This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
Hi, Could you explain why you've CSD'd
File:IDrive Online interface 2018.png and
File:IDrive Software interface 2018.png please?,
Plenty of articles have images of this nature and they're clearly showing the user what the interface looks like,
Thanks. –
Davey2010
Talk
20:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, your JJMC89 bot just removed some images from a draft I'm working on, without leaving any account of what had gone in the text. Had to hunt in the history to identify and locate the affected items. Since drafts are likely to go into mainspace after a while, it'd make more sense to comment them out so they can be restored without effort at a suitable time. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
One of your bots removed a couple figures of people from Project Mohole. I think I understand why. I comment here merely to note that the bot left behind an extra space where the figure was...perhaps by design? Anyways, as I was deleting the extra spaces it occurred to me that the bot should have done that. Yes? I make that suggestion. (no reply needed) Bdushaw ( talk) 07:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The pivotal moment in Raniere's PR was when he and his organization gave full cooperation to Forbes, only to wind up being depicted on the cover as "the world's strangest executive coach". We have innumerable sources which discuss this incident, the cover and its accompanying text, and the impact the publication had on the organization and its members.
The image itself conveys a DEEPLY anti-Raniere point of view that no text could ever replace. The inclusion of the image provides the reader with desperately needed context as to why the organization reacted so intensely to the cover and its accompanying text. 'The inclusion of this cover image significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding'. Feoffer ( talk) 10:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
In October 2003, Raniere was featured, cloaked in shadows, on the cover of Forbes magazine, accompanied by the appellation "The World's Strangest Executive Coach".— JJMC89 03:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, how are you? Could you use the Xunlink to edit {{ Portal}} and modify the renamed portals? Portal:Sexuality -> Portal:Human sexuality, Portal:Gender Studies -> Portal:Gender and Portal:Pornography -> Portal:Erotica and pornography. And delete links to Portal:Scientology too. Thanks. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 11:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
You had deleted the article, please restore it. King John556 ( talk) 04:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, the page for Julian W. Lucas was just deleted due to lack of notability and not enough credible sources. Today, literally another article was just posted via the Inquirer, one of the largest most respected news sources in the country and has won 20 Pulitzer Prizes, talking about him, his accomplishments, and his notability. The article literally has in the title that he is one of the first and only one armed models. https://www.inquirer.com/news/julian-w-lucas-tommy-hilfiger-model-actor-comedian-one-arm-from-bucks-county-20190703.html It's one of many articles done about him that are about him and not a trivial mention and are considered "Reliable" just as the Wikipedia guidelines are stated. These are also independent sources. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, Notability is defined as "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. " As he is one of the only one armed models ever, and is legitimately successful, documented, and followed, he clearly falls under the definition of Notability, being "worthy of notice" "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" as it is literally being done from various news outlets. I would like to be able to recreate the deleted Wikipedia article and have it successfully stay published as he is clearly deserving of one, and is clearly eligible based off of the current Wikipedia Guidelines. Livewire123 ( talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, since SOMEBODY is gonna delete that super-encyclopedic Forbes pic, how about pics of the deceased NXIVM members who are discussed in the article: i.e. gina and kristin. I could upload them, incorporate them in the article, let you nominate them, argue with you, let you win, and then rewrite it -- or I could just ask you upfront if you'll allow the usage. Feoffer ( talk) 01:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
There's also an arrest photo, screenshot from one of his Youtube videos, Government Exhibit Showing Raniere, Times Union photo of Raniere's meeting with Dalai Lama. Any of those seem appropriate for inclusion? Feoffer ( talk) 02:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi admin! Please check Roman johnson (sock of blocked Sabeeh butt) and protect the creation of Jawani Phir Nahi Ani (film series), Thanks! M. Billoo 01:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello JJMC89, I am editing my article on my sandbox. Why you delete it? Smlhd1993 ( talk) 21:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello JJMC89, I am rudyguy21, the author of the Samuel Kunz entry. I corrected the complained parts. You reverted the entire revision back to a status before the corrections. How can I correct the entry when the corrections are reversed? Please let me know so that this entry can get back to the public. Thank you. Rudyguy21 ( talk) 10:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Do NOT edit my user files. Perhaps if I misunderstood the "public domain" tag on the image and you feel that the sign should be corrected, I suggest that you boldly revert that as you see fit. Mandsford 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey JJMC89, if you have a minute could you review this acc request [1]. Thank you for your time, and i look forward to hearing from you.___ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 14:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, JJMC89,
Two questions: 1) Why are you now deleting pages created by this editor who has been blocked for over 2 years? That's ancient history and the pages have probably been edited by other editors at this point. My understanding is that we delete pages created by blocked editors if no other editor has made contributions to them. It seems odd to be looking back two years to find blocked editors and then going to delete every page they created, regardless of whether those articles have been edited by other people. Each page should be evaluated individually.
