User talk:JJMC89

This user has opted out of talkbacks

BSicons

Would it be possible to have an additional list of BSicons (on Commons) containing obsolete images to be replaced by their updated counterparts? This would help a lot because many of the icons have been deprecated for years but are still widely used because the images were reuploaded and not replaced. Many thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Icons which are definitely safe to replace automatically

Old New  (AKRZlf)  (RAl)  (AKRZlg)  (RA+r)  (AKRZrf)  (RAr)  (AKRZrg)  (RA+l)  (AROADlf)  (RAl)  (AROADlg)  (RA+r)  (AROADrf)  (RAr)  (AROADrg)  (RA+l)   (dBHFm)  (dBHF-M)  (eABZ3lf)  (eABZql)  (eABZ3lg)  (eABZq+r)  (eABZ3rf)  (eABZqr)  (eABZ3rg)  (eABZq+l)  (exCONTl)  (exCONTfq)  (exCONTr)  (exCONTgq)  (extCONTl)  (extCONTfq)  (extCONTr)  (extCONTgq)  (tABZld)  (tABZgl+l)  (tABZrd)  (tABZgr+r)  (tCONTl)  (tCONTfq)  (tCONTr)  (tCONTgq)  (uABZld)  (uABZgl+l)  (uABZrd)  (uABZgr+r)  (ueABZld)  (ueABZgl+l)  (ueABZrd)  (ueABZgr+r)  (uCONTl)  (uCONTfq)  (uCONTr)  (uCONTgq)  (uexCONTl)  (uexCONTfq)   (uexCONTr)  (uexCONTgq)  (uextCONTl)  (uextCONTfq)  (uextCONTr)  (uextCONTgq)  (utCONTl)  (utCONTfq)  (utCONTr)  (utCONTgq) Several others but couldn't be bothered to add them because they're not really used much.

@Jc86035: It could be done. Since they are not redirects, it will require some new code. Could the obsolete ones be redirected to the new ones? — JJMC89 04:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons admins usually decline to do that because most of the files are currently in use on multiple wikis and it would apparently cause problems with CommonsDelinker (e.g. where they're used outside of templates). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Okay. Is there consensus that they are obsolete and should be should be replaced? — JJMC89 16:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: I'll ask on c:Talk:BSicon/Renaming. Generally I'd say basically no one disputes that they're obsolete (most have been superseded for quite a while), although I could be wrong. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No one has made an objection, so I guess it's fine? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: See commit, local config, and replacementMap. — JJMC89 04:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Untitled message from Geraldineproduction

Curious as to why you removed the photograph of Mansur Kamaletdinov when it is a photo in the Public Domain and appears on his own website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldineproduction (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not in the public domain. Wikipedia is not permitted to host copyright violations. — JJMC89 06:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Steady on... (coordinates in infoboxes)

I just wanted to let you know that I am keeping an eye on Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format and I see that the bot is making steady progress through the Infobox settlement articles at about 8,000 per day. Keep it up, and let me know if there is anything you need. I have avoided adding more infoboxes to the error category while waiting for the overall category count to get back down to a manageable number. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey. I've added a second job for this task to make it go quicker. Let me know if it stops or slows down. — JJMC89 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Slate Star Codex

As you have edited the Slate Star Codex article, I thought you might be interested to know that it has been nominated for deletion. I was notified by the nominator, but it doesn't look like you were, so I am rectifying that situation by leaving this comment. Please note that deletion discussions are not votes, and closing administrators might pay greater attention to comments referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines than to those that don't, or those that simply restate points already made. It's also worth noting that deletion discussions are said to typically remain open for at least 7 days, except in cases where credible grounds for speedy deletion are identified.--greenrd (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about 1 of your edits...

Hello, JJMC89:

I see here that you removed 2 links from Erika Grey.

As the page history shows, you had removed them earlier, but I put them back in. When you removed them a 2nd time, I decided you must have a good reason, so, instead of reverting or anything, I figured I'd ask you.

I understand that you don't want a "link farm," and we can't go link-happy, and that's all good. But, if you'll notice in my edit comments both Hal Lindsey's example and also Dwight L. Moody's example where you have boatloads of links showing things like their listings on various official websites.

Lindsey has 6 more besides his officiel website, and Moody has 9 other listings (besides his official page, which apparently isn't listed there - if he has one, and he may not).

Anyhow, Grey is maybe not Billy Graham or George W. Bush, but she's got 2 good "External links" in her Coast to Coast AM and Amazon.com profiles, both of which are WP:RS for "External links." Any reasons you wanted to list only her personal website? Thanks for helping me understand here.96.59.182.3 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

They don't satisfy the external links guideline. There is no such thing as a RS for external links. Amazon, a commercial website, is not suitable. Also, both links fail WP:ELNO#1. The state of any other article is not relevant. (The Lindsey article has two links.) — JJMC89 02:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you for replying. I saw your edit, removing a bunch of bad (404 page not found) links. That's OK, and so i have no objection here. (Also, I credit you for being consistent.) However, respectfully, don't you think the IMDB link for Lindsey is no less 'commercial' as is the Amazon.com link for Grey? In that regard, I disagree, and would think that at least the Amazon link and possible the Coast to Coast: AM link belong. After all, if Lindsey has 2 links now (after your edits), and possibly 3 if I put in https://www.amazon.com/Hal-Lindsey/e/B000APR9P4 , then Grey, also an author, should likewise have three, no?96.59.177.243 (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

IMDb is not selling the author's works – Amazon is. An Amazon link is not appropriate on most, if not all pages. Regardless of if the site is selling the author's works, WP:ELNO still applies. — JJMC89 04:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the distinction, here, JJMC89. Nonetheless, both sites are in business to make money, in a commercial way. One by sales of books, the other, probably by page ads or the link, same-same, same-difference. But, I note that the title of the article is "Links normally to be avoided" (emphasis added for clarity, in italics). Also, you cite #1, which says in relevant part "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article...," but the Amazon.com and Coast to Coast AM links (for Grey) and the Amazon.com link (for Lindsey, which I added just now) do add unique content. Indeed, see the Dwight L. Moody external links section: I removed 1 outdated link, and fixed 2 other bad ones (where the Archive.org's Wayback machine could stand in here), but Moody's page is a veritable "Link Farm." Why treat Moody one way, but treat Grey and Lindsey another? What gives? Where is your warrant for such disparate treatment? Just asking.96.59.177.243 (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: I notice that the latest relisting is actually about 1 day past expiry, and, regardless of your differences of views on the use of external links, you might want to weigh in on the VfD page, here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Grey before it's too late. One last thing: I italicized the "normally" to show that while some links may "normally" be avoided, this is not necessarily true for all cases, and if unique content can be had by Amazon, Coast to Coast, or even the Klingon Empire's off-world websites, then they should be added to avoid missing unique content. Just saying.96.59.177.243 (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any unique content that couldn't be included in the article, especially on Amazon. — JJMC89 03:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

East Hope Group Draft page

Hi JJMC89,

As the first reviewer, SwisterTwister, is not responding to my questions and requests, I’m hoping that you can help me move forward with this article. Specifically, I would like to elaborate on why I feel the notability requirements pertaining to my East Hope article have been fulfilled.

I first submitted the article on 31 January 2017, and it was rejected soon after on the grounds that “Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines”. I made changes in the hopes that it would pass the review this time, but because of a review backlog, the article has not been viewed yet. Furthermore, in an attempt to get SwisterTwister’s opinion on the piece, I contacted him three times, but didn’t receive a response. His last response was on February 7.

The reason why I dispute the claim that notability requirements are not being meet is that all the information contained in the article is taken from reputable sources. I have relied on established publications observing and analyzing the aluminium industry, widely circulated English news outlets major Asian English-language dailies, Chinese news articles, as well as official government publications in Chinese.

