JJMC89

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)Reply

@Bbb23: Hi. Well, it was tagged as an organization, which it definitely isn't. Maybe it could qualify as an event. In any case, given that there is a series of season articles for the club and that the club is notable, I'd say that AfD is a better venue. I'd think the not being in Serie D as opposed to Serie B (from last season) would just be an error that can be corrected by editing. I don't get the part about being a different club though. GiantSnowman, so you have any guidance here? — JJMC89 01:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is suitable for CSD; AFD is where to go. GiantSnowman 10:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

To deal with the copyright issue, you should follow the instructions on the page. For anything else, you'll need to wait until the copyright issue is dealt with. — JJMC89 04:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello JJMC89, I followed the instructions to write an alternative entry on a temporary page. Regrettably, the visual editor, with its benefits for casual Wiki authors with limited time budget like me, is not available (at least I didn't find it). My question is if it would be helpful for the entire process if I write a completely new entry. I saved the original texts already; the efforts seem to be the same as repairing cumbersome the current entry. Please recall, the copyright issue is only about the first paragraph where I mistakenly copied the source (trial international) and not the redacted text into the entry. The rest is my own literature research about the issue and you will hardly find a more complete presentation about Samuel Kunz anywhere. So what is your recommendation? If I would write a new entry, how to get rid of the present? Rudyguy21 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

The protection request was declined by CambridgeBayWeather. — JJMC89 04:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

What file and article are you talking about? Shibusawa does not exist. — JJMC89 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well both Atsushi Nakajima (Bungo Stray Dogs) and Osamu Dazai (Bungo Stray Dogs) were based on writers named Atsushi Nakajima and Osamu Dazai which led to add images of both real authors to the fictional characters. They also have their own voice actors there but I don't know if it's okay. Also by Shibusawa I meant Tatsuhiko Shibusawa whose likeness was used to make the villain from Bungo Stray Dogs: Dead Apple. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

File:Shibusawa Tatsuhiko.jpg is not a free image according to the file description page, so its use must comply with all of the non-free content criteria. The other two are free, specifically public domain, images. — JJMC89 03:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

It is a LTA abusing UTRS. 43 requests today and counting ... — JJMC89 06:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can't you just block them on UTRS? Masum Reza^📞 06:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would if I could. — JJMC89 06:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• I get that this is by far more useful for article content than project pages however, so I'm looking forward to further discussion on shortdesc usage outside mainspace in the coming months. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  I know exactly what the purpose of short descriptions are. A short description of "Wikimedia project page" or even "Wikipedia project page" (since this is Wikipedia after all) for project pages is the same as adding a short description of "article", "Wikipedia article", or "Wikimedia article" to an article. It is useless since it tells you nothing about the page that the title doesn't already tell you. I have no objection to short descriptions in general, but they need to be useful or there is no point in adding them. — JJMC89 00:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Except the point here is that we're not ADDING shortdesc to project pages. Project pages already have shortdescs. Only they're being provisioned by Wikidata (i.e. outside of enwiki), and importing them means they will now be on-wiki, which is what the community has decided is the preferable option for shortdescs (to avoid abuse and make it easier to edit, etc.) I know what you're saying and I don't disagree that in principle project pages probably don't need shortdescs at all. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  I don't know that they are necessary, but I'm fine with project pages having short descriptions; however, importing "Wikimedia project page" is completely useless. An appropriate one for say NPOV/N could be "noticeboard for discussing neutrality issues". — JJMC89 01:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I'm assuming that you're referring to edits that my bot made. That usage is acceptable if you have provided an appropriate non-free use rationale. Based on your post and the response here, you are not putting the correct article in your rationales. — JJMC89 01:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for responding so quickly, and for explaining where I tripped up.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any abuse since yesterday. Do you mind unblocking?--v/r - TP 23:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

​  Done You could have unblocked yourself. Please consider requiring OAuth for account unblock requests to prevent this type of abuse. — JJMC89 00:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I saw your note but I'm still hesitant to unblock my own account. DQ is in the middle of coordinating with a non-profit coding school to develop a UTRS 2.0. I'll pass on this idea.--v/r - TP 01:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply