User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/November

Attribution?

I see you are undeleting material created by a sockpuppet for attribution. As far as I can see, the recreations that are being done do not need those attributions and I do not think that these sockpuppets should have the attribution on these articles. I'd like to hear your comments on this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I see now that the articles are recreated with the content that I sent to the editors, even when I asked them to rewrite the content. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I only undeleted ones where the new creation was substantially the same as the deleted version. I'm not one to encourage socks by keeping their articles around, but without an actual rewrite attribution is needed. — JJMC89 03:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89, thank you for the answer. I agree but a non-rewrite should/could be deleted as copyvio (I asked people to rewrite). The problem may be bigger, it turns out that (quite) some of these socks’ creation may be copyviosunattributed themselves .... Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

​Lack of attribution doesn't qualify for G12. I doubt they would be deleted at AfD on those grounds. Listing at WP:CP would likely just result in attribution being provided in one way or another (e.g. undeletion or in the edit summary of a dummy edit). I've put some hopefully helpful links in the AN thread to help with the SvG-related pages. — JJMC89 21:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi. Would you be willing to restore Talk:Thelerptile? You deleted it while I was trying to move it to draftspace. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, DannyS712. Normally, I would, but Google searches for Thelerptiles, Thelerptilia, Thelerptiliamorpha, and Thelerptiliaformes turn up no results except our DBR. Is it a real animal? — JJMC89 05:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: no idea, I didn't have enough time to read it before it disappeared DannyS712 (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

​Undeleted and moved. Please check that it isn't a hoax. — JJMC89 21:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I did some digging, and couldn't find anything, but maybe someone else will? DannyS712 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Undelete portal:African American

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:African American - I just found the discussion where the portal was deleted, reasons given that there were only 14 articles from 2010 and it was poorly maintained. As I have added articles to that in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and this year, I'm confounded that an admin saw fit to validate what can be construed as white-washing. It's a strong term, but in my view is the only way to get across the message that articles dealing with the 'race-based diminishing' that occurs when the need to conform with WP:style engages the black experience and the plain-speak of that subculture. While articles about celebrities easily meet WP:notoriety, and Portal R&B fits the musical genres, some articles about marginal figures that were inspirational to black audiences, but have few or no reference cites to work with will end up with few page views, all that's left is a portal to call home, where an aggregate makes them easier to find. If there is no editor placing the portal on fresh articles it will be un-tended, but no less relevant. Replacing it with Portal:United States again works to disappear the stories about the African American experience. Unless it is something you personally have a stake in, deletion seems like necessary resolution to something that didn't need resolving. I don't know who called for it's deletion, but I would have argued against deletion as I have, so to say, a few dogs in that fight. It is not often that I feel the need to rant about a subject to an admin, heaven knows I have run up against some who have strong feelings that are contrary, and they - I have found them to have more experience at flame wars to achieve their goals which they gain thru sheer 'never give and inch', which some can't be bothered to pay attention to forever. JMHO CaptJayRuffins (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added articles to that in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and this year No, you haven't. 1) The last selected article for the portal was added 9 June 2010. 2) All of the selected articles were added by Wikignome0530. 3) You have never contributed to any portal.

Deleting a portal does not constitute whitewashing. No content is removed from the encyclopedia when a portal is deleted; it all remains in the relevant articles.

Since you haven't addressed the reasons for deletion in the MfD, and, based on the above, I don't believe that you will, I will not undelete it. — JJMC89 04:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought that putting the portal logo on the page was how it was done. Never mind. MY Bad.CaptJayRuffins (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to contest the deletion in the MfD, and after reviewing my articles realize that while the portal showed on my articles, because I placed them in ==External links== instead of creating a ==See Also== section, none registered. The first I got wind of what was occurring another admin was changing the now dead portal to Portal:United States.If you restore the portal I would correct the articles so that they would post correctly. See Examples here in the histories, Jalal Mansur Nuriddin,Stentorians, and sidebars in Boston Society of Vulcans, Vulcan Society, or in other articles that should have been added like Phoenix Society (firefighters),Arthur "Smokestack" Hardy, Velena G. Ellis, Bethel-Christian Avenue-Laurel Hill Historical District, Lloyd Carter, May Howard Jackson, Alberta Odell Jones which are just a few examples. I did not know it was required to be under ==See Also==, I suspect other editors were also not aware hence the lack of activity in the portal. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

