User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/August

73.8.95.160

Hello. I just wanted to advise you that user:73.8.95.160 just evaded her block through user:73.22.184.81. Just thought you should know as the blocking admin. CLCStudent (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Page protected — JJMC89 05:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot

Hi @JJMC89:, I have a question regarding a photo your bot keeps removing from Martin Luther King Jr. assassination conspiracy theories, which was in the 1999 civil suit section. I understand that this photo is Fair Use, but through Fair Use and Wikipedia's policy I am allowed to use this or any such image to "illustrate the subject in question." Since the photo is of Jowers during the civil suit (and no other article covers the civil suit in as much depth), I think it is appropriate and necessary for the article. I hope this can be resolved. Thanks HAL333 03:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi HAL333. Fair use and non-free content are not exactly the same thing as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. Each use of a non-free file on Wikipedia needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. More specifically, there are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be meet for each use. The reason the bot keeps removing the file has to do with non-free content use criterion #10c and WP:NFCCE; you're adding File:LoydJowers.JPG to the article, but you're not adding a separate, specific non-free use rationale for that file to the file's page. So, the bot is removing the file as explained in WP:NFC#Implementation.

Generally, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy does allow copyirghted images of deceased individuals to be uploaded and used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the person in question, but other types of non-free use or uses in other article tends to be much harder to justify. This is just my opinion based upon working with non-free images over a number of years, but I don't see how the non-free use of the file can be justified. There's really no need for the reader to "see" what Jowers look like at the time for them to understand the content about the civil suit, so it's unlikely this type of non-free use would meet both WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS and even item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI; so, unless you're able to add sourced critical commentary about how Jowers physically appeared at the hearing is relevant to the reader, I think you're going to have a hard time justifying the file's non-free use.

If you disgree, then you're going to need to provide the required non-free use rationale explaining why; this should stop the bot from removing the file, but providing a rationale is only of the ten criteria per WP:JUSTONE and another editor can still challenge the validity of the rationale by nominating the file for discussison at WP:FFD or tagging the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}.

One last thing, non-free files can only be "used" (i.e. displayed) in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. So, if you want to discuss a particular non-free file on a talk page or somewhere else, then make sure to add a link to it instead per WP:TPG#Non-free images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining it, I appreciate it. Also sorry for pinging you, I didn't see that earlier. HAL333 02:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2018 AFC Women's Asian Cup logo.svg

Hi JJMC89. Do you have any idea why this file's page shows it as being used in Wikipedia:SVG help: I can find links to the file on that page, but cannot find the file being displayed anywhere. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It is from linking using the media namespace in the section about the file. — JJMC89 05:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought that might be the reason, but wasn't sure. Any idea how to fix that or is it something that will sort itself out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

To not change the link target you'd have to use an external link. — JJMC89 18:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That's something I did suggest at User talk:Marchjuly#NFCC vio for Media: link and I'm still waiting on a reply. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg

Hi JJMC89. Would you mind watching File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg, and Lloyds Bank Canada? I think the IP who was edit warring over this file a few years back has returned as 2.24.81.243. The file was removed from the article per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg and the close was endorsed per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 January 26. I'm posting here because you just protected the file's page. I did post something on NeilN's user talk since he did remove both the file from the article and the corresponding non-free use rationale from the file's page here and here after he blocked 2.25.221.253 per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive336#User:2.25.221.253 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Blocked 48 hours). I'm pretty sure it's the same person; the account started editing a few days ago, made a couple of unrelated edits, then immediately went to the file's page and the concerned articles (neither of which had been edited in over two years since your edits, except for one cleanup edit made to the article in December 2018). FWIW, I also did post something about this on Nthep's user talk as well the other day, but he might be busy with something at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. I'm aware of the background. It is almost certainly the same person as before, which is why I protected it. I'll keep an eye out. — JJMC89 01:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi JJM, can you help with the current disruption? Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP is referring to 68.33.74.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), one of a series of LTAs evading a 1 year block. (IP, this is hardly the only disruption going on right now!) General Ization ^Talk 04:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure. But it's the one I stumbled upon, and saw that you seemed to be dealing with alone, for too long. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked that one. I've blocked that guy a few times recently. Also dealing with some other LTA right now. — JJMC89 04:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, IP, and to you, JJMC89, for putting a stop to it (for a little while -- the LTA will be back). General Ization ^Talk 04:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, for sure. Thank you both. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		In appreciation of your diligent and even-handed work to make Wikipedia a better place Railfan23 (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! — JJMC89 07:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Weirdness