Extended content

Industry About is a standard reference for industrial data in the metals sector based on transparency and a standardized method of gathering and analyzing data, including East Hope, as in this case. http://www.industryabout.com/country-territories-3/2094-china/aluminium-industry/32078-east-hope-baotou-aluminium-smelter Bloomberg: well-established and well-trusted, the info cited is taken from its East Hope profile summary. https://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/EHGCLZ:CH-east-hope-group-co-ltd AluWatch is a major new aluminium industry watchdog consisting of individuals, NGOs, business seeking to reduce the impact of climate change. It compiles a yearly set of key figures about the most important players in the market, and I used its East Hope figures. http://www.aluwatch.org/key-figures/ Forbes provides a highly anticipated list of the world’s billionaires on a yearly basis, from which the cited info about East Hope founder Liu Yongxing was taken. http://www.forbes.com/china-billionaires/list/#tab:overall China.org is the Chinese government’s official news website, which means that the information provided needs to be utilized critically. However, no other news site has provided such an in-depth report of the Liu brothers and their respective enterprises including East Hope, in English. http://www.china.org.cn/video/2008-10/27/content_16672447.htm Baidu is China’s premier Internet services provider, acting as a search engine, encyclopedia, etc. Info contained here is shared and read widely and, similar to Wikipedia, crowd sourced. Because of its role as an aggregator of information, Baidu’s website on East Hope is an excellent Chinese source. http://baike.baidu.com/view/1198423.htm 2011 USGS Mineral Yearbook: a primary resource for anything related to minerals, there is barely any other publicly available report with such a range of information on activities of individual companies that would normally be ignored in other publications. https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2011-alumi.pdf Platts: one of the most influential news provider, market and data analyst of natural resource markets. Its Metals Daily series is always the go-to publication for up to date, detailed observations on developments in the industry or individual companies. The same is true for Antaike’s Alumina & Aluminum Monthly, though with a narrower focus on aluminium. Because of East Hope’s prolific activities, the series often features concise articles on the company. The same applies to Antaike’s publications. https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2011-alumi.pdf http://www.antaike.com/uploadfiles/20120619/2012061915421737061.pdf Aluminium Insider is a leading news platform specialized in the aluminium industry, supported by possibly the largest metals news analyst, Metal Bulletin. In a similar vein, Asian Metal stands out because of its interviews with people in the industry and relevant companies, such as in this case, where they interviewed an East Hope manager. http://aluminiuminsider.com/chinas-east-hope-group-to-invest-us1-5-bn-in-inner-mongolia/ http://www.asianmetal.com/metal_cron/2015/index_lunshi_wangzaitian_en.shtml Xinhua is the Chinese government’s official press agency, so a critical mind is required, but is generally trustworthy when it comes to reporting government announcements and policy shifts, such as the one quoted in this Xinhua article. Although this article didn’t mention East Hope by name, it still provided relevant information in the context of East Hope’s business. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-06/16/c_135442680.htm The Jakarta Post is commonly regarded as one of the most credible papers in Indonesia. The article specifically singles out East Hope for adding new capacity, in contrast to what the government demands. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/09/14/china-vows-to-cut-aluminum-output-but-producers-plan-growth-.html All the Chinese Ministry and EPA publications are official documents of acute relevance to East Hope and offer a unique first-hand look into Chinese government action regarding the company’s activities. The level of detail has not been covered in the English-language media. They deal exclusively with East Hope. http://www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201105/t20110526_211199.htm http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201410/t20141028_290801.htm http://www.sdein.gov.cn/zwgk/gclssddqbz/2015/201504yue/201505/t20150513_278400.html http://www.dezhou.gov.cn/n19466299/n19789916/n19789964/n19790088/n19790326/n19790328/n19790344/c25185140/content.html Toxicleaks is a unique activist project that aggregates information about environmental scandals, so it’s a natural source for anything related to this theme. This article deals exclusively with one of East Hope’s failed red mud reservoirs in English. https://toxicleaks.com/wiki/The_scourge_of_red_mud_strikes_the_Chinese_countryside_again 163/NetEase is a widely read Chinese daily online paper. With the Chinese public becoming increasingly outspoken on the state of the environment, papers like these have become increasingly important in reporting on pollution accurately. Again, East Hope is the focus here. http://henan.163.com/16/1216/14/C8DPC1F302270ILI.html

As a result, it is fair to say that East Hope, no less because of the controversies surrounding activities, is very much a part of the public discourse in the context of Chinese metal manufacturers.

Given the broad reach of these sources across both English and Chinese-speaking audiences, I do not follow the reasoning that more and/or qualitative news sources are required to add substance to the article. To sum up, the sources used are important, verifiable and reputable in their coverage of East Hope, so I hope we can proceed with the publication of this article, as it is a pity that the review process and lack of communication leaves this peace unnecessarily stagnant.

Thanks for your time!

Chinabusiness (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

See Draft talk:East Hope Group. — JJMC89 03:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 11, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

ISBN

It looks like a bot job is running on your main account by accident, to change ISBN magic links. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It looks like just 80 edits at 4 edits per minute with a simple find/replace script. I sometimes edit with script assistance at that rate, and I don't think anyone has ever accused me of being a bot. From WP:MEATBOT: Note that merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

An edit appeared on my watchlist. I think the job itself is fine, and it would be great IMO for JJMC89 to run it as an approved bot job. Since there is no way to tell how many edits will be made in the future, I went ahead and left a comment in case there was a mistake. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I was running my script semi-automatically to test for any possibly missed edge cases. (Why not do something useful while testing.) I am willing to run it as a bot task; however, Primefac and Magioladitis have already filed BRFAs to replace magic links on enwiki. — JJMC89 02:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you would be just as able to run this task, and I'd encourage you to file a BRFA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The more the merrier. If we run 4 bots to do this and all have general fixes activated everything will finish withing a couple of days. We should cooperate in the part of which regex we will use. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

BRFA filed. — JJMC89 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox building coords

Hi. Was just looking over some articles with Infobox building on them and noticed that some of the coord bot edits were not fully migrating over the coord data. For example this has missed coordinates_type & coordinates_region. Just wondering if you could review them? -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: |coordinates_type= and |coordinates_region= were not supported by {{infobox building}}. There was no parameter for the former, and |iso_region= was the correct parameter for the latter. — JJMC89 14:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

More coordinates: geobox, UK place

Do you have any bandwidth to teach the bot to convert Infobox UK place, Geobox, or both? I believe that those two comprise the majority of tagged deprecated coordinates pages at this time.

It looks like there are a couple thousand Settlement pages left. I expect there are a few hundred edge cases that the bot should leave alone, but many of them right now are pages where Infobox settlement is transcluded in another template. Thanks for all of your hard work on this project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Geobox will require a new complex substitution wrapper or a special fork of the bot script. I think the latter will be easier. I may have time to work on it this weekend, but no promises. I could start the bot on Infobox UK place; however, I think the template needs an adjustment first. Currently the coords are only displayed in the title, not the infobox, and if someone uses {{coord|...|display=inline,title}}, the coords will appear at the top of the article, outside the infobox. I think they should be displayed in the infobox as well. Thoughts? — JJMC89 16:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Before I updated the documentation for UK place, it said Note that by default, the coordinates are displayed to the right of the title, at the top of the page. This can cause an error if there is more than one set of coordinates in the article. To override the display in the title, use |coordinates_display=inline. As far as I can tell, setting coordinates_display to "inline" completely hides the old coordinates, which the documentation could have been clearer about. I used {{coord}} with display=inline,title in User:Jonesey95/sandbox3, and it shows in both places as expected. I'm thinking that I don't fully understand this one yet. I can't work on it right now, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I missed a set of }} when I was reading the template code. It should be OK as is; however, |coordinates={{coord|...|display=inline}} won't hide the coordinates in the infobox like |coordinates_display=inline does. — JJMC89 18:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

|coordinates_display=inline should never have hidden the coordinates in the first place; that's contrary to the definition of "inline". It should have displayed them in the infobox. This is one of the many consistencies we are introducing with these painstaking changes to infoboxes. Editors should expect all of them to work in essentially the same way. We have made a lot of progress while only breaking a few things (temporarily) along the way, and based on the very civil responses to our occasional errors or failures to notice quirks in idiosyncratic infoboxes, editors appear to understand that we are making this little corner of en.WP a better place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot's edits

Hi, could you stop your bot from edit WP:AFC/R archive pages, such as it has here and here? Cheers Ollieinc (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This is how you stop it. — JJMC89 02:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot left superfluous parameters when changing coordinates

Hi JJMC89,

thank you for running JJMC89 bot!

However, here was a tiny glitch in the infobox coordinates migrator: it left unkown parameters |N and |E. It's not a big issue because they are not visible — only when I tried to save the article I got some messages:

"Warning: Page using Template:Infobox settlement with unknown parameter "1 = N?" (this message is shown only in preview). Warning: Page using Template:Infobox settlement with unknown parameter "2 = E?" (this message is shown only in preview).

Perhaps you can check this nevertheless?

Regards --Cyfal (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyfal. The values were not in the correct parameters. They should have been |latNS=N and |longEW=E instead of unnamed parameters. The bot does not use/remove values that are not in the correct parameters. There are too many possibilities for incorrect parameter usage for the bot to reasonably and safely handle them. — JJMC89 19:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation! I now understand the problem, there are simply too many possiblities how something can be wrong... --Cyfal (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Laurie Buchanan

The page seemed pretty noteworthy until Primefac took a lot of the citations and references out. I've built and edited many pages, I thought it would grade around a C class, at worst, a start class as it was modelled on Orinathi's page. What do you suggest my friend? JermainRobson (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

That would be because the YouTube and Facebook references were of no value. They also do not show notability since they are not independent of the subject. — JJMC89 22:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To avoid a decentralized discussion, I'll respond here. JermainRobson, the Claudio/McKee "references" were just links to YouTube. If her covers were notable, then they would be discussed in other places. The other reason I removed them is that it's kind of like "free advertising." I've included a link to her YouTube account, where everyone can find all of her videos (i.e. we don't need a link to every single one). Primefac (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay - this is fair, y'learn something new every day. Thanks for your help!