None of that is relevant. No matter what section of the article you put the links in, it isn't a contribution to the portal itself. — JJMC89 21:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

So, even if I failed to properly place the articles manually in the portal, and the intent was that they were to be a part of that group, what's relevant is that you wont give an inch, even in the face of evidence that the deletion should be contested. JMHO CaptJayRuffins (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing articles does not constitute contribution to a portal, so, no. Also, seethe last line of my first reply in this section. — JJMC89 22:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding templates in headings

Regarding your edit here. I couldn't agree more! But what can we link to, for the authority for removing such templates? Actually it is the template *brackets* that are the problem, I think. Most often I see it as {{user|Username}} being added to a section header, which can easily be replaced by [[User:Username|Username]]. If this guidance doesn't exist, can it be added somewhere? EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Template:Anchor#Limitations (bullet 4) is the only place I've seen an explanation written. Maybe it could be added to MOS:HEADINGS, but MoS doesn't apply to non-articles. I'm not sure where it should be to address all pages. — JJMC89 22:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Archiving SPI reports

Hey JJMC89, only members of the SPI team are permitted to archive reports. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I am a clerk in training and have been asked to archive cases. — JJMC89 23:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

No one tells me anything. A belated welcome!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Romulus & Remus, The First King (2019) Film Poster.jpeg

Hi. You nominated the file File:Romulus & Remus, The First King (2019) Film Poster.jpeg for deletion with the following argument: "because multiple non-free files (including File:Romulus & Remus, The First King (2019) Italian Film Poster.png) are being used when one would suffice". However, this file was uploaded way first then File:Romulus & Remus, The First King (2019) Italian Film Poster.png. Therefore, File:Romulus & Remus, The First King (2019) Italian Film Poster.png should be nominated for deletion and not File:Romulus & Remus, The First King (2019) Film Poster.jpeg.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me which one is kept, just so there is only one. — JJMC89 02:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bernard

Help. And thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ferret took care of it. — JJMC89 03:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Down to the Bone

Hello, JJMC89.

Your bot keeps deleting the following image:

Image:Posterbone.jpg

This is a poster of the movie Down to the Bone, in which Caridad de la Luz played a starring role. In doing this, you template reads "No valid non-free use rationale for this page."

But the rationale is manifestly stated IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF.

The article clearly states that in 2004, Caridad De la Luz played the role of "Lucy" in the film Down to the Bone.

And as you can see...the point is verified by a citation to the New York Times.

I restored the photo again. There is clearly a rationale for using the photo...and it is supported by the New York Times.

Thank you,

References

Sarason (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Sarason. the bot is correctly removing the image and it's you who incorrectly keeps re-adding it. There are ten non-free content use criteria that need to be satisfied each time a non-free file is added to a page. One of these criteria (more specifically one part of one of these criteria) is WP:NFCC#10c which requires that a separate, specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use of a non-free file. Although the file does have a non-free use rationale for its use in Down to the Bone (film), it doesn't have one for its use in Caridad de la Luz; so, the bot is removing the file and will keep removing the file as long as the required non-fee use rationale is missing.

Normally, a simple fix would be to just add the missing non-free use rationale to the file's page, but as explained in WP:JUSTONE this isn't always sufficient. All ten non-free content use criteria need to be satisfied for the use in the article about de la Luz, and there are at least three (WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8) which are not. Non-free movie poster art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes at the top or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about movies because movie posters are part of the branding of movies and one of the ways that producers, directors, etc. present their work to the public; the same, however, cannot be said about the actors staring in movies and non-free movie poster art is pretty much never allowed going to be allowed in such articles unless the poster art itself (not the movie) is the subject of sourced critical commentary. The reader doesn't need to see a movie poster per WP:FREER to understand that de la Luz appeared in a particular movie since that can be clearly verified by sources cited in support (like the one you provided above), and there's no reason to use a non-free image any more than necessary if basically the same encyclopedic information can be sufficiently provided in other ways, even if only through WP:WIKILINKS and text. So, I don't see how it's possible for a valid rationale to be written for the use in the de la Luz article; you can try if you like, but the file will likely end up at WP:FFD where almost certainly the consensus will be end up being that it's fine to use the file in the movie article, but not in the article about de la Luz. If you disagree with what I've posted, then please make sure to provide the required non-free use rationale before re-adding the file to the article.