OK, those IPs are freaking me out: 221.191.161.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 183.77.232.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If you study their edits, they're a mixture of constructive edits and vandalism, but the remarkable observation is that none of the seemingly random edit summaries match the actions taken in the edits. Also note the incredible speed with which the edits are being made, especially given some of the edits being fairly complex. I think this is another type of automated attack. Thoughts? General Ization ^Talk 05:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

​I agree that it is some kind of automated attack. It is likely copying edit summaries from other edits. I don't have time to check all of the edits, so I'm just mass reverting them. — JJMC89 05:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, though I'm finding that (oddly, given the fast edit rate) some of them are constructive. I'm just thanking those who revert me after pointing that out. General Ization ^Talk 05:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It might be indiscriminately just reverting edits. (Any is free to revert me on any of these.) — JJMC89 05:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're exactly right. It's just reverting the last edits, good or bad, at what appear to be random articles. Occasionally it even reverts itself. The edit summary is copied from the edit just prior to the one it's reverting. General Ization ^Talk 06:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That's why it was claiming to be Cluebot. I thought that was pretty weird! El_C 06:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that these IPs seem all to geolocate to Japan or South Korea -- similar, I think, to at least one of the other attacks, of a different type, we had this evening. General Ization ^Talk 06:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

​Are you referring to the AfD guy? — JJMC89 06:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. General Ization ^Talk 06:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't bother to geolocate him, just kept blocking until I shut him down with an edit filter. If this revert bot started up after that stopped, it wouldn't surprise me if they were the same LTA. — JJMC89 06:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently both are the derp vandal, according to zzuuzz. — JJMC89 07:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup. There's some edit filters somewhere, if not then there's also some other vandalbot filters which can be used. The IPs are going to be all VPNs. Personally, my starting point would be block for a month. It's early here where I am, and my caffeine intake hasn't yet reached sufficiency, but I'll try and pitch in later. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I was using much shorter durations, so feel free to adjust the blocks. I'm off for the night. — JJMC89 07:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Internationalist Communist Tendency

Hi @JJMC89:, I'm wondering if it's possible to revert the decision to delete the page for the Internationalist Communist Tendency. The reason for the deletion ("No citations are given aside from material from the organization itself. Likely does not have substantial, non-trivial coverage from multiple secondary sources.") can be easily addressed. For example, here are two books which mention the organisation directly:

Philippe Bourrinet (2000). The "Bordigist" Current (1912-1952). p. 332-3.

Ferdinando Leonzio (2017). La diaspora del comunismo italiano. p. 54-5.

There is also a variety of websites which reference the organisation, just to name a few: libcom, Internationalist Voice, International Group of the Communist Left , International Communist Current, Controverses, as well as the publishers and archives Collectif Smolny and Archives Autonomies.

These sources, from across different languages (English, Italian, French, Farsi, etc.), hopefully prove that substantial coverage, aside from material from the organisation's own website, does exist. -- Errant1905 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 and E.M.Gregory: Would you evaluate the sources presented by Errant1905? Would they change your stance? — JJMC89 18:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I would need to see what the books actually say to change my position on anything, here. Per WP:ORGCRIT, we need significant (non-trivial) coverage in multiple, independent reliable secondary sources, meaning a brief mention, acknowledgement of existence, or listing in a compendium of literally everything on a topic would not count. At least one of the sources mentioned here, Libcom, is the website of the organization and definitely does not count as being independent. We have dozens of articles here on these minor, offshoot Trotskyist/Marxist organizations that kind of form a feedback loop so I’m really skeptical that pure mentions in exclusively Trotskyist/Marxist blogs counts as substantial coverage, especially when there’s no evidence of external notability (elected officers, candidates for office, etc.). Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Surely having "elected officers" and "candidates for office" cannot be a requirement because it would disqualify any non-parliamentary and extra-parliamentary political organisations, or simply any political organisations with an unorthodox leadership structure, from having a Wiki entry - in order to apply that principle you'd need to delete a lot of existing entries. Regarding Libcom, it is not the website of the organisation, Libcom is run by a completely separate collective, it just hosts a blog and articles of the ICT. Most of the links are not to "Marxist blogs", they come from the websites of existing political organisations as well as publishers/archives (indeed, the ICT has its own press, including books you can still find on Amazon). Complaining that most of the information about a Marxist organisation comes from Marxist sources is a bit like complaining that most information about a vineyard comes from wine enthusiasts. Errant1905

