Proposed deletion of European Federation of Animal Science


The article European Federation of Animal Science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ORG. There don't appear to be sufficient independent reliable sources to warrant an article for this organisation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. gobonobo + c 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for merger of Template:WPASIA10k


 Template:WPASIA10k has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Asia. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:WPAFR10k


 Template:WPAFR10k has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 17:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you intending to comment at these discussions? The reason they were necessary is that you opposed the merge. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 6 § Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Animal breeds by colour


A tag has been placed on Category:Animal breeds by colour indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of China Navigation Company for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article China Navigation Company, 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/China Navigation Company 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, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reason for deleting an article


Hello, I am about to create an article(a biography), but i saw that the pages of the title have recently been deleted/removed, the last action was by you, so i just wanted to ask if there is any specific reason behind it(coz many articles that people tried to create about the same person have been removed), is it like they were writing incorrect and unreliable information there? or is it controversial? Just confirming with you so that i can go ahead with creating the page.

This is the page that was deleted by you. 22:34, 14 November 2023 Justlettersandnumbers talk contribs deleted page Manoj Jarange Patil (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace)

or you can just visit this link and see the log AnalyserOP (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for asking, AnalyserOP. Given the embattled history of that page and your relatively brief experience in this project, may I suggest that you work instead on the draft version of the page, which is here? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh. Alright, if you say. I'm a new contributor still, shouldn't be writing a whole new article. Thanks for the suggestion. AnalyserOP (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mark Gillespie (producer)


I note that you sent this for G11, which was declined. You may wish to influence its fate either way at AfD. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reverted promo edit



Just a quick query that I’m hoping you can help me with…

Back on 2/1/24 you reverted a promo/copyvio edit on the page for Legal & General. The text of that edit is now no longer on the article history (presumably due to the copyvio).

The reverted editor has now declared a COI and has attempted to make a complete rewrite of the lead part of the current article via a request at the talk page (i.e. following the correct process).

I wonder if you could take a look and let me know if the new request bears any similarity to the material that you previously reverted.

Any assistance gratefully received. Axad12 (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note, Axad12! As you've probably seen, I removed a small amount of copyvio from the same source as before, and also commented on the merits of the edit request. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks for your help here. There has been quite a lot of disruptive promo editing on that page (and also the page of the company's former CEO) over the last 18 months, mostly by redlink SPAs and IP addresses. Hopefully it will now end, as declaring the COI doesn't make it any easier for them to introduce promotional text. They've been directed to WP:PROMO on maybe 10 previous occasions, but maybe this time they will get the message. Thanks again. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, just a quick query following on from the above...
You may recall that there was a disclosed paid COI editor trying to make some promo edits to the page for Legal & General.
My understanding was that a disclosed COI meant that changes could only be made via suggestions at article talk pages, however I note that the user recently changed the photo on the article for the company's previous CEO Nigel Wilson (businessman) without discussion. (They have stated in the edit summary that they have permission, but I'm interpreting that as being permission to use the revised photo, not permission to make the edit).
Interested to hear your thoughts here. Axad12 (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Axad12! In the greater scheme of things I don't think adding or changing a photo is too terrible a thing for a COI/paid editor to do. In this case it turned out to be a copyvio, so has been deleted on Commons – you might like to revert to an earlier version of that page with the previous photo. I've tried to give the user a bit more advice/guidance. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for getting back to me. I agree that it was a fairly minor thing. I'm just concerned that every edit that this user makes ends up falling foul of PROMO, COPYVIO or both and ends up being reverted.
The same can be said for the other (apparently linked) accounts which have made identical edits to the same 3 pages going back now over about 18 months (and which in all likelihood have all been the same end user).
If all of that activity had been on a single account there's every chance the user would have been blocked some time ago, but as it is they just continue to waste other users' time. Axad12 (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply



Hi. I hope you are doing well. I edited the page after this deletion banner and I am sure this time it is not advertising. And I wanted to know page is well cited and I have added lots of refrences so, Why you delete the page. Will you please help me regarding it? Humaira28 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I request you to reconsider that. Humaira28 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) User has repeatedly re-created this as a draft and is now using a sock account User:Aira28 to add more versions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
if i stop doing this. Actually I did not know about this. If I work from main account only will it be fine? Aira28 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Its my first time in wikipedia that is why i do not know about accounts. Please tell me if I start working from previous one and never open this one will it be fine? Aira28 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand what you are saying about neutrability. I will resubmit it again in neutral words and as it is my first time on Wikipedia, I did not know about accounts. so, sorry for this. It wont happen again. But please delete it fast so I can submit a neutral one. Aira28 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
And this time was the article fine? Aira28 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Humaira28, yes it will be OK if you continue only to use your Humaira28 account and no other. I have blocked the Aira28 account; I very strongly advise you not to create any other – that will almost certainly ensure that you are permanently unable to edit here.
About your draft, you ask "Will you please help me regarding it?"; I'm sorry, but the answer is no, I have no interest in helping you to promote Ms Focardi (or anything/anyone else) in this project – Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Please be warned that any further promotion on that topic is likely to result in an immediate and permanent withdrawal of your editing privileges. If you are that person, please read this; if you are someone who has been paid to write about her, please read this. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Text removal


Thank you for your message. I am hardly a beginner, but thank you for your editing for beginners link. I do believe you have made a mistake, but I simply don't care enough to take on a battle I will lose. An editor removed a large amount of material and deleted a page, leaving a note that any of the deleted information could then be incorporated into a main article that was remaining in place. The text you do not like refers to plot lines and character traits. Anything that can only truly be confirmed by actually watching the episodes being described. There are literally THOUSANDS of wikipedia articles with plotlines and character details that are not referenced and nor can they be. They are character descriptions. Plot lines. Unreferenceable. I note you have not deleted the main article pages for the characters in Absolutely Fabulous, none of which are referenced. The edits in question you do object to are sub articles of that same page. You have merely decided to select this one page and this one attempt to reinstate text that existed for many years on wikipedia without concerning anyone. I am sure you are now working hard on every page relating to every movie and every TV series that exists on wikipedia to remove all unreferenced plot lines and character traits. A mammoth task and I wish you well with that undertaking to ensure that the guidelines are followed to the letter in every single article mentioning any fictional character. It could take years. Good luck! MWEditorial (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply



Why did you remove my article? What factual error was there? Anponline (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anponline, you can see the reason for the deletion by going here. It was "WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". This project does not tolerate promotion of any kind, so stuff like " ... he carved his path in the sport, leaving an indelible mark on the Indian motocross scene ..." is completely unacceptable. Were you paid to write – or to post – that stuff? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can I publish this article if I omit that specific reference?
I have not received any payment from anyone to write this article. To be a 5-time national champion and then come back 11 years later to be a national champion again is legendary in a sport where physical fitness is as important as motocross. As a motocross enthusiast, I really wish the man had a wiki page. I think you will realize how important this is in a third world country like India where motocross is still in its infancy. He is a living legend. He proved that age is just a number. Anponline (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Anponline, the whole page was written in a tone entirely unsuitable for an encyclopaedia – another example: "... the tireless pursuit of excellence, unwavering dedication, and an ever-present desire to push his limits ...". Try again if you wish, but if you write any more content like that you risk indefinite loss of editing privileges in this project. Where did you get that appalling pap from, by the way? Every sentence you write must be (a) neutral in tone and (b) supported by independent reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your feedback. I will try to correct my tone. Anponline (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

CSD decline


I have declined your G11 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Young Jimmy. It is obvious that the draft was created for the purpose of promotion, but I don't think that the actual content of the page is so blatantly promotional as to justify speedy deletion. The speedy tag was on the article for more than 2 days, which is sufficiently unusual to make me suspect that I was far from being the only administrator who was reluctant to decline the deletion because it's the kind of thing that should be deleted, but unwilling to actually delete it because it doesn't really satisfy any of the speedy criteria. JBW (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note, JBW, good to see you! I'd realised that no-one wanted to actually push the button on this and was planning to remove the tag myself, so you've saved me the trouble! In my view we should be as free to delete pages that actually are advertisements (including all WP:UPE) as we are to delete those which just look like advertisements, but I'm not going to waste time trying to get the G11 criterion changed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I totally agree with you on your point about deleting things which are advertisements whether they blatantly look like it or not, but I came to the conclusion many years ago that consensus is solidly against that interpretation. Incidentally, if we applied that criterion then virtually all paid editing would be banned. JBW (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

User talk:CancerRounds24


You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ref spam.


Hey I noticed you rolled back some of my alternate accounts edits. I came across said citation whilst studying and added it to the articles to help either expand them with new content or to add as a secondary citation to already sourced claims.

I don't have any affiliation with that specific textbook beyond using it in my study.

If adding similar content like that to multiple articles is disallowed under another policy I will refrain from it but I don't see it as being ref spam. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, Traumnovelle, didn't know that was you (what do you need a second account for?). A new user adding the same source to one article after another certainly looked like refspam. No, I don't think there's any other policy or guideline that disallows such additions, but you might perhaps give some consideration to WP:WEIGHT, both as Sacristy and as yourself. Anyway, now I'm going to get back to the Wirehaired Vizsla ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to split my account from my home PC and work/study laptop. Don't wish to get carried away with my watchlist or other notifications and simply add material I come across as I have the chance.
I don't think adding those mentions from the textbook gives undue weight but I can reduce it to more specific articles and content.
May I restore some of the additions? Traumnovelle (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Traumnovelle, you don't need my permission, please do as you wish! But if you'll allow me a suggestion, I'd concentrate on ailments that are unique or particular significant to a specific breed – some of these additions look to my uninformed eye a bit like, say, "German people may suffer from bunions". Are you sure that five-minute guide is the best source? A couple that I've sometimes cited are:
  • Ronaldo C. Da Costa, Curtis W. Dewey (2015). Practical Guide to Canine and Feline Neurology, third edition, ebook. Ames, Iowa: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781119062042 and
  • Alex Gough, Alison Thomas (2004). Breed Predispositions to Disease in Dogs and Cats. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 9781405107488.
Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll revert just a few specific ones then such as colour dilution alopecia in Yorkshire Terriers.
The book itself is probably not the best source for breed dispositions as it's typically just a one line mention. It'd probably be better to focus on specific sources such as the breed predisposition book or sources that do more than an overview of a condition. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply



i observe my page had a delete request by you @Justlettersandnumbersj and was eventually deleted. i would like to inquire the reason for this actoin Coding4kidshub (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

(by talk reader) @Coding4kidshub: Thanks for not reading anything that was posted to your user talk page about this issue. By posting here, I found out about your promotional efforts so I've reported you to WP:UAA. Expect to be soft-blocked in the next couple hours. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
its not a promotional effort and i am just asking for reasons so as to no what was wrong in my post and to avoid such mistake @Justlettersandnumbers @Chris troutman Coding4kidshub (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Coding4kidshub, I deleted the page as WP:G11, unambiguous promotion. It was full of stuff like "... [he] is known for his resilience & dogged work ethics, commitment to community development and humanity" and "... completed numerous business courses online to enhance his entrepreneurial skills". This is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn or something; our content is written in a WP:neutral aseptic tone. Where did you get all that stuff from, by the way? – there was not one reference cited in the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



Hi, Could you please stop rejecting every edit for my Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

[[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Is it possible to stop rejecting every change to my Wikipedia page? (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

What would it take for you to leave a page alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcangel27 (talkcontribs) 16:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy Deletion of my Draft


Hi @Justlettersandnumbers, you recently deleted my article from my user page claiming that I am using Wikipedia as a free web-hosting service.But if you would have took the effort to translate a little bit of it, you might have realised that it is a draft for a translation I was making for the actual article "David Goggins" . I was still working on the translation of the article. Kindly remove the ban or whatever it is, as i invested a lot of time in translating the article. You can contact me if you need to talk to me. ThanksAkProto (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, AkProto! My apologies, I didn't notice your edit summary there, as I should have. In general, stuff on this Wikipedia should be in English. I've emailed you the text of the deleted page, on the assumption that it was intended for use on the Telegu (?) Wikipedia rather than here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, Thanks for looking onto it! Appreciate it!! AkProto (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Contested speedily deletions


Hello, several of my very old articles have been deleted in a very short timespan. I have done lots of hard work to make these articles. They have stood the test of time for 10 years. Then they have been promoted for speedy deletion, and are gone in seconds. It would be better to mark them as undersourced and give a timely deadline for when they must be improved, e.g. a week. It is unreasonable to require editors to make such improvements within this short amount of time. I think you are misunderstanding Wikipedia's guidelines. The requirements you refer to for notability are sufficient, but not necessary for an article to be notable. Your selective choice of articles that you promote for deletion makes it appear that you are on a crusade against the IPSC. Sauer202 (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sauer202! I've recently deleted IPSC Moldova and some others like it under our speedy deletion criterion A7, "an article about a club, society or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" – there was simply nothing there to indicate why we should even consider having an article on that topic. 'Credible claim of significance' is a much lower threshold than our quite stringent notability requirements for companies and organisations; to be honest, I'm amazed that these pages have survived for so long without one. NB The entire content of IPSC Moldova was "IPSC Moldova is the Moldovan association for practical shooting under the International Practical Shooting Confederation". It had no independent source and no citations.
That said, I'm happy to restore any of these for which you can assure me that that you can provide enough solid independent reliable sources (with extensive in-depth coverage of the organisation itself) to demonstrate notability. It might perhaps be an idea to restore them in draft space, where you could then expand them at leisure, but your call on that. An alternative suggestion: why not create a List of members of the International Practical Shooting Confederation, and merge all those that have little or no claim of significance into that? Let me know? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this is the totally wrong way forward if we are going to encourage to improve articles. It is a cumbersome process involves so many persons on Wikipedia nominating, deleting, requesting, not restoring, justifying, restoring anyway but to draftspace, drafting, reviewing, not good enough despite how many sources, draft again, wait 6 months, and the contributor is not interested in contributing anymore because life. Why is it so hard to give contributors an opportunity, e.g. mark an article as undersourced etc. and give like 7 days to improve it? I am not interested in Draft space, that is the black hole of Wikipedia. What goes in there takes half a year to get out again, if ever, no matter how good the article is. It seems some patrollers or whatever functions they are lose eyesight and go on power trips now and then. Then again they don't last many years here in Wikipedia. I'm not going to bother. Do whatever you want. Sauer202 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, Sauer202, I understand that you think these pages should be left for you to improve. But Gibraltar Pistol Association (which is tagged for speedy deletion as I write) has remained without any citations and with no independent sourcing whatsoever since you created it in 2016.
I've suggested two possible ways of salvaging this content so that you can bring it to the point that it could be included in the encyclopaedia, but here's a third: if you like, and on your request only, I'll restore any of these pages that I've deleted to your user space so that you can develop them there without disturbance. I'm not sure if you're aware that I have not sought out any of these pages – I've just deleted some that had already been tagged for speedy deletion with a valid rationale. And BTW, it isn't only you that gets stuff deleted – look at the first few messages at the top of this page! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your patience. I appreciate your input, and may consider it at a later point. For now I have have objected that a certain person bulk nominates uncontroversial stubs which quickly gets deleted despite objection. This is a bad, bad process and seriously harms the project. Thanks again. Sauer202 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spanish Fighting Bull: Miura family photo deletion


Hi, I would argue that a photo of the bull-breeding brothers who run Miura and have for decades, indeed the only one of the brothers with their matador nephew, and more importantly the only one at all of their bull-ring on their ranch in the background, is not tangential in its relevance but central. Best, LG LucyGould (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, LucyGould, the place to argue that would be the talk-page of the article; I might argue against inclusion of the image if I could be bothered. However, more to the point, I put it to you that you placed the image there not for the reasons you mention here, but because it also includes a certain Alexander Fiske-Harrison, to whom you may have some personal or professional connection – you have made no edit in this project that is not connected to him. Please read this page and this one, and then make whatever disclosure is appropriate. Oh, and edit-warring at that page is unlikely to be productive. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand about the page mistake. Sorry, I thought it most suitable to put it to the editor who made the edit so that they would understand rather than making the assumption they follow the page. I have no existing professional or personal connection to Alexander Fiske-Harrison - if that is your worry you might want to look at the credits for three of the other photos on that page, including the one above this - he exists in the world of the bulls in Spain and crops up like any other professional in their industry. LucyGould (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, LucyGould, you've never met him, worked for him, received any payment of any kind from him, yet you happened to take this photograph of him at the Finca Zahariche in Andalucia on 13 May 2010. That's quite a remarkable coincidence, is it not? If you are, expect to be, or ever have been paid by this person or anyone associated with him, disclosure is obligatory under the Terms of Use of this project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

User page


Can you delete my user page and lock it from being created again please, as you did here on 23 April 2023? Someone created a user page for me without me wanting it. Helper201 (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

File talk:Influencegraph.PNG


Please undelete File talk:Influencegraph.PNG. As far as I can tell it isn't eligible for G8 as the base page exists. There's a version with actual content in the history to revert to. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, done, Pppery, undeleted and cleared. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Syed Afzal Abbas


I restored what you had deleted, as the article has been reverted to draft status. Background: the creating editor had converted this from draft to mainspace, draftified by New Pages Patrol, creating editor did it again, and again draftified. Given current draft status, creating editor should be allowed to attempt to add references. In my opinion, Abbas does not meet GNG, and if creating editor goes for mainspace again, deserves AfD. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

David notMD, I don't know why you thought that was a good idea. There was nothing to stop an editor from restoring that content together with the references that support it (if any can be found), and there's no reason to keep content that has none. But as well as restoring a mass of unreferenced material, you also reinserted the stuff I'd removed as a WP:BLP violation (as noted in my edit summary). Our BLP policy applies throughout the project, please take care not to insert content that violates it, even in (an excess of) good faith, as clearly is the case here. And agreed, as a minor local government official, the person is wholly non-notable. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Kavya Kishor


Hello Justlettersandnumbers, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Kavya Kishor, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G5: substantive contributions from other editors. This is the fourth time removing a CSD tag from this page, do not tag it again. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ivanvector! I assume that you've checked the contribs of those editors and confirmed that the principal ones are also blocked sockpuppets, mostly of the same user, though Miladitb is blocked as a sock of another? There are no substantive contributions from good-faith editors, just the usual gnoming/AfC routine etc. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before removing tags from further pages, and perhaps also to restore the G5 tag to this one. And by the way, if you want me not to do something, ask politely ... please. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate the work you do in new pages patrol and in fighting spam, and the message (which is a template) isn't meant to suggest that you've done anything wrong, although I do think you should not tag articles for speedy deletion under criteria that have already been declined, as you did here. As an administrator I'm solely responsible for justifying my deletions, and if a page doesn't meet the tagged criterion then I don't delete it. I know of at least one high-profile case of an admin losing their mop because of a pattern of improper speedy deletions, and in that case Arbcom was clear in their ruling that admins are not permitted to delete any page without discussion except as defined by the criteria for speedy deletion (in their words, "[a]dministrators should take care not to speedy delete pages except in the most obvious cases"). When the criterion says "no substantial edits by others", and the page has even one substantial edit by another user, then policy says I must decline. If you think that G5 should be changed to say something like "mostly no edits by others" then you can propose that at WT:CSD, and I'll happily follow that consensus if it develops. In the meantime, I can only delete pages when policy says I can, and this fell short. That's just policy, it's not a reflection on you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ivanvector, thank you for your (habitually) thoughtful reply. I see that my comment here last night reflects some temporary frustration with an unrelated (external) matter, which it should not have, my apologies. [No excuse, but the template needs to learn some manners – I doubt if I'm the only editor who doesn't appreciate being given orders.] To the matter in hand: I too am aware of that de-sysop case and (though not really for that reason) try always to err on the side of caution when reviewing speedy nominations – I believe I'm less inclined than many others to delete under A7 and G12, in particular. But for this criterion I take 'substantial' to mean something like 'actually making a significant change to the article'; in this page there is one such edit by a non-sock editor, immediately reversed as an error, so perhaps your decline is correct. Oh, and socks of the same master are all one editor, right? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well I owe you an apology anyway, I'm usually better at checking but I didn't realize you're also an admin, and probably didn't need my long-winded explanation. You're right: a page qualifies for G5 if it's only edited by socks of the page creator, G5 says it explicitly but it's also documented somewhere in an old Arbcom ruling that accounts behaving similarly can be considered one user for sanction enforcement. WP:MEAT derives from that ruling. There might have been a hiccup with this because the socks in the draft's history are tagged as belonging to two different sockfarms (so technically two users) but I'm into the weeds on those cases now and it looks like they're probably actually one organized spam operation anyway, and possibly related to a third sockfarm. So G5 might be in the cards for this after all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No apology needed, Ivanvector! The precise interpretation of the scope of the speedy criteria clearly varies from one user to another, so it's always useful to hear someone else's take (just in passing: I had chosen not to delete this as G12, as not all text was affected (37.1% on Earwig) – but then was distracted before I saved the decline). It looks as if Girth Summit is also looking into the possible connection between those two cases – see his comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parvej096388. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the source citation here?


See [1]. Your edit summary mentioned "better images," but nothing about the removal of this cited and linked source. What was the reason for its removal? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion of Draft:Arcadia School


Hey @Justlettersandnumbers Hope you are doing well.

I created a draft in the public space so that if there is any other editor who want's to work on the subject could improve... I did submit a draft before and it was rejected, and I wanted to be extra careful with the Arcadia School's draft. I was also thinking of getting help from teahouse as well. I do know that the draft had promotional language, all I did there was gathered the information from different sources and structured them. I didn't even cite any of the sources.

I have talked to the person who nominated the Draft, he says that I should ask you for the recovery of the page. Would you please restore the Draft, so I can work on it. I promise you I won't submit it till it is in accordance to the Wikipedia policies.

Also, if their is any advice you can give me in accordance, I will be utterly grateful.

Thank you. Annika59 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Annika59! Your draft was grossly promotional and entirely unsourced, a blatant advertisement, so no, I'm not prepared to restore it. If you wish, I'll email you the text, but you'd do much better to start from scratch: first assemble your independent reliable sources (at least three, with in-depth coverage of the school itself), then write neutral (cold, dispassionate, sterile) descriptive text based on those. However, before you do that, do you not need to make a paid-editor disclosure? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would, if I was paid. If I knew that the content in the draft space was subjected to regular Wikipedia policies, I would not have saved it there. I saved the draft in a hurry, that's all to it. I would start from scratch, not a problem.
By the way, I read my comment, and wanted to clarify something, that the article I submited, which was rejected was a different one. It was April Showers. If you get the time, you can see that I have followed the tone policy to the letter.
I do understand that I have to learn a lot before I am able to contribute in productive way. I really appriciate you taking your time out for responding to my qurry. Thank you so much. Annika59 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The whole article Ralf Schwarzer is copied from, I am unable to tag this page for copyright violation as everybodywiki is blocked on Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Grabup! Thanks for keeping an eye open for copyright problems, we need all the eyes we can get! In this case I think we're OK: if you look the History tab there, you'll see that that wiki copied from us (Draft:Ralf Schwarzer) on 2 February. I can't see whether respects the requirement to distribute our content under the same Creative Commons licence as used here, but at least the copying is attributed. I've reversed the copy-paste move to main space. Oh, and the easiest way to mention a black-listed link is to omit the https:// – doesn't ring any alarms. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion of Whatever (Channel) deletion


You recently deleted the article stated above for not being notable enough yet I provided multiple articles which indicate the channel’s claim of significance. (Discopleasant (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC))Reply

Discopleasant, the entire text was "Whatever is a channel created by Brian Atlas that’s currently a podcast and formerly a prank channel. The podcast holds conversations regarding dating advice, and gender roles"; the only reference was to YouTube. There was nothing to indicate why we might want to have a page about it in Wikipedia, no reason to think it might be important or significant. If you want to try to write about it, may I suggest that you first assemble a minimum of three solid independent reliable sources that discuss it in depth (i.e., not just passing mentions or what it says about itself), and then start a draft – at Draft:Whatever (channel), for example. Good luck, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand. Thank you for replying. (Discopleasant (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC))Reply
Hi, I did what you said and the Draft:Whatever (channel) is almost complete… how do I call for the draft to be reviewed to be accepted as an article? (Discopleasant (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC))Reply
Discopleasant, I've added a template to the page to allow you to submit the draft for review (using the blue button at bottom right). There's a large backlog, so you may need to exercise some patience. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much. I appreciate it! (Discopleasant (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC))Reply

Hello, I've found what I believe may be a copyright violation (The user's other, very similar edit involved copying). I do not have access to the source to verify if the content is a copy right violation or not. I'm unsure of what to do in this situation and I know you are familiar with dealing with copyright violations.

