User talk:JJMC89

This user has opted out of talkbacks

File:PASL Pro Logo.png

Hi JJMC89. While I agree that this file doesn't meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4, it might be a good idea to watch the uploader's user talk to make sure a notification is posted about this. The last time some files got tagged like this (see User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/January#Discussion at User talk:Explicit#Arena Football League logos), FastilyBot failed to add any notification to the editor's user talk page; so, it would be good to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen again.

As you can see from User talk:NostalgiaBuff97501#Deciding to leave, this editor is feeling frustrated that others are taking issue with some of his contibutions. While I do think there are issues that need addressing, perhaps it might be best to try a more friendly approach in explaining why these issues are being pointed out; otherwise, this is going to eventually end of at ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a notification on this. I mentioned the file in part of a post I left, but it was buried in the middle. The formal notification works better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Fnaf happiest day.jpg

Can you check this file to see whether it's just a reupload of any of the files you deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 February 17#Non-free screenshots in Five Nights at Freddy's? If it is, then it would seem to be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G4 unless it's be undeleted per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or WP:DRV. The file name is different from the ones discussed at FFD, but the image seems familiar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: That one isn't, but File:Fnanf 2 closing.jpg was a reupload of File:Fnaf closing.jpg. — JJMC89 05:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. What about File:All 3 animatronics fnaf.jpg and File:FNaF 1 Anim.jpeg? The second file was deleted per the FFD discussion. The captions used for both files (Special:diff/JJMC89 bot/880187667 and Special:diff/Beatleswillneverdie/888750157) are pretty much the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: They weren't exactly the same, but they were sufficiently similar. — JJMC89 02:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. The uploader of these files didn't participate in the FFD discussions, but was notified. I'm not sure if the re-uploads mean they don't realize why the files were previously deleted or they just don't care. This is one of those editor whose user talk is basically one long string of notifications (mainly image related). They never respond to any posts made and simply blank their user talk every now and then; moreover, their only edit in the talk space was was inappropriate. Not sure what to do here, but maybe a closer look should be taken at more of their uploads since that seems to make up the bulk of their edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for implementing the dozens of edit requests I filed simultaneously, and for doing so so quickly. DannyS712 (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the queue blow up from all the requests. Since they were simple, I decided to handle a bunch before logging off. — JJMC89 02:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi JJMC89,

Thanks for those speedy deletions. I seem to have stumbled upon a group of COI/UPE editors in

• Archlife2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• JuanV199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Lmatchis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and
• Dosu-arch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (whose name is a violation anyway).

HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Cxckim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably related too. I've blocked two of them for a week for copyright violations and warned a third. I've UPOL/spam blocked another. There is a strong intersection here. I would file a SPI for a CU to look at it. — JJMC89 02:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't know whether they would be using the same proxy so I was hesitant to start an SPI although the behaviour is obvious. Thank you so much for your speedy fingers. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

​ If nothing else it will served as documentation for non-CU blocks. — JJMC89 02:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a few others I have stumbled upon at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChinoXL63. I believe ChinoXL63 (who created DRL10 Pavilion) might be the first. However, it was so long ago he might be stale. Anyways, it can be moved. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

RFPP Ted Kennedy

There is persistent vandalism from an IP hopper. Could you please protect the page? S0091 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. Materialscientist took care of it. S0091 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sloppy close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I commented on the sloppy close at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_16#Template:Three_Men_in_a_Boat.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I believe the reason the close has not been completed is because there is not really as sensible way to do it because BrownHairedGirl completely misrepresented the facts in the nomination. Is she aware that only 2 of the 8 links in the nominated template overlap with the 6 links in the merge destination. She nominated the Templates as if she mistakenly thought the movie adaptations at Template:Three Men in a Boat were all included in Template:Jerome K. Jerome. I think she may have made a mistaken nomination that was blindly followed by @JarrahTree, Legacypac, and Chiswick Chap: who all also failed to notice the mistake.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The merge was quite simple:[1]. @TonyTheTiger, a little civility and AGF would be appreciated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • BrownHairedGirl, Of course you can do a merge of links into a template. The point is that you misrepresented the Templates as if there was a lot of overlap when there was almost none and everyone blindly followed you. Are you aware that you described 2 out of 8 links as massive overlap and everyone followed your lead?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hmmm.

Tony at 03:05: there is not really as sensible way to do it

Tony at 03:53: of course you can do a merge of links into a template

Maybe you could ask the Tonies to talk to each other and see if they can reach a consensus before they post from the same account?

Yes, I miscounted the total size of the set. Sorry about that. But you miscounted too, by omitting the head article, and the fact remains that only 4 of the 7 links in the unmerged Template:Jerome K. Jerome were unique (not 2 out of 8).

Anyway, we've all miscounted (and Tony has done so again here), so should all take more care ... I hope the two Tonies can agree that the merged navbox is an improvement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, thanks for the colorful response. Maybe you have forgotten that the nominated template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_16#Template:Three_Men_in_a_Boat was actually Template:Three Men in a Boat, which had 8 links in the main body, 2 of which were overlapping.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony, it's a merge between two templates, so both were nominated. And in Template:Three Men in a Boat, 3 of the links overlapped. (You seem not to count Jerome K. Jerome in your tally).

As before, please do calm down, and do a little more reflection before venting.

I also suggest that you change the title of this section "Sloppy close" is not a civil way to address the closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

N.B.:Since BrownHairedGirl has attempted to serve as both the nominator and the closer, I have reverted her closing edits.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Please calm down, @TonyTheTiger. You reverts look like a refusal to accept the consensus, which is not a good place to go. I suggest that you reconsider your reverts.

The closer's role is to evaluate the debate and close it. JJMC89 did so here[2], at 07:50, 24 March 2019 . Tony, it's simply untrue to say that I attempted to serve as both the nominator and the closer

However, the closer is not required to personally do all the spadework, and it is quite common for the nominator to implement the closer's decision. So in these 6 edits[3] implemented the closer's decision here.

JJMC89, if you were intending to perform the merge yourself, I'm sorry for jumping the gun. However, the merge had not been performed 44 hours after close, which is why I went ahead.

You may wish to review those 6 edits of mine. You may want to implement the close differently, but I note that Tony makes no substantive objection to the mered template[4]. obviously, I will not editwar ... but as of now, with Tony's reverts still in place, the close has not been implemented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• BrownHairedGirl, I am quite calm. I have been around a while to and am quite active in the Template arena. I used the word sloppy because the closing note stated a Merge decision, but the closing edits seemed to be equivalent to a No consensus or Keep decision. Do you really stand by a statement that even 3 out of 10 links constitutes a massive overlap? I am not even sure what consensus is. There were no cogent policy based points made by any of the discussants and your nomination bore little relation to the truth of the content. I do object to a close based on an untruthful nomination and no policy-based discussion. Are you really going to make me slog through a WP:DRV to point out that no discussant made a reasoned statement (let alone a policy-based one) and you untruthfully discribed a massive overlap.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger, it is the closer's role to evaluate the consensus. The closer has done so.[5]

You can of course go to WP:DRV if you want to ... but given your own repeated miscounting, your lack of any substantive objection to the merged template, your assertion[6] of WP:OWNership, and your unilateral reverts of an implementation of the close, that might not be a comfortable experience for you.

Your call, but I think you would do much better to take a deep breath and read WP:OWN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

PS. @TonyTheTiger claims that the closing edits seemed to be equivalent to a No consensus or Keep decision.

Here are the three closing edits: [7], [8], [9].

I look forward to Tony's explanation of how any of them was in any way equivalent to a equivalent to a No consensus or Keep decision. I am sure that a DRV would enjoy that too. It's not often that a DRV sees WP:OWNership expressed through so many passionate counterfactuals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony, how else was I supposed to close that discussion when the merge had unanimous support? If you wanted to oppose it, you should have done so while the discussion was open. What would you call a WP:PAG-based argument for that discussion? The template guidelines cover very little, and I don't see how merging goes against them or any other policy or guideline. If you can provide a policy/guideline that supports not merging them, then I'll consider relisting the discussion so that you can discuss it with others.

Implementing mergers is often left up to the nominator or others by listing it in the holding cell. This one was no different. {{Three Men in a Boat}} was also marked as being merged. As the closer, I don't need to have any part in merging the templates. I don't have any issues with BHG's merge, and seeing as it wasn't incorrect/broken/etc., reverting it was just disruptive.

— JJMC89 06:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @JJMC89. It is indeed odd to criticise a closer for closing per unanimity.

Since you say you are OK with the 6 edits[10] I made to implement the merge, would you like to reinstate them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

When this discussion is over, sure. — JJMC89 05:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89, I apologize, that I am no longer a very active WP editor these days. Of late, I have only been monitoring my watchlist and a editing in the WP:BBALL and WP:CBBALL topic areas paying little attention to most of my other past interests on WP. I had not checked in on my User talk page in some time and missed the proper notification of this discussion. In terms of policy, When there is truthfully "Massive overlap" templates are nominated as WP:T3. However, since only 3 of the 10 links in Template:Three Men in a Boat were preexisting in Template:Jerome K. Jerome, BHG could not actually make the type of policy-based nomination that a true massive overlap would follow. The reason for a separate template is clear. If a reader is interested in the Three Men in a Boat subject area, a separate template enables the reader to isolate on links with encyclopedic content on that subject. Merging template content into a broader subject area renders that focused subject area navigation less useful because the reader then is being sent to links on broader subjects. At User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created you can see the several "Multimedia franchises (from novels)" templates that I have created. The most common policy-based reason that such templates have been deleted in the past has been WP:T3. Wikipedia:NAVBOX names 5 useful reasons for navboxes on specific subject matter and then later names disadvantages and advantages for navboxes. Policy-based discussion would have been based on either the 5 useful reasons for NAVBOXes or the advantages and disadvantages below that. The 5 useful reasons for separate NAVBOXes were largely met by Template:Three Men in a Boat, it is supported by the advantages at NAVBOX and no one mentioned any of the disadvantages at NAVBOX or anything related to WP:TG in the discussion. A WP:PG discussion in support of a merger of templates should be supported by either WP:TG or WP:NAVBOX issues. This discussion did not touch upon any such PG-issues.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger those arguments which you could have made at TFD, but didn't.

But I see no policy-based reason there to make a choice either way.

You argument seems to boil down to making each navbox more focused. However, the addition of 3 or 5 extra links is not a significant loss of focus, and it should be offset against the positive gains of reduced navbox clutter on 3 pages.

If you are claiming that Three Men in a Boat subject area is a separate subject area to JKJ, then that seems a bizarre argument.

Do you have positive policy-based argument why readers are helped by a set of only 15 pages being served by two overlapping navboxes? What exactly is policy-deficient about the merged template?

This does seem to be a rationalisation of some severe WP:OWNership issues, and a completely excessive drama about a small navbox.

Oh ... please do remember to strike the false assertion that I acted as both nominator and closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

T3 is irrelevant since we're talking about a merge and not (speedy) deletion. You're other templates are too. Most of what is written at WP:NAVBOX is not relevant, especially the advantages and disadvantages, since merged or not they're navboxes. For the first 5 numbered points there, I'd say they're satisfied whether or not the templates are merged. — JJMC89 05:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89, I don't understand your point that "Most of what is written at WP:NAVBOX is not relevant, especially the advantages and disadvantages, since merged or not they're navboxes." That they are NAVBOXes is why WP:NAVBOX is relevant. You stated above "If you can provide a policy/guideline that supports not merging them, then I'll consider relisting". That guideline is the policy that I feel was relevant to the content at issue is it not. Other considerations are the essay WP:NBFILL, since the merger leads to a navboxless Three in Norway (by two of them). The whole discussion which was founded on the false assertion of "massive overlap" seems to be guided by a section of an essay (Wikipedia:Avoid_template_creep#Do_we_have_two_or_three_templates_where_one_would_do?).

In terms of policy, if the argument is some kind of clutter-based rationale (keep in mind no policy was asserted in the discussion above), remember that this merger is a correct policy based decision when there is actual massive overlap rather than a false assertion of overlap. The resulting merger has 4 types of effects here:

1. 3 articles with actual overlap: go from two templates with a total of 17 links (including 3 which are duplicates) to one with 13 links (all of which are related) losing connection to one link. (total reduction of 12 links)
2. 6 film articles in which there was no preexisting overlap in the merge source template: go from a template with 10 links (all of which are related to the same article) to one template with 13 links (9 of which are related) (total addition of 18 links)
3. 4 novel articles in which there was no preexisting overlap in the merge destination template: go from a template with 7 links (all of which are related as works by the same author) to one template with 13 links (7 of which are related) (total addition of 24 links)
4. 1 source article in which there was no preexisting overlap: goes from having a template with 10 links (all of which are related as works it insprired) to no template (total reduction of 10 links)

Note that because there was a false assertion of massive overlap, the first line is small compared to the other lines and the result is an overall bloating of 20 links rather than a reduction of links with this merger as well as the loss of connection of an article to 9 other articles with related subject matter. In the case of actual massive overlap, line one would be the large effect. Here with a false massive assertion of overlap the reduction is small in comparison to the link bloating resulting in a misguided attempt to declutter WP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, this massive angst and wikilawyering over how to organise a grand total of 15 links is extraordinary.

And all this wikilawyering a bizarre counting evades the simple central question: how on earth are readers helped by splitting that set of 15 closely-related links across 2 navboxes?

This is all getting spectacularly silly. If it doesn't end soon with a decision by @JJMC89 on whether to sustain and implement their close, I'll take it to DRV as is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, in short in cases such as this where there is minimal overlap, splitting the links across two templates results in fewer total links on the pages in question (20 fewer in total in this case) and avoids having unrelated links on many pages. I don't think you have standing at DRV.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm tempted to take it to DRV anyway, just to give you a forum to repeat that bizarre assertion that the merged template propagates "unrelated links on many pages" and the participants in the TfD and its closer were so daft to overlook this that the discussion needs to be reopened. It would be cruel but funny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I said I would consider it. I've considered it, and my close stands. — JJMC89 19:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism of the Catholic Church image removal

Criticism of the Catholic Church... could you review your removal of the Crossing the Threashold of Hope image. I think there is a valid use for the image.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved page IDFC FIRST Bank to IDFC First Bank over redirect: revert undiscussed move

IDFC First Bank move was discussed earlier on its talk page. After taking suggestions from other Wikipedia editor we've redirected this page to its new location IDFC FIRST Bank. K23.namrata 10:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)