User talk:JJMC89

This user has opted out of talkbacks

File:Yellowhead Highway (Alberta).svg

Hi JJMC89. File:Yellowhead Highway (Alberta).svg was flagged by JJMC89 bot for a NFCC#9 violation in Template:Infobox road/testcases/CAN. I can see the file being used in the template's test cases page, but it looks like it's being transcluded by template from Alberta Highway 16. Since I can't find the file's syntax anywhere in the "Highway 16" article, I can't try WP:NOINCLUDE; so, my guess it might somehow be being transcluded into that article via {{Infobox road}}. Would you mind taking a look at this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

It was in Module:Road data/strings/CAN/AB. I reverted the addition there. — JJMC89 17:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am wanting to use the non-free File:Yellowhead Highway (Alberta).svg, as opposed to the generic File:Yellowhead Blank.svg for Alberta Highway 16 and Yellowhead Trail (article that represents Alberta Highway 16 in Edmonton) as it's the official shield used on the route. The non-free shields are used for Saskatchewan Highway 16, Manitoba Highway 16, and Winnipeg Route 85, so I am wanting to replicate that for the Alberta-based articles.

Other Alberta Highways with non-free images are:

• Alberta Highway 1A (Bow Valley Trail)
• Alberta Highway 2 (Queen Elizabeth II Highway)
• Alberta Highway 3 / British Columbia Highway 3 / Crowsnest Highway

And others. Image was obtained through Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors [1], with their full sign catelogue listed here [2].

Thank you. MuzikMachine (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You are only permitted to do so if you don't also introduce policy violations at the same time. (See above.) — JJMC89 01:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@JJMC89 Can you please advise as to what policy violations and how to successfully integrate it? This image was previously used prior to 2021 and I'm trying to revert it back. Thank you. MuzikMachine (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

See Marchjuly's initial post above for the violation. I'm not going to dig into the module to figure it out. — JJMC89 16:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@MuzikMachine: It looks like File:Yellowhead Blank.svg was added by you with this edit in June 2023. You then changed the file to File:Yellowhead Highway (Alberta).svg and removed the hidden note about non-free use with this edit in September 2025. It's not clear why you did the latter, but non-free content is not allowed to be used in this way which is why JJMC89 bot flagged the file for review and why JJMC89 removed it. You could go back to using the "Yellowhead Blank" file again, if you want. You could also seek consensus at WP:FFD for the non-free file to be used on the module's page, but I don't really think you'll have much success of convincing others to allow it. As for other non-free files you mentioned above, if they're being used in ways non-compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, then their issues should be addressed as well. However, none of the non-free files in the articles you mentioned above appear to be being used in ways that's not in compliance with this policy (at least not at first glance).

Finally, you were able to get c:COM:CONSENT for the "Yellowhead Blank" file you uploaded to Commons back in 2018, weren't you? Have you tried doing the same for the non-free "Yellowhead Highway (Alberta)" you uploaded last month? The primary difference between the two files seems to be the addition of the word "Alberta" and perhaps some minor color tweaks, neither of which are typically considered creative enough for copyright protection. If you were the one who obtained VRT verification of the "Yellowhead Blank" file's licensing, you might want to ask at c:COM:VRTN to see whether the same VRT ticket for the file you uploaded in 2018 might also be applied to the most recent version of the sign. You could also ask whomever you asked before for consent to send another email to VRT (if necessary) for verification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly here's the background everything.

• The image under File:Yellowhead Highway (Alberta).svg was original non-free image used prior to 2021, as previously mentioned.
• Another user was able to obtain c:COM:CONSENT for File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16.png - based off that template I created and uploaded an SVG versions using the BC-style for File:BC-5 (Yellowhead).svg, File:BC-5 (Yellowhead).svg, and File:BC Yellowhead blank.svg
• I also created File:Yellowhead Blank.svg buy squaring the boarders of File:BC Yellowhead blank.svg to be used for in Template:Jct. At some point another user superseded the Alberta non-free version with this file to be used in the Infobox, although that generic version is technically incorrect to how it's posted in the field (see File:Trans Canada Highway (3981446694).jpg)

I've been attempting to correct this error by going back to how things were pre-2021, but have been hitting these roadblocks. I am a novice when it comes to the nuances of copyright law, non-free/free imagery, etc.; I only know what's posted in the field and am trying to determine the best avenue to do so.

I'll try exporting File:Yellowhead Highway (Alberta).svg based on the c:COM:CONSENT and see what happens.