Here's the edit/diff in question: Traumnovelle (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply I deleted this due to the source being unreliable but I'm not sure whether this would qualify as a copyvio or not. I got a 97% detection with some AI plagiarism software but a lot of the content is facts, still some non-factual stuff is copied word for word. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply


In the third paragraph of treatment is a statement copied from:
The article is open access; however, the statement is not properly sourced.
I've removed it due to it being a predatory journal but I'm unsure of this counts as a copyright issue or not. Never mind the edit preceding this one contains a copyvio so it will be revedeled anyhow Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Article deletion?


Pl lease forgive me if this is not the right way to contact you or if I'm breaking some faux pax but what happened to the Veterinary Dentistry article? It's completely gutted. The only thing remainiare headings. Are you currently working on this? Am I just jumping the gun and you'll put it back together? Can you let me know when you're done with changes? I am upset because I've invested many hours over the course of 6 years in this article and it appears to be poofed info oblivion. n. MarialeegRVT (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most of the things removed were terms and their definitions. How is that copywrite infringement? I created an entire dental charting system and that's gone too. I compiled and built this information from a variety of sources. The version currently left is a couple of poorly written paragraphs with bad punctuation! If there was a copywrite infringement, at least let me address specifically those areas and not revert the entire article. MarialeegRVT (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also cited everything I put in the article? I didn't claim credit for anything. Again sorry if I'm not contacting you correctly or using the right lingo. MarialeegRVT (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
MarialeegRVT, the problem with the content you added was that it contained substantial copy-paste copyright violations from the sources cited, going right back to the first edit you made to the page (text copy-pasted from here). Please see your talk-page for further discussion of your edits and our copyright policy. It is extremely disappointing to have to remove such a large amount of text, but I saw no alternative in the circumstances. Anyone who wishes to rewrite part or all of the page is free to do so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I really don't understand. I actually typed out every sentence, there was no copy paste. My source was my own physical copies of text books and medical publishing.
Also, I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used as a dictionary but I did create lists of items, for instance in the dental cleaning instruments section, I mentioned a curette and next to it included a short definition of what it was and how it was used, just for clarification. How is this copywriting infringement? Does somebody own a definition? I'm not reusing somebody else's thoughts, right? It's just a fact. And the dental cleaning chart with the abbreviations are not even copied from anything, I created that! I understand what you are trying to do and I obviously don't want to cause any trouble but I am very much not understanding why the entire article needs to be deleted. Can you just point out the exact part that is a problem so I can reword it and not dump all of it? MarialeegRVT (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The intro I see I copied from AVMA website, and I now understand is not allowed, but the other parts, like on radiology and all the malocclusions are not lifted from any where. Can you show where they are because the sources I referenced are not even online they are physical, and one is a workbook supplemental for a class at school. And I compiled the lists and charts based off of my personal experience in veterinary dentistry. I mean at least give me a chance to reword the specific passages that concern you. MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That wasn't the only instance of copying/close paraphrasing; if you're in education do you not have to deal with plagiarism and writing things in your own word for assessments?
[2] this edit is a word for word copy of the article it's taken from, grammatical errors included. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That passage is cited though? MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That doesn't allow you to copy verbatim what is written. This wouldn't pass in any tertiary level education.
Quotations need to be clearly defined with an actual quotation mark, they cannot be excessive either. Most universities and institutes require no more than 10% of your writing to be direct quotations. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
[3] is this your own words? I'm suspicious because it doesn't match your usual writing style. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, not my own words but I included the citation right after it. Isn't that what I need to do? MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it isn't. I'm sorry for asking but what level of school are you in? I don't understand how you're presumably doing a tertiary level course without being aware of how plagiarism works. See WP:CV for more information. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I actually didn't even write that example you provided on the cat massage. I was just rewording what someone else had wrote because they had bad grammar. MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That statement can be easily proven false by looking at the edit history where said content doesn't exist [4]. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The added content was the rewording of the existing paragraphs to sound less colloquial and more encyclopedic; no additional information was inserted. Please take a moment to review the revision and you will find that the history corroborates this. Thank you and be well. MarialeegRVT (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
now you are just being nasty and I am genuinely trying to understand. MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can see that you are not interested in helping to educate and support people in the Wikipedia Community made those edits in good faith and thought I was doing it appropriately. Rather than try to help me understand, you imply that I am stupid. MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

MarialeegRVT, you are simply being informed that Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously, that such violations must be removed promptly when discovered, and that all editors must comply with copyright policy. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deleting this page


Could you please advise how to get this page deleted, it is talking about me without authorization Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the page: Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ahmaddarwish74, thank you for asking. I'm afraid this may not be at all easy. We do have a provision for deletion of articles about people whose notability (public reputation) is negligible or questionable (please see here), but it doesn't look as if that is the case here. If you wish, I will start a deletion discussion, in which you will be welcome to state your reasons for wishing the page to be deleted. It doesn't seem to me very likely that this will succeed, but please let me know if you'd like me start it anyway. Please note also that we don't need your permission or authorisation to have a page about you – if information about a person is published in reliable sources such as major newspapers, we may choose to have a page on that person; our internal policies prevent us from having pages about living people that are without sources, or based only on unreliable sources such as social media. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I want to request deleting the page and information about the person in this page, as he don't want to publish any information about himself. Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, Ahmaddarwish74, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. I noticed your strictly procedural open there. How do you feel about a strictly procedural close at this time? The proponent has been sock blocked. WP:SNOW due to non-sock unanimity? Cheers! JFHJr () 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion, JFHJr, but I'm going to let someone else close it. And yes, I'd noticed the socking, but chose to let someone else start the ball rolling on that too. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hanuman Books


