User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2021/September

Underscores

Hi JJMC89. I've got a question about JJMC89 bot and underscores in file names. During it's latest run, the bot found File:Wan Li.jpg being used in List of vice premiers of the People's Republic of China and removed it per NFCC#10c. The same file, however, was also being used in Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress without a rationale, but the bot didn't catch that particular use. I think it had to do with the syntax used in that article: File:Wan_Li.jpg was used instead. There was another non-free as well being used in the article (File:Qiaoshi in 1994.jpg) that the bot also didn't catch that also had underscores in the file name. Is this just one time thing or does the bot have a hard time with underscores in file names? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The bot can handle underscores. These are false negatives due to the article name being included in the description on the file page. — JJMC89 16:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. I was focusing more on the |article= parameter than the |description= parameter. Is such a thing common? Is there a way to check for such files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'm not sure how common it is. It is possible to check for some of the cases that I know cause false negatives, but not all of them. Ignoring everything in the NFUR templates except for |Article= will cut down on some of the cases. I expect it will slow the bot down, but we'll see. — JJMC89 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Technical question

Hello, JJMC89,

I don't do much work with files but I've started taking care of rescaling images that appear in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review. I saw you had edited the page and you operate a bot so I'm hoping you can help me with a technical question as Ronhjones is no longer with us. The rescaling tool works fine but doesn't work with ogg files like File:I've Just Seen a Face guitar solo.ogg.

So, what would be preferable to do in these cases, clicking on "Delete" or "Change visibility" for the previous file version or is there another option? Thanks for any advice you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liz. It is preferable to use revision deletion (change visibility) so that the file revisions are still listed in the file history. I used User:Ronhjones/rescaledsidebar.js on that file, and it worked fine. — JJMC89 07:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Permission to Create Page 'Wendo Musaly'

Hello. Thank you for helping Wikipedia with your efforts. You protected from creation a page titled Wendo Musaly. I'd like to present a case to you that i worked on after doing my research.

Wendo Musaly is a renowned and talented singer who has garnered attention from audience worldwide. His sensational music has won hearts and is on its way to top the charts. Wendo has collaborated with Mr. Oli. and Q-Bo, two established musicians in the DRC. Belonging from South Kivu, DRC, he comes from a culturally rich background, which has influenced his taste in music. Musaly debuted with Pourquoi?!, which became a huge hit worldwide. After receiving positive response over his album, he released his debut single, “Give Me That Eh” and “Tú’úndané” collaborating with Mr. Oli & Q-Bo and Lumière, respectively. His two singles, Kiboko WE and Je T'Aime, as they have an interesting beat to them and reflects his passion for music. He then went on and released two albums, GooDLucK and Kiboko WE, and he released his third EP, Tranquility I, which comprises five tracks. Musaly also owns a record label WWM Records Being an audience favorite, Wendo went ahead and released The Best of Wendo Musaly, a compilation of all his tracks in a single album. This was a much-anticipated album that lived up to the hype it had created. Musaly’s passion for music has been covered by credible platforms like Reader’s Digest, the Hype Magazine, InstaBulletin, TheSource, BaltimorePostExaminer, and This is 50. This personality is worth being on Wikipedia, and I think his case should be considered. References 1. https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/life/talent-finds-its-way-uncovering-the-story-of-wendo-musaly 2. https://thisis50.com/2021/06/03/allfor-love-strugglingmusician-turned-record-label-owner-wendo-musaly/ 3. https://www.thehypemagazine.com/2021/06/inside-the-mind-of-a-musician/ 4. https://thesource.com/2021/05/13/wendo-musalys-formula-is-stop-thinking-and-start-doing-the-power-of-practicing-more/ 5. https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/when-talent-meets-fortune-the-story-of-wendo-musaly/2021/05/21 6. https://www.instabulletin.com/the-power-of-being-multipotentialite/ 7. https://ventsmagazine.com/2020/05/02/from-a-kids-band-in-tanzanian-refugee-camp-to-an-emerging-music-artist-in-the-us-story-of-the-congolese-musician-wendo-musaly/ 8. https://timebusinessnews.com/an-emerging-congolese-singer-and-songwriter-wendo-musaly-is-on-his-way-to-stir-hype-in-the-music-industry/ 9. https://mynewsfit.com/a-young-musician-with-a-diverse-portfolio-the-congolese-musician-wendo-musaly/

I hope that you will look into it and consider my request.

