User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2020/January

RT-23 Molodets images flagged for "irrelevancy"

I am going to be straightforward - it's ridiculous. How is the reader supposed to understand what the "Inflatable nose cone" means without actually seeing the mechanism? How is the "Folding nose cone" going to be understood without the corresponding illustration? How is the reader supposed to get the idea of the missile train's camouflage without seeing it in action? Not only these images have been resized to an unimaginably low resolution, now they are going to get deleted. For what purpose? The sources for each of these are provided. The website they're published on excplicitly states that their use is allowed as long as the source is attributed. What else do you want? What kind of "better rationale"? At this point this is a nitpicking. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Relevancy has nothing to do with it. I suggest you read and understand the criterion, WP:NFG, and WP:NFC#CS. The source websites carry no suck attribution statement. — JJMC89 22:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they do: "Любое использование материала допускается только при наличии гиперссылки на http://naukatehnika.com/. Все права на картинки и тексты принадлежат их авторам." Google translate would do the job. Bisides, I've contacted their lead editor and know for a fact that these images had been handed over to the website directly by the Yuzhnoe, and I've got the permission to use them on Wikipedia as well. As to the guidlines, there's nothing to be understood - if "better rationale" is what required here, I can not provide such a thing, since it does not exist. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not a suitable attribution statement for free use. Based on the second sentence, I doubt that the website has the rights to freely license the images. — JJMC89 22:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's what their lead editor told me. But anyway I've decided to delete all the images from the article - it was probably the 4th time I tried uploading them according to the guidelines. Doesn't seem possible, unfortunately. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

JJMC89,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Utopes — JJMC89 05:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello JJMC89: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU — JJMC89 05:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor you welcomed may have outlived their welcome

Seems here just to whitewash Troy Southgate and his ideas.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot, non-free rationales, and audio samples

To my knowledge, JJMC89 bot does not remove files from articles for which there is no non-free rationale, if the files are audio (.ogg) instead of images. For instance, I've been waiting for File:Red Hot Chili Peppers - Under the Bridge.ogg to be removed by the bot for almost two months already. Is the bot intentionally limited to removing image files or have audio files simply been overlooked? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I'm sure it goes without saying, but you don't need to wait for the bot to remove NFCC violations. The bot task works for all non-free files, including audio. As you know, the requirement for WP:NFCC#10c is to have a link to the article or the article title in the non-free use rationale. Since rationales don't have to use a template, the bot acts conservatively and looks at everything on the file description page when checking those requirements. This does lead to false negatives like the case that you mention, where there are links to (or titles of) other articles but there isn't a rationale for them. There might be something that I can do about templated rationales to make them only count for what is in |Article=, but there will still be other false negatives. I have concerns about it impacting performance though, which isn't great already. — JJMC89 06:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, JJMC89. I know, of course, that NFCC compliance is independent of the bot. I remember that even WP:NFCC#9 violations had to be removed by hand just a few years ago, before the bot. I resisted the temptation to remove this file from the two articles to test how JJMC89 bot reacts to converting an old style just-wikitext rationale into a machine readable templated one. I thought that surely the bot would check for the actual |Article= field and ignore some of the others for NFCC#10c information. It appears that here it counts the information in the |Source= field, which seems a little odd. I agree with the conservative approach, but it gets a little counter-intuitive with templates where the purpose is machine readability by putting information in the right field. Anyhow, I don't think this can be easily fixed, either. Sometimes even a templated rationale is coupled with extra information or rationales in wikitext form, so the bot will have to check the whole page anyways. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JJMC89!

Happy New Year!

JJMC89,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Thanks, DBigXray — JJMC89 00:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Jadeveon Clowney

Does the vandalism require rev/deletion? It ought to meet the standard for defamatory content. Thanks for locking the page and happy new year, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I've hidden some of it. Happy New Year, 99 — JJMC89 04:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please notify people when tagging things for deletion

You didn't do that here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Cfd proposal for closing

the CfD proposal below has now been closed, and accepted. based on that could you please have your bot make these changes, as per the original proposal?