Finally, another one of the ten non-free content criteria is WP:NFCC#9. This criteria states that non-free content can only be used in articles; this means that non-free files cannot be used (i.e. displayed) on user talk pages, etc. like you did above. So, in cases where you want to discuss a particular file on some article or user talk page, please use the colon trick and provide a link to the file instead of displaying it as explained in WP:TPG#Non-free images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Southern Alamance High School copyright violation

JJMC89, I believe you previously deleted copyrighted material from the history at Southern Alamance High School. Recently, IP editors have added verbatim material from the same source: [1] [2] (compare with page 3 of source: [3]). This violation is not as large as the previous one, and I am not sure of when copyrighted material should be deleted from page histories. I wanted to let you know in case something should be done about it. Thanks. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I've hidden them. Thanks for reporting. — JJMC89 03:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Take care. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving Category:Kingdoms in Greek Antiquity to Category:Ancient Greek kingdoms

Hi JJMC89. Sorry but just moving the Category:Kingdoms in Greek Antiquity to Category:Ancient Greek kingdoms is not correct in any case as for example the Odrysian Kingdom, the Paeonian Kingdom, the Kingdom of Macedon etc. They all were not Ancient Greek kingdoms. Please, stop it. Jingiby (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Odrysian kingdom#Category:Ancient Greek kingdoms added by bot — JJMC89 06:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Manca Izmajlova

Why was this page it deleted? There are 1000 references about this person, links etc. Sinatra1915 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The article was moved to Draft:Manca Izmajlova by 2019nomos. The leftover redirect was the only thing deleted. — JJMC89 06:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Indian comedy science fiction films

There were five categories noted and tagged in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 29#Category:Indian comedy science fiction films, but only the first has actually been dealt with. Could you please also set JJMC89 bot III on Category:American comedy science fiction films, Category:Canadian comedy science fiction films, Category:Russian comedy science fiction films and Category:Comedy science fiction films by decade? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat: They should get processed on the next run now that I've added them to WP:CFD/W. MER-C probably missed them since they weren't listed in the standard form in the CFD nomination. It looks like the subcategories of Category:Comedy science fiction films by decade should also be renamed. I'd list them at WP:CFDS per WP:C2C. — JJMC89 06:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Vlasta Děkanová

Hi there! I don't understand why File:Vlasta Dekanova 1948.jpg keeps getting deleted from Vlasta Děkanová by your bot. I have only within the last few days started to figure out the legality behind uploading and using images on Wikipedia. I think I'm in compliance on all the images uploaded within the last few days. I was thrilled to finally cut through all the red tape in my head...the apprehensions of not being technically correct and within legal compliance on how to use this. I don't understand why this is happening only to this page and not any of the other pages to which I have uploaded images within the last few days. Can you please help me on this? Miloluvr (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary, the image doesn't have an appropriate non-free use rationale. — JJMC89 06:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You may now take a look at the photo file, itself. File:Vlasta_Dekanova_1948.jpg. I thought that between the terms of the fair use which made it onto the page because of the little work I did, as well as the statements I made in the summary, this should have been covered. I just now used the Template:Non-free_use_rationale_biog so hopefully this should satisfy the licensing/copyright requirements. I have posted a few other photo files in the same place on a few other deceased gymnasts bios as I did on the Dekanova bio page, so I don't understand why your bot is singling this article out and not addressing those, as well. Miloluvr (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you so much for responding to my request for assistance. Please enjoy this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar as a token of my appreciation. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

aircraft and turbofan promo pictures

1. File:Rolls-Royce UltraFan.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. File:Rolls-Royce Advance.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. File:Rolls-Royce Trent 8104.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4. File:Gulfstream G700.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I don't really understand your deletion, everyone has a good reason for inclusion: they show their specific configuration and can't be replaced as they aren't public yet (or won't ever).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I've number them for easier response.

1. to illustrate is not something that satisfies criterion 8. (See WP:NFC#CS.) Also, couldn't a free diagram be created?
2. See #1.
3. The image is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. Swept fan blades (not necessarily as a part of that engine) can be illustrated with a free image if necessary.
4. The G700 is not the subject of the article (G650).

— JJMC89 22:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

thanks for your reply.

1 & 2: the point is to show their specific architecture (different IP/HP stages for the advance, geared and variable pitch fan for the ultrafan). no free diagram can be created as there is no engineering data released for those demonstrators

3. the point is the 8104 is the first trent with swept fan blades, it is a specific case in the trent development

4. the G700 is the subject of the G700 section. it could have its standalone article if the section expands enough.

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, you managed to have one picture removed while you did not even reply to my legitimate comments.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As it should be. Per policy, you are not permitted to remove the speedy deletion templates. You should follow the instructions in the template to contest the deletion. My talk page is not the place for that, and my lack of reply does not permit you to violate policy. — JJMC89 03:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You could have told me. See WP:CIVIL.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), Marc Lacoste, you could have read the template you removed, {{Di-fails NFCC}}, "do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded". See WP:CIR. Cabayi (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack."--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Neptune's Trident

• Neptune's Trident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Neptune's Trident reported by User:Lordtobi (Result: ). This user is back at WP:AN3 due to a 3RR violation, but I'm unsure what kind of a block is best. In the past they've been blocked as long as 3 months, and you yourself did an indef block in September. I don't know if your block got lifted through negotiation or for some other reason. Do you have any advice on what to do this time around, or do you want to close this report yourself? Since this guy has blown so many chances, I was leaning towards an indef. (Their block log shows edit warring, socking (2x), BLP violations, a GG topic ban violation and copyright violations). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The unblock discussion was at Special:PermaLink/915173628#September 2019. When it comes to setting the duration, I would ignore the copyright violations block. When blocking for copyright violations, I almost always indef to ensure that the user understands the issue. I would go with at least 6 months for the edit warring, but could indef for refusal to communicate too, which is disruptive and not limited to this incident. — JJMC89 23:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

R U Still Down? (Remember Me)

Hey! I uploaded a newer version of the file as it has the parental advisory sign and the correct color and saturation, there was already a non-free reduce template placed by your bot when you reverted. Hope that clears things up, I will go ahead and restore the previous version. Thank you, QuestFour (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Stop uploading oversized non-free files, and start using edit summaries. (Also, the advisory is unnecessary and ugly.) — JJMC89 02:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Missed a couple portal subpages

Can you delete these also? [4] Thanks! Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done That's what happens when someone moves improperly moves a portal without leaving a redirect and leaves the talk pages behind. — JJMC89 02:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your work cleaning up edit filters. DannyS712 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(Half) a barnstar for you!

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work with El_C to clean up after my less than perfect move of the 500 subpages of the former Portal:Contents, I award you the right half of a barnstar. Wug·a·po·des​ 08:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Washington Redskins logo.svg

Hi JJMC89. I saw this and get why you made that edit, but I think that the article parameter for that rationale might've been just a good-faith mistake in mixing up Native American mascot controversy with Washington Redskins name controversy by the person who added that rationale to the file's page based upon this and the time stamp of this. The edits were only two minutes apart, so it seems as if they intended the file for the "Native American mascot controversy" article and just made a mistake in the rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a mistake on their part. Even if it were correctly done, I don't think the use in Native American mascot controversy satisfies criterion 8. It would actually have a better chance at Washington Redskins name controversy. — JJMC89 06:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I pretty much feel the same way, but just was pointing it out in case they re-add it to the article again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A look at a deleted article

Hi JJMC89. In June you deleted ProProfs after concluding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProProfs. Would it be possible for you to use your admin goggles and email me a copy of the deleted article? A draft has been created at Draft:ProProfs, and I would like to see the differences between the draft and the deleted article. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: The prose was largely the same, so I've done a history merge for attribution. Given that, this is likely UPE. — JJMC89 02:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for checking. Best.SamHolt6 (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Julia Morgan

Hi, I see you've removed the image of Julia Morgan from the Hearst Castle page. It would be a great pity not to have that image, as it appears to be the only half-decent image we have of her. Image copyright isn't my speciality - is there a reason why the Fair Use rationale works on her main article page, but wouldn't on the Hearst Castle page? Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. My bot removed it for not having a rationale for use in the castle article. The image of Morgan is used for identification in her article, (WP:NFCI#10) but that doesn't hold for the castle article. I don't see any way that it would meet WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) there. — JJMC89 04:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Setting to one side the hair-splitting - you're clearly responsible for your bot's edits - I'm not getting your rationale. (WP:NFCI#10) specifically allows for "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". That is the case here. WP:NFCC#8 states "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". That's also the case here. Morgan was an architect and the Hearst Castle article is about her most important building. She herself wrote of her buildings standing as her legacy. (WP:NFC#CS) describes contextual significance as being "where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article". That's also the case here, Morgan being the subject of considerable sourced comment in the article. I'd be very grateful for a clearer explanation as to your (bot's) thinking. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Responsible, yes, but I did not make the edit; an automated script did because you added the image to the article without providing the required rationale (WP:NFCC#10c). What I'm talking about with criterion 8 is a different issue. The parts you are overlooking for NFCI#10 and NFCC#8 are in articles about that person and of the article topic, respectively. Morgan is not the subject of Hearst Castle, the castle is. — JJMC89 06:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I see we’re not going to agree on this, any more than we will on your cavilling over your bot. The Hearst Castle article absolutely is about Morgan: she was its architect for over 20 years; it is her most important building; you could no more exclude her from a comprehensive article about the castle than you could exclude Hearst. I’m genuinely puzzled, particularly in light of the clear bias against coverage of women from which Wikipedia suffers, why you (or your bot) would want to exclude an image of an important woman architect on dubious procedural grounds. But, as I say, we’re not going to agree, so I shall seek more helpful advice elsewhere. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I don't think there's anything incorrect about the bot removing the file; it's doing exactly what it's been set up to do. Non-free content use is not automatic and each use of a non-free file is required to have a separate, specific non-free use rationale which shows/explains how the particular use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria per WP:NFCC#10c; moreover, it's the responsibility of the editor wanting to use the file in a particular way to provide said rationale as explained in WP:NFCCE. So, if you want to stop the bot from removing the file, then you need to add the missing rationale to the file's page.

Just adding a rationale, however, doesn't in and of itself automatically make a non-free use WP:NFCC compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. Providing a rationale is only one (actually only one part of one) of the criteria which need to be satisfied; so, if you provide a rationale and someone else still feels that there are still NFCC issues with file's use, they can do one of the following: (1) be bold and remove the file, (2) prod the file for deletion, (3) tag the file with a speedy deletion template like {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or (4) nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD. There's nothing wrong with being bold when it comes to removing files as long as it doesn't result in edit-warring. So, if the bold edit is reverted, then WP:BRD should followed. PROD and CSD require an administrator review to decide whether either is warranted. If they feel it is, they will either delete the file or remove it from any articles where its non-free use is deemed to not be NFCC compliant; if not, they may suggest that the file be further discussed at FFD instead. FFD is just like AFD or any other XFD discussion; the file's use is discussed to see if a consensus can be established either way and the discussion is closed by an administrator.

The fact that the file was removed has nothing to do with any type of bias against women, and it seems wrong for you to imply that it was; you simply didn't add the non-free rationale required by policy. Moreover, excluding a photograph of Morgan from the article is not "excluding her from the article" in any way at all; the content about her in the article is still in the article and all that is being challenged is whether using a non-free image of her in the article is in accordance with relevant policy. When the bot removed the file it left an edit summary explaining why and that edit summary included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation which clearly states in bold a non-free rationale is needed for each use of the image on Wikipedia; maybe you clicked on the link the left and missed that part; that, however, doesn't make the policy or procedures followed in enforcing that policy dubious in any way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI reporting on your bot

Your bot has this message: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Draft:WSVW-LD. Cheers! CentralTime301 22:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Bot operating correctly, replied at ANI. -- ferret (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

COPYVIO at Siti Nurhaliza

Hi, I added a copyright tag to the article for directly copying a few paragraphs from a news site. A minor issue really; I removed, rewrote and tagged. Tag has been up for three days, so 1) would you be able to RevDel the diffs necessary? 2) is there a better/faster/more correct process for such issues? it's pretty minor, and having a fat red tag on a live article for three days (~1k views) seems to be more disruptive than helpful. Thanks! Hydromania (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done There's not really a better way of handling them other than asking an admin directly. Like all areas dealing with copyright, CAT:RD1 is often backlogged and neglected. — JJMC89 01:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srexfax?

It's unclear what, Please allow him to process the entire case without interference means. Does it just mean that other clerks should let you do all the clerking, or that patrolling admins should stay away as well? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: It means that the other clerks should allow me to do the clerking. Patrolling admins are free to take whatever actions they like. — JJMC89 00:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's what I figured, just wanted to make sure. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, JJMC89/Archives/2019. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Sean1sposato (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I will not proxy for you to create an article on a company that you are involved with. — JJMC89 04:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Carson Beach

Carson Beach, South Boston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi UserJJMC89:

I am a student in an Online Communities class at Northeastern University in Boston, Ma. As part of the class we were tasked to expand on an already existing page. I choose to write more about Carson Beach. I see you moved this page from a user talk page to a regular page. I wanted to thank you for your help. I was just curious how you came across the Carson Beach page?