Thank you --Strawberryfrozenyogurt (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Strawberryfrozenyogurt: You don't need to ask permission, just start the article. Here is a page about writing the article Help:Your first article and a wizard to help you begin Wikipedia:Article wizard. Also review Help:referencing for beginners. Hope this helps. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Bot removing images w/ valid rationale

Thanks for all you do. We got a bot repeatedly removing a movie poster that does have a rationale. Feoffer (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The rationale is for a different article than the one that the file is being used in. — JJMC89 19:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Feoffer. It looks like you added the name of the wrong article to the "article" parameter of the file's non-free use rationale; if you fix that, the bot should stop removing the file. You added the correct name of the article to the "description" parameter, but the links conflict and the bot thus is most likely giving priority to the one in the "article" parameter. On a separate note though, I'm just curious as to why you used the word "We" in your above post. Was this just something you did without thinking or was it intentional to mean you're somehow connected to the film in some way? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The bot appears to be doing this for a lot of articles. This seems overly aggressive behavior to delegate to an unthinking robot. Deletion of images from articles by the bot will be followed shortly by the images being automatically deleted from Wikipedia entirely. It would be better if warning tags could be added to articles instead before deletion to encourage more editors to fix mislabeled Fair use rationale statements.

If this continues a lot of older articles will soon lose their images. - 109.79.172.210 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If your comment IP 109.79.172.210 is related to things like this, then the bot is entirely correct in removing the file and there was nothing overly aggressive about it doing so. Not only did the file not have a non-free use rationale for that type of non-free use, but a valid rationale almost certainly cannot be written. Adding a rationale for such as use like you did here stopped the bot, but stopping the bot doesn't make the file's use policy compliant, which is why the file was removed by a human editor. Non-free images of living persons are pretty much never allowed per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI and non-free images of anything aren't in general allowed as default until a free image can be found instead. This is a mistake which is often made, but it's still a mistake nonetheless; so, please keep it mind when adding adding non-free files to BLP articles in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think a better message than 'No valid non-free use rationale for this page' should be used, perhaps a 'No valid non-free use rationale for this page, |Article=Phenomenon (film)' may need to be updated to make things more clear. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

JJMC89 probably can speak to this better, but it might be impossible for a message to be "customized" for each and every case in which a bot removes a file. The bot only removes files which have WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c issues and most of these are 10c violations which is why it includes a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in its edit summaries. I think it even update existing rationales in cases where it finds it acceptable to do so (e.g. a misspelled article name, a article name which has changed due to a recent page move). Pretty much all of the bots 10c removals have to do with there actually being no rationale provided at all and the bot won't create an rationale from scratch because of WP:JUSTONE. The bot could add {{di-missing some article links}} to the file's page and {{Missing rationale2}} to the article's talk page instead of removing a file, but that only makes sense in what might be considered borderline cases (which is something that only happens once in a while and is something the bot can't assess); a clear violation of the WP:NFCC that has pretty much zero chance of surviving a FFD discussion even if a rationale provided is probably best removed outright. Most of the files the bot removes seem to be existing files which have been subsequently added to more articles in addition to the one for which they have been provided a rationale; so, such files aren't at risk of being deleted per WP:F5 when removed from the rationale-less articles. In cases where there is the potential for a file to be deleted per F5, the uploader is notified and given five days to sort things out, and administrators review files before deleting anything. So, if someone added a rationale but simply didn't do so correctly, things are usually fixed before anything gets deleted. If there's no valid rationale provided though even after five days, then nothing can be fixed and the file should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

PIFSS image deletion

@JJMC89: You recently deleted the image I uploaded which is the logo of the public institution for social security, the logo is owned by the Public institution for social security of Kuwait but I am unsure of which specific graphic artist made it, I have specified the Linkedin of the organization as source. Can you advise which author we should specify this under ? SUPERGTOR (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@SUPERGTOR: This appears to be have been resolved by another editor. For future reference, JJMC89 didn't delete any files; it was removed by JJMC89 bot because it was lacking a separate, specific non-free use rationale for its use in the Public Institution For Social Security Fund. Non-free files are required to have two things per WP:NFC#Implementation: a file copyright license and a non-free use rationale for each use. When you uploaded the file, you provided the copyright license, but you failed to provide the required rationale. You also failed to provide a source for the file. This is why the file was tagged for speedy deletion and removed from the article. You don't necessarily need to provide the name of the graphic artist who designed the logo (it's great if you can, but typically not necessary); you should, however, provide a source as well as a rationale for each use if you upload any other non-free files in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Climax (Usher song)

