User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2019/December

IP changing coords

Just ran across an IP doing things like this. No idea whey they would be removing {{coord}} and causing infobox/map errors. Other parts of the edits look well-intentioned. I undid two, not sure how many more there are. No time to look into this more now. MB 04:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No idea why they are doing it, but they are reverting my bot's edits. I only saw one other outstanding and reverted it. — JJMC89 05:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

They reverted your revert. I fixed it again and left them a message. All their other updates seem constructive; this doesn't make much sense. MB 18:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't make an sense. Hopefully your message will get them to cut it out. — JJMC89 04:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

File:À gauche en sortant de l'ascenseur poster.jpg

Figured I should let you know this was reuploaded. I see you've deleted it previously as block evasion of User:ConsumersDistributingonline. I mass-reverted the IP 124.219.192.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as block-evasion, as it added the file to an article, but figured I should leave more action to somebody more familiar with the case. Home Lander (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, I opened an SPI; Power Rider Cameo Kneuer uploaded a series of files that you previously deleted as block evasion. Home Lander (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that sorted at SPI, Home Lander. — JJMC89 04:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Opinions invited

Hi JJMC89, It has been almost a year and a half since I was granted the page mover bit after which I started helping at WP:RMT. I have learnt a lot in the past months. I wanted to get some feedback on my workdone at RMT, and asking you since you are one of the recently active admin over there. Is my work good/satisfactory/poor etc ? Is there something that I can improve so that I can contribute in a better way ? I will be very thankful to you for this kind gesture. Please ping me when you reply. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I'm not very active at RM/TR, and when I am I'm not often looking at moves carried out by others. Anthony Appleyard is the most active admin there, so I would ask him. You could also ask the non-admin regulars. — JJMC89 04:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply. I have already asked Anthony. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Fall Out Boy at Wrigley Field 2018.jpg

I see you added a tag to the file I recently added. I'm not sure if I understand why this file doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies. I read first non-free content criterion and added a dispute on the file. I'm not sure what else to do to make sure the file meets Wikipedia's policies. Could you maybe clarify the problem? Also, will the entire file be deleted after December 2nd or just the previous version of the file? Thank you. Bowling is life (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of free images of Fall Out Boy, so you cannot use a non-free one. — JJMC89 04:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Do you have a free image of Fall Out Boy that is new. I haven't been able to find any others. Bowling is life (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) A non-free image is not, in principle, really going to be allowed per WP:FREER as long as there are free equivalents (even if they are a bit older) which can serve the same essential encyclopedic purpose of primary identification; moreover, it's entirely reasonable to expect that a more recent free equivalent could be created by someone simply taking a photograph of the band at one of it's upcoming concerts and releasing it under a free license. Either way, a non-free image of this type is pretty certain to never be allowed unless the image itself is somehow the subject of sourced critical commentary; for example, some kind of controversy or other thing specifically associated with the image itself which makes not seeing it detrimental to the reader's understanding of the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Jordan Pruitt Official Image.jpg

One quick question, why was the Jordan Pruitt image deleted from her official biographic page? This hasn’t been the first time such a front page pic was deleted. It was deleted several times in the past: 1 2 3 Clearly deleting such pictures isn’t constructive, what exactly was the upload violating? It represented a picture of her taken in 2008 from GettyImages, a public website. Why was it deleted? Blacklister3000 (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Blacklister3000. I answered your question about this at Talk:Jordan Pruitt#Please do not delete any new uploads of Jordan Pruitt so check there for more details, but basically any images you uploaded which were taken by someone else are not going to be allowed without the explicit consent of the copyright holder of the image. When it’s comes to image copyrights, “freely available” or “publicly available” don’t mean “free from copyright protection”, and it’s the latter which matters when it comes to image licensing. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Clearly deleting such pictures isn’t constructive Quite the contrary, repeatedly uploading an image in violation of copyright is not constructive. from GettyImages is the problem (c:COM:L and WP:GETTY). — JJMC89 05:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Other World Kingdom.svg

This got flagged by JJMC89 bot during its most recent update as a 10c violation in List of micronations, but the file's licensing was converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} back in March. Do you think the bot is someone picking up on the {{Non-free reviewed}} template still showing on the file's page or might there be something in the meta data still listing the file as non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is that template's fault since it puts the file in Category:All non-free media. I've removed it. — JJMC89 05:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I thought that might've been the case, but wasn't sure if it was OK to remove the template myself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

If the file is freely licensed, then you can just remove it. — JJMC89 05:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Aktion T4 non-free images

Hi JJMC89. Just a head's up about diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3 since the first diff seems to indicate a misunderstanding of WP:NFCC#10c and the second and third diffs might be a case of WP:JUSTONE that might need further assessing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

They clearly don't satisfy criterion 8 in that article. — JJMC89 05:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts as well; I just couldn't decided between being WP:BOLD like you were or going to FFD. Things might end up at FFD anyway if the rationales are re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Both files have been re-added to the article again without a corresponding rationale for each use. The copyright license for each file was changed and tweaked, probably based on a misunderstanding as to why the files and corresponding rationales had been previously removed by you. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Kabir Helminski

Hi JJMC89. I am still waiting on a response for this article (which has now been archived in November). As I hope I made clear, there was no copyright infringement. Thanks for your time. (Danthedervish (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC))

Main Antagonist's Image

The file, File:Victor Donovan Snap 2012-08-09 at 14.08.33.jpg should not be deleted as it is an image of the franchise's main antagonist, an important character in the franchise's story. The image shows readers want the main antagonist looks like.Sonic100jam (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Sonic100jam. Such non-free files are often allowed when they are used for primary identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the fictional character. So, if there's a Wikipedia article already written about this particular character and this image is not being used there, provide a non-free use rationale for that use and add the file to that article. If such an article doesn't yet exist, but you think that one should exist per WP:GNG, then you can write the article yourself or ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters. Then, once the article is finished, you can add the file to it.

The use of non-free images, however, in list of character articles like List of Dead or Alive characters is generally not allowed per WP:NFLISTS. One group-image showing the characters at the tops of such articles tends to be allowed, but images for individual characters mentioned in individual sections of articles is almost never seen to meet WP:NFCC#8, unless there's some specific sourced critical commentary about the character's appearance (not just the character) in the relevant section per WP:NFC#CS. Most of the character descriptions given in that article aren't supported by any sources and just seem to be almost a plot summary about the characters. It all may be true, but there's nothing about how reliable sources discuss the characters and their appearances which would justify the non-free use of the images being disputed. Perhaps if you can find those sources and add such content to the article, it will better show how the non-free use of the files meets all ten non-free content use criteria and not WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Bot moved categories without recategorizing articles

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T240084
Resolved

Today your bot moved some categories speedily without recategorizing articles which belonged to them. One example is Category:United States regulations which is not empty at the time I write it but was deleted. Whereas moving the articles is not a huge work (I already moved them from another cat), this situation probably signals some error in the bot code which you might want to look at. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I came across those and moved them. There was an invisible control character at the end of the old category name, which had somehow been added along with the category on 5 Dec, e.g. Special:Diff/929438043. Rathfelder, I don’t hold you at fault over that, but can you remember how you added the category? – Fayenatic London 22:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I didnt create the category, I just proposed it be renamed, and I already discovered that didnt work properly. When I added it to articles I used Wikipedia:HotCat. Rathfelder (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If you click on that Diff link, edit the page, and backspace to remove “regulations]]”, you have to backspace one extra time after deleting ]] before the letters start being deleted. That’s one way to tell there is an extra character there. You added the category using HotCat, but probably by pasting rather than by typing. So when you copied the category name (in order to paste it), you unwittingly picked up a hidden character at the end. It would be good if HotCat could be modified to exclude such characters. – Fayenatic London 07:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

​​Thanks for letting me know. Yes, the issue is the left-to-right marks. I filed phab:T240084 about it and proposed a patch to fix this case. — JJMC89 06:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks JJMC89! – Fayenatic London 15:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I've just come across another example of the bot not moving contents, during the recent move of Category:Care Bear character redirects to lists - it didn't realise that the categories on Friend Bear and Funshine Bear were set via {{R from fictional character}} (I've now moved them). I don't know if there's other redirect templates that are similar? Thanks for the work the bot does though. Le Deluge (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: Since the category is populated based on a template parameter, it shouldn't have been listed for the bot to move.​ It cannot handle such cases. — JJMC89 03:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned revdel request

Can you please delete the orphaned thumbnails from the file history of this?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 03:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 04:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

And this one too please.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 21:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done You don't need to ask for it to be done. Someone will get to them in time. — JJMC89 04:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Durham School shield

 Question: Hi! I notice you speedily deleted the file File:Durham School shield.png. The image is allowed for public use as I prescribed in the description's markup, perhaps there was some mistake? I essentially copied off the format used for this image File:Van Mildert Coll Durham shield.svg. It was also in use on Durham School, so even if it was a non-free logo, I thought that was sufficient rationale. Out of curiosity, why was it speedily deleted without discussion? - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 20:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

A poorer quality version of the image has now been reuploaded by another user File:Durham School logo.png - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 02:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

(Note refactoring to the OP) You falsely claimed that the file was your work and "released" it under CC0. That is a blatant copyright infringement, which is eligible for speedy deletion under F9. Being used in an article is irrelevant. Non-free files must be licensed as such and satisfy all of the non-free content criteria, including having a non-free use rationale. A claim of CC0 is the opposite of a non-free claim. (You need to fix the unbalanced bold markup in your signature.) — JJMC89 09:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate the response. As I say, I essentially copied the format from another image which is used for a similar purpose, this is purely just my lack of experience in working with files here. For my understanding, what's the difference between the School and the College images I've referenced in my refactor of the OP which allows one to remain under CC-zero? Kudpung mentioned in the thread on my talk page it could be derivitive work, but I don't see any differences between it and the historical arms. Perhaps I should've looked at a larger sample of similar files before using it as a template, sincere apologies either way. (fixed the signature, thanks) - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 16:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't copy licensing from images that are used for similar purposes. How an image is used has nothing to do with its copyright. The one that you uploaded was copied from the school's website. Assuming the file description is correct, the other one was created based on the Grant of Arms. See c:COM:COA for the difference between the description and representation of a Coat of Arms. If it is a derivative of a copyright representation, then it would be a copyright violation. A historical representation could be out of copyright. — JJMC89 01:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Expedited revdel request

An editor who is unhappy with me for identifying their copyright violations at Jennifer Mee and warning them about it has taken to removing a copyvio-revdel template I left at Malford Milligan. Whatever their motive, I think they just don't understand what copyvio-revdel is, honestly. Anyway, in the interest of de-escalating, would you mind expediting the revdel request so they can see that it's not the end of the world? If not, no worries, life will go on. Thanks. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo: Based on the history of Malford Milligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I'm not sure it was copied from that source. It looks like our article developed over time to get to a version that is nearly identical to the source. That suggests that it was copied from our article. Diannaa, would you give a second opinion? — JJMC89 00:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I had problems finding archived versions of pages to compare against. The artist recently changed how they host pages and I couldn't find an archive copy of their old bio.cfm. Similar situation for pre-2016 jackhustinx.com, which has some overlapping material. I could believe two or three different stories about the history, some of which mean copyvio, some of which mean no copyvio. But the incremental changes, coupled with the slight changes in wording and outright copyright claim at the artist page, to me suggest enough of a question that we should be cautious about hosting the material, particularly if we can just rewrite it from the source that has a copyright claim. But obviously it's a judgment call, and my judgment could be wrong. My only haste was in trying to show the user who removed the template that it's not a speedy deletion template, which I think they finally understood. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

PS I have no doubt at all that the December 2019 relaunch of the artist site copied Wikipedia, given the bracketed numbers that appear in it. I'm more concerned about the text before the relaunch and any related editing history, given overlap with Dutch artist pages, Dutch geolocation of IPs, etc, that suggest (to me) promotional copying back-and-forth. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Stolengood

Hi, regarding your block of Stolengood, don't you think that an indefinite block is a little overkill? I don't know him personally, but I've interacted with him before and I've found his contributions to be useful. It seems like he got a little stubborn-minded with regards to putting a non-free image on the OTD page, but if you look at his unblock appeal, it seems like he learned his lesson. OTOH, DrKay declined the unblock for reasons unknown, so I wouldn't mind their comments here as well. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 04:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Just for reference, Dr. Kay didn't decline their unblock request. Dr. Kay only added a clarification to Yamla's decline of the unblock request. The problem wasn't so much that Stolengood was adding a non-free image to a page like Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 18 where such images cannot be used; that's something that happens quite a lot. The real problem was that they keep doing it over and over again each time the file was removed by JJMC89 bot despite the fact that the bot was leaving edit summaries explaining why the file was being removed.

I guess you could write that off as being stubborn and perhaps Stolengood might have responded a bit differently if a {{uw-nonfree}}, {{uw-3rr}} or even a more personal message asking them to stop had been posted on their user talk, but I think Stolengood needs to address why they felt that edit warring was better than instead of trying to ask someone why the file kept being removed. Did they think that it wasn't edit warring because it was a bot, not another editor, removing the file? Did they think that it was actually the bot that was editing warring which meant that they could do the same? Did they think that there must have some bug which caused the bot to keep removing the file from the page contrary to relevant policy? Just from looking at that page's history, it's hard not to get the impression that Stolengood would've simply kept re-adding the file every time the bot removed it and the only reason they stopped was because of the block.

I get that everyone makes mistakes, but this is actually Stolengood's second block so perhaps that was also something JJMC89 considered. Moreover, if you look at Stolengood's user talk page history you'll find previously posted messages/warnings about edit warring and disruptive editing, etc. So, it's not like Stolengood can claim that they are unaware that edit warring is never considered OK. FWIW, I saw the tail end of the edit warring and was actually going to post a message about it on Stolengood's user talk page advising them to stop and explain why the file was being removed, but they were blocked first. When I saw the block, I thought that it might be a bit harsh; however, I then dug around a bit and was reminded of this, this and this which also I guess could be considered "stubborn" and thought that this block might not just be for what was happening this time around, but also a response to a type of behavior that seems to have been going on for quite awhile. Maybe this block has served it's intended purpose and there will be no more further disruption, but I think Stolengood needs to understand and agree that any repeat of this type of behavior will likely result in another indefinite block that is going to be much harder to come back from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I agree that a block was warranted. Getting into a revert war with a bot is just silly, not to mention the policy violations. All I'm saying that going to indef-block seems a bit harsh. —howcheng {chat} 07:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand, which is why I think there might be more to this block than the fact that Stolengood decided to edit war with a bot. Perhaps JJMC89 will clarify his reasons or decide to shorten the length of the block given the fact that Stolengood does seem to be repentant. I didn't realize that you are also an admin so you'll know more about this than I, but I don't think the blocking admin necessarily needs to be the unblocking admin. So, perhaps if Stolengood answers the questions posed by Yamla in their decline or is able to convince another admin that they will not repeat this behavior, then they will be unblocked. Indef'd doesn't automatically mean you can never be unblocked, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: As someone else has already declined to unblock, if I do anything unilaterally that would be considered wheel warring, so I do need the consent of the involved parties. —howcheng {chat} 16:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn’t suggesting you should unblock or do anything improper and by “another admin” I meant someone other than you, JJMC89 and Yamla (i.e. an uninvolved admin): so, my apologies if what I posted was confusing or not how unblocks are generally made. The account can still, however, respond to the questions asked by Yamla and if they can do so the Yamla’s satisfaction then Yamla can unblock the account, right? So, perhaps that’s the fastest way for the account to be unblocked. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

For my part, I'm satisfied by the response to my query. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I almost always indefinitely block when it involves copyright issues. (That, of course, doesn't mean forever.) This is to ensure that the user understands policy via an unblock request and not just waiting it out. While his response to DrKay's query is encouraging, I would like to see Stolengood's answers to Yamla's questions. — JJMC89 05:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

OK I'm good with that. —howcheng {chat} 16:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Question : Chaumont Volley-Ball 52

Hello, I sometimes find it difficult to understand the reasoning of certain administrators. You have deleted this which I understand Talk:Chaumont Volley-Ball 52, but you could have created the article thanks to that. You had the effortless possibility of creating an article or there was not much left to do on it. Knowing that there are 16 articles, in 16 different languages, except in English for an important French volleyball club of French and European first division. Could you not take this creation and put it back on the right part in order to join the other 16 versions wikipedia on those club Chaumont Volley-Ball 52 (in French wikipedia fr:Chaumont Volley-Ball 52 Chaumont Volley-Ball 52), please. Cordially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:6D74:4706:CF16:8955 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You should create a draft at Draft:Chaumont Volley-Ball 52 and submit it for review. Talk pages are not for drafting articles. — JJMC89 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Kabir Helminski

Hi JJMC89. I am still waiting on a response for this article (my posts on this talk page have now been archived twice in November and December without response). As I hope I made clear in my November post, there was no copyright infringement. Can this article therefore be made live again? Thanks for your time Danthedervish (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It was a mistake to undelete it the first time. I have no intention of further helping you. — JJMC89 23:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU. Happy holidays — JJMC89 23:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello JJMC89, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks, ★Trekker. Happy holidays — JJMC89 23:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well J. MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MarnetteD! Happy holidays to you — JJMC89 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks back atcha for the return good wishes :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Reporting 103.202.148.99 and 103.202.148.88

There is a editor who is being very disruptive by using multiple accounts in articles, such as Good Kid, M.A.A.D City [1] [2] [3] for changing the infobox's format and adding unsourced recording dates for unexplained reasons. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

​I've blocked the /26. — JJMC89 04:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not mean to start an edit war in those articles but the edits look unconstructive to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting in my user page

Please stop deleting the File: from my user page. In addition, please explain your actions.Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Uniformcharlie886. Please see my post at User talk:Uniformcharlie886#Non-free content for more specifics, but the bot was doing what it's supposed to do and it did leave multiple edit summaries explaining why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year JJMC89!

Happy New Year!

Hello JJMC89:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

User talk:Drivus

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 09:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

ACC mailing list

Happy holidays! I wanted to change my mailing list to another email and I sent in a new request. I would also like my current email to be unsubscribed from the mailing list. Since the email address here is attached to the current address, I cannot verify it using Special:EmailUser, do let me know if I can do anything else. Thanks a ton! --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: I haven't seen a new request come through yet. You can change your email at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/options/accounts-enwiki-l, or I can update it to match what you have in your ACC interface preferences. — JJMC89 03:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm...

Who do you reckon this was. The account is still active cross wiki. GMG^talk 20:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I don't know what accounts they had previously, but

• Wyringga (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Sorokaste (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Enterthetboat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),

and some IPs were blocked in connection to the behavior at User talk:WMFOffice (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 03:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That's an impressive block record. Global lock it is then. GMG^talk 13:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A block you did

Do you remember why you blocked Special:Contributions/98.235.131.222? This IP editor is being disruptive on film articles again, but I don't recognize who it might be. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Sorry, I don't. It could have been for evading another IP block, but I couldn't make a connection when I went back through their/my edits/logs. — JJMC89 22:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I hope that new image size and ratio is ok

@JJMC89: Hi, I uploaded new version of logo for pages Heroes of the Storm and Master X Master. Images are now smaller, with proper ratio, so I hope they now meet Wikipedia criteria. I am sorry for multiple uploads, I tried to find best solution. I hope it is fine now. One more thing - the size of image for "page preview" feature needs to be between 400 and 600 px, so I hope there will be no further size reductions. Most of games on Wikipedia have visible image on "page preview", so it's not something specific that I want for those two articles. EchoBlu (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)