User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/January

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

Copyright violation

[1][2]

Missing permission from owner. These two images are available in various online sites. Uploader directly downloaded it from one of them and incorrectly licensed. User also attributed incorrectly to the downloaded site who themselves are not the copyright owner.--2405:204:D28E:9581:74D0:4D95:24F2:D24D (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

bot job

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T212742

Hi JJMC89, just a poke in case your bot job needs any thing for the new year at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2019. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: The bot was running into phab:T212742. I put in a temporary workaround to get it to run this month. User:Edit filter is now showing up as a sysop account, created 04:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC). (Not related to the issue of the bot not being able to run) — JJMC89 19:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, must have been a config forced update. That is an extension account not subject to inactivity, you should be able to exempt [[User:{{int:Abusefilter-blocker}}]](currently: User:Edit filter). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I already excluded the user. T212720 will be useful for automatically detecting system users. — JJMC89 23:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JJMC89!

Happy New Year!

JJMC89,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
SemiHypercube 02:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

...and a likely successful RfA today, too! First RfA of 2019! SemiHypercube 05:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, SemiHypercube! — JJMC89 01:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Hello JJMC89: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU! — JJMC89 01:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Successful RfA

Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU — JJMC89 01:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy new year and congratulations for your successful RfA!

Happy New Year!

Hello JJMC89: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Hhkohh (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Congratulations! You have a successful RfA during New year day (although your RfA is still running) Hhkohh (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I want to say the same, and fortunately for me someone else has already supplied the section heading and some illustration. I wanted to post one of those great pics of jubilant Annapolis grads *throwing their caps in the air but took the easy way out and just linked it instead. May 2019 be a good year for all of us! – Athaenara ✉ 16:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Found *a better one! – Athaenara ✉ 17:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Hhkohh and Athaenara! — JJMC89 01:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA!
I'm a little late, but that won't stop me from ~~torturing you~~ passing on what the puppy told me Katie after my Katie's RFA passed –
eleven long, sordid, hasn't-Katie-gone-away-yet years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable. I'd be shocked if you haven't done it already.)
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

Hhkohh (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.

Gah, the people who are beating me to this these days... ;-) _{And I made some minor corrections.} Katie^talk 18:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Katie! — JJMC89 01:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Congratulations on becoming an admin! Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Rubbish computer! — JJMC89 01:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Piramal Realty

Hey JJMC! I wanted to bring something to your attention, as I disagree with what you did here. I'm curious to hear your thoughts behind what you did here. Thanks! Snowycats (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Everything that was in the draft is included in the article and was added by the same editor. What would you prefer I do with the draft, let it sit for six months? — JJMC89 01:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Congratulations on being promoted to an administrator! Foxnpichu (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Foxnpichu! — JJMC89 01:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

Looks like Acalamari and I both went ass over teakettle closing your RfA. But you're an admin now. So, good luck. Maxim_(talk) 17:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Two bureaucrats fighting over your RfA...does that mean you're extra-special? :P Jokes aside, well done on your successful nomination and good luck being an administrator! Acalamari 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Be careful with all those new buttons :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy mopping. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Very happy to see this. Have a happy New Year as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming an admin and wishing you a happy year ahead.Adithyak1997 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a good start to a new year – congratulations! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Sorry to have been an opposer but I hope our feedback was useful and you can keep it in mind in future. Good luck with the year ahead! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89, as someone who supported your RFA and even uncharacteristically commented on an oppose !vote, I hope you acknowledge that your RFA did result in quite a bit of opposition. As you start using the tools and performing administrative actions that affect others, please consider taking some of the concerns raised to heart and proceed responsibly. Congratulations on your successful RFA. Mkdw ^talk 20:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
~~When the dust settles and you realize what you've done, I've got plenty of cold beer on ice over at my TP~~ CONGRATULATIONS! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations JJMC89. Good to see the community recognize the contributions you've been making. Please take the oppose !votes in stride and use those comments to occasionally self-assess a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Nice work! Looking forward to seeing you around GAB^gab 22:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Felicitations on your successful RfA. This is usually where I point newly minted admins to one of our perpetual backlogs. Incredibly, at this moment, we don't seem to have any worth noting. Even AIV is quiet(knocking on wood). Anyways... enjoy the moment. I did notice that your RfA was a little bumpy. Maybe a nice bourbon with a good cigar. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations and welcome to the admin corps. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Successful requests for adminship 2019.png

With 183 supporters, JJMC89's request for adminship is the first to succeed in 2019.

What a great start to 2019 for you! The first admin of the new year and on the first day! Well done to you! Linguist111^{my talk page} 13:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! I appreciate the support and constructive criticism. — JJMC89 01:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party, but just wanted to congratulate you on the successful passing of your RfA. If you have any questions, we are here to help (feel free to ping, email, etc). Congratulations! The backlogs are that way . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations! SemiHypercube 13:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Congrats! Glad I was wrong and you didn't listen to me! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This is belated but congrats! Welcome to the cabal :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! — JJMC89 02:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you please help to cancel the deletion?

Greetings, Thanks for helping review my draft! I got a page (Draft:Service Management Unite (SMU)) deleted by you on Jan 3rd. However, I would like to further work on this article. I need the source as a reference for further editing. Could you please help to keep the draft? Otherwise, I need to type word by word, which might take a lot of effort again. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjct1990 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bjct1990. Copyright violations and promotion are not permitted on Wikipedia, so I will not restore the draft. Please see the information that Dlohcierekim and I left on your talk page. — JJMC89 03:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Big Enough cover art

Hello. I noticed you placed a request for the cover art of Big Enough (Kirin J Callinan song) on hold at Files for upload. Is it possible to reopen this request with this replacement link: [3]? Thanks! 66.87.149.228 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Done as File:Big Enough (Kirin J Callinan song) cover.jpg — JJMC89 07:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk page access

Hi. Thanks for blocking User:Royalwonder. Could you please also remove their talk page access as they are still messing around with other editors' comments ([4]). Bennv3771 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello JJMC89. I probably should have pinged you since I did mention your name, and your input would not be misplaced if you chose to reply. The mention is here and the choice to comment or not is entirely yours with no ill feelings either way, and no ill intent whatsoever. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Mcu tv shows modification

Hi. You reverted my modification on the mcu tv shows list and I wanted to tell you why i modificated it. In the article, it clearly says "spring 2019" and not early 2019. And spring is more precise. Buckythewintersoldier (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Use the article talk page and read MOS:SEASONS. — JJMC89 01:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

File talk:Janet Davies as Mrs Pike in the Dad's Army episode 'Never Too Old'.jpg

Just a reminder about adding {{Oldffdfull}} to the talk pages of files which are kept or for which some uses are deemed OK. If you're already aware of this and just haven't gotten to it yet, then my apologies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Marchjuly. I had forgotten about doing that, but it is done now. — JJMC89 04:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No biggie. While I've got you on the phone, I'm wondering if you'd mind watching Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 January 7#File:TomWaits Vancouver2008.jpg and File:TomWaits Vancouver2008.jpg. Special:diff/Stolengood/877183754 and Special:diff/Stolengood/877183890 might be a one time response out of frustration, but just in case its not perhaps you could revert if it happens again. It's probably not the most glamorous job for a new admin, but continued removals would seem to be a pretty clear case of WP:DE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully they don't repeat it, but I'll keep an eye on it. — JJMC89 05:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Acqua Minerale San Benedetto Logo

Dear JJMC89, I write to you because I replied to your comment on my request to upload the Logo of Acqua Minerale San Benedetto SPA: Wikipedia:Files for upload/December 2018 Unfortunately the page has been archived. Could you please let me know how I can proceed? Kind Regards! Tingilya85 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tingilya85: Unfortunately, I cannot access the website that has the logo. I've restored your request so that someone else can assist you. — JJMC89 02:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Child Trends logo

Hey, JJMC89! I've added a template for fair use to this logo -- can you recheck for me? Sorry about this, when I uploaded it I thought I was following instructions but apparently not correctly! Thanks for any help! valereee (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Valereee. — JJMC89 15:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! valereee (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Lowlife

No, not you. The Poppy song. I've returned the page to mainspace as the video to the single now has over 50 million views on youtube. Seem okay? Thanks, and happy belated New Year! Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

YouTube views do not establish notability, and nothing else in the article did either. Another editor has redirected it again for the same reason that I did. — JJMC89 19:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

G13 refund

Hi, would you be able to restore Draft:The CARS model? I don't know why I had it on my watchlist, presumably because I thought it was promising. Though of course, if it's utter rubbish, there's no need to restore it. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 19:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notification

Please see [5]. 81.137.62.113 (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I broke this out into a new section for you. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Mohini Technical

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:TomWaits Vancouver2008.jpg

Saw your post about this file on Fastily's user talk page. The editor who reuploaded this is the same one who blanked the FFD discussion (see User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/January#File talk:Janet Davies as Mrs Pike in the Dad's Army episode 'Never Too Old'.jpg) for the file. No claim of copyright ownership was made at that time or at the time of the original upload, so I assumed the file was non-free. Not sure if the reupload was just done out of frustration (like blanking the FFD) or a deliberate attempt to get around the FFD close, but the file doesn't appear to have been added back to the article. Perhaps it was deleted before that could be done. FWIW, if the uploader wants to email OTRS to verify their copyright ownership, then I have no problem with the file being re-added to the article. In that case, they should just re-upload the file directly to Commons -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't sourced to the uploader originally. I did some poking around before I deleted it. Based on the image size, lack of EXIF, and a reference to this image (or a related one) I found, it is unlikely to be the uploader's own work. If the uploader holds the copyright, the time to claim that was during the FFD. Unless the uploader can prove that they are the copyright holder (EXIF and/or OTRS), they shouldn't upload it again. Yea, if its is really free, then there is no problem with using it. — JJMC89 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

2017–2019 Iranian protests listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2017–2019 Iranian protests. Since you had some involvement with the 2017–2019 Iranian protests redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mhhossein ^talk 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No objections from me. You may want to fix the lead of the target article. — JJMC89 04:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandal on the Broly page.

Hello, this user User:Miki Filigranski Is constantly vandalizing this page. Dragon Ball Super: Broly By constantly removing up to date box office information on sites like Box Office Mojo and is instead replacing these sources with out of date figures and estimates. I've asked him several times to stop vandalising and explained to him multiple times where he's going wrong and in return I'm getting comments on my talk page like "YOU ARE AN IDIOT. FUCK OFF." "YOU FUCKING IDIOT" "YOU DON'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND AND AS SUCH BUGGER OFF" "JUST FUCKING STOP BEING AN IDIOT" "JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP AND BUGGER OFF" He's also leaving profanity on the page history. Could you possibly block him from the page. Thank you.Scabab (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Scabab, please read about what vandalism is not. Miki Filigranski has already been warned about the personal attacks. — JJMC89 21:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Admittedly I don't know what it would count as but Box Office Mojo added a gross, and I included that gross on the page but this user kept removing this information despite it being from a legitimate source. The reason for this was that he "didn't trust me" though it was sourced on the page and was on the site so I don't know what that actually counts as but we had an official figure and he just kept removing it, what would that be listed under?.Scabab (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I already explained to him several times (WP:DONTGETIT), when made the [6] the BOM website had an update issue and I could not check the information for verification and as other editors previously were also altering the gross number which could not be verified in the source per WP:VERIFY it was reverted to previous revision. In the end, the number was not $70 million, but $69.9 million. The point was - the claim validity is trusted on a reliable source, which at the time wasn't available for it, and not editors.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Except it's not up to you, information isn't only to be added when "you" can verify it which is what you don't seem to understand. The information was added to the website, I verified it, so I added it to the page. You removed this because of a matter of "trust". This site isn't about who you choose to trust or not trust, only the facts and you removed the facts from the page. Grosses are rounded to the nearest $0.1 million so it is to be put at $70.0 million. $69.9 million is rounding the figure down. You removed factual information and edit warred over the sake of a few minutes, that's all it was just a few minutes while the page updated and because you "don't trust me". Your personal agenda or private issues are getting in the way of the accuracy displayed on the page.Scabab (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Won't waste on replying to this.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: revert to the revision which doesn't have any issue with sourcing, citation style, copyright etc. ([7]). I done my job of being a fool, falling for a WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR trap by editor Scabab who never read nor has basic understanding of the Wikipedian editing policy which I tried to explain it to them for X time (for e.g. Talk:Dragon Ball Super: Broly#Citation style & Copyright & Box Office update, User talk:Scabab#A reminder about sourcing (Warning), User talk:KenGohan#Citation style and referencing), trying to fix every error in their editing, citation style, requested extended confirmed protection because in goodfaith hoped the editor would read and understand its mistakes, to not report him to admins... Patience has its limits and I'm sorry for breaking up. I have issues currently in private life and this editor stuborness only escalated it. Do your part and block me for violationg WP:PERSONAL and WP:3RR. I am sorry again.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The user still continues to use profanity. The user at no point tried to fix any errors. I repeatedly fixed the poor sentence structure and updated the sources on the page to reflect the updated figures and this would be repeatedly removed even with explanations give multiple times. I'm not requesting the user be blocked but that the page be protected from him as he has been vandalising the page for several days now despite my efforts to correct and update it to be as accurate as possible. Issues in a person's private life don't excuse the vandalism and personal insults.Scabab (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

1) "The user at no point tried to fix any errors" - a lie 2) "he has been vandalising the page for several days now despite my efforts to correct and update it to be as accurate as possible" - a contradicting and another lie. 3) "Issues in a person's private life don't excuse the vandalism and personal insults" - another lie because there was no WP:VANDALISM on my part, the editor obviously doesn't understand difference between disruptive and vandal (typical of those who don't have a basic clue about editing policy terminology), but also partial truth because my private life did interfere with behavior on Wikipedia. I am ashamed of that and seek a sanction.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I maintain what I said. On January 13, the movies estimates were reported and they were added to the page. On January 14, the movies actuals were reported and I replaced the information and the sources to reflect that. You constantly removed these updated figures and the source for it in place for the previous estimates. Actuals always over ride estimates. You should never remove actuals in favour of estimates. You didnt fix what was being added and updated, you were removing this information entirely despite my explanations just as you did earlier with the Box Office Mojo gross.

If you want to insult me, that's one thing but don't remove factual information and references from the page.Scabab (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, What is the copyright issue that is currently in the article? — JJMC89 21:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

KenGohan had copy and pasted information from another website on to the page but that's no longer the case because I changed it up.Scabab (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, it was a mess with too many reverts, think it was fixed here [8] (the quote wasn't from Screen Daily), and I am only talking about Box Office section as am not completely sure about other sections.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I don't see any obvious copyright issues. If you find one, let me know. — JJMC89 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scabab and Miki Filigranski: As usual, The Wrong Version has been protected. I understand the you may not be happy about how the article currently stands, but you need to calmly discuss the issues on the article's talk page. Please comment on the content, not on editor conduct. If you can come to a consensus, then make an edit request. You may find it helpful to request a third opinion or neutrally solicit input from WP:FILM. — JJMC89 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how necessary that would be. The page states "the movie grossed $19.2 million....which brought the film's worldwide gross to $53.5 million ahead of its United States premiere." That is stated on the Screen Daily website here https://www.screendaily.com/box-office/aquaman-crosses-1bn-worldwide-update/5135754.article And it was the figure that Box Office Mojo went by. That is just what it made and that's why I included it on the page. There was no reason to remove this at all because it was stated, sourced and explained.Scabab (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright, will make now an overview and compare the edits.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A new section was made on the Talk Page further explaining what had previously been explained.Scabab (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence in that section shouldn't be there. Miki Filigranski's edits were not vandalism, and it has nothing to do with the article content. — JJMC89 23:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I edited all caps, profanity, personal attacks etc. in my commentary per WP:TPO (and as said at [9]), but the editor doesn't allow me ([10], [11], [12]) with an excuse I'm trying to hide proof of my behavior from admins and even claimed that did not edit my comments when reverted them. Also, please tell again to the editor to "comment on the content, not on editor conduct" because seemingly isn't interested to seek that kind of discussion and consensus when started the new discussion about the content with "Due to the vandalism or disruptive edits by Miki Filigranski, a new subject is being made to explain the grosses on the suggestion of the Admin.", and again about vandalism because obviously didn't read WP:NOTVAND. I already see, and considering previous discussions, that a consensus will be hard to get...--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I approached this Admin and told him of the personal insults given by you on my talk page. You are attempting to now remove these insults to cover your tracks so I put it back to how it was so the Admin could see it as I quoted. However it seems another Admin saw it and now this Admin would know to look at the history so it's alright now.