Why is your bot removing the music sample when its page clearly has a non-free rationale ? Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ellaline Terriss

Hi. You removed a source from Terriss's page, calling it "spam". Would you please explain on the Talk page what is wrong with this source. It certainly has info that verifies the information and seems, on its face to be a good source. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a fansite that was spammed by a couple of SPAs (presumably the site owner). — JJMC89 08:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Image for Under the Radar Volume 2

Hiya,

Your bot has deleted the infobox picture on File:Under the Radar Volume 2 album cover.jpg twice now, giving the rationale "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page." Could you please explain why this image is seemingly being singled out, or what I need to do to avoid the situation repeating? As far as I'm concerned, the image has a perfectly decent non-free usage rationale, which I've used on many album cover uploads. Many thanks --Jonie148 (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Jonie148: The bot wasn’t singling you out; it has no idea who you are. The rationale was malformed due to a link syntax error and the use of WP:PRE syntax. This was not allowing the rationale’s template to work as intended, which in turn was making hard for the bot to properly read. I think I fixed that problem, but you should go back and fill in all of the parameters of the template. You shouldn’t really be using “n.a.” if at all possible and you shouldn’t leave the “Portion used” and “Low resolution?” parameters as they are. If you’re not sure how to complete the rationale, try looking at WP:FUR for guidance. You might also find Template:Non-free use rationale album cover a bit easier to use fir this kind of file since it was developed specifically for album covers. The template you used is OK, but it’s more general and might be a bit harder to complete. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Altered Rationale and image deletion

@JJMC89:On 9/10/2021 without giving any reason you deleted "rationale=yes|auto=yes" from File:Golden Ticket Awards.jpg and now your bot keeps deleting the image from Amusement Today. The file has rationale, why did you delete it, and why does your bot insist on deleting the image from the page? It has been there for more than a year. Why, all of sudden is the rationale no good? What is wrong with it?—JlACEer 02:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@JlACEer: There are a number of things that don’t appear to be true in what you posted above. First, JJMC89 didn’t delete the file; he only tagged it the file for speedy deletion per WP:F5 because it was an orphaned non-free file. Second, the file didn’t have a non-free use rationale for its use in Amusement Today per WP:NFCCE and a link was left to WP:NFC#Implementation innan edit summary each time the bot removed (which isn’t the same as delete) the file. So, claiming that no reason was given for removing the file from that article isn’t true. The |Image rationale=yes was removed because the rationale on the file’s page was for Golden Ticket Award for Best New Ride. You have subsequently tried to change the rationale so that’s for “Amusement Today”, but you’re actually not doing so correctly and you’ve just created new problems. The rationale now is no longer applicable to the Golden Ticket article which means that the bot will start removing the file from that article. My suggestion to you is to revert the change you made to the file’s rationale and then a completely new rationale for the file’s use in Amusement Today. The justification for the two non-free uses isn’t really the same; so, make sure the new rationale you add is specific to the way the file is being used in Amusement Today. When you’re done there should be a separate specific rationale provided for each of the file’s uses on its page. If you’re not sure how to write a rationale, please look here. Finally, please take a look at WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED for a possible explanation why the file was flagged for review after a year. The fact that something has been in an article for a long time could be that nobody noticed it might be an issue until recently. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC); [Note: Post amended by Marchjuly per below. —- 05:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)]

Stop stalking me. If you have something to discuss, do it on my talk page, or better yet, LEAVE ME ALONE. I never said JJMC89 deleted the file, I said he deleted the rationale which then allowed his bot to kick in. If you know so much about what is wrong with the file then why don't you just fix it? Stop chasing me around Wikipedia trying to impress me with your ability to link numerous shortcuts — I don't have time to do all this research.—JlACEer (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m not stalking you. I regularly post here and on Explicit’s user talk pages because the three of us are all active in the file namespace. I was only trying to explain why the bot keeps removing the file and what you can do to stop it from doing so. You are correct in that you didn’t state JJMC89 deleted the file; so, my apologies for that. However, the responsibility for providing a valid non-free use rationale falls upon the editor wanting to use a non-free file in a particular way. I already explained why I don’t think the file’s non-free use can be justified in “Amusement Today” on Explicit’s user talk page; so, I’m not going to add a rationale for a use I don’t think is justifiable. Non-free content use can be tricky which means that you do have to do some research about how such files are allowed to be used if you want to avoid running problems. The short-cuts links were to help you find information relevant to the issue at hand; they weren’t added to try show off or impress anyone. Again, my apologies if that’s how things seemed to you. You’re free to ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria if you still believe the bot was mistakenly removing the file. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