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 6#Categories by parameter

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: No. I've reverted your involved non-admin closure per WP:BADNAC#1. Also, you didn't read WP:CFDAI #6 #1. — JJMC89 05:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The South Korean articles like US articles

I need you help the questions, why the almost all South Korean article on Wikipedia use American date Format (MDY Format) like US articles rather than British date format (DMY Format) ? 111.94.15.131 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about which date formats are used in South Korea. — JJMC89 05:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Din of Celestial Birds Image

Hello JJMC89, I read your comment on the review for deletion on the image for Din of Celestial Birds. I understand your concerns and reasons for its deletion, but I was wondering if there would be any way that you know of that I could do to the image/file that would help it meet WP:NFCC#8 if there is any?--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No. In most cases, film posters are only permitted as identification of the film in the lead of the article about the film. — JJMC89 05:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bummer..:(--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Coord placement

There seem to be a lot of articles with a infobox that has |coordinates= yet the {{coord}} is outside the infobox (with display=title). Wouldn't moving them to the infobox be a good job for a bot? Has this every been considered? What do you think? MB 03:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@MB: For cases where there aren't any coordinates in the infobox already, a bot could easily do it. Would there be any reason that someone wouldn't want the coordinates in the infobox? The more difficult cases are when there are coordinates in both places but they don't match. I thought someone had asked me about this previously, but I don't remember where. — JJMC89 00:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of a reason not to. If the infobox has coords, then they have been deemed important enough info to be part of the infobox. I move them manually whenever I find them and never received a complaint - probably have done over a hundred.

Yes, sometimes they are in both places. Usually, the one outside the infobox is formatted better (with type & region) and I use that one. But not always. Are you willing to do this? I could ask at the TP for a specific infobox if anyone had any objection first. MB 18:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

​I am willing to write a bot to do it. I'd prefer to have a wider consensus for the task. You could start with a one infobox, but I think a VP discussion about be a good idea, since I imagine this would be wide ranging. — JJMC89 05:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you want this to be limited to just moving the coordinates into the infobox? (and setting display to "inline,title"). The "type" could be added, if missing, in many cases based on the infobox (i.e. school, university = edu, shopping mall, building = landmark). MB 00:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

​I'd rather just limit it to moving and updating to |display=inline,title. Infoboxes can already set the type as appropriate using Module:Coordinates's coordinsert. — JJMC89 00:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion the Enverus/Drillinginfo page

Enverus · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hello JJMC89,

Could you please revive the deleted Enverus page? I see there was no counter argument given and that the page was deleted before any counterpoints could be made. I have been away on holiday with no access to the internet

I think some criticisms were fair but other comments in the deletion discussion were not close to the truth... the whole basis to delete the page is that it's an unnotable company - very far from the truth... Enverus is the new company name.. folks need to Gooogle "Drillinginfo" and they will see it is a huge multinational Saas company with several thousand employees.

The article has been totally rewritten and cleaned up taking in all the valid criticisms. The sources have been cleaned up as well, in taking a second look there were several sources that could be used that weren't listed and would have helped the other wikipedians feel at ease if they had seen them.

See some references here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2017/08/17/gilmer-we-should-view-the-permian-basin-as-a-permanent-resource/#498cefc156ff

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-22/drillinginfo-founder-changes-company-name-he-never-really-liked

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/111419-us-rig-count-falls-by-seven-to-869-enverus

https://shalemag.com/allen-gilmer-a-guy-who-knows-how-to-get-things-done/ Shalemag - Magizine featuring the Enverus CEO

Can you please undelete so that I can post the rewritten article and respond to the comments? When I saw the deleted article Wikipedia states to reach out directly to the Admin in charge.

Thanks again

De-Stavness (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I won't. Forbes articles by contributors are not reliable. The Bloomberg and S&P Global articles doesn't have in-depth coverage of the company. The Forbes and Shale articles lack independence and mostly focus on Gilmer. — JJMC89 05:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, there are many other credible articles that was only just a few of the most recent that I found... I have a ton of credible sources that prove this company is worthy of being on Wikipedia, but I am not sure whether that matters to you. Is your mind made up already to not repost the article? Are you open to me providing you with the links that show Enverus to be a noteworthy company?

