User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2022/March

Nomination for deletion of Template:Visible short description

Template:Visible short description has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Content from another Wikipedia Page

Why did you remove the Movie Poster images I linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seymour,_Indiana&diff=1075505779&oldid=1075492360 Those images are all used elsewhere. All those films reference my wikipedia subject. Thanks, Jody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't. Did you read the policy linked in the edit summary? — JJMC89 05:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The files you tried to add to the Seymour article are licensed as non-free content, which means that their use is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and then are ten criteria that need to be satisfied each time such a file is used on Wikipedia. You added the files to the article without providing a corresponding non-free use rationale for their uses on their respective file pages; so, the bot removed the files because their use didn't satisfy criterion #10c. However, even if you were to add a non-free use rationale to each file's page to stop the bot from removing the files from the Seymour article, there would be pretty much no way to justify the non-free use of those movie posters in the article per WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFLISTS; thus, the rationale would be essentially invalid per WP:JUSTONE. The movie poster for each film can be seen in the stand-alone articles about the films themselves and there's really no way to justify any WP:DECORATIVE non-free uses in a subsection of an article about the city simply because it served as a location for the films. Think about how many films have been shot in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Paris, Tokyo or pretty much any other major city worldwide. There would be no real justification for using non-free film posters of such films in articles about those cities any more or less than there would be to use movie posters in a article about a much smaller city like Seymour. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Account Creation Barnstar
		For your arduous task of overseeing ACC and giving me a chance to serve. Thank you Double J Celestina007 (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages with autores.uy identifiers

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages with autores.uy identifiers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages with PIC identifiers

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages with PIC identifiers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian painters

Hi, I noticed that your bot is moving articles from category "18th-century Polish painters" to "18th-century Polish–Lithuanian painters", why is that? Wouldn't it be better to add this category rather than replace an existing one? Can you reverse that? Marcelus (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Amen. It's doing the same incomprehensible thing to Polish writers. Nihil novi (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You should discuss the issue with Ymblanter, who instructed the bot. The moves were requested by Rathfelder. — JJMC89 21:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

We are trying to remove anachronistic categories - where people are in categories relating to countries which did not exist at the time. If you can see a better way of doing this, please do. Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: That's actually insane. First of all, there were three countries: Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Crown of the Polish Kingdom, who together constituted Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Secondly "Polish painters" refers to the nationality of the said persons, categorizing them by their "state nationality" is wrong, because then you won't have any Polish painters in 19th century. Stop whatever you are doing and revert the changes you have done. Marcelus (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Making aware of all of this users: Piotrus and GizzyCatBella Marcelus (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• If the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the country then if we categorise painters by nationality then that was their nationality. By no means all of the Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian painters appear to be Polish. But there is nothing to stop you making whatever sub-categories you think appropriate. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Rathfelder: No, it wasn't their nationality, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You can create categories "Polish-Lithuanian painters/writers and so on", just don't replace categories "Polish painters/writers etc." with them, they aren't mutually exclusive Marcelus (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I concur. Polish-Lithuanian can be a parent category, but Polish and Lithuanian categories for that period are also fine and should not be removed. The bot needs to be rerun, restoring the categories. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Painters, like the rest of Category:People in arts occupations by nationality are generally categorised by nationality. If you want these categorised in a different way then please carry on. But this was agreed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_19#Category:18th-century_Polish_people_by_occupation. If you dont agree that is the place to raise your issues, not with me. Rathfelder (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Rathfelder: And you didn't even bother to inform WP:POLAND or WP:LITHUANIA before making such a decision? Your statement that Poland did not exist from 1569 to 1795 is simply absolutely false, because as I said Polish Crown and Lithuanian Grand Duchy still existed as a part of the federalized state. You even linked Polish-Lithuanian identity article, but it seems didn't even bother to read it thoroughly. Because this identity applies to the Polish-speaking Lithuanians, citizens of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, not to every citizen of the Commonwealth. Poles didn't disappear suddenly in 1569 and reappeared magically in 1795 or 1918. You need to rerun this changes Marcelus (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is not a decision for me. Rathfelder (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Rathfelder: So why did you even initiate it? Marcelus (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  See above. Rathfelder (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Rathfelder: Since you initiated this destructive process, I think you should reverse it. Marcelus (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bhavika Sharma

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bhavika Sharma. 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. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Bhavika Sharma recreation

Hi! I learnt that I have to approach you for the recreation of the blp article of Bhavika Sharma. Her article was deleted with the stated reason of lack of notability WP:N in 2019. However, now she has become a notable actress. So, I request the article be restored to draft space so that I can make suitable edits to it, to make it suitable for mainspace. Thank you. Can you please help me with it because you were the administrator who closed the afd and WP:SALTed the page?Commonedits (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, you closed the AFD in April 2019 and Sir Sputnik salted the page title in January 2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you so much for not reverting the old illustration to Bordertown (1989 TV series) when you removed the new cropped DVD cover I used to replace it. I was a long-time member of a now-defunct Bordertown discussion group, and the cover for the first complete series DVD was hated by everyone in the group since the illustration was of some generic saloon girl / gunfighter scene which had nothing to do with the series. (I bought the DVD set, but replaced the cover with a home-made one.) In the past I replaced the Bordertown (1989 TV series) illustration with a cover from an earlier DVD that showed the series' main characters, but that was removed by an editor, who said a cover from a selected-episodes DVD could not be used. The article itself has been tagged for years for needed improvement and I've been wanting to do a thorough rewrite, but can't bring myself to work on an article with an illustration I strongly dislike. When I discovered there is a newer DVD set containing all Bordertown episodes, plus episodes from Gold I rejoiced that I could put up an illustration from a complete series DVD, so I cropped off the bottom of the cover which illustrates Gold, and began collecting new referenced information to improve the article. Alas, my new illustration was immediately removed, but the old, inappropriate, illustration has not been added back on. I will wait for a couple of weeks, and if the article remains with no illustration I will do a rewrite of the article. Once more I thank you for not reverting the dreadful earlier illustration. An unillustrated Bordertown article will be so much better than one with an illustration that has nothing at all to do with the fine series. I can only hope that Bordertown (1989 TV series) remains unillustrated. Karenthewriter (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, JJMC89/Archives/2022. 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.

Celestina007 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your bot is amazing

It recently removed a WP:NFCC file on a draft type page that I'd stumbled upon earlier and I was relieved, especially because of the subject matter. So thank you. Shearonink (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Please get your bot to process a rename decision

Please get your bot to process the rename decision from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Category:12th Tripura Legislative Assembly members. I guess it wasn't done because there was a non-admin closure. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-free images bot -- 3D sculpture

I had a question about your bot that marks non-free images for resizing -- I've uploaded several freely licensed images that contain non-free content (copyrighted sculptures), and your bot has marked them for resizing several times. I've reduced the image sizes significantly before uploading, and I do feel there is a genuine need for them to be larger than the size your bot has changed them to. Most of them are sculptures that cannot be understood or viewed without a higher level of detail, and they essentially become unidentifiable when resized to your bot's specifications. I know the policies re: non-free content are strict for a reason, but there is some amount of room for higher sized images when discussing works of art -- it's a grey area, and certainly deserve some level of explanation for why a slightly higher image size is required, but it's well-documented that there is not a one-size fits all policy for use of images like these. I just wonder if you've taken situations like this (which I know are pretty niche) into account when designing the bot. Is there any way for me to stop the bot from reducing these images further than what I reduce them to, and do you think a situation like this makes sense as an exception to the extremely-low-resolution standards? Thanks for your time! --19h00s (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)