JlACEer: Marchjuly is not stalking you. If I see any more baseless accusations like that from you, I will block you. I did not delete the rationale. As someone using non-free content, it is your responsibility to know and follow the policy, not anyone else's to address your shortcomings. — JJMC89 01:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

JlACEer: The rationale was never any good for use in Amusement Today. Until shortly before you posted here there never was one for that article. Those parameters were (erroneously) added to the license template by a bot. They have no impact on what my bot does. — JJMC89 01:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Maureen sock again

Special:Contributions/Yufeio. Is there any way to apply an IP block to this long-term SP? Maybe also an edit notice on the article? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Callanecc took care of blocking. I'm not sure what an editnotice would accomplish. — JJMC89 01:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Amalgamated Engineering Union

Hi, why do you keep removing the image from the Amalgamated Engineering Union article? There is a non-free use rationale on the image talk page which I believe to be valid, but am happy to amend if it's worded wrongly. Warofdreams talk 02:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but you seem to have figured out the problem. — JJMC89 01:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing "female" to "women" in category names

This bot has been making hundreds, thousands or maybe more edits like this one, changing categories with "female" in their name to have "women" in their name instead. Strangely, the justification given for all these changes is just "per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy", though, rather than an actual discussion. Where was the discussion of this? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy moves don't have a discussion. You can check the history of that page to see the requests that have been made. These is a discussion at WT:CFD related to this. — JJMC89 01:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Alvaro Cartea's article

Hi there, I think that you requested Alvaro Cartea's article to be moved to draft. He is an important economics professor at Oxford, with published work and several external references. The article is factual and in line with Wikepedia politics. Why would you move it to draft? I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseovaldia (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not, Mcmatter moved it. — JJMC89 01:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Removal of seal

Hi! I noticed that you delted the infobox pcture on File:Ph seal Baguio.png insignia I placed for the Mayor of Baguio page. This is the page for the mayor of the city, not a specific politician, which will be a WP:NFCC violation(s). All pages of mayors here have the city or municipal logo or their own (some do) placed in their respective wiki pages, such as Mayor of Manila, Mayor of Cebu City, Mayor of Quezon City and Mayor of Davao City, to name a few. Please explain to me further what rules I violated. Would appreciate it a lot. Thanks! Ejeigh123 --Ejeigh123 (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove it. The edit summary specifies why it was removed – there is no non-free use rationale for that article. — JJMC89 05:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Bot