And 2) How do you delete dozens of pages in the same minute? Are you using some kind of script? Because I think that should be used cautiously. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Hey I would very much appreciate it if you might have a moment or two to help me assemble the appropriate non-free rationale for this image. I'm a bit lost. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argus218 ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Page protection needed on American toad. Thanks. - KH-1 ( talk) 05:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Why doesn't WP:CSD#A7 apply? Seems to me a sports season is an event, which a7 covers. The tagger had originally tagged the article as a11, which I declined, in part because a11 cannot be used as a substitute for a7 (all tangled). Actually, the tagger's real reasoning behind why the article should be deleted is weird, and I think it would best be handled by an AfD (the amount I know about sports notability you could put on the head of a pin), but it wouldn't surprise me if they complain about the mixed signals from admins.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89 - Greetings. I am not an involved editor of the above page and just a note here as did advice user on Teahouse of they concerned - see Editor with COI behaving like s/he "owns" page. As per Midwest University, I notice user Tbum777 has been blocked. As per Midwest University history page, both user Tbum777 and Eyer violated 3RR and not only one party. I have filed a RPP for the page - see Midwest University. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 04:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I watch your talk page. I noticed this edit. Why would you appeal for a block? Or is it that someone impersonating you, appealed for a unblock on UTRS? Masum Reza 📞 06:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello JJMC89, sorry for my late answer. You said on 10 July: "You are not permitted to edit it while it is blanked for a copyright investigation". Okay, I understand. But how can I repair the article? To your recollection: The copyright issue is only about the first section (where I accidentally copied the source and not my own editorial work). The other parts are correctly crafted, according to editorial rules. I repeat: this Wiki entry is the most complete article about Samuel Kunz in regard in regard to the sources. Take the German entry as comparison: de:Samuel Kunz So please tell me, how to proceed. What is your recommendation? Thank you. Rudyguy21 ( talk) 06:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89! I noticed you removed a short description because you did not seem to understand its purpose. I thought I'd take a second to clarify why English Wikipedia decided to import short descriptions for all its pages instead of relying on Wikidata shortdescs.
English Wikipedia wants control of its content. Every Wikidata-defined shortdesc needs reviewing and import into Enwiki. It'll be a slow process but we'll get further and further. Like Dabsolving it'll never be a complete thing. Quoth parts
WP:SHORTDESC: "After concerns were raised about their accuracy, suitability, and the potential for sneaky vandalism on Wikidata, the ability to define short descriptions directly on Wikipedia was added. Wikidata has English descriptions of a significant fraction of Wikipedia articles. Where these are good, they may be copied to the relevant article. If a Wikipedia short description for an article is not defined, as of May 2018, the Wikidata description is still used. The Wikidata descriptions are all public domain, so there is no need for attribution. At some point, the Wikidata fallback will be removed. Once Wikipedia editors write ~2 million descriptions, we'll switch to entirely Wikipedia-hosted descriptions.
" Your guess is as good as mine as to how quickly or slowly the 2million mark will be reached. However on any page currently using a Wikidata-defined shortdesc, we need to import it (or edit-and-import) since at some point anyways the Wikidata-defined shortsdescs will stop being usable.
Ben · Salvidrim!
