User talk:JJMC89

I'm leaving this message here because User talk:JJMC89 bot redirects here. My apologies if this is the wrong venue.

On 6 April 2026 at 19:50 UTC, I updated File:Flag of Sweetwater, Texas.png, changing its licensing template from {{non-free seal}} to {{PD-simple}}. Since then, JJMC89 bot (talk · contribs) has thrice removed it from my user space (6 April 2026 at 21:12 UTC, 7 April 2026 at 01:10 UTC, and 7 April 2026 at 13:02 UTC), despite my reversions where I explained firstly Undid revision 1347460132 by JJMC89 bot (talk) as image is properly tagged with PD licensure and secondly Undid revision 1347488888 by JJMC89 bot (talk) again as file is still confirmed tagged as PD-licensed and not NFC; + {{bots}} to prevent further errors. The third edit evidences non-accordance with {{bots|deny=}}.

When the bot makes the same edit multiple times sequentially, is there no back-end alert to check for what might be wrong? Is it intentional that the bot ignores {{bots|deny=}}? What exactly is it about {{PD-simple}} that doesn't jibe with your bot or causes misidentification as NFC? I wonder how often it misidentifies free media as NFC, which isn't caught due to no human editor being involved in the actions undertaken. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The problem is that the file still has a {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template, which misidentifies it as non-free. And as I understand it the bot is intentionally not exclusion compliant and willing to edit war, because too many new users want their misplaced non-free images on their article at all costs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that the file still has a {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template Why is that a problem, though? There's a libre-licensing tag on the page, and that's what identifies the file as not being NFC, not the informational template that's just a framework for listing source and author and whatnot. I can just remove that NFUR2 template (and have, now), but it doesn't resolve the problem of the bot misidentifying clearly-license-tagged free media as NFC, nor that the repeated identical edits didn't trigger any sort of actual human editor interaction. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem isn't the specific license template but the categorization. Any file in Category:All non-free media is considered non-free. You should replace the non-free use rational template (which adds that category) with {{information}}. Since you only changed the license, you left the file in a conflicting state. (There used to be another bot that would tag those.) The bot's non-free media tasks are (intentionally) not exclusion compliant. The bot doesn't know it is being reverted or even editing the same page multiple times and cannot read (edit summaries). There is no backend alerting. The on-wiki reports (1, 2) and issues log are available for anyone interested but likely aren't useful for detecting this type of issue. — JJMC89 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot III is not processing the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Merge then delete and I can't figure out why. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This is similar to the previous time it happened with a LRM except that this one was caused by an extra space. Filed T422856 and T422859 and implemented a (bad) workaround for the (garbage) upstream exception. — JJMC89 23:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Your bot flagged a few images, and I'd like you to take a second look before they are automatically reduced. They are the three images used only at EpsteinExposed. For example, please see the network graph image—before taking the screenshot, I zoomed out so far that nearly all of the faces and details are illegible. I'm not sure what it will look like with an automatic reduction in pixels, but possibly it would be too blurry? Similar concerns for the Sankey diagram screenshot; less so, for the dossier one.

Thank you,

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. I would like to say that in regards to the Bloodymania article, there have not been any problems with the article in almost 10 years. I'm not sure if this is an error or not but you might want to look into this. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The bot is working correctly. The file only has a use rationale for Bloodymania (2007), not Bloodymania. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)