I'll rewrite the Hanuman Books page. Valueyou (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Valueyou! Please do so at this special page (please follow the link to create it). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Sorry, just saw your note. I amended the page itself. Thank you. (talk)
Valueyou, that didn't work – the compromised text was not removed, and the page still contains an unacceptable degree of copying from the source (please see also this page).
Please start your new version of the page at the address I've provided above; you can freely copy over the outline/bare bones of the article (references, infobox, header and footer elements etc) but it is essential that you do not copy any non-free running text, as that will render the rewrite unusable. Please drop me a note here when you're ready for it to be reviewed. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Justlettersandnumbers What do you mean it does not work? What part is now copied? Show me an example please. I rewrote all the text, except the list of issues, and added text of my own from new citations. The comparison page in the link only shows that shared names, facts, and issue numbers are cited from there. I believe that is not copying but rather citing. I think I may be justified in reversing your reversal but I will wait for a short time for an answer from you. Thank you for working with me on this. Valueyou (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Valueyou, the Earwig tool is not capable of distinguishing between proper names (of places, people or books) and running text. So there's no problem with something like "Your Reason and Blake's System", but strings such as "... and New York’s Lower East Side literary and art scene", "... by boat from Madras to New York" or "... pages were sewn together by local ..." are not acceptable – it's clear that this is material copied with minimal alteration from the source.
Since you've chosen to remove the copyright blanking template from the page for a second time, I'd prefer it if you made any further comments you may have at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 April 29 rather than on this page. I strongly advise you not to remove it again. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Justlettersandnumbers Ok, I took care of the grave copyright violations indicated, such as: "the Chelsea Hotel in New York City", "and New York's Lower East Side literary and art", "pages were sewn together by local", "via telephone, fax and mail" and "boat from Madras to New York". The rest indicated were just all proper names. I strongly advise you to use your software more carefully. I've been at this since 2008 and do not enjoy being told what to do. Valueyou (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

About Dard (album)


Hey Justlettersandnumbers, you declined a CSD G5 tag on this page stating that the creator had not been blocked before its creation. I admit this sock farm is a bit of a tangled mess, which will hopefully get a little clearer once the SPI cases are merged. However, CheckUser evidence at ArjunKR92 case indicates that the account that created this page is confirmed to several other accounts, one of which had already been blocked in this case. That sockmaster has had accounts blocked since at least 2022, which is what led me to tag this page for speedy deletion. If you decide to delete it, please consider also deleting File:Dard (album).jpg. Let me know either way! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, TechnoSquirrel69! When I looked, ArjunKR92 was not blocked and not identified as a sock. If there've been changes since then I'll reconsider, of course, but no time right now. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks; there's no rush, of course, so feel free to address it when you have the time. ArjunKR92 is not a sockpuppet, and it seems like the case was opened under the wrong username. However, all of the other users brought up in the investigation were confirmed to be sockpuppets of each other, and are now all blocked. Sumer Singh Jaipur had already been blocked at a different investigation that I linked above, which has abuse dating back several years. Like I mentioned, this will probably become easier to parse once the case archives are merged by an SPI clerk. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio on talk page?

edit Would the comments that copypaste large quantities/most of the articles linked count as copyright violations? Thanks Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No time to look in detail now, Traumnovelle, but as a general observation: as long as extracts are clearly identified as quotations and are the subject of discussion I personally would not consider them a problem. Copied content not identified as a quotation should either be so identified or be removed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Undead" (Yoasobi song)


Hi Justlettersandnumbers :) I came across this page from a closed RfD, and noticed that you'd deleted it under G6 as having been created in error - however, the page's logs make it seem like there may have been an article in the history prior to the redirect to Yoasobi discography. I didn't see the history before the page was deleted, but if it was previously an article, I'd ask if you'd be willing to undelete it; so that the page's history (among other things) can be considered at RfD. (For full disclosure, I previously asked the G6-tagging editor a question regarding this page, who pointed me to yourself as the deleting admin — see User talk:CycloneYoris § Quick question.)

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 12:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, A smart kitten, done that – it's at Undead (Yoasobi song). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Worth it?


A matter of no great importance, but it sort of struck me. I've accepted your G11 nomination of Draft:Innovating Minds: Creative Thinking Process at JKITCDO, but I wonder whether it was worth bothering, since it had only 6 days to get to G13. ??? JBW (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, JBW, thanks for getting rid of that! Yes, good point, if I'd noticed or thought about the creation date I'd probably have left it – but I didn't, of course. In general it's probably preferable for that sort of stuff to be deleted as G11 just in case it ever comes to WP:RFU (not that I believe that anyone would ever restore that particular article, of course). Regards, thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I have scarcely ever dealt with RFU, so I don't tend to think of what might happen there, but I take your point. JBW (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
JBW your point was perhaps minor, this is several degrees of importance lower on the scale. Nevertheless, I like to delete unmistakable spam as such whenever possible. Mostly I think we're not waving but drowning in our response to WP:UPE, but still feel we should do what we can to stem the flood. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Page Deletion


This is with regards to the Joshua Tomar page. It seems I went about creating the page wrong; I'd figured that I would have time within a day to complete the page before it was deleted for incompletion. In the future, I'll use drafts. I had saved adding the citations until the other aspects of the article were complete, and I'd intended to write a section after that in Talk discussing why I thought the article met criteria that the previous page hadn't. I can only see the rejected draft version, not the initially deleted page, so I'm not sure as to the specifics on that one, but from the discussion of the page deletion, it seemed to not include a comprehensive summary of the subject, which I think makes the person worth having a page. I think that a person who has received industry awards, co-owns an animation studio that has been involved with significant projects in its industry, and who is a prominent member of a popular and long-running gaming channel, while also being involved with many people and projects in the voice acting field would comfortably qualify for a page. This is my first article I've written, so now I know that I should use drafts, but if you agree that it could likely meet criteria for validity, can we revert the deletion on the page and I can finish it up? KEP95 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or release it back into drafts and I can finish it there with more sources and address the deficits in the original version of the page KEP95 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request for unmove