The Admin suggested reaching a consensus so I made a new subject while referring to why there was such a need for one to be made due to your actions.

I explained myself, I gave a link to the source, I gave the figures, I gave the dates and I gave the explanation. Why would a consensus be hard to reach? Is there something incorrect about anything that I said? You've made no attempt at responding to it but instead decided to complain about me putting my talk page back to how it was so the admin could see what I was referring to.

Scabab (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Miki, for editing your commentary. I do wish you both hadn't edit warred over it. Please see what Drmies said on Scabab's talk page. — JJMC89 23:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Broly page

I don't know if a consensus was actually reaced, but the whole process of how this works has been explained as clearly as I can make it. This other guy says he's going to take a "walk" anyway and with another set of worldwide estimates coming down later the page could probably do with being unlocked now.Scabab (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No WP:CONSENSUS was reached nor my "walk" is an excuse for changing the current situation and pushing of own opinion. Per [13] I'm asking for a third opinion and project film. In other words, this daily "urge" for gross updating and ignorance of reaching a consensus is contradicting WP:RECENTISM and WP:DISENGAGE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't give my opinion on the figures, they are what they are, you can't dispute factual information. That is what it grossed and you were wrong to remove it as you did with the Box Office Mojo gross yesterday multiple times despite it being reported. Movies make money daily hence the need to update it daily.Scabab (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

70.26.162.197

Please revoke talkpage access for user:70.26.162.197 . CLCStudent (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 19:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi, as a sort of follow up to User_talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/January#G13_refund, see WT:CSD#G13 on sight?. Sorry for not pinging you earlier. – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

I looked at the stale draft report this morning and couldn't believe how many their were today. Thanks for plowing through all of them! -- Dolotta (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

rail lines

can we get some sort of idea as to why, like everything ?
but, immediately, just lately, why the changes that look exactly the same ? what changed in the codes that you needed to do the changes ? trying to learn rail line code .... Dave Rave (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any visible changes since my bot replaces them when they get renamed on Commons. I don't know anything about the BSicon naming conventions. You'll have to ask someone active in that area, like Jc86035 who recently moved a recent batch causing the recent spree of edits. — JJMC89 06:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Submitting Drafts

How do you submit drafts? There are a few that I want to submit.--27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 19:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit your draft and place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and click Publish changes. — JJMC89 03:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A slightly better way to keep bots away from ISBNs in title= parameters

Gnome tips: even after this edit, the ISBN will still appear in Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors. In my experience, the best thing to do is this instead. There may be a better way, but I haven't discovered it yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey95. I'll keep it in mind. I wasn't concerned about bots, only removing the magic link. — JJMC89 03:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that if an article appears on the list, bots and gnomes are going to pay attention to it and probably try to mess with it, even though there is technically no magic link. Also, Visual Editor sometimes puts nowiki tags around ISBNs (T162291), and those need to be fixed, so ISBNs wrapped in nowiki tags can't just be ignored. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Cazzasim