✉
13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any abuse since yesterday. Do you mind unblocking?--v/r - T P 23:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I've noticed that you've deleted several images of album covers from Wikipedia pages that I created about recordings made by Frederica von Stade. This puzzles me, as I got the impression from Wikipedia's upload wizard that including the official cover art of an album in the infobox of the album's Wikipedia page was OK. It would be kind if you could please spare a moment to explain where I've been going wrong. (Please forgive me if this message is in the wrong place or in the wrong format - I'm very old and a Wikipedia novice, and I find its complexities terribly confusing! Niggle1892 ( talk) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Why did you delete the photo of the Authors XI book? It was being discussed on the FFD page and was nowhere close to reaching a "delete" consensus. The original poster and I gave our points of view and disagreed and ONE person voted "delete". One person does not constitute a consensus (this was said to me recently by an administrator). This was not an appropriate closing of the discussion or action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 ( talk • contribs) 03:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89,
I was looking through my recent edits and image uploads on Wikimedia Commons and came across the LLamasoft logo I uploaded a few months back (I enjoy adding and maintaining logos on Wikipedia). I noticed that it was not referenced in any articles, so I did a bit of digging and came across the deletion request for the LLamasoft article that was completed a few weeks ago. I did a bit of extra research on the company to see if it is notable enough to warrant an article, and I think it may be worth re-creating the article to (1) provide information on one of the main competitors to Kinaxis and JDA Software (which both have articles), and (2) prevent confusion with Jeff Minter (the man who currently comes up when someone searches LLamasoft on Wikipedia). Furthermore, I have come across a number of reputable third-party references on the company that can be cited if we decide to proceed with the article re-creation.
I’d be happy to jump start the new LLamasoft article if you agree with my proposition.
Thanks, JC713 ( talk) 05:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
About Shibusawa's image, why was exactly removed? Should I have added a rationale to implement it into Dead Apple or it's not possible. I mean, Atsushi and Dazai's articles have real people images but I don't know if they need to be removed. I thought only nonfree images needed to have rationales for usage in multiple articles. Cheers. Tintor2 ( talk) 22:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I spotted your bot fixing double redirects to categories after renaming. That's an improvement over Cydebot – thank you! – Fayenatic London 07:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the IP is back, because an IP reverted my reversion of the re addition of the page Jack Reacher(film series).(man that is a confusing sentence) I suppose they might just be a new IP who is super enthusiastic but doesn't realize that I wasn't the one to remove the page, but I do not have the mental energy to deal with that. Hope you don't mind me letting you know, because idk if you watch listed the page or anything. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 17:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with image use policy. Regarding this image, is there a way to figure out whether it's fair use, creative commons, public domain, etc.? I found the picture on two sites, Computer History Museum (where it says "Courtesy of the Atalla Family") and National Inventors Hall of Fame.
Also, what rationale would be needed to include it on the MOSFET article? Isn't illustrating the inventors of the MOSFET a good enough rationale? Or would I need to elaborate further on the rationale?
Maestro2016 ( talk) 12:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello @ JJMC89:, this article was written by historian of science Natalie Pigeard-Micault, from the Curie Institute (Paris). I just added the last three lines. What do you mean by "still no"? Is it possible to discuss about it? Greetings. Paul-Eric Langevin ( talk) 00:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, your bot is continuously removing the valid station logo from the KBLZ article, which is copyrighted by Reynolds Radio, owner of both KBLZ and KAZE in the Tyler-Longview market. They are simulcasted facilities, and share the same logo, branding, studios, etc. Could you please reprogram your bot to stop doing what it is doing to this article? Thanks JJMC89, and hope the day you have is a great one! Joe Polichino ( talk) 17:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you deleted an article Roohi Afza, under G5, which was also created by me. I want you to restore my creation edit. Mr. Smart LION 09:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that this article was deleted due to it being created by a banned user. I was wondering if it would it be Ok to turn this article into a redirect to Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces#Cuban Revolutionary Navy (Marina de Guerra Revolucionaria, MGR), so that any other articles that link to the deleted one can reach the existing page on this topic?— Nohomers48 ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you please block user:73.8.95.160 for disruptive editing (second offense). CLCStudent ( talk) 22:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you just closed the TfD about {{ Infobox Municipality BR}}. I don't think this discussion was ready for closing, because it had several flaws:
in Brazil time offset is not determined by the state(IP 78.55.36.165, probably the nominator) - yes it is, see Time in Brazil, the only exception is a part of the state Amazonas. This false argument convinced other users to opt for "replace and delete"
No other Infobox settlement wrapper used in Latin America(nominator) - irrelevant, Brazil has by far the most municipalities of all Latin American countries (5000+)
Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template(nominator) - this argument has been used in several previous discussions (like the ones about French and German municipality infoboxes), and was not convincing then
Except for a minority of municipalities, Brazil uses Infobox settlement(nominator) - when I created this template, this was not the case. Most articles did not have an infobox at all.
