User talk:JJMC89

This user has opted out of talkbacks

CFD change request

Hi again, please could JJMC89 bot III leave {{old CfD}} on the talk page of the source category when REDIRECT is specified for a merge, i.e. when the old page is not deleted? – Fayenatic London 08:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 21:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Please, not silence

Could the bot please provide some kind of notification when it removes a non-free image from a page. At the moment it is, bizarrely, totally silent, and I'm afraid that editors busy with other tasks may not realize for days that an image has simply vanished, or why. All that is needed is a brief notice, which could go on the talk page of the article concerned, or of course on the talk page of the editor who placed the image (or both). If you're still hesitating as to whether this is worth doing, let me say this: firstly, it's only proper to explain your actions when, as in this case, they are certainly destructive, and will require editorial intervention to fix (such as by writing an NFUR); secondly, it's the fair and decent thing to do; and - let me point out - it will avoid having editors innocently reinsert the images, thinking they forgot to save their changes or perhaps overwrote an edit with an edit in another window. Silence is, really, simply unprofessional, and it's definitely unhelpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Since the bot removes files for WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c reasons, it's not clear what type of "page" you're referring to. The bot does always seem to leave an edit summary that contains links to pages explaining why the the file was removed; so, that's not exactly silence now. is it? Moreover, removing a non-free file from an article or an non-article page where it doesn't comply with relevant policy isn't really destructive; it's actually part of the policy itself. In many cases, those adding files removed by the bot for WP:NFCC#10c reasons aren't the original uploaders of the file; they are simply someone who saw the file being used in one article and thought that it meant it was OK to use in other articles. That's a misunderstanding perhaps on their part, but that's not really the fault of the bot or the bot's operator. I don't think it's possible for the bot to go through the page's edit history, figure out who added the file, assess out whether it's something that can be simply fixed by adding a NFUR, and then either add the NFUR or notify the person who added the file of the problem. I'm also not sure adding notifications to talk pages will guarantee such problems will be "fixed", at least not in a manner that complies with relevant policy. FWIW, either JJMC89 or the bot does seem to fix obvious errors in a non-free content use rationales when the error is fairly obvious (misspelling of the name of the article in the rationale, replacing links to dab pages used for article names, fixing obvious syntax errors, etc.), but I'm not sure whether it's even technically possible for the bot to do more than that. Perhaps there's a specific example of where you think the bot did something "wrong" that you can cite. Bots can make mistakes, I guess; perhaps if you point what you think was a mistake, JJMC89 can figure out what happened.

Finally, thank you for reassessing the copyright status of File:TheStoryOfTheAmulet.jpg. Lots of files uploaded as non-free content either no longer need to be treated as such or never needed to be treated as such; so, it's helpful when others such as yourself find them and reassess them. For future reference, though, the non-free use rationale provided for the file typically contains source related or other relevant information; so, it's a good idea to replace the rationale with a template {{Information}} to avoid the file being accidentally be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4. If you're going to be regularly working in the file name space, then it's helpful and kind of professional to do such a thing because it saves others from having to do so later on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless there is explicit community consensus that such a notification is required, I won't be implementing one. The edit summary sufficiently explains the action, and repeating it on the talk page would be redundant. In the past, other bots have left talk page messages following edits to articles only for them to be largely ignored, clutter talk pages, and finally been removed at the request of the community. — JJMC89 07:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot question

Hi JJMC89. Do you know why JJMC89 bot is not picking up on the use of File:PhantomoftheOpera-BoatScene.PNG in Sarah Brightman as an 10c violation? The file seems to have never had a rationale for that use and doesn't appear to have been recently added to the article. I didn't remove the file myself in order to give you a chance to take a look at it first just in case the bot is seeing something that I'm not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey no fair!

You just removed the MGA Zapf Creation logo from the MGA Zapf Creation page. I just confirmed that the file is copyrighted. This is so confusing to me when I confirm a file is copyrighted. Chidie345 (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Chidie345. I'm not JJMC89, but I'll try to explain what happened and why.

The reason why the bot removed File:MGA Zapf Creation GmbH logo.png from Zapf Creation has to do with non-free content use criterion #10c as explained in WP:NFCCE. The bot left an edit summary that included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation which explains this. Did you click on that link and read what that page it leads to says. If you did and didn't understand what it meant, then that's OK. However, if you didn't, then you might want to do so now. The non-free content use rationale you provided for the file gives "MGA Entertainment" as the article where the file is to be used, but you didn't add the file to that article, did you? You added it to "Zapf Creation", right? Don't you think it's a bit unfair for you to expect the bot to figure out what you might've meant to do when you actually did something else? Anyway, if you fix the name of the article in the non-free use rationale on the file's page so that it's for "Zapf Creation", the bot shouldn't remove the file again.

Before you do that, though, you might want to consider whether that's really the thing to do right now. How did you confirm you uploaded is copyrighted? From a copyright standpoint, the file you uploaded is pretty much nothing more than a combination of the public domain licensed File:MGA Entertainment logo.svg and the public domain licensed File:ZapfCreation.svg. There's not a whole lot of creativity involved in combining those two logos together which means the combination is also likely public domain; in other words, there's a really good chance it's not eligible for copyright protection and doesn't need to be treated as non-free. In addition, from an encycloedic/contextual standpoint, the source you've provided for the file makes no mention that that this combined logo is the new "official logo" of Zapf. The source article could've simply been using each company's logo to identify them and add some color. So, Wikipedia probably shouldn't treat this logo as the new official logo of the Zapf until the copany starts doing so itself on its official websites or issues a press release annoouncing it has changed its logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)