Well, indeffing a new user for a single edit[14] feels pretty heavy handed, doesn't it? I did revert their only edit and warned them and this should normally be sufficient. Note that their user name (Cazzasim) is a form of their real name (Cameron Sim, going by the site they linked), no policy violation here. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

They were spamming their own work and website. I don't have any tolerance for that, especially since they were warned when they first attempted to make the edit but made it any way. — JJMC89 02:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello

If you have time, could you take a look at WP:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages? There are a couple dozen orphaned talk pages from the stale draft run the other day. Thanks! -- Dolotta (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 02:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOAPS images

Hi, regarding your tagging of File:Emma Samms as Fallon Carrington.png, File:Fallon-Elizabeth Gillies.png, and File:Karen Cellini as Amanda Carrington.png for deletion per NFCC 3a. {{Infobox soap character}} has three image parameters available because in this genre it is commonplace for multiple performers to portray a role over time, and for many years it has been regular practice to illustrate notable portrayers in this way in the hundreds of soap character articles monitored by WikiProject Soap Operas (when no free images are available, of course). Similarly, superhero character articles routinely include multiple images of various incarnations of the character in the body of the articles. If you really feel strongly that these images need to be deleted, I will open up the discussion more broadly, because this will affect many many articles. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I see a few issues with those images. WP:NFCC#1: Why can't free images of the actresses be used instead of copyrighted ones? WP:NFCC#3a/WP:NFCC#8: Only a single item of non-free content can be used for primary identification (WP:NFC#CS), which is the stated purpose in the rationales. — JJMC89 02:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Free images can certainly be used if they exist, which is not always the case (I tend to believe there are relatively few with free images, but I have no way of knowing). Two of the actresses in Fallon Carrington do have free images, which I'm happy to substitute. But neither actress in Amanda Carrington does, and I believe both portrayals are notable enough to warrant illustration (in this case, Oxenberg was notoriously fired and replaced with Cellini, as noted in the article with citations). But my bigger concern is what this means for the rest of the character articles which use this template.— TAnthony^Talk 02:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

A free image need not exist currently so long as one could be created. Notability is not the standard for non-free content, WP:NFCC is. If other articles are using non-free images in the same manner, then it is likely those uses of non-free images do not satisfy NFCC. — JJMC89 03:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

G13 refund: Draft:Type theory with records

Hi, is there any chance you might be able to restore Draft:Type theory with records? I can't recall why it was on my watchlist, so if it's utter rubbish, then there's no need. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 21:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

copyvios fro extrapolaris

Thanks for that, but please give me a heads up and I will sort them, if I can. It is a bit annoying, having gone to all the trouble of sorting them out, to have you summarily delete them without asking for help first.--Petebutt (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio is not permitted for any length of time, so no, I will not. — JJMC89 20:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I have checked out the source of the Bréguet Br 902 Cinzano copyvio and cannot see how there can be ANY copyvio as all the text is in French, even when English is selected for the website! Please re-considert your decision!--Petebutt (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The development section was almost an exact copy of the Google machine translation of the 'Histoire résumée' section of this source. Publishing an unauthorized translation of a copyright work is a copyright violation.[15] — JJMC89 05:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 Chevrolet Blazer

Hello, I'm confused as to why this image has been removed from List of Chevrolet vehicles. Your bot claims that this is a copyright violation, yet why is this not an issue for the Blazer's Wikipedia article? The image has been removed twice, and I specified that it was not a copyright violation. Sincerely, Syntaxlord (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-free image use must comply with the non-free content criteria. My bot removed it because there is no non-free use rationale for the list article (10c). Use in that article also wouldn't satisfy criterion #8. I've now marked the image for deletion since it is replaceable with free media. — JJMC89 05:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Syntaxlord. In addition to what JJMC89 posted above, non-free content is pretty much never allowed to be used to illustrate individual entries of a list article per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES since such usage tends to be more decorative than contextual and really is the image itself the subject of sourced critical commentary. So, even though you're correct about the image not being a copyright violation per se, each use of a non-free file needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and this policy has been purposely been set up to be quite restrictive. Also, as JJMC89 mentioned above, this type of non-free file would fail WP:FREER since there doesn't seem to be a reasonable reason to expect that you or anyone can create a free equivalent of the non-free image to serve the same purpose. It's generally considered OK for someone to take a photo of a typical car (not a specially modified one, etc.) as explained in c:COM:CSM#Vehicles and then release their photo of a free license which pretty much precludes the use of a non-free photo for primary identification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification JJMC89 and Marchjuly.
Syntaxlord (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Lua

