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)