In my opinion your bot if behaving in a high-handed way. It could be giving advice but it is just appears to be creating attention for itself and work. The bot is surely your responsibility and it should be referring those who are puzzled by its arbitrariness to talk to you. It seems much better to have a discussion. I do not understand what it is doing and in what way it is improving the encyclopedia and its method of creation. Victuallers (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Victuallers: I'm assuming you're referring to File:Olive Fraser died 1977.png. If you have questions about the edit summary the bot left, then it's OK to ask them either of the bot operator or at WP:MCQ; however, the file's removal wasn't "unexplained" as you claim. If you simply re-add a non-free file removed by the bot without addressing the reason why it was removed, the bot will simply remove it again. The bot links to WP:NFC#Implementation where it states in bold that " a non-free rationale is needed for each use of the image on Wikipedia". There is no such rationale provided for the file's use in Olive Fraser; so, the bot removed the file from that article. It's the responsibility of the person want to use a non-free file in a particular way to add a rationale for that use to the file's page as explained here. So, if you think the non-free use of the file in the Fraser article is justified, then adding the missing rationale to the file's page should stop the bot from removing. It's not clear why you added a non-free use rationale for the article 1977 when you uploaded the file. Perhaps that was just an oversight, but there's really no way for the bot to know that. Moreover, there's really no way to justify the non-free file's use in "1977", and the justification you did give wouldn't be applicable anyway since "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article" doesn't apply to an article about a calendar year. Maybe you're referring to a different file because the bot doesn't seem to be at fault in this case? Finally, there's also another issue with that file that has to do with WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a. Generally, specific sources information is needed for non-free files to help verify their potential copyright status as explained WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion; so, if you can track down any information of the original that drawing, then that would be helpful. Otherwise, it might be better to try and find a different non-free image of Fraser to use for primary identification purposes in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The other file the bot removed (File:Elizabeth Gregory.jpg) has a non-free use rationale for Elizabeth Gregory, but not for Elizabeth Bugie where the file was actually being used. Perhaps this is once again an error, but it’s not an error made by the bot; it’s an error made by whomever added the “wrong” article name to the rationale. If the article was recently WP:MOVEd, then that might be the reason for the problem. When an article is moved, split or merged, those doing such things often forget to check the images being used in the articles. This matters for non-free images because it almost always means the rationale on the file’s page needs to be updated accordingly. Re-adding the file without updating the rationale will only lead to it continuing to be removed by the bot. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Surely the bot should check whether it was being using in the article 1977, because that would have justified the action of your bot. The detailed rationale given for the use of the image at Elizabeth Bugie Gregory specifies precisely that the image is intended to be used at Elizabeth Bugie Gregory and who she is. The rationale then uses one of her names that was Elizabeth Gregory BUT it was never used there. We should not have fair use images being used without a fair use rationale, and if your bot was finding them then it would be doing useful work. On the evidence I have seen it is just (de facto) deleting images that have small and obvious errors in their rationale - even where it obvious (even to a bot) that no fair use misuse is taking place. You can argue that these are errors created by the people who added the images but it is your bots error to remove the image when there is no real problem. My concern here is not not that the bot is deleting "my" images but that it is deleting (de facto) good work based on finding a typo and no real use of an image in the wrong place (as the two examples illustrate). In my opinion the bot needs to be stopped until it can show that it is only removing images that are being used in the wrong place. If the Olive Fraser had been used in 1977 then that would have needed fixing .... but it wasn't. Can you reassure me? Victuallers (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A couple of things in response:

1. It's not my bot and I'm not very familiar with the technical aspects of how it works. My guess is that the bot is looking for links in the non-free rationales of files in the to see whether there there is a rationale provided for each of its non-free files uses. The bot seems to only be looking for non-free files which violate WP:NFCC#9 and Wp:NFCC#10c; so, it's not really assessing whether a rationale is valid. I have noticed that the bot does sometimes seem to make corrections when there are obvious errors (e.g. linking to a dab page or a misspelling of an article name), but I don't believe the bot is capable of reading a rationale and using what's written in the file's description or caption, etc. to connect a file to a certain article. The bot cannot assess whether something is being used in the "wrong place" or "right place". So, the bot can't really say that the file shouldn't be used in the "1977" article, only that it didn't find a rationale for the "Olive Fraser" article. Same goes for the Bugie article; it can't decide whether Elizabeth Gregory and Elizabeth Bugie are the same person; it only sees that there was no rationale provided for the latter. I think the bot can detect redirects; so, if Elizabeth Bugie Greagory existed and redirected to Elizabeth Bugie and Elizabeth Bugie Greagory was the article that was linked to in the rationale, I don't think the bot would've removed the file. Since JJMC89 set up the bot, he probably can better explain the technical side of it.
2. The bot doesn't delete files; it removes files. That might seem like a semantic distinction, but only an administrator can delete a file. If a bot removes a file being used in multiple articles because one of those uses is non-compliant, the file is still being used so there's no risk of it being deleted. If the bot removes a file from the only page it's being used on, the file becomes orphaned and will be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5. The same thing, however, would happen if a human editor removed the file as well per WP:NFCCE. Uploaders of non-free files tagged for F5 deletion are supposed to be notified of such and there's a five-day grace period given to try and resolve the issue. There are also other editors who work in the file namespace who review such tags; so, often someone else will try and fix the problem if they can before it even gets to an administrator review. If nobody does anything for five days, the reviewing administrator will also try and see if there's an easy fix. If not, the file is deleted. F5 deletions are usually considered non-contentious and files are almost always WP:REFUNDed if requested even if quite a bit of time has passed since deletion. The only time an F5 deletion is unlikely to be refunded is when the file was deleted for an NFCC#9 violation and there's no place to use the file in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#7.
3. My observation has been that most of the NFCC#10c violating files the bot removes are ones added to articles without the required rationales. Many people just seem to assume that all files are the same and can be used equally on any page on Wikipedia. It's not totally uncommon for someone who means well but who is unfamiliar with non-free content use to add a non-free file to lots of others article without trying to justify their use (i.e. providing a non-free use rationale for each use). I've seen cases where non-free files have been added to ten or more articles pretty much at the same time by the same editor without the required rationales. So, the bot primary does remove non-free images that don't have corresponding rationales for a particular use. There are some cases where things aren't as obvious, but once again it is the responsibility for those wanting to use a file in a particular way to make sure there's a proper rationale for that use. I'm not sure what limitations the bot has, but I'm not sure how anything can be "obvious to a bot" particularly if it's not obvious to the person's adding the malformed of incorrect rationales to begin with. You posted your original comment above without apparently even noticing the two fairly obvious errors that existed in the rationales; if they weren't obvious to you when you uploaded the files, then why should they be obvious to the bot or anyone else . It's only because the bot noticed them, then the issues were resolved. We can disagree as to whether such things are "real issues", but it's not all that different in my opinion from adding unsourced content to an article. The WP:ONUS falls upon the person adding such content to provide a reliable source in support or otherwise the content can be removed. The same ONUS falls upon the person adding a non-free file to an article; they need to provide a valid rationale for that use or the file can be removed. For sure, syntax errors might be things (if possible) that the bot should detect, but links to figuring out whether the wrong article has been linked (outside of dab pages of minor spelling errors) might be beyond what any bot can do.
4. Fair use and non-free content use aren't the same things when it comes to Wikipedia as explained here. The bot isn't assessing whether a file is acceptable fair use; only whether it satisfies WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c as required by WP:NFCC. The bot leaves an edit summary explaining why it removes a file, provides a link to the relevant policy page and also provides a link to where questions can be asked. Hopefully, those things are enough for someone to catch anything like a simple syntax error or a incorrect article, but in some cases the latter in particular might require a more closer review of a file than any bot is capable of and simply re-adding the file without actually addressing the reasons why the file was removed or at least asking for clarification won't help because the bot is almost certainly unable to understand edit summaries like "Undid unargued revision". WP:REVTALK doesn't always work when dealing with human editors, but I don't think has a chance of working when dealing with a bot.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As Marchjuly notes fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content policy are not the same. The latter is (intentionally) stricter. If you are going to use non-free media, it is your responsibility – not mine or anyone else's – to ensure that it complies with all points of the policy, including having a non-free use rationale specific to each use.

The detailed rationale given for the use of the image at Elizabeth Bugie Gregory specifies precisely that the image is intended to be used at Elizabeth Bugie Gregory and who she is. No, it didn't. The rationale specified that was intended to be used in Elizabeth Gregory. Even if it did specify Elizabeth Bugie Gregory, that doesn't exist, so it would be invalid. What you call an obvious error to a bot, is not obvious to a bot, only a human. You explicitly specified use in one article, but used it in a different one. The bot does catch and fix certain errors: page moves from the specified article to the article title it is currently used in and some incorrect/missing disambiguation.

[It] is your bots error to remove the image when there is no real problem. No, it isn't an error for my bot to remove policy violations – it is approved (and has been for years) to do just that, and policy violations, particularly those with legal considerations, are a problem. The errors here are yours.

based on finding a typo Neither of your examples are typos. Even if they were, the bot cannot tell if something is a typo. It does recognize redirects as those are acceptable per policy.

In my opinion the bot needs to be stopped until it can show that it is only removing images that are being used in the wrong place. It will not be stopped. As has already been explained, they were being used in the incorrect place – different articles than specified in the rationales.

— JJMC89 05:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the coordinate conversion bot still available?

In poking around {{Infobox settlement}} errors, I have found that somewhere around 300 articles are using some form of |latitude= and related parameters, which your bot helped to eradicate in 2017. It looks like some of them are manual additions and some are reverts of the articles to the pre-bot-run state. Do you still have that bot code available to run through a subset of articles? I'll be happy to make a list for you if that helps. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I still have the code. The issue is that parameters like |latitude= were not valid for that template, so the bot never handled them. User:JJMC89 bot/config/InfoboxCoordinatesParametersMigrator/Infobox settlement has the ones that were valid. — JJMC89 06:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. I guess I never went through and finished the cleanup, or people have added |latitude= to 300+ articles since 2017 even though it doesn't work. If you have a minute to run through this list of articles with |latd= (as of the start of the month database dump), that would make a small dent in things. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)