If it is a firm "no" maybe I should just repost the rewritten article with the new sources and let folks decide for themselves? All I am asking for is for you to repost the article so that I can rewrite it properly and provide the citations. I wish you would just either repost the article or tell me what you need from me in order to do so... Should I just provide you with all of the source links here or would it be more appropriate that I share them to the Enverus talk page?

In regards to your comments, I understand about the Forbes article and sort of disagree on your conclusion on the "Shale" article. That is a huge achievement and the article is about the company and the industry not only about the CEO, however, but those were also just some of the articles showing recent coverage.

Thank you De-Stavness (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The consensus in the deletion discussion was clear, and I haven't seen anything that would even hint at the participants coming to the wrong conclusion. You're better of creating a draft and submitting it to WP:AFC for review. — JJMC89 00:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Recreating a deleted article (Marc D. Grossman (attorney))

Marc D. Grossman (attorney) · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

@JJMC89:

Hello! Last month you closed an AfD of an article I created. Rough consensus was achieved and I don't have any issue with the process itself. I'm still learning, so forgive my ignorance, but I have been revising the deleted article in my userspace. I believe I have addressed the concerns discussed in the AfD and believe the substantive news coverage (including a profile in Puerto Rico's largest newspaper, El Nuevo Dia) about his ownership of the Mets de Guaynabo basketball team meets Wikipedia's notability and significant news coverage standards. I believe the fatal flaw in the initial article was too much focus on the subject's legal career, which does not have as much substantive coverage as I may have presumed.

Anyway, I'm bringing this to your attention because, as you know, when you go to recreate a previously deleted article it says "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below."

While I have edited the userspace draft heavily and refocused it on his ownership of the team, paring down the section on his legal career, I want to err on the side of caution. My understanding of Wikipedia's deletion policy is that there is nothing inherently wrong with recreating a previously deleted article (as long as the new article is up to Wikipedia standards), but I may be incorrect, so please let me know. I won't claim the draft is perfect, but I do believe it is ready for the mainspace. Please advise and let me know if you are the right person/this is the right forum to speak with about this. Thanks! -JoeyHarmon (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I only see two new sources from El Nuevo Día [2][3]. The first one don't have significant coverage of Grossman. I cannot access the other, but based on the title I would guess that much (or all) of the content isn't independent of Grossman. SportingFlyer, what are your thoughts? — JJMC89 00:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Flags of micronations

Hi JJMC89. Could you do the same thing that you did here to this article as well? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 00:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Michigan Army National Guard Soldiers protect Detroit Firefighters during the 1967 Detroit Riots..jpg

Updated license and removed the warning. {{PD-Pre1978}} — for works first published in the United States prior to 1978 without explicit notice of "copyright, year, owner" or "©" attached. Reverted picture due to the above rationale. I have been on Wikipedia for two weeks and I am discovering different Wikipedia pages with different licenses all the time. Getting the correct one for someone new is sometimes daunting. I hope this resolves the issue. Boston1775 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Used same logic as above to make changes to File:Economy Printing Raid.jpg Boston1775 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. If they were uploaded under that license to begin with, we could have avoided the issues with the non-free licensing. — JJMC89 05:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Croix de guerre 1914-1918 with silver star from World War I.jpg

Thank you for helping to maintain copyright standards on Wikipedia. I have addressed your concerns on the talk page and also on the talk page of File talk:Croix de guerre 1914-1918 with silver star and bronze palm from World War I.jpg Boston1775 (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I look forward to your response regarding the reasons I gave regarding "contextually significant". I tried to be direct but neutral in the language I used in my response. Not sure if you as an administrator reviews the matter or if another administrator who didn't post the concern must address it. Also I posed a question to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions in regards to the French copyright question. Not sure, if that needs to be resolved first or how this works. As stated in an earlier post I've been on here for two weeks and seek to follow the rules. However, the reasons for deletion of those pictures I believe are not warranted. Thank you. Feel free to respond to me here or on my talk page if you are following it. Boston1775 (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The licensing issues and contextual significance issue have been explained to you at WP:MCQ and the file's talk page. — JJMC89 05:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

notice of notice

HI JJMC89, I mentioned you in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Partial Blocks PSA. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bio. deletions

In dealing with those sockpuppet deletions, you're leaving the talk p. behind. Is that deliberate?