Then he converted some pages from Infobox settlement to his new box(IP 77.191.64.110, probably the nominator) - irrelevant, it is quite reasonable to replace a general infobox template with a dedicated infobox template
See also previous discussions about
Infobox French commune,
Infobox German location and
Infobox Albanian settlement (the latter tfd was probably nominated by the same anonymous user, who apparently has a problem with templates I created en masse
). Regards,
Markussep
Talk
09:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
the discussion was started in a holiday season, in which I had very limited access to internet, so I could not repute some of the IMO wrong statements done by other users, including the nominator- personal holiday season is hardly a reason in any TfD
did not put a tfd tag on the template- because it was edit protected?
the nominator did not notify me, as creator of the template- is there any policy about it? If you are still interested in Brazil municipalities or have the template on your watch list, you would have found it, not?
I suspect the only participant to the discussion that actually contributed to Brazilian municipality articles is me- but certainly you are not the only one having contributed to Brazilian municipality articles and maybe the dozens of other contributors to Brazilian municipality articles that did not use your template were not aware of the discussion, because your template even in 2019 was never seen by them, not to speak of on their watchlists?
in Brazil time offset is not determined by the state - This false argument convinced other users to opt for "replace and delete"- is it false? No, it isn't as the case of Amazonas state demonstrates, and it can happen for other states as well. No law is prohibiting it. But your extra structure makes it harder for editors to edit that information - especially if data is stored in the template itself - which as stated above is edit protected ... and where is your proof that this convinced "other users"? Especially, when only two voted, one before you made your time zone statement, and the other with a longer reasoning...
No other Infobox settlement wrapper used in Latin America - irrelevant- well, no, because people editing Latin American entities will not have to learn how this extra template works ...
Brazil has by far the most municipalities of all Latin American countries (5000+)- what is the argument here? "Municipalities of Mexico: 2448", double of that means "by far"? Then what is six- or nine-fold as in Townships of China: "In 1995 there were 29,502 townships and 17,532 towns (a total of 47,034 township-level divisions) in China"? - and all of China use Infobox settlement....
Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template - this argument has been used in several previous discussions (like the ones about French and German municipality infoboxes), and was not convincing then- "several previous" - and then you pick two discussions, "French and German municipality infoboxes" - which have above 10000 transclusions ({{ Infobox French commune}} 37,458; {{ Infobox German location}} 13,381) and are used for all items of the type they are made for - below is a list of some of the templates that have been deleted recently, maybe you find some case where that reasoning was convincing
Except for a minority of municipalities, Brazil uses Infobox settlement - when I created this template, this was not the case. Most articles did not have an infobox at all.- "Brazil uses Infobox settlement" does mean, if there is an infobox, then it is Infobox settlement.
Then he converted some pages from Infobox settlement to his new box - irrelevant, it is quite reasonable to replace a general infobox template with a dedicated infobox template- but not if this is not generally accepted. And even in 2019 it was not done for all municipalities, only in three states (!!!) over 50% of the entities had your box. Elsewhere it was as if usage was randomly distributed, some no box, most Infobox settlement and few Infobox Municipality BR.
the "Brazil place infobox usage by type" table (nominator) - irrelevant, this discussion was about the template for municipalities. There are far more municipalities than states, regions, etc., so for those other subdivisions there is less benefit of a dedicated wrapper template- that does not make the argument irrelevant. E.g. for Germany there is - you yourself cited indirectly - "German location" which is used for different types of entities. For Brazil one type was picked. What is next, Infobox Neighbourhood BR, that may have even more entities to stick it on?
See also previous discussions about Infobox French commune, Infobox German location and Infobox Albanian settlement... and as announced before it follows the list of some of the wrappers that have been deleted since ca. August/November 2018
89.12.120.131 ( talk) 17:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Infobox has country-specific code, for instance automatic time zones if state is given." : why would timezone information not be relevant for other things than municipalities? Why would that be coded into an infobox, so there is information in articles, in Wikidata and additionally - for some municipalities - in an infobox? 89.12.120.131 ( talk) 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Just for the record to have it in one thread, some research regarding the en masse
(probably not a neutral wording) wrapper creation by Markussep:
I did not check other deletion discussions. 78.54.45.199 ( talk) 11:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello JJMC89, I still wait for an answer about the entry Samuel Kunz. I have made several proposals from which a new entry would be the best guess. What are your thoughts, your proposals? I would be grateful for a timely response to continue. Thank you.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
Hi, Could you explain why you've CSD'd
File:IDrive Online interface 2018.png and
File:IDrive Software interface 2018.png please?,
Plenty of articles have images of this nature and they're clearly showing the user what the interface looks like,
Thanks. –
Davey2010
Talk
20:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, your JJMC89 bot just removed some images from a draft I'm working on, without leaving any account of what had gone in the text. Had to hunt in the history to identify and locate the affected items. Since drafts are likely to go into mainspace after a while, it'd make more sense to comment them out so they can be restored without effort at a suitable time. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
One of your bots removed a couple figures of people from Project Mohole. I think I understand why. I comment here merely to note that the bot left behind an extra space where the figure was...perhaps by design? Anyways, as I was deleting the extra spaces it occurred to me that the bot should have done that. Yes? I make that suggestion. (no reply needed) Bdushaw ( talk) 07:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The pivotal moment in Raniere's PR was when he and his organization gave full cooperation to Forbes, only to wind up being depicted on the cover as "the world's strangest executive coach". We have innumerable sources which discuss this incident, the cover and its accompanying text, and the impact the publication had on the organization and its members.
The image itself conveys a DEEPLY anti-Raniere point of view that no text could ever replace. The inclusion of the image provides the reader with desperately needed context as to why the organization reacted so intensely to the cover and its accompanying text. 'The inclusion of this cover image significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding'. Feoffer ( talk) 10:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
In October 2003, Raniere was featured, cloaked in shadows, on the cover of Forbes magazine, accompanied by the appellation "The World's Strangest Executive Coach".— JJMC89 03:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, how are you? Could you use the Xunlink to edit {{ Portal}} and modify the renamed portals? Portal:Sexuality -> Portal:Human sexuality, Portal:Gender Studies -> Portal:Gender and Portal:Pornography -> Portal:Erotica and pornography. And delete links to Portal:Scientology too. Thanks. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 11:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
You had deleted the article, please restore it. King John556 ( talk) 04:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, the page for Julian W. Lucas was just deleted due to lack of notability and not enough credible sources. Today, literally another article was just posted via the Inquirer, one of the largest most respected news sources in the country and has won 20 Pulitzer Prizes, talking about him, his accomplishments, and his notability. The article literally has in the title that he is one of the first and only one armed models. https://www.inquirer.com/news/julian-w-lucas-tommy-hilfiger-model-actor-comedian-one-arm-from-bucks-county-20190703.html It's one of many articles done about him that are about him and not a trivial mention and are considered "Reliable" just as the Wikipedia guidelines are stated. These are also independent sources. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, Notability is defined as "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. " As he is one of the only one armed models ever, and is legitimately successful, documented, and followed, he clearly falls under the definition of Notability, being "worthy of notice" "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" as it is literally being done from various news outlets. I would like to be able to recreate the deleted Wikipedia article and have it successfully stay published as he is clearly deserving of one, and is clearly eligible based off of the current Wikipedia Guidelines. Livewire123 ( talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, since SOMEBODY is gonna delete that super-encyclopedic Forbes pic, how about pics of the deceased NXIVM members who are discussed in the article: i.e. gina and kristin. I could upload them, incorporate them in the article, let you nominate them, argue with you, let you win, and then rewrite it -- or I could just ask you upfront if you'll allow the usage. Feoffer ( talk) 01:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
There's also an arrest photo, screenshot from one of his Youtube videos, Government Exhibit Showing Raniere, Times Union photo of Raniere's meeting with Dalai Lama. Any of those seem appropriate for inclusion? Feoffer ( talk) 02:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi admin! Please check Roman johnson (sock of blocked Sabeeh butt) and protect the creation of Jawani Phir Nahi Ani (film series), Thanks! M. Billoo 01:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello JJMC89, I am editing my article on my sandbox. Why you delete it? Smlhd1993 ( talk) 21:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello JJMC89, I am rudyguy21, the author of the Samuel Kunz entry. I corrected the complained parts. You reverted the entire revision back to a status before the corrections. How can I correct the entry when the corrections are reversed? Please let me know so that this entry can get back to the public. Thank you. Rudyguy21 ( talk) 10:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Do NOT edit my user files. Perhaps if I misunderstood the "public domain" tag on the image and you feel that the sign should be corrected, I suggest that you boldly revert that as you see fit. Mandsford 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey JJMC89, if you have a minute could you review this acc request [1]. Thank you for your time, and i look forward to hearing from you.___ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 14:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, JJMC89,
Two questions: 1) Why are you now deleting pages created by this editor who has been blocked for over 2 years? That's ancient history and the pages have probably been edited by other editors at this point. My understanding is that we delete pages created by blocked editors if no other editor has made contributions to them. It seems odd to be looking back two years to find blocked editors and then going to delete every page they created, regardless of whether those articles have been edited by other people. Each page should be evaluated individually.