Hello Justlettersandnumbers, would it be possible to move back the Pammakaristos Church, which has just been boldly moved to Fethiye Mosque (Istanbul)? I suspect that the common name in English is the former and that this move should be discussed. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Alessandro57, how are you? I've done that, on the basis that such a move is not uncontentious. I'll admit that I don't have a clear grasp of our standard practice in these (rather common) cases, or even know if we have a standard practice – I see that the whole history of Hagia Sophia is at that title, but that the Duomo di Siracusa has separate pages for the church and the underlying Greek temple. Anyway, let's see how this one goes. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, thank you, I'm fine! This is about the fifth time someone has tried to change the name of the article. I would actually be in favor of it, since pammakaristos in the literature almost always refers to parekklesion, while the church--except for a couple of years--has always been a mosque for hundreds of years, so that the Greek name's importance is only historical. I asked you to intervene because these spontaneous moves sooner or later lead to edit warring with them. It is much better to follow the rules here. thanks a lot, Alex2006 (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply



Hi there! What happened with WP:Articles_for_deletion/Scientigo? The log shows you having deleted the article per G6, with a link to the AfD, but the AfD is still open. The AfD briefly appeared as closed, due to a now-banned disruptive troll, but it never actually closed. May I go ahead an undelete to let the AfD be properly closed? Thanks! Owen× 21:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, OwenX! As I recall, when I deleted the page the deletion discussion looked like this. I took that at face value without checking in greater depth, and that now seems to have been a mistake. I'm travelling for the next five or six days, so – if you'd be so kind – please take whatever action is needed to sort things out/put things straight. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! No worries, I figured that's what happened, but didn't want to step on any toes. It looks like Doczilla already took care of things. Owen× 20:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

User contributions for Pope's Grotto Preservation Trust


How "promotional" were these edits (which of course I can't see)? It might have been better to point out the username issue, & if necessary adjust the language, keeping the useful additions that were no doubt there. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Johnbod! If you look at Special:Contributions/Pope's Grotto Preservation Trust (and not the red link to mainspace above), you'll see that I reverted three edits to Pope's villa with the rationale "WP:copyright violation,". The content was copy-pasted from that website, so could not be kept however useful it might have been (which you can of course judge for yourself by reading it on the external site), and is also why you can't see the edits. The user shows some interest in being unblocked, so I'll pursue that avenue. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks. It's unrealistic to expect first-edit-users to understand even our major policies, & blocking in such a case seems unusual to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think a user with an institutional username adding promotional content from the institution's own website is pretty much the textbook case for such a block. In this case the content was not as blatantly promotional as some corporate spam, but nor was it neutral or anything like it – see here for a couple of examples if you're curious. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lorraine Whittlesey


It's back in article space, again. Meters (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You moved it to Draft:Lorraine Whittlesey earlier today. Meters (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It appears that the recreation was not intentional [5] Meters (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Meters! Thanks, and yes, it looks that way. Bbb23 took care of it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just quick little request


an edit on the Hui people page was pretty bad, think you can hide the persons username real quick Gaismagorm (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

nevermind it already has been done Gaismagorm (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Gaismagorm! I didn't see this yesterday evening, glad it was speedily resolved (and yes, pretty bad!). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
no problem, glad everything worked out in the end! Gaismagorm (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jacob George Strutt


Dear Friend,

I saw your revert of my edits on Jacob George Strutt, with the little explanation in the summary: "Please don't mess around with the reference format". I'm sorry, but I was not aware that I was "messing around". I tried to gradually enhance the quality of the references, by using citation templates, instead of straight written references. I planned to change all the references (and add some others, on which I'm still working). So please allow me to finish that. It will not go really fast. I don't have much time for this at the moment. But I planned to do one ref a day. If you do not agree on this, please don't revert my edits, but try to let me know why your way of referring is superior to mine. Many greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dick Bos! No, please don't do that – please see WP:CITEVAR. It's not a matter of which system is superior (opinions vary on that!), but of which is the established system in use in the page. In that particular page (which as it happens I created), it is the system that I personally prefer – list-defined references, without cite templates. Not that it makes any difference in this case, but my reasons are: (1) refs are not in the article text; (2) they are easy to read; (3) they don't attract endless gnome edits (someone changes one letter of a template parameter and people go round and 'fix' four million or whatever instances of the template, with consequent watchlist clutter). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Block evasion


You partially blocked User:TimelapseTwo on May 12. Based on the editing patterns of User:RegularTine, I suspect this is the same person evading that block. I made the connection when I saw the edit made to TimelapseTwo's user page. I thought I'd bring it to your attention to see if you agree. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars! Yes, that looks to me pretty likely – both accounts doing little but create unnecessary redirects from song titles. I think WP:SPI is the way to go here; if you feel like getting that started please go ahead, if not I'll try to do something tomorrow (want to try to make at least one content-related edit before I go to bed). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for confirming. I'll try to start an SPI within the next day. Looks like they edited as User:Regulartrongdd for a couple months at the beginning of the year, too. Cheers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Music genre


You just deleted the article music genre simply because it was apparently created by a blocked user. This is very disruptive as this is an important page that needs to exist. It would be like deleting the page United States because it was created by a blocked user. I honestly thought it was a glitch at first. Velociraptor888 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Velociraptor888, it probably was glitch – of the human kind. I'm undeleting it as I write, will then see what happened and how. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Song has been deleted as well, I'd check to see if there were any other pages. ULPS (talkcontribs) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You’re welcome. Velociraptor888 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, I've now understood how I managed to make those two particularly stupid mistakes, and am confident I won't be doing that again. Thanks, Velociraptor888, ULPS, for your very moderate comments. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No problem, thanks for fixing them :) ULPS (talkcontribs) 23:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply



Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I just undeleted Song, which you deleted under G5. I'm guessing you meant to delete a different page? I was alerted because I saw a redlink in Template:infobox song. If you meant to do it for a reason I've missed, please let me know. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, definitely a mistake on my part, Vanamonde93, thanks for restoring it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sato arata


User:Sato arata, the user who you recently NOTHERE blocked, has made uncivil comments on the talk page and claimed to be a sockpuppet of User:Kamen rider saber. Is it a good idea to yank TPA and/or send the account to SPI? QwertyForest (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, QwertyForest, I've done that – somewhat reluctantly, as it seems to be what the user wants, who knows why? As for the childish insults, I think we're all grown up, but I'm sure that if someone else wants to redact them they'll do so. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maria Da Rocha


Would you be willing to undelete the above article? The user changed their mind on wanting it deleted; instead we agreed to have it redirected instead (see here). Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've done that, BeanieFan11, as you've probably seen. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deleted Material Retrieval - BearPeak


Hello Justlettersandnumbers. Wiki listed you as the admin who deleted the BearPeak Technology Group page. May I retrieve that deleted material from you?