Thanks. MuzikMachine (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

​ If the pre-2021 file was non-free, then it shouldn't have been used in any ways that did not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; if it was used in a non-compliant way, then perhaps nobody noticed. If someone was able to obtain consent for a free equivalent version of the sign, then a non-free is no longer needed per WP:FREER, and it should be deleted. I wouldn't recommend exporting any possibly non-free files to Commons because they most likely end up being tagged for deletion (perhaps fairly quickly). People who do things like that just to see what happens sometimes end up gettng blocked. It's better to ask for help first at c:COM:VPC, c:COM:HD or maybe even c:COM:AN. I also wouldn't try adding any {{Permission ticket}} templates to files either on Wikipedia or Commons if you're not a VRT member. If you do that even with the best of attentions, the file will most likely end up being deleted and someone might accuse you of intentionally trying to subvert or game the VRT process. What you can do, though, is ask to post a request at c:COM:VRTN (or WP:VRTN) and ask that a VRT member take a look at the ticket (there's a ticket number on the file's page) and see whether it cuold also possibly apply to to the non-free file. My understanding is that some of the consent emails VRT receives are worded in such a way that only applies to one specific file, whereas others are worded in a way that allows them to cover multiple files of the same copyright holder. I'm not a VRT member so I can't check myself, but someone who is might be able to determine that for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Musica... fantasia

Sorry but the image has no infringement as it is an alternative cover for the Barocco (album) by Rondò Veneziano, withwith an unreleased track. Driante70 (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Driante70: The bot removed File:Musica... fantasia.jpg from Barocco (album) because you had an incorrectly listed first Concerto (album) and then Concerto (Rondò Veneziano album) as the article where the file was intended to be used in the non-free use rationale on the file's page. This is what the bot was "seeing" when it removed the file for WP:NFCC#10c reasons. Now that you've corrected your mistake and correctly listed Barocco as where the file is being used, the bot shouldn't remove the file again. This is mistake that often happens when someone copying-and-pasting a non-free rationale for one file onto the page of another file; it's not a huge mistake perhaps, but it's the kind of mistake that this particular bot will notice. So, please keep that in mind for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Australian Capital Territory.svg

Hi JJMC89. In its latest run, JJMC89 bot flagged File:Flag of the Australian Capital Territory.svg as violating NFCC#9 on several pages. I've tried to cleanup a few (not totally sure I did it correctly), but I can't figure out how the flag is being used in Module:Flags/MasterData or how it might've been added. Could you take a look at this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Country data Cocos (Keeling) Islands § Edit request 2 October 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Country data Cocos (Keeling) Islands § Edit request 2 October 2025. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg is another non-free file JJMC89 bot found in its latest run. It's currently being used more than a hundred times inviolation of NFCC#9 or NFCC#10c. I think I figured out the ssource of the problem was a good-faith edit request at Template talk:Country data Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I've asked the user who responded to the request to undo their addition of the flag and hopefully they'll respond soon. Would you mind monitoring the page for a bit just in case they don't respond in a timely manner. It also might be a good idea to add an WP:EDITNOTICE to the template's page if possible regarding non-free content use to try and prevent something similar from happening again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The file was removed from the template by the user who added it, but it still is being used 431 times (mostly in violation of NFCC#9 and NFCC#10c). Perhaps it just takes time to flush it out of the system, but it could also have something to do with transclusion via {{flag icon}} and {{flagg}}. Would you mind taking a closer look if the file's still being used so many times after a reasonable bit of time has passed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The job queue will take care of the transclusions in a non-zero but somewhat reasonable amount of time, typically minutes to hours, but sometimes days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The number of pages listed as using the file in violation of NFCC#9 has dropped to four: two are in the user namespace and two are in the module namespace. The two in the user namespace are User:Mad Pierrot/Sandbox 1 and User:Sesel/Country list, and it looks like in both cases the flag file is being transcluded from some other page via a template. I've got no idea how modules really work and don't know how to sort them out. Anyway, User:Mad Pierrot hasn't edited since 2010; so, there's not much point in asking them about their sandbox page. The other user Sesel, however, is still active; so, I will let them know about this discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I blanked that sandbox page. It was doing a simple ifexist test for the file and displaying it if it existed. I don't see the flag on Sesel's page. It is protected, so I can't null-edit it to purge the usage from the database. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I was able to figure out (I think) where the syntax was on the module pages and removed it. All the problematic uses appear now to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)