I'm verifying and marking a few. Normally, I would want to review every one, but this is simply too much. (And Im not sure the ones which might be based on a foreign language WP article qualify for him being sole author) DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It was an oversight during a portion the my deletions. I will take care of any that are remaining. — JJMC89 03:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Sunday Herald front cover 4 May 2014 by Alasdair Gray.jpg

If you are proposing any other fair use files for deletion, please consider in the future having the courtesy to inform the uploader. Thanks. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

FastilyBot has delivered the notification. — JJMC89 05:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And please also see the discussion at Talk:Alasdair Gray about your tagging of this image. I invite you to review your action. Thank you. --The Huhsz (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I see you've already contented the deletion on the file's talk page, which is the correct venue. Nothing has changed in the article that makes me think that it shouldn't be deleted. — JJMC89 00:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That's hard for me to understand. Would you mind taking the time to explain that to me? Also, please reply to my request of 17:00, 10 January 2020 about the protocol of marking files for deletion. --The Huhsz (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

At the time of tagging the article said, Gray designed a special front page for the Sunday Herald in May 2014 when the newspaper came out in favour of a "Yes" vote in that year's unsuccessful independence referendum.. At the time of my previous response, only The cover consisted of a large thistle framed by Scottish saltires; Iain Macwhirter described it as "striking". was added. There is nothing there that requires seeing it to understand. Now, Gray's design, and his and the paper's support for independence, attracted widespread press coverage at the time and later. gives me hope if what was said about the design would be incorporated into the article. — JJMC89 05:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the F7 tag, as I believe the image now has a solid NFCC #8 rationale. Jheald (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, kindly block Wamerson2019 as it is a rather obvious sock of Fwamerson1302. Thank you. Minorax (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

​ Blocked and tagged — JJMC89 05:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Your work at SPI

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for your work at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/জঙ্গলবাসী and related cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar, Bbb23 — JJMC89 05:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Bad G5s

G5 speedy deletion is supposed to be used only for articles to which no substantive edits had been made by other users. You have recently made many G5 deletions of Mishae/Biografer creations that fail that test. Please reverse them. The ones I checked prior to your deletions as having such edits (and in most cases to which I made substantive edits myself, in some cases deliberately to pre-empt any possible G5 deletion) include Emily Agree, Tanja Schultz, Kathryn Albers, Sandra Irving, Sonia Aissa, Amy Schmitz, Barbara Aldave, and Joan Redwing. They should not have been deleted and you should undelete them. I think you should also double-check all the other deletions you have made to make sure you have not made many more similar mistakes. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

PS see related discussion at WP:AN#AfD might possibly be closed? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And now also WP:ANI#Excessive use of db-g5 by ThatMontrealIP. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've undeleted Sonia Aissa; I don't know how I managed to miss your removal. For the rest, I don't consider your edits substantial, especially your one word removal in Barbara Aldave. — JJMC89 03:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the Aissa undeletion; I've removed more Mishae badness from it. The case for substantiality is arguable for some of those articles, but I still think it is clear for Tanja Schultz (new source, significantly more detailed description of award, and removal of a different award) and Kathryn Albers (removal of inaccurate description in lead and addition of a new sentence about what her research is actually about). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up. On Schultz and Albers, maybe you're right. If you're going to rewrite any of the ones in your OP like you did for Aissa, you could create a new article or you can go ahead and undelete them yourself. Otherwise, I'll ping another admin for a third opinion and undelete if they agree with you. — JJMC89 05:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've undeleted and cleaned up Tanja Schultz. I think I'll just leave Kathryn Albers deleted for now; I don't understand her research area well enough to be confident of doing the necessary full rewrite accurately (except that I'm pretty confident Mishae got it wrong). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Flag icons in section headings

Hi JJMC89. Is there a way to tweak User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/November#Images in headings to search for flag icons (or more generally template brackets) in section headings? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You can try insource:/== *\{\{flag/ (change flag as needed) for ones at the beginning of headings. insource:/== *\{\{[^\}]+[^=]+/ may work more generally for any template at the beginning of a heading. I couldn't figure out one for any position in a heading that didn't have too many false positives. — JJMC89 06:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I'll give it a try. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleting the page about Hartmut Esser