These websites document a conversation among politically active Communists, but not in anything that looks like a WP:RS. The fact that these are what you were able to find is an indication that this group was interesting to other political groups with closely related ideologies. WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS are needed, and I couldn't find them either.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

User talk:47.221.237.163

Please remove talkpage access as it's now just abusive. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Reblocked without TPA — JJMC89 02:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Village People CD cover pic removal

I'm confused. You removed the photo from the article because a non-free image can only go in an article? Hotcop2 (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you UNDRAFT this article? It was taken down because of sparse references, which has been remedied. Now the editor is deciding on it's "importance." It's a major release from a major act. It's sequential in the previous/next singles column. It's not like it's a release by a high school band. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A draft is not an article. I will not, but you can do so yourself. — JJMC89 02:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Hi,

I was creating an article for an Indian horror film titled Mushqil: Fear Behind You. While doing so, I got to know that another article for the same title has already been created and subsequently deleted. Please let me know what are the issues behind the deletion and a new page could be created for this film or not? Regards. (Yaksha Prashna (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC))

​Are you referring to Mushqil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? If so, the previous attempts to write an article there were about a TV serial, not the film you are referring to. — JJMC89 02:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The title of the deleted article was Mushqil: Fear behind you {The same as the title of horror film for which I was going to create the page}. The article was deleted by you on 04:37, 14 July 2019 for the reason WP:G5 Yaksha Prashna (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

​Your spelling doesn't match – it was at Mushkil: Fear Behind You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It was deleted because a sock puppet created it. You can create an article for the film. — JJMC89 02:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @JJMC89:, extremely sorry that I didn't observed there is a 'K' in the spelling in spite of 'Q'. Thanks for the help. Yaksha Prashna (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Jiangxi Automotive Manufacturing Plant first mass-produced trucks.jpg

File:Jiangxi Automotive Manufacturing Plant first mass-produced trucks.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't plan to change the rationale, it's OK for me, so if you don't like it/think it isn't enough (and think you'll get support for that in any case), simply delete the file right away.

And if you want, please delete ALL the archives I uploaded, surely there're reasons to delete them all. I don't care that much at this point. I don't make any money from this. It's mostly wasted time. No-one forces me to be here, of course. And I'm sure most people (if not all) would be happy if I'm permanently gone, I know that... But that doesn't mean I appreciate being templated by a "busy" administrator. That thing really irks me. Bye. --Urbanoc (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Citations

Gopal Krishna Vishwakarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a new contributor.

Re your comments on more citations needed in article Dr Gopal Krishna Vishwakarma

My understanding is that 3 citations are needed for an article to be published. There are more than that (distinct) citations for the above mentioned article.

Is there anything specific that I need to include? Would appreciate your inputs VaithyP (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi VaithyP. The file you uploaded (File:Dr Gopal Krishna Vishwakarma.jpg) for use in the infobox of Dr Gopal Krishna Vishwakarma seems really unlikely to be 100% your own work. Vishwakarma is supposed to have died in 2004 at age 69 so there's really no way for you to have photograhed him in 2019 as you claiming in the file's description and shown in the file's Exif data. Did you by chance take a photo of a photo? If you did, then you cannot claim that as your "own work" and you'll need to provide information about the source of the original photo and the copyright holder to allow the licensing to be verified.