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Lua has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft talk:Slate Star Codex

Hi, could you undelete Draft talk:Slate Star Codex please? Benjamin (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Why? — JJMC89 03:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I was working on it. Benjamin (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not the place to contest or complain about an article being deleted. As a talk page without a subject page, it would just be deleted again. This is the source you put there if you don't have it elsewhere. — JJMC89 04:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Where does it belong? Where can it be discussed? Benjamin (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If it fits WP:DRVPURPOSE, then follow WP:DELREVD. Otherwise, you can keep a list of sources in your userspace. — JJMC89 04:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems a bit unnecessary, don't you think? Aren't the standards much lower for draft space? Benjamin (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the article. If you want to create a draft, then go for it. — JJMC89 03:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Apostolic Palace

What whas the justification for your move here, which appears to be undiscussed? Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I moved it and moved it back to do a history merge as is noted in the logs. — JJMC89 02:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Explicit#Arena Football League logos

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Explicit#Arena Football League logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi JJMC89. You tagged quite a number of non-free former logos uploaded by this editor for speedy deletion; so, I'm wondering if you tagged these files as well. I can find out who deleted them and why from the log, but I can't find anything in the page history for the article where they are being used, the page histories for the files or the page history for the uploader's user talk page about you tagged the files for deletion. If they were prodded and then subsequently "deprodded" when they were re-uploaded, it probably would be a good idea to have some record of what happened just for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that you tagged these again. I'm not sure whether the re-uploading of files is going to be seen as disputing the tags, which means the files might need to be discussed at FFD instead. You've set the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}'s "help" parameter to "off" which is fine, but that hides {{Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} as well as {{deletable image-caption}}. When I use this tag, I also try to use those templates just to make it easier for the uploader and others to know that the file in question is being tagged for speedy deletion. That way nobody can claim after the fact that they weren't notified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. I did tag them as F7 originally, and I retagged them for the same violation. The tags are in the deleted histories. I usually let FastilyBot handle the notifications since it will do an entire batch of images at once, reducing talk page spam. It seems that didn't happen for NostalgiaBuff97501 for some reason. They're still eligible for F7 just as they were the first time. The place to dispute deletion is by discussing with the deleting admin then DRV, not by reuploading without fixing the problem. If it were PROD, not CSD, then, yes, reuploading would be disputing the original deletion. — JJMC89 03:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. When a deleted file is subsequently uploaded as in these cases here, it seems to start with a new page history even when the same file name is used. While admins can probably see the page history of the deleted file, I'm wondering if there's a way for it to be restored or WP:HISTMERGEd into the page history of the new uploaded version. This would make it easier to understand who might've originally uploaded the file and whether it had previously be nominated/prodded for deletion. I'm asking this because the same thing has happened with respect to File:Jolanta Antas.jpg. I was prodded and deleted, but then subsequently reuploaded. I can't seem to find out who prodded the file (I think it was me) and who the original uploader was. Since the file is now being discussed at FFD, it might be helpful to be able to see the full page history of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, any page that is recreated after it was deleted has a new history, which can be undeleted. If the names were different a history merge would be needed, but since the names are the same, the history just needs to be undeleted. I've done so for File:Jolanta Antas.jpg. FYI, you can check the upload log (File:Jolanta Antas.jpg) to find out who uploaded it previously, regardless of deletion. — JJMC89 05:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I wasn't aware of the upload log; so, also thanks for pointing that out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)