And 2) How do you delete dozens of pages in the same minute? Are you using some kind of script? Because I think that should be used cautiously. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Hey I would very much appreciate it if you might have a moment or two to help me assemble the appropriate non-free rationale for this image. I'm a bit lost. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argus218 ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Page protection needed on American toad. Thanks. - KH-1 ( talk) 05:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Why doesn't WP:CSD#A7 apply? Seems to me a sports season is an event, which a7 covers. The tagger had originally tagged the article as a11, which I declined, in part because a11 cannot be used as a substitute for a7 (all tangled). Actually, the tagger's real reasoning behind why the article should be deleted is weird, and I think it would best be handled by an AfD (the amount I know about sports notability you could put on the head of a pin), but it wouldn't surprise me if they complain about the mixed signals from admins.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89 - Greetings. I am not an involved editor of the above page and just a note here as did advice user on Teahouse of they concerned - see Editor with COI behaving like s/he "owns" page. As per Midwest University, I notice user Tbum777 has been blocked. As per Midwest University history page, both user Tbum777 and Eyer violated 3RR and not only one party. I have filed a RPP for the page - see Midwest University. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 04:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I watch your talk page. I noticed this edit. Why would you appeal for a block? Or is it that someone impersonating you, appealed for a unblock on UTRS? Masum Reza 📞 06:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello JJMC89, sorry for my late answer. You said on 10 July: "You are not permitted to edit it while it is blanked for a copyright investigation". Okay, I understand. But how can I repair the article? To your recollection: The copyright issue is only about the first section (where I accidentally copied the source and not my own editorial work). The other parts are correctly crafted, according to editorial rules. I repeat: this Wiki entry is the most complete article about Samuel Kunz in regard in regard to the sources. Take the German entry as comparison: de:Samuel Kunz So please tell me, how to proceed. What is your recommendation? Thank you. Rudyguy21 ( talk) 06:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89! I noticed you removed a short description because you did not seem to understand its purpose. I thought I'd take a second to clarify why English Wikipedia decided to import short descriptions for all its pages instead of relying on Wikidata shortdescs.
English Wikipedia wants control of its content. Every Wikidata-defined shortdesc needs reviewing and import into Enwiki. It'll be a slow process but we'll get further and further. Like Dabsolving it'll never be a complete thing. Quoth parts
WP:SHORTDESC: "After concerns were raised about their accuracy, suitability, and the potential for sneaky vandalism on Wikidata, the ability to define short descriptions directly on Wikipedia was added. Wikidata has English descriptions of a significant fraction of Wikipedia articles. Where these are good, they may be copied to the relevant article. If a Wikipedia short description for an article is not defined, as of May 2018, the Wikidata description is still used. The Wikidata descriptions are all public domain, so there is no need for attribution. At some point, the Wikidata fallback will be removed. Once Wikipedia editors write ~2 million descriptions, we'll switch to entirely Wikipedia-hosted descriptions.
" Your guess is as good as mine as to how quickly or slowly the 2million mark will be reached. However on any page currently using a Wikidata-defined shortdesc, we need to import it (or edit-and-import) since at some point anyways the Wikidata-defined shortsdescs will stop being usable.
Ben · Salvidrim!
✉
13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any abuse since yesterday. Do you mind unblocking?--v/r - T P 23:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I've noticed that you've deleted several images of album covers from Wikipedia pages that I created about recordings made by Frederica von Stade. This puzzles me, as I got the impression from Wikipedia's upload wizard that including the official cover art of an album in the infobox of the album's Wikipedia page was OK. It would be kind if you could please spare a moment to explain where I've been going wrong. (Please forgive me if this message is in the wrong place or in the wrong format - I'm very old and a Wikipedia novice, and I find its complexities terribly confusing! Niggle1892 ( talk) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Why did you delete the photo of the Authors XI book? It was being discussed on the FFD page and was nowhere close to reaching a "delete" consensus. The original poster and I gave our points of view and disagreed and ONE person voted "delete". One person does not constitute a consensus (this was said to me recently by an administrator). This was not an appropriate closing of the discussion or action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 ( talk • contribs) 03:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89,
I was looking through my recent edits and image uploads on Wikimedia Commons and came across the LLamasoft logo I uploaded a few months back (I enjoy adding and maintaining logos on Wikipedia). I noticed that it was not referenced in any articles, so I did a bit of digging and came across the deletion request for the LLamasoft article that was completed a few weeks ago. I did a bit of extra research on the company to see if it is notable enough to warrant an article, and I think it may be worth re-creating the article to (1) provide information on one of the main competitors to Kinaxis and JDA Software (which both have articles), and (2) prevent confusion with Jeff Minter (the man who currently comes up when someone searches LLamasoft on Wikipedia). Furthermore, I have come across a number of reputable third-party references on the company that can be cited if we decide to proceed with the article re-creation.
I’d be happy to jump start the new LLamasoft article if you agree with my proposition.
Thanks, JC713 ( talk) 05:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
About Shibusawa's image, why was exactly removed? Should I have added a rationale to implement it into Dead Apple or it's not possible. I mean, Atsushi and Dazai's articles have real people images but I don't know if they need to be removed. I thought only nonfree images needed to have rationales for usage in multiple articles. Cheers. Tintor2 ( talk) 22:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I spotted your bot fixing double redirects to categories after renaming. That's an improvement over Cydebot – thank you! – Fayenatic London 07:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the IP is back, because an IP reverted my reversion of the re addition of the page Jack Reacher(film series).(man that is a confusing sentence) I suppose they might just be a new IP who is super enthusiastic but doesn't realize that I wasn't the one to remove the page, but I do not have the mental energy to deal with that. Hope you don't mind me letting you know, because idk if you watch listed the page or anything. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 17:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with image use policy. Regarding this image, is there a way to figure out whether it's fair use, creative commons, public domain, etc.? I found the picture on two sites, Computer History Museum (where it says "Courtesy of the Atalla Family") and National Inventors Hall of Fame.
Also, what rationale would be needed to include it on the MOSFET article? Isn't illustrating the inventors of the MOSFET a good enough rationale? Or would I need to elaborate further on the rationale?
Maestro2016 ( talk) 12:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello @ JJMC89:, this article was written by historian of science Natalie Pigeard-Micault, from the Curie Institute (Paris). I just added the last three lines. What do you mean by "still no"? Is it possible to discuss about it? Greetings. Paul-Eric Langevin ( talk) 00:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, your bot is continuously removing the valid station logo from the KBLZ article, which is copyrighted by Reynolds Radio, owner of both KBLZ and KAZE in the Tyler-Longview market. They are simulcasted facilities, and share the same logo, branding, studios, etc. Could you please reprogram your bot to stop doing what it is doing to this article? Thanks JJMC89, and hope the day you have is a great one! Joe Polichino ( talk) 17:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you deleted an article Roohi Afza, under G5, which was also created by me. I want you to restore my creation edit. Mr. Smart LION 09:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that this article was deleted due to it being created by a banned user. I was wondering if it would it be Ok to turn this article into a redirect to Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces#Cuban Revolutionary Navy (Marina de Guerra Revolucionaria, MGR), so that any other articles that link to the deleted one can reach the existing page on this topic?— Nohomers48 ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you please block user:73.8.95.160 for disruptive editing (second offense). CLCStudent ( talk) 22:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you just closed the TfD about {{ Infobox Municipality BR}}. I don't think this discussion was ready for closing, because it had several flaws:
in Brazil time offset is not determined by the state(IP 78.55.36.165, probably the nominator) - yes it is, see Time in Brazil, the only exception is a part of the state Amazonas. This false argument convinced other users to opt for "replace and delete"
No other Infobox settlement wrapper used in Latin America(nominator) - irrelevant, Brazil has by far the most municipalities of all Latin American countries (5000+)
Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template(nominator) - this argument has been used in several previous discussions (like the ones about French and German municipality infoboxes), and was not convincing then
Except for a minority of municipalities, Brazil uses Infobox settlement(nominator) - when I created this template, this was not the case. Most articles did not have an infobox at all.
Then he converted some pages from Infobox settlement to his new box(IP 77.191.64.110, probably the nominator) - irrelevant, it is quite reasonable to replace a general infobox template with a dedicated infobox template
See also previous discussions about
Infobox French commune,
Infobox German location and
Infobox Albanian settlement (the latter tfd was probably nominated by the same anonymous user, who apparently has a problem with templates I created en masse
). Regards,
Markussep
Talk
09:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
the discussion was started in a holiday season, in which I had very limited access to internet, so I could not repute some of the IMO wrong statements done by other users, including the nominator- personal holiday season is hardly a reason in any TfD
did not put a tfd tag on the template- because it was edit protected?
the nominator did not notify me, as creator of the template- is there any policy about it? If you are still interested in Brazil municipalities or have the template on your watch list, you would have found it, not?
I suspect the only participant to the discussion that actually contributed to Brazilian municipality articles is me- but certainly you are not the only one having contributed to Brazilian municipality articles and maybe the dozens of other contributors to Brazilian municipality articles that did not use your template were not aware of the discussion, because your template even in 2019 was never seen by them, not to speak of on their watchlists?
in Brazil time offset is not determined by the state - This false argument convinced other users to opt for "replace and delete"- is it false? No, it isn't as the case of Amazonas state demonstrates, and it can happen for other states as well. No law is prohibiting it. But your extra structure makes it harder for editors to edit that information - especially if data is stored in the template itself - which as stated above is edit protected ... and where is your proof that this convinced "other users"? Especially, when only two voted, one before you made your time zone statement, and the other with a longer reasoning...
No other Infobox settlement wrapper used in Latin America - irrelevant- well, no, because people editing Latin American entities will not have to learn how this extra template works ...
Brazil has by far the most municipalities of all Latin American countries (5000+)- what is the argument here? "Municipalities of Mexico: 2448", double of that means "by far"? Then what is six- or nine-fold as in Townships of China: "In 1995 there were 29,502 townships and 17,532 towns (a total of 47,034 township-level divisions) in China"? - and all of China use Infobox settlement....
Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template - this argument has been used in several previous discussions (like the ones about French and German municipality infoboxes), and was not convincing then- "several previous" - and then you pick two discussions, "French and German municipality infoboxes" - which have above 10000 transclusions ({{ Infobox French commune}} 37,458; {{ Infobox German location}} 13,381) and are used for all items of the type they are made for - below is a list of some of the templates that have been deleted recently, maybe you find some case where that reasoning was convincing
Except for a minority of municipalities, Brazil uses Infobox settlement - when I created this template, this was not the case. Most articles did not have an infobox at all.- "Brazil uses Infobox settlement" does mean, if there is an infobox, then it is Infobox settlement.
Then he converted some pages from Infobox settlement to his new box - irrelevant, it is quite reasonable to replace a general infobox template with a dedicated infobox template- but not if this is not generally accepted. And even in 2019 it was not done for all municipalities, only in three states (!!!) over 50% of the entities had your box. Elsewhere it was as if usage was randomly distributed, some no box, most Infobox settlement and few Infobox Municipality BR.
the "Brazil place infobox usage by type" table (nominator) - irrelevant, this discussion was about the template for municipalities. There are far more municipalities than states, regions, etc., so for those other subdivisions there is less benefit of a dedicated wrapper template- that does not make the argument irrelevant. E.g. for Germany there is - you yourself cited indirectly - "German location" which is used for different types of entities. For Brazil one type was picked. What is next, Infobox Neighbourhood BR, that may have even more entities to stick it on?
See also previous discussions about Infobox French commune, Infobox German location and Infobox Albanian settlement... and as announced before it follows the list of some of the wrappers that have been deleted since ca. August/November 2018
89.12.120.131 ( talk) 17:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Infobox has country-specific code, for instance automatic time zones if state is given." : why would timezone information not be relevant for other things than municipalities? Why would that be coded into an infobox, so there is information in articles, in Wikidata and additionally - for some municipalities - in an infobox? 89.12.120.131 ( talk) 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Just for the record to have it in one thread, some research regarding the en masse
(probably not a neutral wording) wrapper creation by Markussep:
I did not check other deletion discussions. 78.54.45.199 ( talk) 11:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello JJMC89, I still wait for an answer about the entry Samuel Kunz. I have made several proposals from which a new entry would be the best guess. What are your thoughts, your proposals? I would be grateful for a timely response to continue. Thank you.