nice to have the opportunity to change my userpage myself, rather than finding it done for me. Perhaps you should think about just asking or notifying the users whose rights have changed, before doing that wholesale. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You had almost six years to do it yourself. That is plenty of opportunity. — JJMC89 18:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

For the future

I really could have edited by User page on my own. But, it is already done so okay. Just wanted to remind you SingFan2023 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You could have, but we aren't going to wait for you to correct blatant policy violations yourself. — JJMC89 18:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay got it. 65.18.48.129 (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Bot removing NFCC violations

Hello!

I've gone through Wikipedia:Database reports/Overused non-free files and removed a few FURs that I deemed not compliant. Your bot then removed the corresponding uses, for example see Special:Diff/1222254975, however some of the uses have not been removed by the bot. See for example File:CHN logo.svg and File:Romania basketball team.png. Do you know why this is? Jonteemil (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It depends. The "recent" removals are based on a page using the file being edited, not the file page being edited. The former is the most common way violations are introduced. The bot also checks all non-free file uses twice a month. Since this takes a significant amount of time, some uses can appear to be missed, but they should be caught the next time it runs. — JJMC89 18:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, than I'll just standby and hope the uses be caught eventually. Jonteemil (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Jonteemil: If you're confident enough to remove a non-free use rationale from a file's page because you think it's a clear violation of WP:NFCCP, then it seems that you should also be removing the file from the articles where it's non-free use isn't compliant. Simply removing the rationale and then waiting for a bot to remove the file for violating WP:NFCC#10c seems (in my opinion) to be passing the buck (so to speak) to the bot because that's what people are going see removing the file. JJMC89 bot isn't assessing the validity of a file's non-free use rationale or the use corresponding to that rationale; it's only asessing whether there's a rationale linking to article's where the file's being used; so, leaving the files the bot to remove seems like a back-door approach that might be seen by some as being a bit sneaky and a bit in bad faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This bot needs to stop messing up drafts

In userspace, and even more importantly, in draft space. Those are articles, soon to be published. I can see how this may be difficult to deal with in userspace, where many non-article pages exist, but there is no excuse for the bot trying to censor images in draftspace. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 10:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

No – the use of non-free media outside of articles is not permitted. Continuing to violate policy will likely lead to you or your students being blocked. — JJMC89 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Lay off the threats. Violating civility and such can lead to a boomerang to what you just wrote. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 09:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What you're asking is a violation of of the Non-free content criteria policy which exists To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law. So instead of criticizing the bot owner why don't you clarify this with legal@wikimedia.org? Nobody (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24 I am happy to learn about such rules and help enforce them in the future, all I am saying is that I expect the bot owner - or any other user - to comment on things politely, instead of instantly threatening blocks, particularly when we are dealing with things that can be quite confusing (ex. how drafts are not "articles"). _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 10:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a sensitive subject, especially due to it's possible legal implications. And while not every administrator deals with them the same way, I've seen many times where the violating user got indeffed after 3-4 warnings. While I get your civility concern, JJMC's message was in line with our warning for copyright violation {{Uw-copyright}}: persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. I understand that students don't know our plethora of policies and guidelines and that the way we deal with copyright concerns can sometimes be seen quite bitey. But all edits that violate 5P3 could be possible legal concerns and have to be dealt with immediately. Nobody (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:LINKBOXES

Hi. I've noticed you've been citing WP:LINKBOXES to justify undoing users' attempts to add new shortcuts to linkboxes. I think your interpretation of the guideline is incorrect. It would create a Catch-22 situation since you insist that links not be added unless and until they become common, but of course they can't really become common in the first place if they're not already in the linkbox, since no-one will even know they exist. This would mean it is practically impossible to improve the quality of the shortcuts on offer, and by extension ease-of-navigation for users, because then awkward, hard-to-remember links may have a major advantage over clearer more memorable ones, simply by virtue of having been created first.

Just going by number of hits rather than the inherent quality of the shortcut isn't implied by a plain and literal reading anyway: it says "common and easily remembered", not "common and therefore easily remembered". Perhaps the latter reading is taken to be implicit, but in any event common sense surely dictates that it is far preferable for a link to be common because it is by its own nature easily remembered, rather than simply being easily remembered by the most frequent contributors due to rote exposure. And I certainly don't see any basis for your absurd assertion that the guideline be treated in total isolation from the immediately preceding section Wikipedia:Shortcut#Readability, i.e. that clear and easy-to-remember shortcuts only be a concern when creating them, but not when in selecting which are displayed to users in linkboxes.

The reason for the "only the most common links" rule is to prevent the linkbox from becoming overcrowded. Yet you are applying it even to linkboxes with only one or two existing shortcuts, not just appealing to it to cut linkboxes that are already overflowing down to size. Rigidly enforcing the rules even in cases where their whole purpose and rationale don't apply is a textbook type of WP:Wikilawyering. 195.224.61.254 (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)