I understand that the article was deleted due to 'unambiguous advertising,' which I have contested. Despite my COI with the company, my intent was to provide truthful, neutral information. I spoke with Jdcomix, the admin who tagged the article, and asked for advice on how to rewrite the article to be more encyclopedic. Jdcomix explained that the article had a lot of primary sources from the organization. I would be happy to replace those citations with stronger sources in a new draft.

If you also have any words of wisdom as to how I could rewrite the article, I would appreciate your insight! Thank you. LHoak7800 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

LHoak7800, I fear you may have misunderstood what this encyclopaedia is: it aims to have articles on topics that are of some lasting significance at a world level, basing them on what is reported in solid independent reliable sources. I won't pretend that I think we always succeed in that aim, but in one area at least (companies and organisations) we have some fairly stringent requirements for inclusion and for the supporting sources – please see WP:NCORP. Your draft did not include one such source, and was also unacceptably promotional (e.g., "This streak of success inspired Eckhardt to create his own startup ..."). If you can list four or five high-quality sources (national newspapers, papers in academic journals, books published by reputable publishers and so on) with in-depth discussion specifically of the business itself (not the owner, the nearby mountains or any other trivia) then please list them on your talk-page and draw my attention using {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}. I'll then consider whether to email you the deleted text. Without those sources, restoring the content would just be a waste of everybody's time, including yours. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Understood @Justlettersandnumbers. There currently are not four high-quality sources available with that level of in-depth discussion, so I retract my request. Thank you for your time and explanation. LHoak7800 (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Closed matter an ANI


I note your involvement, in conjunction with User:ADroughtOfVowels and User:HandThatFeeds, in the closing of[6].
I have mixed feelings about this.

1. I have spent the last week delivering different family members to two different sets of hospital appointments, both of which have involved a lot of driving and associated overnight stays in a hotel for me. Hence I have had little time to fully address the situation regarding Obsidian Soul (OS). This is unfortunate, as the problems here will not go away.

2. I am steadily learning more about their misuse of sources and POV pushing. POV pushing is not so easy to prove. It is easier to demonstrate citing sources that do not support the text that has just been added. The catch is that you have to read all of the cited source to demonstrate that the source does not support article content. It takes a long time (much more than the time it took OS to edit the article – you must have seen the speed of some of their editing.) This is more fully explained where I have sought the advice of an admin[7] (especially the last bit).

3. There is quite a lot of erroneous material in articles edited by OS. Some of this is not innocuous. See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 78#Is this a Wikipedia error now appearing as an RS? where an error due to references with failed verifications in Austronesian peoples has now ended up in a peer-reviewed academic paper. (Agreed the paper authors should have checked...) But if we are here to build a better encyclopaedia, I don't see how tracking down some of these errors is not a good idea. I have only a limited amount of enthusiasm for checking for these misrepresentation of sources, but it seems no-one else is going to do it.

4. Your thought about "both editors stepping away from the articles for a while" does not really seem to solve the problem. OS has disappeared from Wikipedia before, after they got a 1 week ban[8]. As soon as they came back, as you can see from some of the diffs they provide, they started wholesale a wholesale reversion exercise of the editing I had done in "their" articles. If I were to leave off working on these problems, I would have to read myself back into the subject – to an extent, doing the job twice.

Sorry to have droned on about this, but I felt I had to go into print somewhere in Wikipedia, and the item at ANI is now closed. Once I have drawn breath (in a few days, probably), I will start working through finding and fixing some of the failed verifications. But please let me know any thoughts that you have on the matter. This is not an easy job if you are working in a vacuum. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, ThoughtIdRetired! It was actually HandThatFeeds who closed that discussion, not I. Anyway, I apologise if my suggestions were not helpful (I saw your discussion with Valereee, looked at the ANI thread, and felt – rightly or wrongly – that I had some advice to offer). I can understand you being reluctant to agree to step away from those pages, but sometimes when you're in an impasse, that's the best or only way out; that's anyway moot now. Yes, we all know that the opera isn't over when the prima donna flounces offstage in huff, but it is often the end of an act and thus the beginning of an interval. Perhaps you'll permit me to repeat my suggestion of taking dubious sources to WP:RSN for discussion – if there's consensus there that a source is not good, you can then cite that thread when removing the bad source and any content associated with it (as you probably already know, of course). I'm sorry I can't help in any way with the articles themselves, just no clue about any of that. But do let me know if there's any more discord or disruption. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I have just added HandThatFeeds above, so they will presumably see. I am working on the WP:RSN post now. The bigger issue is the body of work that is unsupported by the cited references – I am still trying estimate how much work that is and discover if any other editors would give a hand. If OS is really gone (even if just for now), then it is probably better to get this all sorted and documented on the appropriate talk pages, without having to fight a running battle at the same time. It might also attract other editors back to the problem articles, which would be helpful.
And to be clear, any comments, suggestions or criticism is extremely welcome. Anyway, back to RSN. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/منصة إدموف


Hi there. Just bringing it to you since you blocked the sock for violating username policy already. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Vanderwaalforces! Kinu has already dealt with that (ty, Kinu!), thanks for reporting it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean, looks like the master account is yet to be… Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yep, just mentioned that at the SPI. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Always precious


Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply



Just a heads up, not sure how your comment ended up at the top of the page [9], but I removed it. Home Lander (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Home Lander! – yet another misclick for certain. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply



Just in case anyone's looking for me: I'm going to be mostly or completely away from the project for the next couple of weeks and so am unlikely to respond promptly to messages left here. Back at the end of the month, more or less. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply