User talk:JJPMaster

A lonely userbox

vn-9This user talk page has been vandalized 9 times.

Speedy delete my draft

Firstly, thanks your work of my draft, Draft:SM-A136B. I was unfamiliar with requesting new redirects at the time. Now I want to speedy delete my draft (since my redirect request has been accepted) by using Template:Db-g7 - but since you reviewed my draft, I think I need to ask you, may I? Saimmx (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Saimmx: Yep! I don’t even think you had to ask. JJP_Master (she/they) 18:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yeah, a draft decline is not "substantial content" for the purposes of G7. I've deleted. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Wait, you’re saying I actually have TPS now? JJP_Master (she/they) 18:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Doing some guesswork from the super-secret admin-only pagewatcher stats and common watchlisting settings, you have ~1 TPS (me, until I get bored of watchlisting it someday and unwatch). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that is a nonzero amount. JJP_Master (she/they) 18:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks your explain. The word "substantial" confused me. Saimmx (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically "substantial" there means, contributing any nontrivial effort to the state of the page. So it excludes, say, simple copy-edits, vandalism reverts, technical fixes, things like that. A draft decline is kind of a special case, because even though it's on the article, it's really more metadata about the state of the article. (And for a bit of a wiki-history lesson, the only reason it is on the article instead of the talkpage is because drafts used to all be in talkspace, so there was nowhere else to put comments.) So yeah, it's not substantial content, any more than a talkpage comment is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Where's the wallpaper user script?

Where's even the user script you are working on? Gnu779 (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gnu779: User:JJPMaster/wallpaper.js—It's not quite ready for use yet. I'll ping you when it is. JJP_Master (she/they) 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll reply it when it's released. Gnu779 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gnu779: It should be good now. Please note that it currently only works with Vector 2010 skin. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope it supports the Vector 2022 skin. Fix it and tell me in my talk page if it's done. Thank you, Gnu779 (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Three wishes

Is there any reason for not moving the disambiguation page to use a capital letter in "wishes"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: The request in question was to move Three wishes to Three wishes (disambiguation), and I did not find a sufficiently strong consensus to move it to Three Wishes (disambiguation). JJP_Master (she/they) 19:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: U@tech (train) (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:U@tech (train) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, JJPMaster! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: I did not create this article—it was improperly submitted and I was the one who fixed the tag. Please forward this message to R162A 1 Train. JJP_Master (she/they) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Burnout (Green Day song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Burnout (Green Day song), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnout (Green Day song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPPHOUR

Please remember to be mindful of WP:NPPHOUR. You tagged Graciano Major with {{db-a3}} only 9 minutes after its creation. Thanks, C F A 05:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@CFA: NPPHOUR applies to AfDing, BLARing, and draftifying, not CSD. The minimum time for A3 specifically is 10 minutes (I thought it was 5 minutes, so that's why I didn't wait another minute before tagging it, sorry about that). JJP_Master (she/they) 05:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it applies to CSD too. The only time you should be CSDing an article less than an hour after creation is if the page is a copyvio, vandalism, or an attack page. This is especially important for A3 and similar tags because, as you saw, the creator could still be working on the article. There was a recent discussion about this at WT:NPP in case you're interested. C F A 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@CFA: This is odd, since the CSD policy and NPP information page appear to contradict in this regard. I have started a discussion. JJP_Master (she/they) 05:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Issue Regarding Suraj Yengde

Hii . I just made a draft for Suraj Yengde and it goes to Wikipedia:Suraj Yengde by mistake which is now removed. i just want to delete this Suraj Yengde or just replace or merge it with my new the draft with same name here.

Much Regards Callmehelper (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Callmehelper: Don't worry, the redirect should be deleted shortly. I was the one who moved the draft there. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding IRC

Since your last request on #wikipedia-en-revdel over on WP:IRC, you've been consistently ping-timeout/reconnecting each 10th minute or so, to the point I've had to instate a ban to avoid the reconnection spam. If you are not using IRC normally, please make sure you don't have a misbehaving IRC client lurking somewhere. _→AzaToth 20:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@AzaToth: Sorry about that. I recently switched from the web-based Kiwi IRC to Mozilla Thunderbird, so I'm still getting used to it. JJP_Master (she/they) 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem; Assuming you've resolved the issue I've removed the ban from the channel. _→AzaToth 20:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_20#Category:Wikipedia_oversighters

I don't see a consensus to keep there. First off, there were three users supporting deletion and two supporting keeping, as you neglected to include the nominator. And jc37's comments make it clear that they support deletion despite them not including a bolded !vote. Second off, my comment (And besides that there's little reason besides curiosity to browse the list of checkusers or oversighters - if you want the attention of a checkuser use {{Checkuser needed}}, if you want something oversighted follow one of the approved processes at Wikipedia:Oversight. In neither case is it helpful to broadcast) provided an additional argument for deleting which was not addressed in the closure and not refuted by any of the participants. And finally you have the burden of proof backwards - WP:USERCAT says the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia, so the burden is on the keepers to explain how it fulfils that goal, which they clearly haven't met. This looks a lot more like a "no consensus" or a "delete" than a "keep" to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery: So, I have a few things to say here.

1. Firstly, I'm sorry for not including the nominator in the numerical count, however I think that this was largely a superficial error, as the sheer number of proponents of deletion was largely irrelevant here. I did also take jc37's reasoning into consideration and noted as much in the closure despite not including them as a !voter.
2. As for your additional comment, I mentally lumped it in with the argument that was rebutted by pointing out the other user right categories, however I do acknowledge that no one actually used that argument here.
3. I do still believe that the "keep" proponents did sufficiently demonstrate consistency with USERCAT despite not actively mentioning it, since they noted the similarity with other categories based on user rights, in effect saying that these two categories being considered for deletion met the first criterion of WP:USERCATYES.

I have nevertheless reverted my close, since I realized after rereading it that it comes off as a bit "supervote-ish". I will relist the discussion at well. JJP_Master (she/they) 20:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the close.

In addition, I want to reinforce what was said above - which is also documented in deletion policy and process (here, for example) - XFD is not a vote. A contributor doesn't need to have a "bolded word" to have their comments contribute towards consensus. As closers we assess consensus, we don't count heads. Anyway, please keep this in mind if you decide to attempt to determine consensus of any other discussions.

Thanks again. - jc37 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"0-3-5" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 0-3-5 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 31 § 0-3-5 until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JJPMaster. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

– DreamRimmer (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

How to swing a baseball bat

Hello, JJPMaster,

Do not request an article to be "userfied" and then, immediately afterward, tag an article for CSD U1 speedy deletion. You didn't even participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to swing a baseball bat so I have no idea how you persuaded an admin to userfy this article to your User space. I've seen you do this before and it is completely out-of-process as you generally have made no edits to these articles and are not the article creator. So, just because an article has been moved, very temporarily, to your User space, that doesn't give you the right to request CSD U1. Plus. it is just a sneaky way to get an article deleted and we should use the processes that are in place to handle article deletions. You have done this "userfication" before and this is a step that should only happen by consensus of the AFD participants and because you plan on working to improve an article, not because you are just going to tag it for deletion. Please do not do this again in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: I would like to clarify why I'm doing these requests. I am not asking for the pages to be userfied and then deleted because I was working on them or because I wanted them deleted, but rather because I need the pages' contents for a narrow technical reason—namely, so that their content could be imported and history-merged into pages on Wikibooks where a transwiki had already been performed before Special:Import was introduced. In my undeletion requests, I always make it clear that that is the sole reason. I ask for them to be userfied rather than restored as-is because I don't want NPPs to be confused and tag them using Page Curation, thus increasing the number of revisions that need to be imported. It is likely that you didn't notice that the pages were deleted long ago, because the deletion logs from before late 2004 are found at Wikipedia:Deletion log rather than Special:Log/delete. Courtesy pings to @Graham87 and @Pppery. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, please note that here, for some reason, two administrators responded to my REFUND differently, the first one undeleted in mainspace, during which the article was AfD'd, and the second one userfied the page. Additional courtesy pings: @UtherSRG, @Graeme Bartlett. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It's just occurred to me: the one time I needed undeletion just for the purpose of importing revisions at Listen to Wikipedia (see the relevant log), I emailed the deleting admin on the French Wikipedia and asked them to temporarily undelete the page, use Special:Export on it, and then re-delete it and send me the results. Maybe that would be easier than userfication in some cases. I'm still not quite sure what I think of fixing these systematically, given what I know about the scale of the task and that the old way of copying history is enough to satisfy our licensing requirements, but ... we're all volunteers here. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Graham87: The reason why I use this weird undelete-userfy-transwiki-merge method is because I do not have importupload rights on en.wikibooks (although I have requested limited adminship, which would grant me that access). And my main reason for doing this is quite simple—I value complete page histories. I created that Wikibooks project page because I was going to make my own version of User:Graham87/Page history observations, but noticed that there were so many pages that fell under these particular criteria that I created a whole separate page for them. And I want to ensure that attribution is as good as possible, rather than simply acceptable. JJP_Master (she/they) 05:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be best to just undelete in place, then transwiki and then delete with the special transwiki criterion, giving the wikibooks destination for the transwiki. Any one who afd's or prods the page should be trouted. Perhaps we need a special hat not saying wait for the transwiki, but then it pollutes the imported page with more useless junk and history. What do you think? A hat note to deter premature and wasteful deletion processes? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I assume that by "special transwiki criterion" you are referring to A5, however, that criterion was recently repealed. However, it appears that my !vote in AfD for "speedy delete under G6" was justified by this sentence: Deleted articles that are temporarily restored to allow for a transwiki may be re-deleted under "technical deletion" (G6). JJP_Master (she/they) 15:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Closure

Your closure of the rewrite for how to bite has been implemented.

Cheers, Reader of Information (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, number 1, number 3, and number 4 have all been implemented per your modifications and closures.

Thank you for your closures!

Cheers, Reader of Information (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)