As for the number of citations, there's no real magic number when it comes to citations because it's the quality of the sources cited, not the number of citations, which matters. If the subject is Wikipedia notable enough for an article to written about him per WP:BIO, then the article should be fine notability wise and not deleted. The {{More citations needed}} template has more to do with unsourced content in the article and there's quite a lot of unsourced content still in the article. As long as it's unsourced, it can be removed per WP:UNSOURCED; so, the thing to do would be to find more sources for his "Early life", "Education" and "Career" information before the content starts getting removed.

Finally, I think the article should be WP:MOVED moved to Gopal Krishna Vishwakarma since professional/academic titles (like Dr.) are pretty much almost never used in the title of an article per MOS:DOCTOR. Dr Gopal Krishna Vishwakarma could be converted into a WP:REDIRECT to the new title. It might be best, if you've got no policy/guideline based objection to the move, to let an administrator like JJMC89 move the page just to avoid making any mistakes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, Thanks for the inputs. The gentleman is comfortably "Notable" per guidelines - I think the article should bring that for anyone who follows the Indian context. To answer your Qs: 1) The pic was sourced from his son, Nirvan G Krishna, for this express purpose. I scanned and uploaded it to Wikipedia commons. What do I need to do to meet the requirement -"..provide information about the source of the original photo and the copyright holder to allow the licensing to be verified." 2) I get your point re the usage of professional/ academic titles. To your Q - I have no objection to the move so that any administrator like JJMC89 can move the page just to avoid making any mistakes. 3) Re your point on Unsourced content, since this article pertains to a person of a different generation altogether, getting online content is tough as you'd expect. I do know that the family has the hard copy of the contents cited related to "Education" & "Career" sections (in other words awards, certificates etc). Do suggest the best way forward. VaithyP (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference, sources cited in articles only need to be WP:PUBLISHED; they don't necessarily have to be available online. So, as long as the source qualifies as a WP:RS, you've read the source yourself to verify WP:RSCONTEXT and someone else could reasonably access the source if they want to confirm it, it should be OK to cite the source as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. The same thing applies to sources written in languages other than English per WP:NONENG. Finding sources available online which are written in English surely does make it easier for others to verify what the source says and whether it's being used properly, but it's not an absolute requirement per WP:V.

As for the image, you should try to provide as much information about the original image as possible; for example, when it was taken and who took it. If the son is the person who took the photo, then he would be the copyright holder; if the father was the copyright holder and copyright ownership was transferred to the son as part of his father's estate, then he would also be the copyright holder. In either of those two cases, it would probably be best for the son to send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia OTRS to clarify things. Scanning a photo like this is basically a c:COM:2D copying that doesn't create a new copyright for the scan; so, technically this photo wouldn't be considered your "own work" just because you scanned it and uploaded it, and the license your trying to use would only be valid if the original photo itself has been released under such a license. Now, just for reference, it's generally the photographer taking a photo, not the person being photographed, who is considered to be the copyright holder; so, if the son didn't take the photo himself, then he wouldn't be considered the copyright holder. Unless the person who took the photo has officially transferred its copyright to the father or the son, the permission of that person who is going to be needed for Commons to keep it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Mother Elżbieta Popiel OSB with John Paul II.jpg

Hello. The issue that you raised was adressed recently, so there is no need to keep the file on the deletion nomination list. Yours sincerely, Francesco 13 (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Since deleted — JJMC89 03:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

JPNA

Hi admin! Please check Lee starc (sock of blocked Sabeeh butt) active again on Jawani Phir Nahi Ani 2 after one month protection ended. Thanks! M. Billoo 07:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Dealt with a couple days ago — JJMC89 03:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

T230521

Hey, sorry didn't mean to remove you from phab:T230521 - got collided trying to update the ticket. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

​No worries. Phabricator doesn't have edit conflict detection. — JJMC89 03:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-free use in List of Fire Pro Wrestling games

What do you think about the non-free files being used in this article? There are five box cover art files being used which look as if they were used in stand-alone articles at one time, but then those articles were redirected to the list article. They have rationales which redirect to the list article; so, I guess that technically means they're not NFCC#10c violations, but the redirect might've created some NFCC#8 and NFLISTS issues that didn't exist before. Generally, non-free images don't seems to be allowed to illustrate individual entries/sections of list articles and most of the sections actually don't have images of any kind. I know that song articles do often have multiple non-free images of cover versions, but generally those versions are actually considered independently notable in their own right and combining everything into one article is done more for contextual reasons than lack of Wikipedia notability reasons. Do you think the same can be said for an article like this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the list is like a discography (WP:NFC#UUI#2) more then an article about an album/song with multiple versions. I've tagged the lot for deletion. — JJMC89 03:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hay, can you do something about your bot always deleting a logo falsely claiming it's a copyright vio?

At Mennonite Church USA and at Mennonite Church (1683–2002). Thank you. 50.47.109.91 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi IP 50.47.109.91. The bot is not deleting the logo; just removing it from articles where it's non-free use is not complying with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The bot removes files from articles which lack the separate specific non-free use rationales required for certain uses WP:NFCC#10c; so, the bot is doing what it's supposed to be doing. You can stop the bot from removing the files by providing the missing rationales, but that is still just only one of the non-free content use criteria; the file can still be removed by an editor who feels that there are other non-free content use problems besides the missing rationale. After looking at the articles where the file was being used, I could see how it's non-free use might be justifiable in Mennonite Church (1683–2002): it's the former logo of the church and could be used perhaps at the top of the article for primary identification purposes showing how "that church" identified itself. Things are not so clear about its non-free use in Mennonite Church USA because it's a former logo not used for primary identification purposes and there's no real critical commentary of the logo itself as required per WP:NFC#cite_note-4. In this article just showing the former logo is not enough; there needs to be some discussion of it. The same also applies to File:Gcmc-logo.png in that it's already being used for identification in General Conference Mennonite Church which seems fine, but which also makes an additional non-free use in a section of the "Mennonite Church USA" article not necessary per WP:NFCC#3 and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI if there's no specific sourced critical commentary about the logo itself.

Finally, I hope 2601:600:8880:5496:58A6:DCC3:380C:E727 wasn't also you. Hopping from IP to IP to try and re-add the files is not really going to stop them from being removed, and is eventually going to be seen as a form of disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)+ [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify that the bot was not deleting the logo. Leaving out not makes a huge difference in the meaning of the sentences. -- 04:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)]

Listen Marchjuly, I use the computer to edit Wikipedia that I happen to be using at the time. There was no attempt of sockpuppetry. But, even for a now defunct denomination, that was one of two that merged to be a current denomination, that logo was the symbolic identification of that denomination when the merger occurred. There is no good reason to prohibit its use in identifying the past denomination. It's like this logo, File:Logo of the United Methodist Church.svg. There is no reason we cannot use those logos. And I tried modifying the "More details" page to include appropriate fair use information. What exactly does your bot need in the file so the logo can be used? 50.47.109.91 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)How an image file can used on Wikipedia is largely determined by how it's licensed. Public domain or otherwise freely licensed files are much easier to use than non-free files because the former are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. When it comes to copyrighted logos licensed as non-free content, it's generally deemed OK to use the logo at the top of or in the main infobox in a stand-alone article about the company, etc. in question, but using the logo in other articles or in other ways in the company's article tends to be much harder to justify.

File:Logo_of_the_United_Methodist_Church.svg is not licensed as non-free content; so, the way it's being used cannot be really compared to the way a similar looking yet non-free licensed logo like File:MC-logo.gif or File:Gcmc-logo.png can be used per WP:OTHERIMAGE. If you want to use a non-free file in a particular way, you're going to have to justify per WP:NFCCE how that way complies with all ten non-free content use criteria. If someone disagrees with the non-free use rationale you provide for the use, then they can either (1) start a discussion about the file at WP:FFD, (2) challenge the rationale's validity per {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or (3) be bold and remove the file from the disputed article and the corresponding rationale from the files page. If someone tries (3) and there is still disagreement; either (1) and (2) can be tried as needed.

FWIW, the "symbolic identification" reason you're using to justify the file's non-free use sounds decorative and is unlikely that a consensus is going to be established in favor of such a use since non-free files used in such ways very rarely are considered to meet WP:NFCC#8. A better way to establish policy compliance would be to add sourced critical commentary discussing the actual logo (not the organization it represents) to the article where you want to use.

Finally, the bot (it's not my bot by the way; it's JJMC89's bot) is looking for files which are missing non-free use rationales. So, if you add the missing rationale to the file's page, then the bot will stop removing it. However, as you can see from this edit and this edit, JJMC89, who's an administrator with lots of experience dealing with non-free files, seems to believe that non-free uses the MC-logo file of outside of Mennonite Church (1683–2002) don't comply with relevant policy and I tend to agree with him in this case. The image seems fine in the history article for primary identification purposes, but is not needed in Mennonite Church USA#Mennonite Church (MC) (Mennonite General Conference and Mennonite General Assembly) per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4 absent any specific critical commentary about the logo itself. There's a hatnote link to the history article where the logo can be seen; so, there's no real encyclopedic need for the logo to be used twice, at least not the way it was being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2018 AFC Women's Asian Cup logo.svg

At User:JJMC89 bot/report/NFCC violations, why is File:2018 AFC Women's Asian Cup logo.svg being listed as in use at Wikipedia:SVG help? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki says it is used there (File:2018 AFC Women's Asian Cup logo.svg#filelinks), and it is not an article. — JJMC89 03:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not displayed, so it's not used. It's linked, which is permitted by WP:NFCCP#9. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

I recently uploaded three images related to Andrew Yang in good faith. I wanted to add images to his relevant articles to break up the wall-of-text nature of the prose. Just wanted to thank you for the recent heads-up on the images.

I've just read WP:NFCC. Criterion 8, which all three images fail, states that the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Just to clarify, there's probably no workaround to this right? If so, I will remove the images from their respective articles, and you can delete the images entirely. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

See Special:PermaLink/911363811#Replaceable fair use File:Andrew Yang on JRE.jpg, where the question has been answered. — JJMC89 01:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Screenplays by writer

Hi

Your bot, per a consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 16#Category:Screenplays by writer, has been converting all categories with the format Category:Screenplays by... to Category:Films with screenplays by.... However, I've noticed that the bot does not differentiate between films and television episodes, resulting in edits such as this, when "Winter Is Coming" is in fact a Game of Thrones episode, and not a film as such. I'm telling you because I want to make sure this is not erroneous and also, if it is erroneous, how to stop it. Thank you --TedEdwards 14:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: this is being discussed and remedied at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Are TV episodes considered films?. –xeno^talk 19:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ted. The bot was doing as MER-C instructed it to after closing the CfD, so the edits were correct in that sense. I agree that TV vs film should be accounted for as is being discussed on BHG's talk page. Please follow-up there if you want to give any input. — JJMC89 02:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Professor Pyg

When it comes to the file that was recently tagged at Professor Pyg, do you have a better idea? It was given a commentative caption to justify its existence and the persistent disruption certainly justifies some preventive measure.

Hidden notes clearly aren't working, it isn't happening quickly enough for an administrator to semi-protect the page, but it's certainly a continuing problem that has been going on for a few years now. I thought of requesting an edit filter of some sort, but I don't know if that would be possible.

The fact that the disruptive changes remain in the article unnoticed for months at a time is ridiculous as well. I'm really not sure how so many IP editors can see the link smothered in notes stating "Bruce Wayne was dead, Dick Grayson was Batman, do not change" and still think "Huh, I think this needs to be corrected." DarkKnight2149 02:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to do other than watch and revert when it is changed. At a brief glance, I don't think the frequency justifies protecting the page. Using a non-free image to attempt to ward off disruptive editing, which I don't think will help, isn't justifiable. — JJMC89 03:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Galbraith (property consultancy) | Page moved

Hi, I wanted to know why this company page has been deleted.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.148.106.137 (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Article on Marie Hansen flagged for excessive use of non-free images

JJMC89: I removed four images and deleted the excessive-use template from Marie Hansen -- Delabrede (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Galbraith (property consultancy)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Galbraith (property consultancy). 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. 51.148.106.137 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Image of the Development

Hello, JJMC89. I am here to inform you that I have licensed the image in File:Meisterstadt 6-2019.jpg. You may check it now. If I wrongly licensed it, please fix it or give me suggestion for it. I also wanted to thank you for your help and suggestions in improving my files. Thank you. Samuelsp15 (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

​Looks good. I made a follow-up edit. — JJMC89 03:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

​Ok, thanks. I also have a question. Shall I revert the image size back to its origin? Thank you. Samuelsp15 (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

​Yes — JJMC89 01:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

​ Ok. Here is the edit. Thank you. Samuelsp15 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Commonwealth Games Federation seal.svg

Hi JJMC89. Any idea what's going on with this file? It looks like it's being transculded via Template:Portal bar or Portal:Commonwealth Games so it's now being used in more than 100 articles. The "problem" seems to be this edit which is creating a license conflict. If the file does really need to be non-free (at least based upon {{Non-free Commonwealth Games media}}) then it's going to have to have a non-free use rationale for each use, and stopped from being transculded into all of the other articles. The switch to non-free could've been just a good-faith edit made by a fairly new editor; so, I'd figured I ask for input before reverting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Marchjuly: SpinnerLaserz (talk · contribs) has been around for just over two months. Have you asked them why they did it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The CGF had a new logo since July 27th of this year. The new logo is already been uploaded on Wikimedia Commons by Thegreatestmanonearth (talk · contribs). However as a property of the CGF, you can upload the files but only if you use them for fair use under certain conditions. If you are talking about the new logo, just ask Thegreatestmanonearth. If you are talking about the old one, then I probably changed it for a reason and that is because the old logo is not used by the CGF anymore. I believe that this the portal bar for the Commonwealth Games needs to updated because they now have a new logo. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things SpinnerLaserz and if the licensing should be changed if it needs to be changed; however, your edit inadvertently created a host of other problems which now need to be sorted out.

The file was being used in more than a hundred of articles under the {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} license and your edit means that the file now has two conflicting copyright licenses. Non-free files are much harder to use than public domain or otherwise copyright free/ineligible files because each use of a non-free is required to meet WP:NFCCP, which means that each of these now needs to be assessed. Those that are deemed to comply with relevant policy would then need to be provided with a separate specific non-free use rationale. Just from looking at the various uses, pretty much every one of them wouldn’t be considered policy WP:NFCC compliant; so, the file would have to be removed from those articles. The only possibly compliant non-free use looks to be Commonwealth Games, but even that particular use has problems per WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Non-free files are required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7; so, if no policy compliant uses can be found for this file, it will need to be deleted per WP:F5.

FWIW, the complexity of the design is quite simple for US copyright purposes so this does seem to be below c:COM:TOO United States; the UK, on the other hand, has a much lower WP:TOO than the US per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom, which explains why the "PD-ineligible-USonly" license was added. The file was being treated as public domain only for use on English Wikipedia, which is quite different from {{PD-logo}}. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that you had already removed the non-free license from the file's page when I posted above. That resolves the NFCCP problems, but if you really think the file needs to be treated as non-free then maybe the license should be changed accordingly. The file was originally uploaded as non-free, but the licensing was changed to PD back in 2016. It can always be changed back to non-free if that's the consensus. If that happens, any non-free issues will just need to be sorted out. For the most part, the file appears be being transcluded into pretty much all of the articles by template; so, all that would need to be done to "fix" that would be to find the template and remove the file from it; any remaining use(s) where the file syntax was directly added to an article would then need to be assessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

File:First Cover of Rolling Stone.jpg

Hoping you can help me understand the rationale here. I don't want to upload an image that doesn't meet such as it is a waste of time for everyone (as you already known). This image is the primary means of visual identification as it is discussed in the first paragraph under history and the magazine is known for its covers which is why I think it would be encyclopedic. However, maybe I am not understanding correctly. Let me know as I can always request the deletion, but my main concern is making sure I do it right in the further. tyia --CNMall41 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not being used as the primary means of visual identification; File:Rolling Stone February 1 2012 cover.jpg is being used for that purpose. While the first issue may be discussed in the article (The first issue was released on November 9, 1967 and featured John Lennon on the cover.[5] It was in newspaper format with a lead article on the Monterey Pop Festival.[6]), I don't see any critical commentary about the cover. See WP:NFC#CS for some more details about satisfying criterion 8. — JJMC89 04:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Buttonholer : Wiki article hijacked to promote commercial site

Hello JJMC89,

You were kind enough to straighten out some issues--of which I was unaware--on the same Wiki page in 2017, and that is why I ask you for your help this time. The subject-line pretty much says it. Both IP numbers are from Pakistan, further to that I know little about who is ultimately behind them. Being more versed with the web than I, it may take you just a second or two to find a conclusive connection staring me in the face.

Regardless, anyone that blatantly abusive with an emboldened external link which takes the reader right off the wiki article to their own site may well need their IP number(s) blocked...this was hardly done in ignorance. But I leave the matter to your discretion and your capable hands when you have the time to address the matter.

I thank you sincerely, (and for both your previous edit as well as this current issue)

Christian Gregory (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Christian Gregory. Railfan23 took care of the link shortly after you write here. Unless it becomes a consistent issue, that's all that needs doing. — JJMC89 04:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Shivom and Terry W. Patience

Hello, there are two new articles which you've deleted this year: are the new ones substantially different from the old?

• Shivom: you deleted it on 18 April following AFD. A second article by a second editor was then speedied A7 on 11 August, and has now been re-created by a third editor (as Shivom Startup).
• Terry W. Patience: you deleted it on 14 July following AFD. Created by the same user as last time, it's presently quite short with only one reference from the church he leads, which suggests that the deletion criteria still apply.

Thanks, Tracy Von Doom (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've taken care of the first one, and RHaworth already took care of the second one. The first wasn't the same as either deleted version. The second was almost identical to the previous version. — JJMC89 04:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete

This page 3 pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangeeta Music, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle Music, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spondon Audio Visual Center should have been reviw or relisted but you have deleted without relisted or riview. But why ? — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 10:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

user has posted to AN here-- Deepfriedokra 10:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User has been blocked as a sock after making retaliatory AFD nominations with another account against those who !voted delete in these discussions and then !voting to delete with the above account. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

YYYY in fiction

Could your bot delete the ~450 'YYYY in fiction' category redirects listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large under "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 14"? I am willing to clean up the incoming links, but it would be a chore to have to manually delete

The categories were moved by Cydebot and, as is often the case, it is inappropriate to retain the old titles as category redirects. For example, "2000 in fiction" could just as easily be interpreted as "works of fiction published in 2000" instead of "fiction set in 2000". As a result, it would not be appropriate for a bot (RussBot) to move all articles that are tagged with "Category:2000 in fiction" into "Category:Fiction set in 2000" on an indefinite basis. I'm not too familiar yet with how your bot works, so I don't know if listing the categories at WP:CFD/W would do the trick.

Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Black Falcon: Will be done by Special:Diff/912464028. If you shift empty categories to the empty then delete section of CFD/W or CFD/W/L, the bot will delete them. — JJMC89 19:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned subpages of Portal:National Basketball League (Australasia)

Hi, JJMC89, Could you delete these subpages of Portal:National Basketball League (Australasia), which you deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=National+Basketball+League+%28Australasia%29%2F&namespace=100 Thanks. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 06:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge?

On some of your edit summaries I see "merged …" appearing as though it was a facility in the MediaWiki software. I would find it useful sometimes. How do you do it? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@RHaworth: I'm using Special:MergeHistory. Some directions are linked there, but let me know if you have any questions. — JJMC89 04:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, can you please look at WP:ANEW#User:Deacon Vorbis reported by User:Incnis Mrsi (Result: )? I regret ever getting into it and have done a piss-poor job of handling it. I assume you know about archiving. Can you please fix Talk:Duodecimal so that it archives in a reasonable way? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The archiving there looks OK now. It isn't what I would have setup, but it will work (eventually). I usually just copy from User:MiszaBot/config#Example 2: Incremental archives when setting up article talk page archiving. — JJMC89 04:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The example looks good to me. The archiving they have is ridiculous. 1826 days means about every five years. I guess I'll leave it alone given the fact that I've already ticked off both users, and, at the end of the day, it's not all that important. Thanks for taking a look.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)