Thanks Hrennen (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hrennen. I routinely monitor for articles moved to the user and draft namespaces to cleanup any redirects (WP:R2) or revert mistaken moves. — JJMC89 04:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Milli Vanilli liner notes

Hi JJMC89, I'm the original uploader of these Milli Vanilli liner notes. Is there further cropping I can do to suit your needs for this file to be allowable locally on Wikipedia? It seems important to feature in the Milli Vanilli as a rare piece of physical evidence that Rob and Fab were being misrepresented as the vocalists. The lorax (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) How do you know that the vocals were erroneously credited? I mean I understand the whole lip-syncing scandal from all of the reliable sources saying as much. Would you know that they didn't sing on the album just from reading the liner notes without any knowledge of the scandal? Seeing the liner notes is not really needed to significantly improve the reader's understanding that the two didn't sing on the album anymore than not seeing the liner notes might make the reader think that they did actually sing on the album. If it's relevant that the two were credited as vocalists in the liner notes of the album, then you actually cite the liner notes themselves as the source using {{Cite liner notes}} to accomplish the same thing without using a non-free image. -- Marchjuly (talk)

File:WSVW-LD1 Logo.png Note From Uploader (DizzyMosquitoRadio99)

Hi UserJJMC89:

I'm the uploader of File:WSVW-LD1 Logo.png and I'm wondering how I can prevent this file's deletion. I've actually been troubleshooting and diligently working to make this image file compliant with Criterion 8 policies but to no avail, apparently. Please, help me out so that way I don't have to get so frustrated. I've been pounding on the tabletop because I'm just getting really irritated. This is actually the very first time I've ever had an image I've uploaded get rejected consistently and with every failed attempt to get this image to comply, I get increasingly determined to succeed in getting the image to comply so I can feel a sense of accomplishment. In other words, I'm channeling all my frustration and anger into determination to get this issue resolved. Just so you know, the Television Station that the Draft:WSVW-LD article is in reference to is scheduled to sign-on December 1, 2019 but, as you can see, where we currently stand, this image would inevitably be deleted by then. Otherwise, I'm wondering whether I should just admit defeat and quit uploading any image at all, unless it's a Public Domain image. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi DizzyMosquitoRadio99. I've tweaked the syntax of the image so that it's not being displayed on this page. Non-free content can only be used (i.e. "displayed") in articles per WP:NFCC#9; so, for future reference, if you want to discuss a non-free image anywhere, please link to the file's page as explained in WP:TPG#Non-free images.

About this particular file, generally non-free logos such as this can be uploaded and used per item 2 of WP:NFCI, but this usually only is considered OK when the logo is used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox about the organization, company, team, etc. the logo represents. For TV station logos, this would be in a stand-alone article about the TV station in question. Using the logo in other ways or in other articles (about other subjects perhaps) is not prohibited, but it is much harder to justify these additional types of non-free use because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is almost invariably lacking. Generally, there has to be specific sourced critical commentary about the logo itself so that omitting the logo would likely be detrimental to the reader's understanding. It not generally considered sufficient to just have sourced commentary about the organization, etc. the logo represents; the logo itself needs to be discussed. Of course, whether not seeing something is detrimental to the reader's understanding depends on how you define detrimental, and if you disagree with the tag placed on the article, you can explain why at File talk:File:WSVW-LD1 Logo.png.

One thing that you might not be aware of is that deleted images aren't gone forever; they're actually only hidden from public view. A deleted image can be restored at latter date per WP:REFUND, etc. if the reasons why it ended up deleted are subsequently resolved. You mentioned that you're intending to use this in a future article; so, when that article has been created and if the non-free use complies with relevant policy, you should have no difficulty getting the file restored so that you can add it to the newly created article. For future drafts, just wait until the article has been created as explained in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts and then upload/add any non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

