User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2020/June

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

Non-free images in portals

The recent run of JJMC89 bot seems to have found lots of non-free images being used in portals. I've looked at a few of these and they were being transcluded into the portals in some way. Most of the corresponding portal pages don't seem to have been edited in some time and I'm not sure why the bot is just finding the files now. Do you think anyone might have tweaked some portal-related template in someway that is suddenly causing these files to be transcluded or is it just a case of then finally being noticed. I've correct a few of these by adding <noinclude> syntax to the articles where the files' were being used, but I'm never sure if this is the best way to try and "fix" this. Perhaps there's a better way involving the templates transcluding these files to get them to stop adding non-free files to portals. Maybe there's something in the Wikidata of the file pages that can be used to let the templates know not to do this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

They were all probably transclusions from the articles. This edit should have fixed the issue. — JJMC89 22:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

IP talk page abuse

Hey JJMC89, hope you are well! Would it be possible to revoke talk page access for 2601:181:4580:4EF0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)? There are IPs continuing to add non-free content to their talk page after your block. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't really been onwiki since you posted this. Ponyo took care of it. There was an appeal on UTRS. — JJMC89 03:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up after JJMC89 bot III

Working on pages in red-linked categories I've come across a few such as Category:Television season articles that use custom fields where JJMC89 bot III has moved the category (and changed a template?) but the articles have been left behind. I assume that one is like Category:Infobox television season articles that use the season name parameter where just working through the articles giving each of them a WP:NULLEDIT was enough to push them into the new category. I don't suppose it would be possible to have the bot check for these kind of left-behinds and give them a null edit to push them on their way? Although they do generally get there in the end they still end up on the Special:WantedCategories backlog and there seem to be a few (I don't think from your bot so far) which get "stuck" for weeks if not months. TIA. Oh, and I've just noticed Category:Eloise looks like another one. Le Deluge (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If a category move requires editing a template (manual work), the admin that adds/removes the request to/from WP:CFD/W is responsible for doing that (or getting someone else to do it) and making sure the old category is empty. Really, they shouldn't add it there at all but use WP:CFD/W/M and handle it all manually. The job queue will handle "moving" the contents after the template is edited. The bot could be updated to purge pages to move it along quicker. It isn't something urgent though, and it would be a waste when a request sits at CFDW and no one has updated the template yet (repeated pointless purging). — JJMC89 03:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving Category:Daimler to Category:Daimler Company per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

@JJMC89: I wonder if you might be able to help me. I can find no record associated with this edit comment left by your bot, here. Thank you, Eddaido (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

See Special:PermaLink/960322734#Current requests. When the bot is making the edit, the request will have already been removed from WP:CFD/S. You have to check the page history. — JJMC89 03:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Baba Muhammad Dzukogi

Hi I'm @F5pillar:. Is there any possibilities of recreating this page Baba Muhammad Dzukogi you deleted in an (AFC) discussion. I didn't really know how and what makes the page to deleted, but if won't be necessary, I'll just forget about the page. much regards (F5pillar---/ ^{Let's talk🖋📩}) 10:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You would need to address the notability concerns raised in that discussion. Keeping in mind that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, I would suggest writing a draft and submitting it to WP:AFC. — JJMC89 15:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick note on User:PKHilliam

Thanks for your edits to User:PKHilliam.

Can you change this to “banned” because the user repeatedly evaded their indefinite block? A a s i m 01:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:3X requires CU confirmation, which I don't see. — JJMC89 15:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Digital companion page - moved to draft article

Hi there - was wondering what I can do to get my page (Draft:Digital_companion) moved back into the main space. The person that claimed my article was not suitable for the main space did not give me a chance to state my case. They said that the article was poorly sourced, yet the article was thoroughly researched, and included many sources (over 10). Can you please give me some insights on what I can do to get the page live again? I can change the format to read less "like an essay" but the information was thoroughly researched and took quite a bit of effort. Thank you, TechPorcupine39 (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss it with the user that moved it. I had nothing to do with that. — JJMC89 15:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Millian subpage in private userspace

@JJMC89: please restore my subpage. That was not ready to become an article, and I use it for research. I want it restored, with the history. This (User:Codyave/sandbox) is the page to redirect, not mine. -- Valjean (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please fix this. -- Valjean (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please address this and explain what happened. Since this is being discussed here, it's probably best to respond there. -- Valjean (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Userspace isn't private, and you don't own your userspace. I already moved the history back. — JJMC89 15:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, but it is usually respected and not involved in mainspace, unless the author does the move. Thanks for fixing the history. Much appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

About the deletion of the Trump Bible Talk Page

(JJMC89) your rule indicates, "Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started" won't work in this situation, because you or your bot minion deleted the Trump Bible page.

I made the following post on the talk page for "Trump Bible" proposing a new page

Here is a Wikipedia Page Proposal - A Trump Bible Page Needs To Be Created

About bibles involved in American History, there is a Washington Bible page, there is a Jefferson Bible page, and there is a Lincoln Bible page. So, for fair and balanced coverage, there should be a Trump Bible page. People will want to know the details concerning its history and its use during President Trump's term of office. Osomite (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You deleted my entry without any comment to me apparently only because it fit the Wikipedia criteria of CSD G8. Why so brusk? What was the situation that it had be done so speedily without any consultation? Did you do any diligence prior to your deletion? Did you delete it because you did not like the subject matter? Was it done by JJMC89 bot in blind obedience to its ones and zeros logic?

I put info on the talk page that I intended to use subsequently to create the Trump Bible page. And now it is gone.

Sir, I demand satisfaction.

Osomite (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump Bible has never been created or deleted. Consultation is not required for speedy deletion – that is the point of speedy deletions. Yes, I did my diligence. Trump Bible does not exist (and did not at the time), so I deleted Talk:Trump Bible as a talk page without a subject page. The page subject is irrelevant. Talk pages for nonexistent articles are not useful for proposing new articles. I suggest that you put it in your userspace. — JJMC89 01:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

special:diff/961359613

Do you care to provide any more details about the linked revert than a single pipe? I am entirely unsure what to take away Naleksuh (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You removed a colon that should be there without explanation. The pipe in the edit summary is just the separator for the TW ad. — JJMC89 01:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually the link seems to be fucked entirely. See also T89780 Naleksuh (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for fixing my user and talk pages! LunaSys (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Restoring multiple deleted files

Hello. I am requesting you please restore the following deleted files:

For all, you stated in your reason to delete was No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. As I pointed out in my comments for all of these, the site is extremely lenient and tolerant in regards to allowing posters for films, and television season. Why does that logic then not apply to television episodes, of which these are all posters for? How, for example, is File:How I Met Your Mother S9.jpg allowed over these files, when there is absolutely no commentary about it on How I Met Your Mother (season 9) per WP:NFCC#8, yet each of the files deleted above had commentary in the respective articles' marketing section describing the posters? As I've been pointing out, particularly here, it seems extremely hypocritical to not allow these posters, when they are the only non free piece of content on the articles (satisfying NFCC 3), are used only in those articles (NFCC 7), and as I've been trying to argue, have more commentary/in article discussion about the poster than many films or television seasons do (again, NFCC 8). Thus, I am requesting you to please restore them.Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Tagging error

The non-free image file, David Hackett Fischer image.jpg, has just been tagged for not being used in any article, where in fact, it is used in the David Hackett Fischer article, as is clearly stated in the image file summary. Why was this image file tagged? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello Gwillhickers, the current image you uploaded won't be deleted. The notice by JJMC89 bot only meant that the version that'll be deleted is the one you previously uploaded which has 447 × 376 pixels. See The previous version(s) of this file are non-free and are no longer being used in articles. Therefore, they fail the Wikipedia non-free content criteria and will be deleted on June 18, 2020. The current version will not be deleted, only previous revision(s). —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 21:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah... but of course! My mistake. Thanks for your prompt reply. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for multiple Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode posters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of multiple Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode posters. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Bad vandalism again at Talk:White privilege

Could you remove from view the racist vandalism [1] to that talk page that just occurred (already reverted by another editor)? You helped in a similar situation in January by removing from view vandalism to my user talk page that the vandal put there when I reverted threats from the white privilege talk page. Of course I don't know if it's the same vandal; at least this time there's no threat of violence. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignore that ping...

I misread something on the Village Pump when nominating a template for deletion. The funny part is I spent extra time making sure I was doing this correctly. I guess we are only human :\ A a s i m 23:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)