I just saw that you deleted the page about Hartmut Esser. If I understand it correctly, it had something to do with the user who created/edited it. However, I think that the page about this Prof. Esser is still useful to have (e.g. for his work "Habermas and the media"). Wouldn't it be better to continue on that page then, i.e. undo the deletion? I could spend some time to improve it in the next days. The alternative for me would be to start over without knowing what was on the page; but why should this been preferred? --Zuphilip (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was created in violation of a community ban. I'm not going to undelete it, but you can create a new article in place of it. It was a one sentence stub that used these references:

• "Gastaufenthalt von Prof. Dr. Hartmut Esser am Nationalen Bildungspanel in Bamberg" (in German). Retrieved 31 March 2017.
• Manavi, Deborah. ""Sprache ist die Drehscheibe für alles!"" ["Language is the hub for everything!"] (in German). MDR Sachsen-Anhalt/Nationales Bildungspanel. Archived from the original on 1 April 2017. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
• ""Sprache ist die Drehscheibe für alles!"" ["Language is the hub for everything!"] (in German). Konrad Adenauer Foundation. 29 June 2016. Retrieved 15 December 2017.

— JJMC89 17:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Gilda Barabino

I am trying to understand the deletion of Gilda Barabino. I apologize that I’m not well-versed in the rules and norms of Wikipedia editing, but I’m happy to do work or provide information to help restore the page for a notable academic and college Dean. Terronk (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was created in violation of a community ban. I'm not going to undelete it, but you can create a new article in place of it. — JJMC89 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, JJMC89/Archives/2020. 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) 17:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

​I'm not sure what check box you are talking about. Does m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign#Step 3: Sign the confidentiality agreement on Phabricator answer your question? — JJMC89 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Roman Seleznev.jpg

You deleted the page I created File:Roman Seleznev.jpg per WP:F7. I assume your action was correct, but I am unsure what the difference is between the fair use rationale of File:Roman Seleznev.jpg and that of, for example, File:Cho Seung-hui 3.jpg. Both photographs were released by a government agency, and the source is given as the government agency via AP.

Could this issue be resolved by using a different image released by US DOJ from a non-commercial source, such as this image from Krebs on Security?-- userdude 01:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) One big difference is that Cho is dead whereas Seleznev is only imprisoned; so, it could be argued that while it might be reasonably impossible to find/create a free equivalent image for Cho, things are perhaps not so clear for Seleznev. It's generally considered reasonable to expect that a free equivalent image of a living person can be found or created to serve the same purpose as a non-free one, even if it might be fairly hard to do such a thing. There are, however, sometimes exceptions granted for missing persons or other persons (e.g. person imprisoned for life or otherwise being held incommunicado or in isolation) where it might be considered OK to use a non-free image, but such use shouldn't be considered automatic. Even in the case of a dead person, non-free use isn't always considered to be automatic (even though many seem to misunderstand this and mistakenly assume that non-free images of dead persons are always OK to use). Seleznev does seem likely to be spending quite some time in jail; so, perhaps an argument could be made in favor of non-free use based upon that. At the same time, though, if he's being held in a US federal prison or was on any official US government lists for wanted criminals, then maybe there is a PD photo of him taken by some federal law enforcement official that could be used instead which means a non-free is unlikely to ever be considered OK per FREER. If you can find the original source of that Krebs image and verify that it's really a US DOJ photo, then perhaps it could be uploaded and licensed as {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}. If you can do that, then you would be better off uploading the image to Commons so that it can also be used by other WMF projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've looked for a photo taken by law enforcement but could not find any. It is likely that none have been released because of the unusual circumstances of Seleznev's arrest, namely that he was expelled by the Maldivian government into USSS custody and that he is the son of a Russian politician. Seleznev has made an effort to avoid his face being shown [4]. I believe the only publicly available photos of Seleznev are photos released by US DOJ that come from items seized from Seleznev during his arrest [5][6] (so I do not believe they would qualify for {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}). -- userdude 07:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What Marchjuly said is correct; however, I did delete it in error. I've restored it and tagged it for deletion as replaceable. I didn't originally notice that the still from the source video is actually a crop of a photo of unknown origin and not the AP's. — JJMC89 05:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you notify the Foundation?

Thanks for your help. Doug Weller talk 06:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah's told them. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

​I did, so I guess they're doubly informed. — JJMC89 05:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerning threats by vandals to Talk:White privilege

I hope it's okay to ask you about whether restrictions should be placed on Talk:White privilege following yesterday's vandalism to that page and to my user talk page. I see that you removed the vandalism of my user talk page from public view. Thank you. The vandal's hostility toward me came immediately after I reverted their two edits to Talk:White privilege that threatened violence. ((Redacted)). This occurred on Martin Luther King day, which has become a time when white supremacists and gun enthusiasts in the US sometimes hold rallies and threaten violence. Since I edit anonymously, I don't feel threatened. However, not all editors are anonymous on that talk page. If an editor whose true identity is publicly available were to revert vandalism and then be threatened on their user talk page, that would be quite intimidating. Would it be possible to impose restrictions on Talk:White privilege that would prevent editing by IP addresses and fake accounts? Thank you for your trouble. NightHeron (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the two edits to that talk page warrant protecting it. If the issue reoccurs, then we can revisit. — JJMC89 05:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Freedom of religion by country

Hi JJMC89, the reason I undid your edit was because the page has an unusual structure in that each section transcludes the lead from a more detailed article. Without the magic word __NOEDITSECTION__ a user sees two edit buttons for each section - the first section is not helpful for most editors - it merely takes the editor to the transclusion code. The second edit button following "This section is transcluded from ..." takes the editor to the correct location for the text they want to edit. Happy to discuss if you think there is a better way. --Find bruce (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@JJMC89: I note you have not responded to my post above and instead have continued to remove __NOEDITSECTION__ from a large number of electoral pages that transclude results. Please stop and discuss before continuing. --Find bruce (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Find bruce, the normal edit buttons should be present on all articles, even if it takes editors to the transclusion information. I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that editors want to have their editing interface "broken" in this highly unusual way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

What WAID said. On Freedom of religion by country, for example, someone could want to add content there but not to the lead of the trancluded article. — JJMC89 08:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit to Josh Becker (politician) draft page

Draft:Josh Becker (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there @JJMC89. I feel like I'm getting conflicting messages about how to get an article started. I originally created the article and the another user, Razer2115, moved it to the Draft space, with the recommendation that I work on developing it there for a bit until it was fully elaborated, and now you've moved it back to the main space, but while that version is up for deletion. (Which I'm fine with, if I can work on it for a few days to a couple weeks, get contribs from other users familiar with Bay Area politics and the tech industry, and then have it "blessed" for inclusion in the regular namespace.) --Auros (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't moved it anywhere. I redirected the draft since it was a duplicate of the article. If the article is deleted for lack of notability, the draft won't be needed either since lack of notability isn't something that you can overcome by editing. — JJMC89 08:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Massimo Taccon

Hi, first of all: sorry for my English. My name is Marcelo and I'm an administrator from Wikipedia in Spanish. I've seen that you have deleted this article, and I need to know who was the author of the article. This is because the author of the spanish version is arguing against the deletion of the same article in our Wikipedia. If it was the same author, Trilly20 (who has created it in 2010 and again in 2019 and never edited about anything else), we could label him as a single-purpose account and simply ignore his claims. Thanks for you attention, and have a nice weekend. --Marcelo (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marcelo: Trilly20 did not create the article, but all of their (live and deleted) edits since 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) have been about Massimo Taccon and his works (Massimo Taccon, At the Beginning (artwork), File:THE END - Massimo Taccon.jpg, File:CUCITURA1.jpg, File:Abisso Emozionale - Massimo Taccon.JPG, File:Peace 1998 Massimo Taccon.JPG). — JJMC89 22:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thenk you very much, that's enough for me; in any case, that's clearly a single-purpose account, and we should treat him that way. Thanks again, and regards. --Marcelo (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparent copy/paste

Could you take a look at Tour de la Lanterne, which seems to be copy/pasted from the video description at [7]? The article creator banned me from their talk page after a previous copyright warning I left them (copy/pasting of sentences from source articles at Jennifer Mee). I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo: I've removed the lead and hid the history. Please let me know if there is anything that I missed. — JJMC89 00:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

CCI

Since CCI is such a serious issue, I request that you communicate with me about the issue: A Youtuber copied Wikipedia and made it appear as though the Wikipedia article was CCI. I have hopefully restore the deleted material and also rewrote it for clarity. Lightburst (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks much for checking that out! I appreciate your help. Lightburst (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Ovintiv logo.png

Hi JJMC89,

I am fine with you deleting the English Wikipedia version of this logo, but would you mind marking the Commons' version as reviewed? The Commons review process is painfully slow, and seeing it tagged by Magog the Ogre as "PD ineligible" bothers me. Thing is, I know it's eligible, because most of our corporate logos hosted on the Commons are licensed in that fashion.

I would've preferred to have the English Wikipedia version because of the better non-free, fair use license rationale for logos, but when I edited the Wikidata entry for the company, I had to update the logo and couldn't use the logo from English Wikipedia (insofar as I was aware), so uploaded a duplicate to the Commons.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 03:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not a reviewer on Commons, so I cannot. The report that you are referring to is an automatic report of uploads that are ineligible for copyright, in this case because of the {{PD-textlogo}}. If the file is free, then the one here isn't needed. If the file is non-free, then the one on Commons should be deleted. It cannot be both. — JJMC89 05:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

JJMC89, Yeah, but it is definitely an eligible logo. I'm wondering if the Magog the Ogre bot's coding is too strict. I do not want it to be erroneously deleted as it is no more complex than IBM's, Google's, Apple's, Microsoft's, or its previous name's (Encana) logo. The non-free logo fair use licensing at English Wikipedia and I have no idea why the Commons opts not to use non-free fair use licensing considering that their servers, too, are based in the U.S. and Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., is a U.S.-based company. Doug Mehus T·C 16:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Commons hosts "global" files which can be used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects, whereas Wikipedia only hosts "local" files which can be used on English Wikipedia; so, Commons policy requires that files be 100% free, so to speak, in both the US and their country of origin, while Wikipedia only requires the former. If you want clarification about c:COM:FAIR and why Commons doesn't allow fair use, then the best place to ask for that would be at c:COM:VP or c:Commons talk:Fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

JJMC89, Or are you saying "PD-ineligible" at the Commons is just a listing of ineligible copyright images based on the license tagging? If so, then perhaps "PD-ineligible" should be renamed to "copyright-ineligible" as that naming makes it seem like it's ineligible for public domain under U.S. law. Doug Mehus T·C 16:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that "PD-ineligible" means the file is in public domain because it's ineligible for copyright for some reason. I'm not sure why they chose that name for that template, but perhaps the point you're making has been something which has been discussed before. There are quite a number of other templates worded in a similar manner (for example, Wikipedia uses Template:PD-ineligible-USonly) so perhaps consistency in wording was one of things considered when these templates were all created back in the day. Regardless, the template is just intended to be a guide and what the template actually says as opposed to how it's named is probably more important. If you look at c:Template:PD-ineligible, then that better explains perhaps way it was added. If you want to know for sure, then perhaps you asking at c:User talk:Magog the Ogre would be the thing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Ah, thanks for clarifying, so seeing that tag on Magog the Ogre's database report isn't anything to be concerned about. As long as I'm using that tag on similar simplistic corporate and organization logos, it's perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even preferable, to upload directly to the Commons as opposed to non-free fair use licensing in English Wikipedia File: namespace? Doug Mehus T·C 00:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons is more like a big photo album which host files for all WMF projects; so, it's function is actually to serve a a host for images, etc. Wikipedia is not really a image repository per se; it does host files, but ideally only those directly relevant to the project (i.e. Wikipedia articles). So, files which can be hosted on Commons probably should be hosted on Commons since it makes them easier to use; files hosted on Wikipedia are generally ones which cannot be hosted on Commons, but still have some encyclopedic value to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, A bit off-topic, but to that point, I've noticed some users upload tonnes of photos they take themselves but which are completely unused on Wikimedia. I've got a few nominated for deletion, but is that not necessarily a reason for deletion? That is, one could essentially take as many photos as they want, of various buildings, interiors, and the like, and then properly upload and license them for potential, future use in 1, 5, 10, or even 50 years? Doug Mehus T·C 01:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether a file is deleted often depends on the policies/guidelines of the project they are uploaded to. Wikipedia is not really intended to be a web host for content or files which have no encyclopedic value to the project; so, files can be deleted per WP:FCSD; Commons, on the other hand, is intended to host files, etc. so as long as something meets c:COM:SCOPE then it can be kept. In either case, borderline files where there's some disagreement on whether they should be kept often end up being resolved through discussion at WP:FFD and c:COM:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Thanks...I can see the benefit to taking all these photos in advance for use in potential future articles. One user, forget the username, frequently takes photos of buildings and building interiors. The Commons photos I tagged for deletion all began with the words "CanadaComputers". Can you check them out if they're worth keeping or deleting? Doug Mehus T·C 01:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I'm going to bring in GreenMeansGo here because they is a frequent patroller on the Commons and probably confirm, just as good as anyone, there's nothing to worry about seeing an image tagged in this way by Magog the Ogre. Doug Mehus T·C 00:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is ineligible because the logo itself consists of only simple geometric shapes and text in a fairly simple arrangement, and so is likely not sufficiently creative under US law to qualify for intellectual property rights protection. The ultimate judgement on that can only be made in a court, but we try to approximate what we think the courts would say given past precedent. These types of images would ideally go to Commons, so if someone decides to write an article on the subject on the German or Thai Wikipedia, or the English Wikiquote or Wikibooks or what have you, they can use the media as well.

Local projects only retain local media in certain limited circumstances. All projects if it is a high profile image so that it can be overseen by local admins. Other's like the English Wikipedia, will host local files that are free under US law but not in the source country. The German Wikipedia similarly will host content that is free according to the law in majority German speaking countries that might not be free in the source country. Once the copyright in the source country expires, these should ideally also be transferred to Commons and deleted on the local project as superfluous. GMG^talk 01:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, Thanks for the reply; that was my understanding as well. So, bottom line, do I need to worry about Magog the Ogre tagging as "PD-ineligible" (that is, it won't be deleted)? Doug Mehus T·C 01:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly and GreenMeansGo, can either of you check the image I migrated to the Commons for Independent Senators Group that Marchjuly tagged for movement to the Commons? It's showing website parameter unknown, but I used the Commons FileExporter gadget, so not sure why it's unknown. Bug in the gadget? Also, can you also check if the logo for Progressive Senate Group meets the threshold of originality in the U.S./Canada and, if not, is there a gadget I can use on the Commons to export it to English Wikipedia as non-free, fair use? Doug Mehus T·C 01:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Same thing. It's just simple shapes and text. So it should be transferred to Commons. But part of completing the process of transferring it to Commons is deleting the duplicate local version. The reason you're getting an error is because the templates are slightly different, and the one on Commons doesn't support the website parameter. GMG^talk 01:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Massimo Taccon

Massimo Taccon · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

I just saw that you deleted Massimo Taccon's page. I was unable to participate in the discussion because I was stuck and could not express my point of view. I understand the point of view of other users, but I have worked hard on this page (on Wikipedia in English since 2008 and translated into five other languages) to try to improve it. For example, I found the link to the MoMA Library on Massimo Taccon. Wouldn't it be better to continue on that page, then cancel the deletion instead of creating a new page? Thanks for your help. Trilly20 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You not participating in the discussion is not a reason to overturn the outcome. Editing the article cannot overcome lack of notability. — JJMC89 05:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The deletion of the page Massimo Taccon was not corrected. I objected to the deletion by removing the proposed deletion tag and the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. But but an user immediately re-entered the delete tag that I have removed. Please take a look to the page history of the article. Thanks Trilly20 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a proposed deletion template; it was an articles for deletion notice, which you are not permitted to remove while the discussion is ongoing. — JJMC89 04:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)