To Marchjuly, Thank You Very Much for the advice. Sadly, it appears that the Sunday, November 24th, 2019 "Speedy Deletion" of this file is gonna predate the transition of Draft:WSVW-LD into an actual article, as the station isn't scheduled to sign-on until December 1st, 2019 (which is a whole entire week later). And my apologies for removing the tag, for I skim a lot but I didn't notice until this very evening that the tag instructs the actual Uploader of the file being tagged (in other words, me) is prohibited from removing that tag. So, with quite a hearty chuckle, I said with a laugh, "Oh, Oops!" Oh well, life is all about living and learning. And whenever I get frustrated and irritated and my patience wears thin, I like to make an effort to channel all that anger and frustration into determination to successfully resolve the matter that has me banging my right fist on the tabletop. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be possible to create the article now as long as the subject has received significant coverage and then tweak the wording after the station actually goes on the air or whatever stations do, You might want to ask about such a thing at WP:TVSTATION or WP:TV. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

To Marchjuly, I have since activated the WSVW-LD article and, yet, File:WSVW-LD1 Logo.png still continues to be listed as being in violation of Criterion 8 policies but because I'm the Uploader of that Non-Free Logo Image file, I'm prohibited from removing the violation Tag. Might you be able to? Thank You Very Much In Advance. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the template since the file is now used appropriately. — JJMC89 20:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Categorizing mistake

Hello, JJMC89,

I think this edit by JJMC89 bot III was a mistake (from Category:‘Urabi revolt to Category:Category:'Urabi revolt) but I don't know how to revert it as it involves recategorizing all of the pages contained in the category. Could your bot reverse this edit? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I've moved the category to Category:'Urabi revolt, which I assume was Ymblanter's intention. — JJMC89 20:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I screwed up something again, my apologies for this--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

​No worries, it happens — JJMC89 20:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Images in headings

Hi JJMC89. I came across this edit by your bot which was correct in removing the file. For reference, this type of use would also not be allowed per MOS:HEAD and MOS:ACCIM regardless of file licensing. Cleaning this kind of thing can be pretty time consuming when the file's aren't non-free since they never show up anywhere as potential problems. Do you think there's a way for your bot or any bot to search for these images and add them to some kind of category or bot page for reference? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You could search for insource:file OR insource:image insource:/== *\[\[(file|image):/i. I'm not sure if that will catch all instances or not. It is possible for a bot to list or categorize them, but outside of that search I think the only efficient way to do it would be to search database dumps. I don't have any experience using the dumps though. — JJMC89 20:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that bit of info. I usually just stumbled on one of these by chance, check "What links here" on it's Commons' page, and then work backwards for there; that, as you can probably understand, can be pretty time intensive since some images (e.g. icons) are used a ton of times in various articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ian Michael Smith

Ian Michael Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just wanted to let you know that I've lengthened the semi-protection on the article above. I quite agree with you about the need to SP that article; however, it seems that this is the third time that a date of death has been inserted in this article within the past year, so I've extended to a full year SP. With luck, the person who keeps inserting that inappropriate information will have got bored by then. If not...well, it's on my watchlist now. Hope this works for you. Risker (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

That works for me, Risker. — JJMC89 04:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Here, have something cute to look at in compensation for having to look at those BLP-vios. Thanks for handling it.

AddWittyNameHere 02:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Frank marine SPI

When you archived WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Frank marine, you didn't leave behind a link to the archive. Was that intentional? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith, it is there. :) Sometimes transclusion doesn't always work and then you should purge your browser cache and usually you will then see the link. You can see that JJMC89 did leave the link.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, now it's showing up. Yeah, I guess cache problems might explain it. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yasmina Siadatan

Puzzled by the bot amendment 'TV Series' to 'Franchise'. In any case, this article is so minimal it really should be deleted.Tomintoul (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Kabir Helminski

Hi JJMC89. It seems that my redraft of the Kabir Helminski article has been deleted for copyright infringement. Could I be given access to the draft once more? It seems that I have shown that Helminski is notable (no objections have been raised on this front) and I have used independent sources to demonstrate this (again no objections raised on this front either). It is only very basic details of Helminski's bio that mirror the content on sufism.org - these can so easily be re-worked. There is a great deal of research, independent citation, and original content in this article that has not been gathered together elsewhere. I think it has real value for Wikipedia. Thanks, (Danthedervish (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC))

I see the source of confusion now! Kabir Helminski (with whom I have declared connection) has actually posted my entire draft article on his own website (I shared it with him). He credited is as coming from Wikipedia but did not realise that is only a draft and therefore likely to be viewed as infringing his own copyright! If I ask him to take it down, can my article be re-considered?(Danthedervish (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC))

Helminski has now taken it down from his website. (Danthedervish (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC))