User talk:Justlettersandnumbers/old2

---

Note: This page has some older stuff from about July 2014 until mid-January 2016. But I often delete stuff from my talk, so it is not complete. There's some even older stuff, from when I first started editing until about July 2014, here

---

For looking deeper

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		At Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 19 and disclosing a continuing problem that would probably only have continued to grow. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonriddengirl! Defender of the Wiki, eh? This seems particularly undeserved in that you did all the hard work , and I added to it by not noticing that date. Perhaps it's unwise to say this before the SPI result, but for now I'm sort of relieved that the possible damage is to "only" 647 pages. I may live to regret that comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yuck, want to take a whack at this one?

One sentence stub: Corse horse. The fr.wiki article is fairly long and appears comprehensive (though I don't speak French), so that one must have some decent material. This English one is not, and I think the proper English title is "Corsican horse" per Hendricks, though that article is the usual superficial Hendricks treatment, it is probably as RS a source as we will find in English, I certainly drew a goose egg looking for anything else (There is a race horse named "Corsican" who pulled several Google hits, but there does appear to be a breed also. Anyway, if you want to take a whack at the French translation, I can augment from Hendricks and we can expand this a bit - and name it properly. I googled "Corse horse" and got nothing but links to people who can't spell "course." And fr.wiki confirms that "Corse" there is Corsica. In your quest to get rid of made up words, I think this is a prime candidate. Montanabw^(talk) 18:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, already seen it (and edited it). I'm pleased it's a one-line stub, as that's what I asked him or her to do, rather than dump a mass of incompetently translated gibberish that would then need hours of sorting out. I probably won't translate the French article, as I prefer to write from the sources (but I will steal those from their page!). As for the title, I really don't know. Hendricks can't be talking about the breed, as it hadn't been recognised when the book was written; so she's using "Corsican horse" like others have used "Calabrian horse" or "Provençal donkey" - not the breed, just the animal that happens to be in that place at that time. The breed probably does not have any established English name yet. On the other hand, Corse horse just sounds too silly for words. If it was any other domestic animal I'd use parenthetical disambiguation, but that is out here. So I dunno. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll move it per Hendricks, which meets WP:V (and we all know that "verifiability" is not identical to "truth') -"The horse that's been there" is probably more genetically consistent than a lot of "breeds" like (my not-favorite) the Moyle horse. "breed" is such a fuzzy concept and I really don't want to get into the landrace argument until someone figures out if there is any kind of definable line between "breed" and "landrace" (which, to date, no one has and I have had other priorities than looking into it myself). Have at the writing part, I may pop by and tweak a few things, but I don't have any particular issue to address. I think we finally got the inverse hands template fixed so you can do cm first and then get all the others. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Adventure Time season 7

Just to clear things up... When I wrote "wiki page", I meant this wiki page, (not the wikia). The quote text that is supposedly a copyright infringement is prose that I wrote a long time ago; I plastered that prose on all the season articles, and the main series article too, as a sort of boilerplate summary. OVGuide is taking prose from Wikipedia, not the other way around.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had just gone back to look at at again, as I thought that might be what had happened. Sorry, your edit summary threw me right off. I've removed the speedy tag. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries! You're doing a good thing trying to cut down on copyright infringement!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Albert G Richards page

Hi! Thanks for your comments and feedback. I have now completely rewritten this page, so there should be no copyright issues, as every sentence has its own reference supporting it. If you look at the page where the copyright issue was claimed there is now absolutely no similarity between the wiki page and the website, and so hopefully the issue is resolved to your satisfaction. --Geneticcuckoo (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Double-check on revision id at Syracuse, New York

The revision named as the start of the problem appears, as well as the two surrounding edits, to be very small indeed, a couple words at most. That seems an unlikely starting point for a large copyright intrusion, so I wanted to double-check that the rev id was correct. Again, thanks for all your great work here! Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 01:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair question and a good point, Joe. I did think about it – a moment of self-doubt – when I made the request (and I was anyway one revision off from what I had intended). The first revision that I actually know to be a copyright violation is this one; however, I presumptively reverted to one of the earliest revisions by the editor in question to be sure of not missing anything (there are 466 articles in the CCI, a hundred or more edits to this article alone, checking them individually just does not seem feasible). Whether it is then in order for me to request revision deletion based on that presumption I just don't know (and am happy to be told). I see that Mike V has started the revdel from slightly later in the history, and that seems to me to be entirely a good call. Once again, many thanks to you both. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to defer to your best judgment, it's proven excellent in the past, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a typo or something. Again, thanks for your great work here, CCI is important and often thankless. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 15:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI

--> Talk:Swedish_Blue_duck#Move.3F --PigeonIP (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

OOOOOHHHH NOOOOOO!. Montanabw^(talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

And hey, it looks like we are all marching in lockstep in an evil conspiracy! EVERYONE knows that JLAN and I ALWAYS agree on EVERYTHING. (SMC, really, get a grip, dude). Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

because of this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_Blue_duck&diff=prev&oldid=620055022

• http://dad.fao.org/cgi-bin/EfabisWeb.cgi?sid=e864058f2350f649e59a786c21892b8a,reportsreport8a_50006005 (Australia)
• http://dad.fao.org/cgi-bin/EfabisWeb.cgi?sid=e864058f2350f649e59a786c21892b8a,reportsreport8a_50006336 (UK)

they are known in the Netherlands as well: ee: Zweedse eend, blauw witborst http://www.zooenc.eu (the dataset of FAO is very old) --PigeonIP (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW, note the work occurring at landrace. If SMC and I can agree on content of that article, there is hope for middle east peace. But actually, I think that so far we ARE getting somewhere - with some snark and sniping, yes - making progress. Montanabw^(talk) 00:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign Wealth Institute

The SWF Institute is a organization on sovereign wealth funds. You can google it and find out all the information on it. Not sure why you blanked deleted everything, without doing proper research. Jason Lee. The SWF Institute has been sourced in academic journals, news agencies and governments. You can't just mass delete an article without doing your homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonlee723 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, thanks for helping out on Sovereign Wealth Institute. Did you see what Jasonlee23 did today?

• reverted the article for deletion tag here which explicitly says "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" ( and of course bot added it back in,
• "added back" what he called "random deletions" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovereign_Wealth_Fund_Institute&diff=next&oldid=619880184
• wrote on your talk page (top)? Obviously is inexperienced in netiquette, to file new comments underneath, starting a new section, instead of butting in on neatly filed discussions. But thats no surprise, since all his contributions ever have been just on Sovereign Wealth Institute.

He clearly isnt interested in wikipedia. Appears only to be interested in the image that the SWI page reflects of SWI. Id assume thats a likely COI. never has discussed anything, but clearly has been edit warring (even if no 3 reverts in 24h). I am for edit war noticeboard and block user until the deletion question can be clarified. what do you think?--Wuerzele (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

My inclination is to let the AfD take its course and perhaps not worry too much about the other things. For the COI, a posting at WP:COIN is an option. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Cream Legbar

Yes, that does look like it might well be copyright material. I had not realised, sorry, and was just trying to tidy it up. But I'd be interested to see the copyright source from which it was taken. PCGB led me to this, haha. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that was an unfortunate chronosynclastic infundibulum - seriously bad timing on my part, sorry about that! I (a) had not noticed that you had edited the article and thus (b) hadn't noticed that you had done so so recently (I did however check that that content was added in a lump by an IP in 2012 before I removed it). It's taken from Victoria Roberts (2008). British poultry standards: complete specifications and judging points of all standardized breeds and varieties of poultry as compiled by the specialist breed clubs and recognised by the Poultry Club of Great Britain. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 9781405156424. or some earlier version of the same. I don't think there's any doubt it's in copyright. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a few of those chronosynclastic infundibulums once, but they just wouldn't lay. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is a navbox warranted?

You are good at navboxes, wondering if one for rare domesticated animal breeds is warranted. Gesellschaft zur Erhaltung alter und gefährdeter Haustierrassen is a good addition to the collection of rare breeds organizations (note The Livestock Conservancy is FA). Not sure there is a need to list every breed, but the main national organizations, key articles, etc. I realize there is also a category, but navboxes are cool. Just a thought. Montanabw^(talk) 00:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

no ;) where to start, where to stop...

• the GEH has breeds, that are non ;) (for example, the "Bayerische Landgans" is a landrace. There is a new breed derived from it, the "Fränkische Landgans", but there are problems with it (the alsatian(?) goose is too similar to it.)
• the GEH worked together with the BDRG (Bund deutscher Rassegeflügelzüchter, responsible for the existing (all) european standards) an a List of heimische gefährdete Geflügelrassen[2] it includes only breeds of german orgigin (breeds and colours befor 1930).
• the german wp has a list of rare breeds (mostly DACH; de:Liste gefährdeter Nutztierrassen) refering to this literature: de:Liste gefährdeter Nutztierrassen#Literatur und Weblinks
• how ever there is a navbox: de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Gefährdete Nutztierrasse des Jahres in Deutschland refering to the "rare breed of the year" for gaininng interrest in the topic. But is this usefull for en-wp?
• but I could also think of a navbox on this balearean toppic: http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/home.do?idsite=173&lang=CA

Best wishes (sorry for not responding to the other things, yet. I am on the run and recent events are so sad and demotivating, on top.)

--PigeonIP (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comunes / municipalities

Thanks for your reaction! Could you please further elaborate why comune is different from municipality in the CfD? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Mongol horse

Hey JLAN, there is an anon IP doing some very extensive work on Mongol horse, sort of expanding the article past a breed piece to encompass Mongol horse culture in general. I was sort of doing some cleanup initially, but lately I've been sitting back (for a change) on this because there is some good work happening, and I have other fish to fry, but I'm also kind of wondering if it's time for a little more guidance; maybe take a look and see what you think. I'm doing my best not to dive in and bite as fast as I sometimes do, but I'm wondering if the article is getting a bit too far afield and maybe a spinoff to a separate article on Mongolian horse culture is appropriate. I'm also starting to wonder a bit about whether there is copy and paste going on. You have a less Anglocentric compass on this and I'd sincerely be interested in your thoughts. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw there were several edits - it's on my watchlist - but didn't look to see what they were. I'll try to take a look, but may take no action. Mongolia reports five horse breeds to Dad-IS apart from the Przewalski Horse. It's a great horse culture, and they have millions of them. I still hope I might one day find the £5-7000 to go and ride there for a couple of weeks, preferably before I'm too old to be able to get on a horse at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No kidding! I know some people locally who did that by saving frequent flyer points for round trip airfare with their American Express card (I guess they used their credit card for everything from gas to toilet paper for three or four years to pull it off) and enjoyed it greatly. As for the article, my thought is that maybe the culture and breed stuff should be split. Or, perhaps the article could be named something like "Horse culture of Mongolia" and then new articles be spun off for the breed(s) (Hmm. Had not heard of those breeds before, either. Other than the Mongol Aduu (which appears to be our "Mongolian Horse") the others are low in official numbers). I'd say raise anything useful at the article talk; seems the editor is in good faith and working very hard, with decent sourcing (though I'm a little wary of the hardcopy sources - though that's probably all there is - and page numbers would be useful). Seems a definite candidate for positive mentoring. I'm kind of knee-deep in some other stuff here and in RL so haven't focused there. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your requested moves of sheep articles at WP:RMTR

Please see a note which I left for you there. While the original mass moves by SMM seem to go against the need for consensus, it would save some work for admins if you are willing to go directly to a full move discussion instead of wanting the previous moves to be reverted first. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Josephine Flood

Hi Justlettersandnumbers

I thought I had pretty much gotten rid of any copyright text and applied the duplication detector to the result, which showed only three word strings and references;, but I have now rewritten the sections at issue and reposted the article here Talk:Josephine Flood/Temp as instructed.Garyvines (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

TUCEMEMS Copyright issues

Hi! Thank you for your help with the Turku Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies -page! I'm very sorry for the inconveniances it has caused to you, the copyright problems were unintentional. I'm new in Wikipedia and I didn't fully understand the copyright policy of Wikipedia. I've now created a rewrite of the article, where I've rewritten the introductory paragraph and the Activity -sections, where the problems were. The Administration and History sections are the same (with maybe some minor changes) as before. I would be very thankful if you could check that rewrite, if I've done it correctly. Thank you a lot and sorry for my mistakes I've done. YvainfromFinland (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, YvainfromFinland. At a quick glance, the problems seem to be resolved. I expect it will be looked at within a week or so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Achraf Baznani (photographer)

Is there any solution for copyright infringement? Appreciate it Fevrret (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the best solution is not to do it in the first place! The page can be rewritten here. If you decide to do that, please make sure you do not copy any copyright content from the previous version. If you don't, it will probably be cleaned in a week or two (if it survives at AfD, that is). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Junior Chamber International

A mess from the first version [3] on with presumably members continually adding copyvio and promotional material. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ay, Dougweller, a nightmare. And one that I knew about, and had meant – but had forgotten – to go back and look at in detail. I see you've already removed a massive copyvio; but if there's the suspicion of more, blanking it and listing it at WP:CP might be a good way to deal with it, as it will then have to be rewritten from scratch – the COI and referencing problems are likely to get sorted out in the process. Your call, though, of course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: As with WhatamIdoing, I've raised concerns about the wording of this template on its talk page, but it's what we're stuck with for now. It seems confrontational, but my intent is for the level of confrontation to go down. I suggest that you, I, Justlettersandnumbers and WhatamIdoing should probably have a four-way WP:Dispute resolution. This is not an accusation or "warning", just notice/reminder, and my making it puts me on the same footing. The personalized disputes have to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• JLAN, I think, though I am not certain, that SMC is under the mistaken impression that there is an equivalency between his behavior and our responses to his behavior. I suggest we follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#SMcCandlish_temporary_move_ban_-_request_for_narrowing_clarification for now. Upon reflection, I see no need to engage insome sort of dispute resolution where there is only one person repeatedly creating the disputes, and that person is neither you nor I. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Moves

You have seen this? --PigeonIP (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify

I want to be sure I understand your position, given that SMC is targeting me individually at the Teeswater sheep/(sheep) page. As you know, my general tendency is to favor WP:NATURAL disambiguation on the horse articles (Foo horse), in part due to the large number of named individuals; but am I correct that you generally advocate parenthetical disambiguation (i.e. Foo (animal)) on most of the other livestock breed articles? After that discussion of the Billy dog/(dog)/dog named Billy/WTF? thing (which made my eyes cross), I'm now sort of in the camp of "let the folks who work with each animal species make the call for "their" articles - and consistency within the animal species is nice." I just want to be sure I do not inadvertently assume your position on an issue and then have my understanding be incorrect. Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Consolidated: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture#Multiple_move_requests Am I right that there are 11 RMs involving well over 60 separate articles, not counting your separate request at Teeswater sheep? If I'm wrong, feel free to tweak the list Montanabw^(talk) 05:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Kuhn & Komor

Hi there, Thank you for your message. The text has been edited in the temp file, please feel free to take a look and comment. Gryffindor (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Those listings usually get looked at in a week to ten days; I probably won't actually deal with this one myself (because letting someone else do it provides a sort of check on what I've done), but I will look at what you've written, and perhaps comment. The 64,000 dollar question, though, Gryffindor, is this: do you think there might be other articles where the same sort of thing has happened? Obviously I hope not, but if so, your help in identifying them would be greatly appreciated. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gryffindor, I haven't got mail. I know that Moonriddengirl received your message, but I didn't. Anyway, if it's about my question to you above, it'd probably be better to message me here than via e-mail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2014

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. Moonriddengirl has created a page here with a helpful listing [4]. I don't have the resources or a bot to go through every article to find possible problems. Do you think you could help us please with identifying issues and notify them there, and then I will try to repair it? Thank you for your help. Gryffindor (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gryffindor! Yes, I am aware of that listing, and I appreciate that you'd like to get it dealt with; your help will make that much easier. I'll certainly do what I can, but – I'll be honest – there are many dozens of those listings and it is very time-consuming work going through them (I don't have a bot either!), so I can't promise to work specifically on yours. It's likely to be much easier for you to look at, say, Kraków Town Hall, and remember where that content came from (within Wikipedia? the internet? a book?) than it is for someone else to try to work that out. You could perhaps then leave a short note against that line of the listing ("This came from ...") which would make it quicker for someone else to mark off as done. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi JLAN,

I created the Louwalan clan article that has been deleted twice now and is up for discussion in regard to notability. I feel perhaps I should explain. In regard to the copyright infringement. I did source the material for this content which I placed on my blog word for word, and duly noted that this content was copied verbatim. Admittedly my copyright awareness and rules were not all that stringent on my personal blog. Wikipedia picked up the content on my blog and I assumed this was the cause of the problem which is why I re-edited it and included the information on the article talk page. I am now much more enlightened on the copyright aspect and will work at re-writing it. I have left my thoughts on notability on the discussion page as well. Kind regards Eren Gatiat (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Finding copyvio

Do you have a script or page that helps you find copyvios or are you manually checking link by link? Just wondering, you're good at it... Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not, you know (good at it), I'm a rank beginner. If you want to see "good at it" you should watch Moonriddengirl in action; it's an education, I can tell you. I use two tools, the Duplication Detector and the Article blamer. In an article like Albanian Horse, with a short history, they're hardly needed, the problems pretty much jump to the eye. I'm afraid I've requested a WP:CCI for that editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL. SEVEN YEARS. :) Lots of practice. Frankly, I usually just look for phrases that stand out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So basically, once you find one suspicious editor, then you review their other work? Ah yes, I remember the nightmare of cleaning up the ItsLassieTime sock, which had hundreds if not thousands of articles, and I think that CCI is still unfinished... Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you see this one

This will be of interest to you: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC_-_Animal_breeds_in_lower_case. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting

I see that SMC is on a tl;dr rant again. Don't let that stuff run you off wiki. That's his MO, abuse people until they leave or give up from exhaustion. Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that Montanabw is engaging in random personal attacks again, imputing nefarious motives.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It ran me off. But now I see he's ostensibly gone for a year. I'm considering coming back... 68.187.45.82 (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You'd have my support if you did so, whoever you are! For what little that is worth. Give it a try - if it doesn't work out you can always leave again ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

About to head out for a vacation...

But thought you might like a pointer to this book - Mason's World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Types and Varieties (5th edition) ISBN 085199430X. 1996 by CABI. Very useful - I'll be picking a copy up when I get home. Covers asses, buffalo, cattle, goats, horses, pigs, and sheep. The Arapawa is listed on page 212 "Arapawa Island: (New Zealand)/brown-and-black/feral." (Listing in the book does not mean status as a formal breed - if it was, there would be a listing for the society/association and it's year of formation, or it's recognition by a government or its publication of a herdbook.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth! As it happens, I know that book quite well, and did indeed check it for this particular matter, and was planning to cite it in another discussion. Please let me know if you do get a real paper copy of it, as not all is accessible through Google books and I might impose on your good will. Meanwhile, have a great holiday! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Good to know, Ealdgyth. Further source to cite against the idea of any such standardized breed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

From what I'm reading on the talk page - the breed registry started up in 1998. Mason's was published in 1996, so it doesn't conclusively prove one way or another if the breed registry is going to stick. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is that we have to stick carefully to what the sources actually say and not insert more (or less) than what is stated. It will be good to not engage isn WP:SYNTH. Montanabw^(talk) 05:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

With Arapawa, there's not even any evidence of a breed registry. The facts we have are that some piglets were taken off the island for breeding and were bred successfully. To what we don't know. Years afterward, someone drafted a breed standard for the captive-bred Arapawa, noting that the phenotypic morphology was in flux, and even in what ways they expected their capitive pigs to differ from the feral landrace pigs the nascent standardized breed was based on. Then dead silence. We don't even actually know that this draft breed standard pertains to the descendants of those pigs in particular; that's just being inferred. The key missing facts are a) were they cross-bred to anything, b) if not, were they selectively bred to be more like everyday pigs, or to retain their most identifiable "Arapawaian" traits, and if so why that's not been working, and c) whether the experiment has continued at all to the present day, much less d) resulted an a standardized breed recognized by anyone at all other 6 people trying to breed them (which would never pass WP:GNG or WP:NFT).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Chicken breeds of Belgium

Instead of editwarring and reintroducing a links to a disambiguation page at Template:Chicken breeds of Belgium, it is a much better idea that you look at the recently merged Belgian Bantam first. That causes the disagreement. Edit warring at the template will not help at all. The Banner talk 20:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know what you are talking about. It isn't a disambiguation page or a "recently merged" anything, it's an article. I've just started it, at your rather annoying insistence (I mean, next time, fix it yourself, OK?). Please re-read, with some care, WP:BRD; if your edit has been reverted, don't make the same edit again, as that is edit-warring. Instead, take the matter to the talk page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So in fact it was not me who was messing... The Banner talk 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you fixed it yet? You should probably work on your apology skills, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not prepared to clean up your mess. The Banner talk 02:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Belgian Bantam vs Belgian bantam - two different articles. JTdale ^Talk 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Belgian Bantam

Hi Jlan. I'm confused on your article at Belgian Bantam. Is this a different breed to the ones that consistute Belgian bantam? FAO oddly lists them seperately, so I was wondering if you have more info? The PCGB ref you used though refers to the D'uccle, D'anver etc already converted in separate articles JTdale ^Talk 20:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a separate breed, with EE recognition and so on. I made the stub because The Banner was messing about with the navbox. I hadn't realised you'd made that redirect from the capitalised title or I'd have mentioned it sooner. The only thing (I hope!) I've used Roberts for is to say that it isn't listed by the PCGB. I've added it to the disambiguation page you made. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I got a complaint from the Banner myself. I'm afraid I don't see how it's a single breed though? It's a group of related breeds, according to the British Belgian Bantam Club and the Belgian Bantam Club of Australia. Additionally the The Belgian d'Uccle & Booted Bantam Club and the Belgian d'Anver Club of America appear to hold similar positions. The Australian Poultry Standards and the Poultry Club of Great Britain hold identical views in that Belgian bantam is a breed consisting of what 4-5 varieties, which are classified in Belgium as separate breeds but are fundamentally identical to the 'varieties'. I can't read french to decipher your other reference. JTdale ^Talk 01:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

On reading your EE reference, it lists the Belgian types as separate varieties as well and never mentions an overarching Belgian Bantam. JTdale ^Talk 02:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit - okay, I found out what you mean. Sorry for the confusion. Belgische Zwerghühner | Naine belge | Belgische kriel | Naine belge | Belga nana | Belgische kriel with no english name. Found this page; [5] which translated here appears to be an entirely different type of bird. More info here. This creates a major issue because outside Belgium and France Belgian Bantam refers entirely to a different thing. JTdale ^Talk 02:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! No apology needed, I'm almost as confused as you are at this point. I think we had this conversation before, somewhere else. There are a lot of different Belgian true bantams (12–15, I think). The Brits can't get them sorted out, so they've lumped them all together as "Belgian" in their true bantams section. That sort of makes it hard for them to see that there is also a Belgian Bantam, the Naine belge, the one your link [16] leads to. On the Rousseau site it's this one. The EE spreadsheet is a nightmare to use, but is I think accurate; it gives them all except maybe the Bleue de Lasnes, which isn't recognised. I think the Belgian bantam page you made was a good idea; I'm wondering, though, if it shouldn't be moved to Belgian bantam (disambiguation). What do you think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. Not very good with disambiguation stuff - never made one before. I think it might be less confusing though, so I'll go ahead and do it. Also, maybe it'd be best to move Belgian Bantam to one ofi ts native names since the breed seems to be entirely unknown in English? JTdale ^Talk 16:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Found an English version of that page; see here; also see this. This helps a lot. A ton of breeds there that may warrant their own articles. JTdale ^Talk 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor breeeds

I may be scratching a sore spot, but i hope I'm not. But use of the convert template on horse heights would be a gracious and helpful thing. I can do it myself later, but perhaps as you go would be simpler. See Template:Hands for the solution the techies worked out for us for the breeds with a European/metric standard: to convert cm first: {{convert|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2+1⁄2 to 8.2+1⁄2 hands; 30+1⁄2 to 34+1⁄2 in) I think you can change cm to m and get the equivalent results. Your call if you want to do it, hope you will not object if I add it later if you are not interested in doing so. Montanabw^(talk) 14:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know I don't always do it. I've come to believe that it simply isn't necessary - scientific articles use metric units, and horse-breeding (unlike, say, horse-racing) is pretty definitely a scientific topic, whether you regard it as a branch of zoology or as a branch of agricultural science. But I certainly do make an effort not to remove an existing conversion, and (I've just checked) I did indeed use one when correcting the heights at Corsican horse this morning. But – I'll be honest – to look at an article on, say, a horse breed from Indonesia, and find the height given in a unit that has no meaning for the people of that country ... well, it makes my edit finger itch. I know some of those articles were written a long time ago; I think it may be time to update some of them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Tony Cragg

I am writing to you re Tony Cragg's article on Wikipedia, which I have been trying to improve. As you quite rightly pointed out, (prior to my editing) Wikipedia's coverage of Cragg's life and career is embarrassingly weak and what I have added is not 'necessarily bad.'

I am new to Wikipedia editing and it has been difficult to get to grips with how it works, but I feel like I am getting there. For all my efforts to be deleted would be a real shame. I would like to start up a dialogue so I can continue to improve Cragg's article.

As I understand it, you have identified the section on the Sculpture Park as posing a potential copyright issue, as a copy or modification of the text from Cragg's website. I did indeed use his website as a point of reference (for lack of other sources) but I am surprised you consider what I edited to be a copyright issue. I will happily work on this section further so as to improve it but I ask that you 'unblock' the rest of article and advise the best way to proceed.

I look forward to hearing from youAndrewViolaBowen (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! It is quite amazing to me that someone so well known could have such a poor article here, but that can happen; it will be blanked for a week or so now so that anybody who wants to rewrite it can do so. I do understand that it's very hard to get started as an editor here, and certainly I don't want to make it harder for you. However, you may inadvertently have fallen foul of some of our basic rules, including the one about using several accounts (that isn't in itself a problem, but becomes one if the accounts break other rules, such as, unfortunately, our copyright policy). One of the four accounts has declared a connection to the Lisson Gallery, and the IP address obviously belongs to the gallery; it would be helpful to know if the other three editors who appear to be similarly connected, including you, are so connected, or indeed are all the same real-world person. If you have a connection to the gallery you probably have what we call a conflict of interest, and that means that in most cases you shouldn't edit the article, but limit yourself to suggestions on the talk page. I'm prepared to help with the writing in this case. A good first step would be to start assembling some independent reliable sources about the artist. These should be sources of information that do not have an interest in promoting him, so commercial art gallery websites are unlikely to be acceptable, but websites of public institutions, books, well-known newspapers and magazines are all likely to be good. You could perhaps list some of those on the talk page of the article. While it's helpful if I can see them, it's not obligatory. Then we can take it from there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

My COIN posting

if you have a moment, i'd appreciate your thoughts on Pmy COIN posting. if you think i am out to lunch, i would get that. I posted asking for feedback and am just pinging you as you seem to participate in that page. thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Should I prod tag?

Tempted to prod tag for deletion Silvena Sport, was doing some cleanup and then thought, "WTF? This is just self-promotion of a riding stable." But figured I should get a second opinion. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That was a temptation you could safely have yielded to! Speedy as G11 might have gone through too, in spite of its age. However, there were other problems too, so I doubt it'll be necessary (though of course you can still prod it if you want to). Good find; how many more like that are there? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll prod tag too, might as well add insult to injury. What else is out there?? As always, Nevzorov Haute Ecole. But wait, there's worse: Brace for impact: Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star, Barbie Horse Adventures, and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. AAARRRGGGHHH! Montanabw^(talk) 07:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That should have been G11 on sight! Obvious COI, undisguised promo; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevzorov Haute Ecole. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Book is in!

The book you wanted me to get via ILL is in, I have it until December 1, but with no renewal. Much good stuff. Might work for me to scan some pages and email to divvy up work... let me know. Not only has Asia but also some stuff on southern Africa. Montanabw^(talk) 07:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That is very good news! Scan and email would be wonderful. I'll try to post at one of those pages with some preliminary suggestions. I'm looking forward to this experiment. If it works at all, I might ask you to see if you can get this! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

One ILL at a time...!

On a totally unrelated note, hope it will not be a problem to suggest that on any article rewrites of extant horse breeds that we put characteristics before history. We can discuss, but the core idea is that readers will usually want to know the simpler material - what it looks like - first, then the other background stuff. (particularly where the history is long, this can become an issue). Also, now that we have a solid convert template working for hands, can we do hands and inches where we put cm first? Also is icky to have "male height" and "female height" when we are talking mares, stallions and geldings. Personally, I'd put the range in the infobox and the details by sex in characteristics (in part so we can say "stallions and geldings" ...) The right to use our horsey technical language was fought and won by Ealdgyth, I'd hate to lose it by default...  ;-) JMO and thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 07:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement about using correct terminology within reason, as long as it doesn't reach the level of jargon and is linked to an explanation - which we don't always have (where should "girth" link to, for example, when used as a measurement?). My thinking on the other things is just to try to keep things reasonably uniform with other animal breed articles. Our pig articles don't have "boar weight'" and "sow weight" in the infobox, though they could - the general "Male weight" and "Female weight" is used whether they're billies and nannies, cocks and hens, rams and ewes, whatever. Ideally I'd to see the horse breed infobox updated to match the others, with fields for height, weight, conservation status, distribution, coat colour, uses and the like. But yes, for now I'll put a range, the differences are usually marginal anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Glossary of equestrian terms is a good catchall, particularly where you need something not yet in the wiki... We can add a definition #2 (if sourced) at Glossary of equestrian terms#G (girth) or a new definition at #H ("heartgirth") for the measurement. Note we do quite a bit of cross-referencing between UK and US English so both are included (see, e.g. [Glossary of equestrian terms#H]] for Halter/headcollar.) Always room to expand so long as a source goes with the definition. Keep in mind that we should also compare to the dog breeds infoboxes, as horses exist in sort of a limbo between livestock and companion animals. I'm not opposed to a few specific fields for height - weight is not always as clear-cut a parameter (we don't eat them as often...), perhaps RexxS can help us with formatting and such, we can discuss there. I'm not overly fond of the design of the livestock breeds ones - too easy to confuse with species infoboxes (the breeds infobox links to the species infobox). But I don't think adding parameters does a lot of harm, as if they are not used, they don't show as blank spaces. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, and also, I really hesitate to add a "distribution" link, as we already have a nation of origin parameter, which itself has generated a couple editing disputes (mostly on Lipizzan), so many breeds are now pretty much worldwide. Conservation status is also a question mark, as these are not a species, but I can see some point of adding comments if we have rare breeds or not - I just don't want to shoehorn horse breeds into an infobox that doesn't fit. But let's discuss at the template talk... Montanabw^(talk) 00:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with the page. I now know how to handle that situation in the future. Using the information from the page creator was a bad idea since I couldn't know where it came from. Thanks again. Equineducklings (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:COI editnotice

I was just taking a fresh look at this template, because I had always planned that someday the "click here" should link to a Request Edit wizard, like the one started at User:CorporateM/request_edit. User:Sphilbrick has been my partner in crime on improving Request Edit processes for some time now and said he would work on, finalize and publish the wizard sometime soon.

I was wondering if you would take a look and let me know if you think the wizard is actually better. A lot of Request Edits are just junk submissions and the wizard is intended to add more structure to submissions, however I am also concerned it may actually make it more complicated than the simple pre-loaded request edit. CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Mulling over structure

I guess we can agree to disagree on the question of putting horse breed history or characteristics first. We have debated it before and it's not worth a knock-down drag out. On the shorter articles on obscure breeds, it's not a real big deal; it becomes a bigger deal where the history is extensive (and/or the characteristics) such as the Finnhorse or the Appaloosa. At root, I suppose it's a debate over what the reader wants to see first (what it looks like versus how it came to be). I wish we could reach a consensus on that question, though we are both rather stubborn sorts so it's probably not real likely. (grin) In the meantime, I hope we can agree to use convert templates, including hands, and as in ENGVAR, now that we have the templates all figured out, I am perfectly willing to have metric conversion first for those breeds where we have no breed standard with hands primary. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Great Lakes Page

Hi,

This is regarding the Great Lakes page which you had flagged for paraphrasing. The source link you had shared isn't available anymore so I couldn't see what the content you were referring to were but I have re-written most of the content and cleaned the old content. Request you to review and remove the paraphrasing point.

Thanks!Sushree27 (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GQ

Is it just me, or is their gaming becoming more blatant? Crow^Caw 22:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance there. I think the main question is really whether it's notable at all. I was sort of letting it slide, partly for WP:CSB reasons. But I'm about ready for AfD. Otherwise we could ask for semi-protection. I wonder if Sphilbrick would mind being dragged into this again, perhaps to advise? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's "probably" notable enough not to be deleted, judging by the articles on other international versions, though some of them are in dire need of de-promo'ing themselves. The notability guideline on magazines is still "proposed", so no telling. This version may very well fail the GNG though. I'd just prefer it if the IP would actually discuss their changes rather than blindly reverting every time we explain why their edits are out of policy, so maybe a semi-prot after they inevitably re-add the November cover to the article will get them on the talk page. Crow^Caw 23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm here, but not up to speed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: The article is GQ Thailand. It started as a copyvio and has since been subject to a slow edit war with what looks like one user on multiple IPs to add promotion and non-notable stuff to it. They have blindly reverted without discussion. They only stopped reverting the copyvio when the history was revdel'ed. The latest bit now is to keep the current cover shown in the infobox, with no context, thus failing nfcc#8. I had reverted to the infobox with the issue #1 cover as that could be seen as a meaningful image, especially as that cover was discussed specifically in the article. They responded to that by db-user'ing the image! At this point I just want them to discuss what and why they are doing. Crow^Caw 20:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI

He's b-a-a-a-a-c-k: [6] FYI Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious what constructive purpose you think that commentary like this serves?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To warn the general population to brace for impact of another round of tl;dr. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Enough

Please stop engaging in antagonistically worded reverts that serve no encyclopedic purpose, as you did at Apulo-Calabrese. That one also deleted substantive content additions. If you have an issue with changes to an article, raise them on the talk page. If you don't like the vertical formatting, despite its readability, feel free to undo that aspect of the change, but you don't need to engage in hostility to effect such a change. You really need to drop the "enemy" act.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

SMcC, I have some better ideas:1) How about YOU initiate discussion before you go mucking around in things? Or at least respect BRD and go immediately to talk if you are reverted and do so without attacking anyone? 2) How about you drop the stick about naming animal articles? That way, perhaps when (and if) you do any legitimate wikignoming, you won't have people panicking and diving for the rollback button just at the sight of your name? 3) How about looking in the mirror and again realizing that you are, once again, accusing others of the actions YOU have initiated? Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Prob's page

Hi JLAN, was perusing the CP page and it raises a question: What's the tipping point between G12 speedy and sending the page to CP for rework? I see a couple on there that say they're essentially directly copied from 1 or more sources, but not considered a long-term issue, so what prevents those from just being G12'ed? Crow^Caw 00:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Crow, the quick answer is that I wish I knew. I think each editor has his/her own take on that. Factors over and above the "would need to be fundamentally rewritten" criterion that make me personally more inclined to tag for speedy deletion are: simplicity (one or few editors), recentness, obvious COI and/or promotional content, and lack of importance and/or notability. If something is complex, or clearly notable, or just old, or might help counter systemic bias, then I'm more inclined to list it. Either way, at least one other person is going to look at it too, so there's some room for error – luckily! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I like your thinking there. :) To add, Crow, that if there's a suggestion of permission, WP:CP is usually the appropriate avenue. (Although if it's a G11 and a G12, I myself just delete and cite both. I have some tension when content is clearly permissible but otherwise unusable.) I wrote a template that I have long used for this situation - User:Moonriddengirl/vp. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, MRG! I remember seeing that text and thinking it'd taken a while to write all that - now I realise it's a template. Crow, another factor that I forgot to mention above is the editor's history: if an editor is fairly new a copyvio can probably be put down to inexperience; if it's a long-established editor, or one with several apparent copyvios, I'd be more inclined to list it so as to draw attention to a possibly larger problem - of which unfortunately there seem to be quite a lot. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you! Crow^Caw 22:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Harvey Schiller talk page, edit assistance request

Please see the Harvey Schiller talk page for second round of edit assistance requests put in OCt 27. thank you so much for your help thus far, really would liek to improve the article as much as possible. please help! thanks 2602:306:CE71:E330:6B:A27B:C2A5:4F7D (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Elmgreen & Dragset

Can you please explain to me why the addition of the Galleri Nicolai Wallner page is a problem in regards to Elmgreen & Dragset? We were the first gallery to work with them, and the page features images of important works throughout their career, as well as a link to their up to date bibliography.

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI. We aren't here to publicise your gallery. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dorset H/horn

Hey,

I was going by WP:FAUNA, which recommends sentence case for animal names. Is there a separate guideline for breed names? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi! No, there's no specific guideline that I'm aware of, just the common practice of how we treat all animal breeds and hybrids and all plant varieties and cultivars - see Category:Sheep breeds, for example. These are not animal species, so WP:FAUNA does not apply to them. A discussion here seems to have petered out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

MP Anil Kumar

I have email permission from Jagan Pillarisetti, author of Bharat Rakshak website to use its content for article MP Anil Kumar. Kindly remove the copyright tag and I can forward the email if required. Vinod (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

European Federation of Psychiatric Trainees

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I declared my conflict of interest concernign EFPT here. [7]. I hope we will find a solution to use text from our website to improve our WP page. I changed the license but it wasn't good enough. Bw --Ofix (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ofix, what that article needs is a good number of independent reliable sources to establish that the topic is notable by our standards; without them it is very likely to be deleted. I've searched the web, JSTOR, Questia and Highbeam without finding any; perhaps you will have better luck. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, we will work hard on that ! Bw--Ofix (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We listed most the references concerning articles published here.--Ofix (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Of interest

Someone linked to this article from one on my watchlist. Given your interest in such matters, thought you might give it a glance with an eye to some improvements. Sounds like an interesting culture group: Vaqueiros de alzada. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

SALT (institution)

Hey JLAN! Would you mind helping remove the templates you added at SALT (institution), an OTRS permission statement was sent by the original source under WP:CONSENT. I tried doing so, however you altered the text a bit Best, ///EuroCarGT 03:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, EuroCarGT, I'm afraid I have no idea what to do about that. They've released one page of their website, but the copying/close paraphrasing was from more than one page, definitely including also this and this. So I'm going to ask, for about the thousandth time, if Moonriddengirl would be kind enough to offer guidance on whether the rev-deletion is still necessary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for my delay - I've got some family issues that are impacting my online time.

The OTRS ticket doesn't actually name the source; it names the Wikipedia articles that the correspondent claims to own and release. With respect to this it says, "SALT (Istanbul based cultural institution founded by Garanti Bank), the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SALT_(institution) and http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/SALT" While this is generally acceptable on English Wikipedia where we are able to verify that the person placing the content is an authorized representative of the source, I think this situation is a little more convoluted. We've got content additions being placed by at least two people here and no verification that the OTRS correspondent has legal right to license the contributions of both - or, really, either. (That would change if the users in question acknowledged that they were working on behalf of SALT, perhaps on their user pages.) The name of the correspondent does not clearly align with the usernames. :/ User:EuroCarGT, would you mind asking your correspondent to clarify that he is licensing the content published at saltonline.org and not the content published on Wikipedia? This should eliminate all doubt and rev deletion on earlier edits can be removed. Whether or not the content is restored is a matter of editorial discernment. :) OTRS doesn't say the content will be used, but only that it can be. At that point, other factors may determine, as copyright issues are off the table. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl:  Done. Thanks, ///EuroCarGT 21:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your mention of me here

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

You beat me to it :-). I was actually in the process of re-evaluating my recent tagging of a few articles today and revising them - it suddenly hit me that I didn't tag this (and another) article correctly. My sincere apologies for that. It looks like, in this case, that it led to the discovery of something bigger, so I'll call it 50/50? I'll be more diligent with CSD tagging in the future; the last thing I want to do is cause any kind of disruption to Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No apology needed here - it really isn't very clear in the article, though I suppose the title was a bit of a give-away. Anyway, no harm done, pleased to have "met" you. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A pleasure to have met you too! Keep rockin' it! ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The horse book

Hey JLAN, just a heads up that the book on Asian horses that I got via InterLibrary Loan is due back on December 1, and there is no renewal, so if you want to peek at those pages I sent you and let me know if you want more or anything that didn't print cleanly, let me know ASAP. This week is Thanksgiving here in the USA, which means it can get a bit hectic (feeding large numbers of people large amounts of food is generally involved). So let me know if you have what you need. Montanabw^(talk) 03:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Re:Admin help

I'm actually in the process of investigating that a little right now; I've found this blog post, of which parts are written verbatim whats written in our article [8], however the version I'm looking at is 2008 and its 2014 now, so I can not prove who had which version first. That, and the language in the article (In particular phrases like "You may guess on one hand that the Portuguese cinematography and those of Portuguese expression distinguish themselves by this motive, which gives them a voice in the world of cinema, like the voice of Cesária Évora in the world music") lend themselves to having been copied from someplace else online and pasted here. I'm hopeful that its just my imagination, but experience tells me that may not be the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Found one article arguably in violation of BLP - Daniel E. Thorbecke. I put it up at afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Found a maybe - and I mean a really long shot maybe - copyright violation for Antonio Campos from here; and I say "maybe" and "long shot" because there are four tabs, Wikipedia is one of them, but the verbatim content on their site is alleged to have been posted in 2002, whereas our article's history claims that the material wasn't created until 2009. Not sure then which came first, and since its all in a foreign language I can do nothing with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Found one dangerously close to copyright. The Original O Pão e o Vinho article created in 2009 appears to have been taken nearly verbatim from here, and while the single inline citation given to the article credit the page, the whole section then and now is essentially one blockquote. He also apparently copied and translated the technical information at or near verbatim, and that still isn't cited. In point of fact the article is almost identical to what we have now. I think the first part might be from Films by Portuguese Directors (Study Guide): Films Directed by Antonio Lopes Ribeiro, Films Directed by Antonio de Macedo since google linked the phrase "O Pão e o Vinho is contemporary to the tetralogy Homem Montanhês (Mountain Man) " to the book. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction, it may have been lifted in its entirety from the book, according to a Barnes and Noble Book Summary. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(od) Given what I'm seeing in the film articles I think we need an English/Portuguese contributor to look over the articles on the English Wikipedia and see if they match the Portuguese Wikipedia. I'm beginning to think that this may not be entirely a case of copyright, it may be a failure to consider that the user could be transwiking articles here, which would explain in part why they all look to be in such sad shape. Alternatively, it could mean that the user is messing with both the English and Portuguese Wikipedias. I may come back to this tomorrow, but its 7:30 here and I've been up since 4PM, so I'm calling it a night (day?). I hope you and the others may be able to move on some of this - even if its just ruling out copyright, it'll be a step in the right direction. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some of it seems to be just unattributed inter-wiki translation (still copyvio, but easier to fix), like the Thorbecke one, created here 27 minutes after it was made on pt.wp. I see that MRG shares your concerns here, so I'll see if I can look at this tomorrow, and perhaps make a CCI request if I find enough to justify one. I don't speak Portuguese, but I can more or less read it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for the talk page message follow up, it is always nice to know that people care enough to keep in touch. In gratitude, please accept this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this, TomStar81, it's much appreciated! Though I can't help thinking that in this case it would be better named the "Trying to make up for random acts of unintentional discourtesy to a smart detective Barnstar". Nice work there! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Accademia delle Arti del Disegno

Gentile utente non so chi lei sia e quale competenze abbia, ma sta facendo un cattivo servizio alla storia e alla storia dell'Arte. L'Accademia delle Arti del Disegno non è mai stata fondata nel 1873, quella del 1873 fu una riforma sulla base della legge Scialoia e riprendeva una differenza già in vigore dagli statuti del 1861 con la divisione tra istituzione pedagogica e collegio dei professori (può anche vedere che il catalogo della galleria pubblicato nel 1865 si chiama Accademia delle Arti del Disegno). L'Accademia del 1873 non è un'altra istituzione come lei crede, ma è la solita. Numerosissimi sono i saggi e i libri in cui si può leggere questo tra cui l'ultimo volume sulle Accademie curato dal Ministero (Accademie Patrimoni di Belle Arti), e riprova ne è che il convegno organizzato a Napoli dal Ministero sullo stesso tema ha visto l'apertura del prof. Luigi Zangheri in qualità di presidente della più antica academia del mondo. Questo è perchè nel 1563 esistevano soltanto compagnie medievali tra cui quelle di Firenze (1339) e Roma (1478). Nessuna era mai stata creata da un potere pubblico con scopi pubblici e connessioni tra immagini e potere. l'Accademia di San Luca fu fondata solo 10 anni più tardi, ad esempio. Queste non sono opinioni, ma fatti!!! La prego quindi di desistere dal voler continuare a cambiare dati storici, tra cui il nome dell'attuale Segretario Generale che non è Domenico Viggiano, ma Wanda Butera. Accademia (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Accademia: Leggi la mia nota qui, per favore. Grazie. --Drm310 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I understand this issue and have repeatedly tried to direct the discussion to the article's talk page without any success. I, like you, have also commented on his talk page but that also seems to be ignored. I was going to post a request on a notice board but some real life issues have just arisen. Happy for you to intervene if it helps.Dan arndt (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input as to whether I am being too zealous but given you previous comments on the article about copyright issues I felt that it was better to be safe by deleting any potentially controversial edits.Dan arndt (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for the page to be semi-protected. Edit-warring, even if you think you're right, is never going to get anybody anywhere good. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right I allowed myself to get sucked in. Should have stopped and taken a breath. Will concentrate on improving the article with factual referenced information. BTW think you can remove the proposed merger with Trinity Chapel. I think I have established that it is a notable article in its own right - let me know if you feel otherwise . Dan arndt (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Marina Tchebourkina

Hi! When you have a moment, could I ask you to comment here regarding the above article, which you may remember from this note. Cheers, Basie (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I have just written to Basie and to you on his talk page. Thank you for your reaction! I first want to tell you that there isn't any conflict of interest in this article. Secondly, you can see yourself that this article is about a great personality of classical music fully worthy of an encyclopedic article. I present facts that everyone can verify. And you can certainly remark that the references presented in this article are impressive. Marina Tchebourkina is an organist and musicologist who has a world reputation. In addition, she is working to preserve the world organ patrimony. The article about Marina Tchebourkina should have existed on Wikipedia since many years (as articles exist about Olivier Latry, Jean-Baptiste Robin, Leonid Karev, Aivars Kalējs or Sarah Baldock…). Honestly I think this article is a necessary one. Best regards. MFJE (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Rodney Moss

There is a discussion at the WP:Help Desk concerning Joseph Rodney Moss, which both you and a bot tagged as having copyright violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Advice accepted for the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to stop by and apologize for my last edits to the article about Justice Moss. I was in a very bad mood this afternoon when I was sitting at my computer, and I shouldn't have reworked the text using a bunch of ridiculous phrasings just to make my point. I did not (and still don't) believe that there was any copyright issue, but I am sorry to have been so snide in response to what was clearly a sincere effort to improve the quality of the article.ProfReader (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

1937 in Poland

So far it is based on Polish-language article http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937. Whenever I have some spare time, I will be adding more information to it. Thanks Tymek (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Toggenburg (goat)

Hello, I expanded the article so would you mind dropping in and checking it out. It is probably on your list but just in case it is not I would like you to look it over and PLEASE feel free to make any improving edits necessary as I rushed it a bit. I mentioned it at Talk:Aspromonte goat. Otr500 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with copyright issue - Entry: Solvatten

Hi and thanks for your helpful message. Apologies for not responding sooner. I created a page called Solvatten, which was subsequently removed due to concerns around copyright infringements (some of the text matched that found on www.solvatten.se). An email has now been sent from a representative of Solvatten, which follows the guidelines given here Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This is all new to me, so I'd be very grateful if you could indicate whether the original entry will be restored, or whether it must be written again (assuming the the copyright issue is resolved). With thanks, Tmrl84 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Joe Williams (jazz singer)

A page you previously contributed to, Joe Williams (jazz singer), had many prior revisions deleted due to copyright issues. For details please see Talk:Joe Williams (jazz singer). Your prior version may be temporarily restored upon request if you need it for reference to re-incorporate constructive edits that do not make use of the copyright infringing material. Please feel free to leave me a talk message if you need this done. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Painfully bad article

May require your touch with languages as well as general copyediting... Arriero. Reading it made my head explode. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm

Found a totally unsourced horse breed article, want to do your copyvio check magic on it and see if you can find some RS on it? Nordlandshest/Lyngshest. Possibly @Pitke: can help if arnoudn en.wiki these days (Pitke usually hangs on Finnish wiki, but has helped with the Scandanavian breed articles) Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly all my sources are in Finnish, some lost to link rot, but I should be able to help with Norwegian sources to a decent degree. --Pitke (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Been there, done my thing. Please c/e since my equestrian English is totally rusty. --Pitke (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Apulia

Hi. I can't agree that this name is an archaism. We have our article at Apulia, not at "Puglia". Moonraker (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, Moonraker, nobody's perfect! However, you must surely be aware that Puglia is very frequently so called in spoken and written English (see this Google Scholar search, for example). That means that going round changing it to "Apulia (Italian Puglia)" is contentious at best, and could easily be regarded as WP:DISRUPTIVE - unless, of course, there is substantial editor consensus for such a change? I don't recall seeing any discussion of it at WT:ITALY. May I suggest that you self-revert those edits? May I also suggest that you brush up a bit on some of our style guidelines: proper names are not usually italicised, per MOS:ETY; and four-digit numbers do not generally require a comma (see MOS:DIGIT). You might also like to note that while we use the preposition "on" for small islands, we usually use "in" for larger ones; thus "on Montecristo", but "in Australia", "in Britain", "in Sardinia" and, I submit, "in Corsica". I'll put that back unless you get to it first. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As you say, no one is perfect, and some of these questions are more subjective than they used to be. To me, although clearly not to you, when writing in English the use of "Puglia" is as much a mistake as the writing of "Torino" or "Fiorenze" (which may occasionally be justified, but there does surely need to be a very clear and specific justification) and is likely to be the result of poor translation. If you feel Wikipedia needs diversity in the use of names and exonyms, then I don't see the benefits of it, but it is I suppose a point of view, and I shall try to be more tolerant of the use of "Puglia" out of deference for your view that it is now acceptable! On your other points, you are of course right that we would never say "on Australia", but we also would not say (or I should not) "in the Isle of Wight". I don't suppose it would be feasible to have a Wikipedia policy which distinguishes between the "on" and "in" islands , so we may need to agree that Corsica can be either. You are of course right that proper names are not italicized, with certain exceptions, such as the names of ships. Thank you for the link to MOS:DIGIT, do you have a more direct one? Moonraker (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Misprint! Sorry, it's MOS:DIGITS. Corsica is a lot larger than the Isle of Wight – I've switched that back to "in". Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will read it. Moonraker (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I did a quick Google search and Puglia gives me 76,600,000 hits, whereas Apulia is only 8,080,000. According to this site, "Puglia" is replacing "Apulia" much as "Mumbai" replaced "Bombay" or "Beijing" replaced "Peking." Hope this helps resolve that matter. Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Montanabw, helpful as ever. Up to a point I am surprised by those figures, although I suspect they may not reflect the usage in English-language reliable sources, which is the acid test. Clearly the site you have linked may be right that there is a movement going on in the world at large. Moonraker (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I did an advanced search limited to English language pages, but unfortunately, Google chose not to provide me with a total count for hits with that method. I did notice, however, that USA-based travel guides such as Fodor's [9], Lonely Planet and Thinking Traveler use "Puglia," Also, somewhere, I read that Apulia is a Latin word... No position on this, just data. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Violet Brown GRG sourcing

Hi, can you please tell me why you tagged the GRG in Violet Brown's article as potentially unreliable? I know they're the official Guinness World Records verifier (or something) for supercentenarians, and also, they are typically used as the source for birthdates in most, if not all, Wikipedia articles on supercentenarians. I'm merely curious as to your reasoning here.74.131.251.19 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it doesn't appear to meet our definition of a reliable source. I've asked about it at the reliable sources noticeboard. And because with two discrepant dates reported in the press, it's remarkable that the GRG should have chosen to "verify" neither of them, but instead have taken their arithmetic mean, don't you think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. I responded at the BLP board. If there is not an abundance of source material regarding her age, and this is the primary thing she is known for, it seems to me that she may not notable enough for a separate article. Especially given that she is ranked #40 in oldest people alive, and we would almost never cover 40th place for anything. I'm sure the top 1, 2 or 3 warrant an article, as there is probably some in-depth analysis available about their perspective on the changes that have taken place in the world during their lifetime and how they stayed alive for so long, the state of their health, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 00:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The GRG is Guinness-approved, though, and actually does the research into the birthdates of supercentenarians.74.131.251.19 (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, a lot more supercentenarians that the three oldest ever have Wikipedia articles, precisely b/c many of them get coverage in the media. Also, it is a good thing to note that Violet Brown is the first validated supercentenarian from Jamaica, and is at present the oldest living and oldest ever person from the country. Violet Brown is also much, much higher than 40th oldest living person (I think she's somewhere around 6th oldest living person).74.131.251.19 (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh now I see; there are lots of sources, but some say March 15, 1900 and others say March 4, 1900. The way it's done now seems fine. An alternative would be to just say "March 1900" and leave a footnote with the varying reported dates. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pixie mandarin, et al, copyright violations

With respect to the Pixie mandarin, et al, copyright violations by a particular user, I noticed your comment on the cleanup on that article and took a look around in the contribution history of this particular user. I found a lot of copy-n-paste edits primarily in biographies -- especially when this particular user created the page. It appears that the articles on various kinds of apples do not have this problem: however, this user may be using sources which aren't so readily available online to make this blatant plagiarism so easy to detect. Also, many of the copyvio instances I found by this user were generally done weeks/months ago -- he/she may have taken the warnings and stopped doing this (although, he/she did not go back and edit the articles to repair the existing problems). More simply, though: it could just be this user slowing down his/her edits during the holidays. By the way, I am not affiliated with the University of California, in any way (most of the sources in question are copyrighted by UC, or UC-Riverside, in particular) -- copyright violations simply make me angry and need to be flagged. Nusumareta (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I had already flagged this user's edits as needing a check, because of the number of CorenBot notices on his/her talk page (which do include at least one Malus cultivar, btw, a crab-apple IIRC); your listings today gave me enough cause for concern to request a CCI. We'll see if it is accepted or not. I believe this person to be potentially a valuable asset to the project, so I hope you are right that he or she has changed after the earlier warnings. If you are interested in working on copyright problems there is an almost unlimited amount to be done - the CCI backlog alone was just under 70,000 articles last time I checked - and any amount of help, however small, is always welcome. Thanks for picking up these, and for your other recent listings too. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio process question

I've been looking at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Riversid. I'm curious why we go through this process for articles that are entirely copypasta. Why not just nom the articles that are complete violations for speedy deletion? I get the idea of checking individual diffs when it might just be a sentence or a paragraph.

Along those same lines, as we determine Riversid's articles were copyvio's at what point do we just start blanket deleting them? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are hard questions, Chris, and I may not be the best person to answer them. The CCI process just lists all major contributions by a particular editor, so that we can then go through them and decide which articles need attention, and how to deal with them; some may be wholly copied, some wholly clear. Nomination for speedy deletion is one of the options for the former, certainly; however, as you surely know, admins are more likely to decline speedy for older articles or articles that have contributions from several editors, and many CCIs go right back in history to when less attention was paid to copyright. Personally, I try to weigh the potential value of each article to the project. If it's a topic that I think we should have an article on, or it in some measure helps to counter systemic bias, then I'd be more likely to leave it as a stub or even try to add a couple of sentences or references; if it's a totally trivial or promotional topic then I'd be much more inclined to redirect or request deletion. As you know, if the situation is complex, or there's doubt as to the best course, you can always pass the buck: blank it and list it at WP:CP, and mark it off as "blanked" in the CCI listing.

The specific case you mention raises another matter, editor retention: there we have someone with expert knowledge, working in an area where very little seems to be done (fruit cultivars), so perhaps our choices should also, within reason, be geared towards educating that person in our methods rather than driving him or her away. That said, my efforts to communicate there have met with no success whatsoever.

By the way, I filled in the Elsevier Google-form again with my name, but forgot to leave you a note to say I had done so. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In reply to your issue about Elsevier, your information went forward in the long list of the initial approvals. Elsevier is working on creating those accounts. They'll e-mail you when they have it lined up; hopefully soon. I will put out an announcement to the other applicants so everyone knows I'm staying on top of this.

I'm also the Visiting Scholar at University of California, Riverside so when I saw Riversid editing articles about citrus I assumed they had some connection to the campus. I've since contacted staff at UCR about this issue as I, too, would rather prevent this sort of thing. The first CCI I observed is $1LENCE D00600D, not an editor we'd want to retain. These things are difficult to cleanup and therefore drag on. It just seems to me a quicker fix ought to be implemented. Thanks for your reply. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustang dab

Withdrew my proposal to close, didn't realize the vote was going toward keeping it as primary, and parenthetical dab is the worst-case scenario here after we got 400 horse breed articles to natural dab. Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In other projects

Could use an English speaker who also knows French here: User:Montanabw/Horse welfare sandbox . I have the French editor of the fr.wiki article pinged too. No agenda yet, not certain if I will even create it, but if there's the energy to translate and get it up, I'm "donating" my user space. (Article will need some work to go into en.wiki). Montanabw^(talk) 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Montanabw, I'm going to pass on that one, the article is too much of an essay for my taste. I'd suggest trying to keep any version of it here strictly to the facts (relevant legislation, associations and the like) without getting bogged down in presenting the issues, always assuming anyone can establish what they might be (I keep my horses out in all weather, without any artificial shelter; is that more or less respectful/ cruel than keeping them in a cage three metres square?). But if you are stuck on a particular phrase, ping me – there's a chance I might be able to help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you there; the rodeo section jumped out at me as problematic as soon as it went up. I'm thinking to have the translation and sourcing in my sandbox and then use it as a template for an en.wiki article. (There's also an animal treatment in rodeo article that I really have issues with but I've sort of allowed it to be a little POV-land to keep the PETA types out of the main rodeo one.) As for horse management, I've long been of the opinion that if human beings go crazy spending 8 hours a day in a 10x10 cubicle, horses in a 12x12 one for 23 of 24 hours aren't going to be in their ideal world, either! As for horses in winter, check your email in a sec!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Craske

I submitted a new article on Margaret Craske to give a complete picture of her life and work. It has full and accurate information on her career and numerous citations of published, verifiable sources. She is an important figure in dance history, as a teacher of many famous dancers and choreographers. She is also of interest as a follower of Meher Baba, the Indian spiritual leader. As a dance historian, I am dismayed by the sketchy fragment that currently appears on Wikipedia. Please consider restoring my article. I think that you have made a serious mistake in deleting it. With all good wishes. Claude Conyers Claudeconyers (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The text you put there completely overwrote the existing article, which, while sketchy though it may have been, represented the collective work of a number of editors, myself among them. That's not how we work here. The talk page of the article would be good place to discuss this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I appreciate your personal interest in Margaret Craske, but I do urge you to reconsider your decision not to accept my article. It contains all the information in the current version, but it puts it in the broader context of a detailed, chronological review of her life and career. In the interest of making Wikipedia a reliable source of dance history, I do hope that you will reconsider. Miss Craske had significant influence on a great many important people in the world of dance. She deserves fuller treatment than what Wikipedia currently provides. -- Claude Conyers Claudeconyers (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for violating Wikipedia policy in recently mounting a new article on Margaret Craske. It was certainly not my intention to do so, or to offend anyone. I merely wanted to give a fuller survey of the life and career of Miss Craske, who is a significant figure in dance history. My article was carefully researched and fully documented. In submitting it, I thought that I was improving the content of Wikipedia. I am sorry to have caused any trouble. -- Claude Conyers Claudeconyers (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Claudeconyers, you didn't violate any policy, but in blanking the whole page just went outside what is our usual practice here. I understand that it's hard to find your feet here at first; one tip that may help is to make small edits rather than very large ones. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

de Kooning

Don't remember it and didn't author it but good work on copyright cleanup efforts. Do what must be done! Good luck. jengod (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Morkie

Hello Justlettersandnumbers. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Morkie, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's different enough from the original deleted version that I'd prefer it went back to AfD. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc, I expected that when I was able to look at the older version after JustChilling did the hist-merge there. But now that I come to think of it, wasn't that a mistake? The hist-merge is necessary if the same article has been re-created, as is the case at Zuchon (G4 inexplicably declined there by JustChilling). But if the new article is genuinely substantially different, why does the history of the old one need to be attached to it? The work of the previous editors is not present in the text, so doesn't need to be attributed. Or am I missing something? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That "newbie"

Hi JLAN, thanks for your sleuthing about that "new" user who was adding the promotional content to the Dressage article. I smell a sockpuppet and possibly paid editing. I guess we can just stay tuned. Montanabw^(talk) 19:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You may well be right. To me it looks like a new editor who has run head-first into a barrage of warnings for basic mistakes – stuff that a sock would be likely to know to avoid. But that's just my guess; I left her a personal note based on that assumption. And yes, tuned. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible for a new editor to also be a paid editor... but you were right to extend the olive branch. People sometimes don't know. Montanabw^(talk) 00:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Laura J Woods

Hello, I noticed you mentioned me as the one who re-added copyright violations to the Woods article. I seriously beg to differ. I spent quite a bit of time explaining copyvios to the original poster and then attempting to add in sourced material. Could you please enlighten me as to what copyvios I added? I am really confused here. JodyB _talk 21:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is possible you are referring to this diff where I reverted and began to clean up what was there. The end result however was well sourced and gave the foundation for a better article. Please note that I explicitly explained copyvios to the editor. JodyB _talk 22:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've just finished posting an explanation on the talk page there. You restored copyvio content to the article with this edit after I had removed it. Please don't do so again - as you surely know, those who do so repeatedly risk being blocked from editing. I applaud your efforts to help a new editor, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, JodyB, that's the one. As this tool shows, it has not been cleaned up - there is still substantial overlap. And in any case that is not the point: our policy is not that if you add a copyvio you must rephrase it afterwards and add sources; our policy is that you must not add the copyvio. Full stop. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It was rephrased as the diffs show and sources were added. In any case I am done with the page. My goal was to help someone. May I kindly ask that in the future, when we happen to disagree, please assume good faith. Your block threat was really over the top and unnecessary. I can assure you that I am capable of entering a collegial, professional discussion if given half a chance. JodyB _talk 22:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. A reminder is not a threat. Please read WP:AGFC. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning things up

Hello, I understand that you added a copyright violation notice to The New Adventures of Nanoboy. I looked into that site, I found some on the Synopsis and Character info of Oscar/Nanoboy, Issac and CJ as I rewrote it by scratch on the Temp page with some modifications to avoid infringement. Hope this would help as I will explain this info to the patroller of the page. Agentmike41 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Also I managed to update articles for The Mysteries of Alfred Hedgehog and Matt's Monsters on the Temp page of each. Hope this issue gets resolved soon. Agentmike41 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Random thoughts on WP mirror sites

I was realizing that some of the older WP articles will be likely to be flagged as copyvios when they are not because there are so many wikipedia mirrors out there. I was looking at an article I worked on 5-6 years ago and ran that copyvio tool on it and it erupted. But I happen to remember writing the content myself, it was not a copy and paste, rather the opposite. I know that the site supposedly "copied" was actually created after the edits in question. How can we sort out those sorts of things? Montanabw^(talk) 06:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it happens all the time, and it isn't always possible to get to the bottom of it; the Internet Archive doesn't always have definite proof one way or the other. But in most cases, a Wikipedia article evolves in gradual steps; if the text can be seen getting progressively closer to what's on the external site, that tends to be an indication that they got it from us. If it was dropped en bloc into our article and then gradually changed to become less similar to the supposed source, that tends to indicate the opposite. As you know, if a suspected copyvio is shown to have been them copying from us, you can tag the talk page with {{backwardscopy}}. I think Garrano pretty much needs a total rewrite; that IP also added stuff to Asturian pony, later inadvertently carried over to Asturcón, and to Galiceño, Criollo horse and Azteca horse; they're all going to need checking (that's why I listed Garrano at WP:CP rather than just fixing it – as reminder for the others). I might get back to Horsecanter some time, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It never ends, does it? Montanabw^(talk) 20:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You can say that again! But we'll get there ... perhaps! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Strawberry Schoolhouse

Dont worry, I'll take care of it, and I apologize for any confusion. Thank you.--The Old Pueblo (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist please?

You have a working familiarity with the doggone M/mustang issue, and now we have this article in need of watchlisting: Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. See talk page drama and edit history. The editor raised one legitimate issue and I fixed that bit. But I am concerned that this new editor is making massive and irrelevant edits to the piece, some without proper attribution. It's a GA-class article, one where Dana boomer led the push (and she doesn't edit any more because she's just sick of all the drama) Might also want to watch new edits for copyvio issues. Don't quite know why it's mustang season around here, but it is. Montanabw^(talk) 07:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a topic that's a long way below my threshold of interest. I see that there's been some lively activity there. If you want a suggestion, which you probably don't, I'd say that agreeing on the reliability or otherwise of the various sources would be a good first step, and that WP:RS/N would be a good place to take any disagreement over that (checking the number of Scholar cites for the various authors or works might also help). I don't immediately see any cause for copyright concern in the recent edits; an older version of the page shows a fairly alarming degree of overlap with http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0977.pdf. Personally, I'd be more concerned about COI, though I'm not 100% sure about that. I've been lucky in the lottery for access to various databases, so if you're looking for an academic article there's always a chance I could help – feel free to ask! Oh, and good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I think on that article we are seeing the return of a rather notorious sockpuppet that made my life a living hell for about a month in 2009 and then popped up a couple more times later (ItsLassieTime was the original sockmaster, the CCI is still not cleared!). This was one of Dana's GAs, and I'll take a closer look at it. One thing to note is that works of the US Government by an employee of the government are in the public domain, though of course citation is still needed. But the duplicative material is mostly legislative and legalese that generally has to be phrased verbatim lest its meaning change. Thanks for the flag, though. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Montanabw, that makes it plagiarism not copyvio. I think you're on the wrong track with the sock idea; consider WP:REALNAME instead ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

On a totally different note, I recreated the formerly deleted Kalmyk horse today, maybe peek at that and feel free to improve it as you see fit. Also recreated American Indian Horse, though to do so pained me considerably as it sure looks like a "send us a picture of your horse and we'll register it" sort of operation, for all they claim to be a "breed." But given that there are few sources and they all repeat each other, maybe do a run-through to see if you can further eliminate any close paraphrasing; i did my damnedest, but it may not have been enough. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Are the COI and "puffery" comments permanent or may they be undone?

I may have taken the wrong approach to getting your attention to the article on Thomas M. Humphrey, but I just clicked "undo" on your latest revision. In the long run, the article has been dramatically improved by your insistence at the removal of many of my COI additions, which I now realize did not fit the guidelines for an article on a living person. However, some of the current content, e.g. the small paragraph about his thanking his former professors, now appears inconsequential and should probably be removed. The long quote from Humphrey from one of his own books was an attempt to illustrate influences on his study and writing in the field of history of economic thought. Now that the quote has been removed, the short summarizing paragraph is superfluous and adds no additional information for encyclopedic content.

Similarly, the COI charge for the newspaper editor Lewis Craig Humphrey, my husband's grandfather, seems unwarranted, since he died in 1927. I never met him. I was born in 1936 but have access to a great deal of professional ancestral research, family records, and saved images which I hope to place in the public domain with Wikimedia.

Thank you for your ongoing assistance Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Mitzi.humphrey! Comments in the edit history are permanent (unless there's some really serious reason for hiding them); clean-up tags on the article are not – they are usually removed once the clean-up is done and has stayed done for a while. In the case of Thomas M. Humphrey, that is far from being the case. At the risk of boring you further: it is definitely inappropriate for you to edit your husband's article directly; please use the talk page to suggest or request changes to it. Experience (both yours personally and that of the project in general) has shown that it is extremely difficult for people to edit neutrally on topics that are close to them. As for Lewis Craig Humphrey, I don't believe I have ever edited there. The COI tag was placed by an experienced and fair-minded editor, so I suggest taking the same advice in relation to that article; indeed, I strongly suggest that you adopt the same strategy towards all articles about members of your husband's family. Even if you never met them, it seems to be difficult for you to judge whether or not they should be included here. Why exactly do we want an article about William Richardson Belknap? He had a hardware shop, married, had some children and held some parties, died and was buried. That may be interesting to you because he was an ancestor of your husband, but it is not, I'm afraid, in the least interesting to the rest of us. If you are in any doubt about this, I suggest asking either at the Teahouse or at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I'm afraid this is not what you wanted to hear. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am disappointed in not being able to make Thomas M. Humphrey a better, more neutral, article without eliminating important facts such as the Earhart Foundation grant. I don't understand why you would refer to William Richardson Belknap's presidency of Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company as having "a hardware shop."Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Was one of your reference additions yesterday to William Richardson Belknap the reference to The Philatelic Society? Do you know if those envelope images are in the public domain? I have a similar, but different, envelope image from one for sale on Etsy, and I have thought of uploading the image to William Richardson Belknap, since it appears to have been addressed by him. Would it be simpler to upload the one on the Philatelic link? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

YGM

You've got mail. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's food for thought, Diannaa! Thinking ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Black horses

FYI, I acknowledge that the Black (horse) article needs updating. Back when Countercanter was here and working on all the coat color genetics articles, we missed that one, which is ironic, as I got interested in the whole genetics issue in part due to owning a black horse for a while (I also owned a kind-of-rescue-horse who turned out to be affected with cerebellar abiotrophy, which what really got me interested). The coat color testing stuff is just fascinating. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it only needs minor changes - it already says (from memory) that even expert horse people can't reliably tell the difference. I accept all the stuff about legal descriptions and so on (in presumably a tiny number of countries, in the strict context of a contract of sale), fair enough. All that's missing is a clear statement that not all black horses are genetically "true" black, so that, at a purely practical level, "black" can link there without the necessity of a DNA test for a handful of animals on a mountain-top in Nagorno-Karabakh or wherever. In WP terms, if the source says it's black and the source is reliable, we should – within reason – accept that; but we can't assume that they have scientifically confirmed that it is (or is not) genetically black unless the source says so. The differences and fine details and all that should be explained in the article on the colour; so it does need to be an article on a colour, not just on a specific gene.

Thanks for the photo of your neddies; I laughed – mine get a lot more hay than that when there's snow on the ground (but they don't have the shed to go to). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to get a grin, mine are such easy keepers that they are perpetually porky... my dad used to put out multiple bales of straw for bedding and protection of the cattle in the winter when I was a kid, I hear you about keeping the hayburners burning their hay for warmth! Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As for black horses, we can discuss wording there if you want to post at talk. "Looks like" versus "is" does have a philosophical element to it. I agree we can't DNA test every horse, but in truth, experts who see a horse over the course of several seasons CAN say what color it most likely is. (We probably need a RS for the definition of "horse coat color," LOL!) When a horse changes color during its life, it obviously isn't whatever people thought it was as a baby; the way the Thoroughbred people say "gray or roan" for all their grays (true roan does not exist in Thoroughbreds) is just pandering to people's ignorance...a young gray horse isn't a roan and will never be a roan. (Just like a bottle blonde isn't a blonde, no matter what the picture on the box says... heh). Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, will be offline due to cataract surgery for a couple days, hoping for the best! Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for the great work on Terry Reagan Allvord Theroadislong (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! As so very often, I came to an article that was a mess, and found that you had already started sorting it out. Thank you for all you do! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Ratn9ne that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In particular, "dicks". The heading has been revised. If you think Ratn9ne has a COI problem, then just ask. If you have some evidence to show COI, then post it. Also, you might use the {{Connected contributor}} template. But please be prepared to say why you think there is a connection.Thanks.'' – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ermm, Srich32977, please get your facts straight! I assume you are talking about this edit by Ratn9ne at 21:17 on 27 February 2015 with the edit summary "lol". As you can see, that edit was made by Ratn9ne, not by me. I'm considering starting an SPI there, by the way; but perhaps you are right, and I should take it to WP:COIN first. There's no doubt in my mind about the COI, and not much about the socking. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right. I saw your signature and I did not look at the history. I apologize and my comment is stricken. – S. Rich (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Spot reply

If you check the links I listed in regards to the Spot fish on the Spot Fish & Spot Croaker articles you will see the original editor only copied information from those sources and spliced it into what the Smithsonian already created, Also conveniently misnamed the species. Cheatspace (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Artists Union

Thanks for your contribution to the Wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Contributions by Headhitter

Thanks for identifying that the rewritten Barbara Borts article had been wrongly located. Somehow having an article, even in draft, on a Talk page seems counter-intuitive. You might wish to know that I've also rewritten Southlands College, Roehampton: could you please take a look? I can work on rewriting Isabella Plantation next if that would be helpful. Incidentally, all has gone quiet on the OTRS raised for Rebecca Hollweg; it would be good to know please what the problem was with the email correspondence I submitted about it. Headhitter (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio for The Mysteries of Alfred Hedgehog

Hi there,

As you can see on the page The Mysteries of Alfred Hedgehog, some anonymous user has removed the copyvio notice meaning the Synopsis part of the page is not needed. Later you restored it. Well on the temp page, the page is the same but without the Synopsis. Even though the info is already next to the Title.

The Broadcast section on the temp page has been added because the unreferenced part of broadcasting on the page has been removed.

I wonder there is a way to fix this issue. Agentmike41 (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Agentmike41, there's a backlog. It'll be dealt with soon, I expect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Fish Article

Hi, I would like to bring this to your attention & get your input on it.(Link Below) With this in mind. I would like to look forward to collaberating and creating accurate content and building this article up.

Link below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spot_croaker#Response_to_Reliable_Sources

I do not feel that we should argue over the article and not make progress to correct it.

Cheatspace (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Request, please

I was the one who discovered the copyvio on the Gun law in the United States article and did what I could to remove it. What I added to the article, I added in GF and with an eye toward paraphrasing the material at the source cited. (Not easy to do when one is dealing with laws, but the firearms editors like these kinds of details.) Could you please have a care with your edit summaries?[10] Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

LB - I'm not sure what you're objecting to with those summaries - they address the issue, don't name any names, and are pretty much neutral towards things. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Lucius Beebe Memorial Library

Hey Justlettersandnumbers I know we resolved this and I appreciate all your help. Unfortunately, the page hasn't been redirected yet. Do you think you can help me out? Thanks again. Petercannon usf (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Hi Jlan. I've fixed some problems with the headers for March 11 through 17 at Wikipedia:Copyright problems as the pages were not transcluding for the bot reports (sample diff of correction). Also, there's no header for March 9. Would you mind adding it to the page? I'm not experienced at that page and am not sure how or where to place it. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks Diannaa! I really need to get a bot to do those tasks - it probably wouldn't make as many mistakes as I do! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking care of this. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun law in the United States

Hi Jlan. Please have a look at my edit and rev-del to the talk page and make sure what I did was okay. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, I'm hazy on how copyvio on talk pages is meant to be handled, but you've done exactly what I thought ought to be done in those circumstances. Many thanks! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The article rev-del had to be done in batches, as trying to do it as a single thing was "too large". Almost broke teh wiki ;) -- Diannaa (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw. What a marathon, many thanks! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Canovu's article

This page should not be speedily deleted because there are no Copyright infringements on the created article as the artist's website clearly notifies that both texts and visual material are under a Creative commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which allows even commercial use. The article was not directly copied from the official website but inspired on it. Please, revise and consider my petition as it doesn't violate Wikipedia standards for encyclopedic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truesc (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Truesc, CC-BY 4.0 is not a compatible licence here. Please also read our guidelines on autobiographies and notability, which seem relevant here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Anjuman-i-Ulamah-i-Bangala

The copyright is subject to Copyvio (which you have not indicated to the page admins) and further appraisal by the admins in the Category of Bangladesh and Portal: Bangladesh. If you have any complaints with regard with regard to the article being a violation, please point it to us using copyvio. Also, the copyright policy is no subject to the Copyright law of the United States, so the policies are not that stringent in this case. Please notify the admins and it will corrected promptly.

It's not very clear what you are trying to say here, Messiaindarain. However, since you restored the copyvio to the article after I had removed it, it is now blanked and listed at WP:Copyright problems for review and processing. That is usually done within a week or two, depending on the backlog. You should not edit the article, but are welcome to start on a rewrite. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

PLEASE HELP ME RESOLVE COPYRIGHT ISSUES!!!

I hereby affirm that I, StudioM NYC, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of minakoyoshino.com. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Minako Yoshino Content Creator and Copyright Owner of StudioM NYC and of minakoyoshino.com content. Wednesday, March 18, 2015

(Redacted) 24.168.72.32 (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Justlettersandnumbers. I got the same message on my talk page. I assume it's from the article's creator editing while logged out. On the off-chance, I've posted some advice for him/her at User talk:Milkyway2012#Minako Yoshino - help with copyright issues. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw. Hi, Voceditenore, good to see you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Good to see you too!. I just realized that the IP had included their phone number in all their messages (they put identical messages on the talk pages of 6 editors!). I've now redacted it from them all. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kian-Gwan Kongsi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates and more templates

Wondering if we need to somehow consolidate all the "horse breeds by country" templates we have now, did you note Template:British horses? Is there something of a consistent format for all these? You know I'm not a huge fan of the "by nation" templates, but seeing as how they are being created, might as well make sure they all look nice and are consistent with one another - and all link to the list of horse breeds. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

General Apology!

Hello! Just a message to inform you that I've received your messages, become aware of the situation, and consequently responded on the appropriate pages. Once again though I'd like to personally apologise to you for the amount of your own time that all of this has taken up, and to assure you that I've been oblivious to this mounting drama until now, and that I firmly believe that nobody was acting with any ill will or intent to deceive - I think it has all been an unfortunate combination of naivety, inexperience and misplaced enthusiasm. Nonetheless, thankyou for responding as you have, my sincerest apologies for any complications caused, and I wish you the very best of luck. BriceStratford (talk) 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a very generous apology, BriceStratford, and I thank you for it! And yes, trying to make sense of what has been going on has been very time-consuming. I don't know how it will all pan out, but I strongly recommend that you and those around you stick to one account each and avoid editing any article where you could be even suspected of having a conflict of interest. It's obvious from your edit history/ies that you have plenty to contribute to the project on other topics. I was pleased to see a page on John Counsell - I knew him in the 60s–70s when my mother lived in that area. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Donkeys!

Interesting article with some good stats, might be just up your alley: [11] Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It does look interesting, thank you. Can't promise to do anything with it, but I'll at least read it! As for your mail, I don't think there's anything I can usefully do there. I happened to look a Rose–Baley Party today because of the close-paraphrasing problems there. That's an article that really needs some expert attention from someone who knows something about the old West – in the short passage I read, it has thoroughbred cattle, Clay Trotting Horses as cow-horses, and six oxen to pull four large wagons. Interested? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I popped by and made a couple comments, but given who the lead editor is, frankly, I am not surprised: I am up to my eyeballs at an FAC by the same editor on the article Irataba. Similar concerns, though that article has had additional eyes on it and is vastly improved from what it was. The bandwidth being spent arguing about it is, well, peek at the FAC, but only dive in if you have a lot of time on your hands. I also just survived another round of Mustanging... don't get me started. Montanabw^(talk) 04:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page - Carborundum Universal Ltd

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

I have done my work with temporary page- User talk:SiloniSam/Carborundum Universal Ltd/Temp and I excluded all that u have mentioned before about the article and thank u. I am expecting you to help in improving the article. Thank you. SiloniSam (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)SiloniSam

I'll try to look at it soon, SiloniSam. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Tony Wood (businessman)

Hi.. thanks for pointing out the copyright problem over at Tony Wood (businessman). I wanted to let you know that I have rewritten a new lead to that article, should you wish to reassess it. Danimations (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it soon, Danimations. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have written a new article.

I have created a temporary page because the article at B FLOW Zambia is suspected to be a copyright violation. Please take a look at this substitute article Talk:B_FLOW_Zambia/Temp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icem4k (talk • contribs) 19:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it soon, Icem4k. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Sophie Lillienne

hello i saw copyrigt report on sophie lillienne page actually there is not this problem. check the site http://www.radiostar.it/Sophie%20Lillienne/ could you suggest me the best way to resolve this problem? in the meantime i will create a temporary page using the history of the page (hoping this porblem can be solved)

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraverroni (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There definitely is a problem: the copyvio was removed once, then restored with this edit. The article will now be checked and cleaned. That is usually done in a week or two. No-one should edit it until after it has been processed. You should stick to one account when editing here. Other editors are welcome to work on a rewrite, assuming they that the topic is notable; since you appear to have a conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from doing that yourself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

why do i appear to be in conflict of interest? this is discouraging to help improving the article (my opinion) Lauraverroni (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

About the current definition of Geoethics

Dear Justlettersandnumbers, I have included a comment here with regards to the changes that you made about the definition of Geoethics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geoethics I hope my explanation is considered and accepted. Please, I apologize for my unexperience editing wikipedia. Any assistance from you is welcome. Thank you! Jesús Martínez-Frías, President, IAGETH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.130.249.49 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Jesús Martínez-Frías, I will take a look and see if I can help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there an anti-thank button?

This kind of stuff? Just stop it.

(No, no. Don't. Because then they'll never get done.)

I'll try to hit some more at WP:CP this weekend. Have you looked at User:EranBot/Copyright/rc, by the way? I've been poking at that a bit, and it really works pretty well. It's easier to use than CorenSearchBot. I almost wonder if we could get them to take over new articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S., in all seriousness, I really do need to say thank you. You've done some awesome work keeping that up to date. I've had some personal life stuff eating into my volunteer time for a while, and it's been awesome to know that it's in good hands. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You are sorely missed when you are away. It might be almost under control (apart from the difficult stuff) if it hadn't been for the influx of drafts. I didn't say anything, but I'm not sure how many of those really needed to be listed rather than just cleaned up. I looked briefly at the Eran thing again yesterday, but am nowhere near up to speed on it. What bothers me is who is going to check all the reports if it starts running full-time – we're barely afloat as it is. Oh well, tomorrow is another day! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Florilegium (music group)

FYI, regarding Florilegium (music group), permission has been archived in the OTRS to use certain copyrighted text. Please see [12]. I offer no opinion on whether or not the content is appropriate for the article for other reasons. (I realize that you removed the text in question 5 months ago - there's an excessively long backlog in the permissions-en queue.) --B (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, B; I'll modify my talk page comment accordingly. I rewrote the article from independent sources after I removed that text, so I won't be adding any of it back. And yes, I ought to be trying to do something to help with that backlog too ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Young & Hungry

By any chance, do you know how long reviews take for the copyright investigation? I wrote the rewrite over a week ago if I am correct. It's just a question. Thanks, Callmemirela (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela, in theory the article stays listed for a week to give people time to rewrite or otherwise fix the problem. In practice, I'm afraid there is a severe backlog and and it may take a good deal longer. Thank you for your rewrite; I'll try to take a look at it. But more patience may be needed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Article to peek at

JLAN, can you do your thing at Paul D. Cronin? The individual is adequately notable (I've read his book, actually) but the article is awfully heavy on resume elements. Needs a bit of a look from someone with more time than I have at present. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm ... as it happens I've already had a go at that. Obviously I didn't do very well, but it's not our worst article. Poor man's only news coverage is because his wife died in a riding accident. I read somewhere here that because the college is threatened with closure there's been an attempt to raise its profile on Wikipedia; I don't know if that's true, but it looks that way on the face of it. See Lendon Gray, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an editor has accused, and continues to accuse recent edits as being from alumnae with POV issues. Adding notable people to their relevant lists who probably should have had articles written on them already is the least of anyone's worries.Ladysif (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ladysif, we are actually trying to help you improve these articles, don't be so defensive about it. You are a relatively new editor and you need to learn how to edit. Best not to assume anything is being taken personally, just be open to suggestions for improvement. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

History purge of Barbara Myerhoff

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. I see that you are an OTRS volunteer. Regarding the history purge of Barbara Myerhoff, there is a relevant ticket at VRTS ticket # 2015010810011112. --B (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, B, for noticing that. I'm going to ask Moonriddengirl, who kindly did the revision deletion, if it should now be undone again (there's no rest for the wicked!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Re:Translations

Ciao Justlettersandnumbers,
I am just fine, thanks, except that I just moved and my books are still scattered among my new home, my office and only God knows where. You are most welcome to correct all my english mistakes: actually, someone was buzzing in my ear that desecrated wasn't really the correct word, but you arrived first. :-) About translation, well, what you are saying is only the half truth. Actually, I started this article translating the italian version, but I noticed soon that there were no inline citations. Then I looked in my bookshelves, dug out the "Guide rionali di Roma" (the best source about all the "minor" art works in the eternal city) retrieved info and added notes on the english edition, then went back to the italian edition and added the related info and related notes there. Moreover, I had to ask a colleague in Rome about a missing reference in the Italian wiki, in order to add it in the english one. So, if you compare the Italian version of 5 March with the english as of today, you can see that they are quite different (3K against almost 6K), but it is true that the two versions of today are quite similar, since I have been working on both, enlarging the english one and transferring info and citations to the italian. As a general pattern, italians on wiki:it write good stuff, but they almost always don't insert inline citation, so their articles are good only as starting points, but then one has to research everything again and rewrite a great part of the text. Anyway, it is true that I sometime translate literally little articles from other wikis (the last is this one), and there sometime I forget to add the template, s.o.m.!

Back to this small church, I wrote the article since my best friend in Rome lives next to it, so I saw the portal at least 200 times in my life, each time that I rang his door bell. Actually, the restaurant that was there was a Govinda restaurant of the Hare Khrishna (it closed about twenty years ago). It would have been a nice hook for the DYK, but unfortunately I could not find any citations on the web that affirms that this restaurant was in the church, so I was forced to renounce to this precious information. :-) Another missed scoop is that it is not true that there are only two surviving frescoes of the church: once I went with my friend in a neighbour's home, and he showed us beautiful religious frescoes in his living room, which was part of one of the naves: but also this info was never published, so I cannot put in the article.  :-) Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a case where an image is worth a thousand words – can you sneak in and photograph it? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I am not in town, but in a couple of weeks I'll be in Rome again, and try to do that. I cannot rely on my friend, since a couple of years ago he let the theater shut down, since they were doing a lot of noise until two o'clock in the morning. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey

When you find an article with a small copyvio section (e.g., Malcolm H. Stern), is it really necessary to blank quite so much of the article? The original contributor is quite upset. DS (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Understandably so, there's already been a good deal of back-and-forth there. I've no idea why someone didn't blank it straight away and let her rewrite from scratch; but they didn't. The page was a foundational copyvio; a big chunk was very correctly removed, but some bits either escaped or were added back later. The whole text needs checking and the history is quite long; there may also be other problems in her edit history. I saw no alternative to blanking it. As I said on the talk page, if I'm wrong about that I expect to be told so. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't appreciate you moving my comment from here. Erika

Louise Blouin page - References

Dear Justlettersandnumbers,

I have been trying to post some content on LOUISE BLOUIN Page. The content posted was supppressed by you, and the reason was "largely irrelevant content, the remainder not supported by the source cited - Wikipedia is built on INDEPENDENT reliable sources".

My sources were : 1- Canadian Business.com: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lifestyle/louise-blouin-macbain-the-art-world-aficionado/ an article written in 2005 by Zenia Olijnyk and 2- The World Economic Forum, Davos http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GLT_ClassOf1993.pdf

I do not understand the reason why my posts were suppressed. The content and the sources are relevant.

Could you please clarify this situation, where I feel beeing mistreated. Furthermore, this page is only giving space to "CONTROVERSY", when all the real and interesting pieces of information on Louise Blouin are suppressed by one user. This is not fair, as Louise Blouin is a public person.

Hoping to read you soon. Caparica20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caparica20 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Young & Hungry episodes

Why did you blank out the whole article for just an issue with the season one summaries when you should have just removed the summaries? I tried to fix it by doing just that and just got backlash and insults from another editor who reverted it. Would you please remove the copyright template by reverting to my last version which doesn't have the copyright issue? helmboy 00:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Helmboy, the article is blanked because it has numerous copyright problems. They will be sorted out in due course, but that board is back-logged and it may take some time. As you know, the blanking template carries a clear message, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". What makes you think that does not apply to you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't said why you couldn't have either brought this up on the talk page or just removed the offending material. I don't believe the template was created for something that would have require so little effort to fix. I believe the template is there for articles that would take some time to correct and rewrite. Could you please think carefully before causing such a major disruption over something so simple? Thank you. helmboy 00:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: (long username there), and this why I filed an ANI report. This user fails to understand one simple rule that I have been repeating over 100 times. They fail to comply the one and only rule which is not to edit the page while this is being processed. Helmboy, could you think carefully before being irrational and having a know-it-all, always-right attitude and make idiotic, lame assumptions? The template was placed because there was copyright content. Content I was unaware of until Justlettersandnumbers initiated the investigation. Quite frankly, you really know nothing about handling copyright so why are you still putting up with it? It's more than "just remove the copyright content". You again fail to comprehend that the issues have to be resolved by admins. Are you an admin? No. So stop having this lame and degrading attitude of yours. You've been here two years now, and you seem to be invincible and call out well-experienced users based on your poor editing techniques and inexperienced solutions. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions

• Talk:Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions. • Serviceable†Villain 12:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Request on page. Good luck with your editing. • Serviceable†Villain 02:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of Australian Aboriginal languages page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

All we can do is our best

I would love the COI guidelines within AFC to be debated and thrashed out, I find it a difficult area. Thank yo for the compliment. I try my best and am by no means always correct. I'm learning only to make a review when I am as certain as I can be about it. Fiddle Faddle 16:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing I find upsetting is not the COI editors. Bad ones can always be slapped away like mosquitos. I am upset by the very poor quality f the AFC submissions and, indeed, resubmissions. I do not believe in babying an editor. They need to be treated as responsible adults with sufficient education to create an article, but it is astounding those who refuse to believe the advice they are given. COI is not, I think, a problem of itself, but fan articles and POV pushers are. COI editors can be brought into line. Fans are 'harder'. Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed that is all any of us can do; of course, then there are those of us who manage to fall short even of that ... I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#No COI in Draft space? to see what those who frequent that board think about this. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to your question on Beyond My Ken's talk page

Hi JLAN. I noticed your question on his talk page, and I'd like to answer it. Truthfully, both "East Village" and "West Village" can go either with or without the definite article, but many New Yorkers prefer the definite article. Epic Genius (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Epicgenius! I thought that might be the explanation of the apparent confusion in our articles. I did in the end put the articles in at Caio Fonseca. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Istanbul

Hallo Justlettersandnumbers, Alessandro writing! I would like to ask your opinion about recent edits on several articles concerning landmarks of Istanbul, like for example Hagia Sophia. An editor added the template (and related category) which identify each of these landmarks as (parts of) a world heritage site. I am perplex about this edits, since the WHS of Istanbul are defined as four areas, and there is no list of the single landmarks in these areas by UNESCO. If we want to be correct, we should then mark any object in these areas (also the minor ones, as the Milion) as world heritage site: incidentally, this would be the case also for Rome and the Vatican. But so we would "pollute" the WHS category with thousands of objects (included San Simone e Giuda :-)). What do you think about that? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Alex, only now looked at this. Your comments at Talk:Istanbul seem logical and correct. If you are looking for a counter-example, you might mention the Megalithic temples of Malta, where the seven temples are specified in the UNESCO listing, and each one (e.g., Ħaġar Qim) is in the category and has the WH designation in the infobox (correctly, IMO). There doesn't seem to be much discussion happening, though? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! Yes, there was no discussion at all, and I wonder if this means consensus or no to my opinion. The author of the edits did not answer to my remarks either, so I don't know what to do...Alex2006 (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I just removed the WHS Templates from all the Istanbul articles, except at the walls, which are explicitly mentioned. I hope that this won't cause the third world war :-) Alex2006 (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Massachusetts prisons cleanup

Thanks for taking care of Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center‎. I notice that the same IP added significant content to a few other related articles at the same time in 2010. That content may be suspicious and is worth checking in to, if it's survived all these years. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Good thought, Ashill, I'll take a look. Good catch there, btw; as you'll have seen, there was an earlier copyvio from 2006 too. It seems there's no end to it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Kinda complicated

It is mostly WP:CWW. He used to copy and paste things from articles like the examples here, and I tried to keep up with it a while.

*His edit: [13]

Article 1:, Gustav Klimt: Here I just tried to rewrite a bit to avoid copivio. (why on earth Pilot is talking about the erotics and women's body, when the painting is about beech trees goodness only knows.)

Redoing:[14]

• His edit: [15]

Article: [16]

My correction:[17]

• His edit: [18]

Article: see third section, [19]

My correction: [20]

• His edits: [21]

Article: [22]

My correction  : [23].

Later I gave up. I would say 88% of his edits were copy and paste. Read my page... (the section: "...responded to your question here" and eventually even section "Missing you". Hafspajen (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

More

Signpost:[24]

Article:[25]

Article:[26]

Nomination:[27]

Signpost:[28]

Article:[29]

Nomination:[30]

Signpost:[31]

Article:[32]

Signpost:[33]

Article:(section History, third para)

Signpost:[34]

Article 1:(third para)+

Article 2: (section:Reputation)

Signpost: [35]+

Article :(The painting depicts a natural philosopher, a forerunner of the modern scientist, recreating one of Robert Boyle's air pump experiments, in which a bird)+

Nomination: ( Many of those surrounding Christ—including the Three Kings—are caricatured slightly or shown as a grotesque, )

No worries there is more... Hafspajen (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

We say, at the top of every Signpost FC, that material ay be reused from the relevant articles. While, ideally, everything would be rewritten before publication, given the disclaimer, you really need to drop the stick, Hafs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that WPPilot claimed at least twice, on my talkpage and his talkpage, that his editing resulted in an overwhelming increase in readership, maybe we should just copy and paste the whole thing. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Adam Cuerden, , that's not enough, and if you don't believe me, and it is obviously that you don't why not ask Moonriddengirl about it. It is simply fantastic how you all, people, defend a guy who is socking, uncivil, who's edits are copvio, not only on Signpost but in articles, constantly, under an extended period, check: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 20. Do you understand that it is against Wikipedia policy to be uncivil, or you simply don't care about that either? Was it my comment about the guy Michelangelo copied that made you think that I am among the bad guys now? Why are you doing this, Adam? Have you forgot how we worked together, how we had fun, how we liked each other? How come that this guy succeeded to put a barrier between us and you all AGF him, while you don't even link my name at Signpost, so people should not read my talk? It is preposterous how people tried to silence me, turned your back to me, declare that I am wrong while you all defend a guy who is obviously a problem editor... What can I do or say any more - have we not helped each others before? Have we not cooperated before? Have we not supported each others? How come that you suddenly see me as the enemy? Why? What have I done to deserve this? Hafspajen (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hafs, you've been attacking him for months. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I really don't understand all the heightened emotion about this. There seems to be a lot more involved than a simple question of best practice attribution. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hafspajen, Adam Cuerden, I am sorry to see that there is not harmony between you. Please let me know if I can help to get the sun to shine again, the bees to buzz, the birds to sing (I mean it – if I can help, tell me how). But, please, in the meanwhile, could you please not wash your dirty laundry here? – it disturbs my wa, what little there is of it. If anyone has concerns about WPP and copyright, his section at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests is probably the best place for them now. Thanks, goodwill to all, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, Justlettersandnumbers. I think I just give up. Hafspajen (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Here we go

• I deleted Precious Metal (aircraft): it was a copyvio from the get-go, and there was no point in trying to rewrite a poorly written article on a plane that might possibly be notable, and then deleting the entire tainted history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And I'm removing one from Laser (dinghy)--straight-up copy and paste in 2013; just utter incompetence for which there is no excuse. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The edit from Hedge fund was a copyvio, and a COI (this case). Drmies (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Both edits on Amanda Knox are straight-up copyvios: pure copy and paste. Note the correct and clear edit summary by Tarc--and note that these are from 2014. Another revert was by Binksternet. Both are now removed from the history. He did the same on Murder of Meredith Kercher; again Tarc removed it (Tarc, next time let an admin know so we can clean it up. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The big edit on United States Court of Federal Claims was copied from this document. BD2412 explained how this is not a copyvio, though it is plagiarism (thank you BD2412). Drmies (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Bob Hoover edit was copied and pasted from this. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Affinity fraud wasn't a copyvio, but I'm removing it for BLP reasons (related to the COI). Drmies (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hollister Municipal Airport was copied and pasted from this--and this was from last week. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice work, Drmies! How did he stay under the radar for so long? So do you want to open the CCI? There seem to be at least 128 articles needing a check (less the dozen or so that you've already hit) under this account. I don't know the other usernames, but I suppose those contribs would all need to be checked too; I imagine you are on that as well. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never done one before and for me to learn that would be a waste of time, haha. It took me forever to do one single RfA yesterday. So... Drmies (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

OK Drmies, NP, I'll either ask one of the copyright "regulars", or let it wait its turn (backlog there too, of course). You probably don't want to hear this right now, but his talk page is a blatant copyvio as it now stands; the lyrics there are copied from here, where they are clearly marked as copyright. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Justlettersandnumbers, please do me a favor and give me some specific pointers on the Hinton article, since I don't really see the copyvio. If it's there, please give me the diff(s) and a phrase or two and I'll try to take care of it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I've replied there. Thanks for dealing with the talk page problem. Regards as always, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your current recommendations?

JLAN, which program is your current go-to for detecting basic copyright violations? The one wmf had up for a while was gibberish to me (gave a percentage and flagged mirror sites) and dup detector is ... tedious. Have any new gadgets come up lately? Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, I use both those; I find the Earwig tool useful to do a general sweep on suspicion, but prefer the DupDet one if I think I know the source. There is a new tool, User:EranBot/Copyright/rc, which is going great guns; but as far as I know you can't manually submit to it. Was any particular page bothering you? You never know, I might see something to confirm or allay suspicions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

[36] Quietly, check the article, if you please. See [37] You certainly don't have to, but I hesitate to touch this new one. Montanabw^(talk) 02:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For not only going to the effort to save an article I deleted, but following through, and then finding all the copyrighted revisions, and requesting deletion of them! You have earned this barnstar of dilligence! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 22:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Chrislk02! I'm still not sure that he meets our notability requirements, but I thought he at least deserved a chance. Thanks for your help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ive saved an article or two like that [38] -> Umakant Sharma (and it became a DYK, and eventually survived an AFD))! Keep up the good work. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 23:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pings when filing SPIs don't work

I don't know if you recall, but you pinged me in your original SPI of BriceStratford, and I didn't receive notification of the ping, and you thought the software must have malfunctioned. Here is the explanation of why pings do not work in the initial filing of an SPI; it's because the SPI-filing software adds your own signature itself rather than you signing manually. Manual signing is evidently what activates the ping. See User_talk:Drmies#That_stupid_pingie_thingie. Softlavender (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering_events. By the way, this is all news to me, too. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Softlavender, that's good to know; it'd be better still to know they're fixing it. What a waste of everyone's time that SPI was! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, since it's not (considered to be) a bug, they aren't going to be fixing it. The ping is activated by the tildes one types in the signature -- otherwise we'd be pinged by every single incidence of our username across the entire encyclopedia, no matter where or how it occurred. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The Most Beautiful Villages in Italy

Hi, if you have time can you check the deletions to the above article. I'm a bit pressed for time. I have already reverted once, on the basis of unexplained. Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Denisarona, I looked, and let those edits stand; it seemed to me that the clean-up was for the better, and got rid of a lot of annoying flag- and crest-cruft. However, I don't feel strongly either way. I'll probably move the page in a day or two unless anyone objects. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the thought, but WP:IAR

• Thanks for adhering to whatever rule you just adhered to by reverting my edit at Talk:Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions, but your correction was unnecessary. I changed my username in the course of the conversation, and that page might be viewed by outsiders (since I emailed them and asked them to look at it). I was afraid the name change would be confusing. I know at this point you re just itching to quote that rule you adhered to, whatever it was, but please don't. Please see WP:IAR. The only thing my edit did was change MY username to the new version. And oh wait... perhaps you'll even go so far as to say that IAR only applies when following the rules is actively detrimental to the encyclopedia. Well, IAR also applies when following the rules upsets something that is at worst harmless and at best actually helpful. So please. Don't revert me again. Tks. • Arch♦Reader 05:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  And AGF applies everywhere, so there's no need to write long hypothetical decision trees that serve only to patronise Justlettersandnumbers in what I can only assume is an attempt to demonstrate your own superiority. Ironholds (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • • First, why are you in this conversation? What brought you here? Second, if you can verify a violation of any rule in the above, please do drag me to some admin hangout and block me or whatever. If not, please do AGF. You're calling me patronizing, saying I'm trying to be superior, etc. I see exactly zero AGF in your remarks, but I do see personal insults... • Arch♦Reader 22:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
      • For anyone reading this (including the owner of this talk page), note that the relevant page's edit history shows the new name for all the past edits, so keeping the original name in the conversation is just unnecessarily confusing. - dcljr (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • As another talk page stalker (a common species on Wikipedia), I'm a bit confused by the tone of this discussion. Isn't the edit summary of the revert pretty self-explanatory? WP:TPO leads to the section called "Others' comments". It seems likely that Justlettersandnumbers misunderstood and thought User:ArchReader was somebody else bowdlerizing someone else's signature. It happens. The subject line "change username to something less negative" certainly doesn't immediately make it obvious that User:ArchReader is the editor, changing his own username to something less negative. This looks like the kind of good faith mistake that can pretty much be handled by an explanation, sans sarcasm or hostility, and everyone goes on about his or her business. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dcljr: (also, ec with Moonriddengirl) Ah, I just noticed this. No please, reconsider: I deliberately changed one AND ONLY ONE page because it would be confusing for NON-Wikipedians. I changed ONLY my username... as a courtesy to non-Wikipedians. Non-Wikipedians would not know to look in the hist etc. I emailed non-Wikipedians and asked them to look there. They probably won't, but that's a little irrelevant. I didn't do anything genuinely confusing like AWB a mass of pages. I edited one page. @Moonriddengirl:, I too am very confused by the hostile tone that Ironholds has adopted. I thank you for noting it. • Arch♦Reader 01:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing hostile intended in your initial note, then? Good to know. That "thank you" sounded like it might have been a bit insincere. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Moonriddengirl: Alas, there is a concerted (as in, "joint") and apparently succesful effort to make *me* the topic of conversation rather than the actual topic (Gender pay gap). Please do take the time to read other peoples' comments. And take the time to read mine. Their tone is, in every single case, clearly and objectively insulting. I know they are admins, you're an admin, they work for Wikimedia (some of them), you work for Wikimedia, etc etc. But. Objectively. In every case, their tone is worse. And they show no desire to consider what I write; they merely reject it as "condescending". That is very convenient. It is also objectively insulting. I am merely explaining things in detail to people who have demonstrated that they either do not know or do not care. Why is "explaining things in detail" condescending? It isn't. They are making me the topic, to drive me off the gender gap page. This is the juncture where you say "AGF". But they have not "AGF" at any point, and since they are first movers in the area of personalizing the conversation, and since they are admins etc., they will win any conversation on the topic of personalization. That is a given, from many long years of Wikipedia. But I will continue to edit gender gap, despite their apparently successful attempts to slap a label on me. Thank you for your time & trouble.. • Arch♦Reader 04:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh PS, I am not referring to Justletters and numbers. He/she is probably merely scrupulously adhering to rules. Tks. • Arch♦Reader 04:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • User:ArchReader, of the two people I see in this conversation besides you and me, one of them seems clearly upset with your note and the other one seems supportive of your action. Perhaps your tone in your original note was more abrasive than you intended; text like "I know at this point you re just itching" does, unfortunately, read as patronizing. I am unfamiliar with any interactions you may have had at the gender pay gap page with anyone, but to an uninvolved bystander User:Dcljr seems to me to be wholly supporting your change in his brief comment here. If you think that it was intended to drive you out of the gender pay gap discussion, there may be a subtext that is not visible to me, but I wonder if you are misinterpreting it. And you are very welcome to my time and trouble; if I can help alleviate tension, I'm happy to try. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 08:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Moonriddengirl: please just remember my name when I'm dragged off to ANI. I can produce a note from my mother which states that I am a genuinely well-behaved lad. • Arch♦Reader 13:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  And you're really mystified as to why people find the attitude you're bringing to discussion problematic? :/ Ironholds (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Actually, no. I'm not mystified at all. I am problematic because 1) I support no particular POV, and am not generally willing to submit to those who do, and 2) I strive to build intellectual rigor, structural soundness and logical integrity into articles, and at times I explain at length why various articles or sections lack some or all of those characteristics. In short, I am a pain in the ass to at least some segment of editors, but I am only a PITA to those who either carry the flag for a POV, or are intellectually lazy, or both. To people who are willing to see things from every perspective, willing to acknowledge and correct structural flaws that (innocently or deliberately) support one or another POV, willing to work hard and pay close attention to detail, to those people I am a welcome soul and boon companion. I am not always right, but I admit when I am wrong. I am not arrogant or condescending. I try to be both exact and exacting. Editing Wikipedia is not brain surgery or rocket science, but it does require intellectual integrity, moderately hard work, and attention to detail. That is all. • Arch♦Reader 01:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A nice speech, but incorrect; that is not why there is an issue with your behaviour. There is an issue with your behaviour because even if you don't realise you're being patronising and superior, you are - and when this was surfaced to you, you responded with dissembling. That speech is an excellent example: right there I see a long explanation of how intellectually sound and brilliant you are, a dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you as "lazy", and a dismissal of any criticism on the grounds that you admit that you're wrong when you are and therefore if you aren't admitting you're wrong you must be right. It's a slight upgrade from dissembling through making jokes about a note from your mother, but not right. And please stop with the "I don't adhere to any POV" stuff; everyone has a point of view and everyone has priors and if we're talking about "intellectually lazy" actions, it's intellectually lazy to claim that you lack such priors, as well as an invitation to fail at self-examination. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock of Trident13?

Hi JLAN. Could you take a look at User_talk:Nmwalsh#Solvilo and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nmwalsh? One of their edits copied content from User:Trident13/DavisPAuthor which was then used to recreate an article after an AFD using a slightly different title. They started editing shortly after Trident13 was blocked which also strikes me as suspect. Can you notice any behavioural crossover between them? Cheers SmartSE (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't waste time on looking too hard actually, I've already found quite convincing evidence that I'm putting together. SmartSE (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Immediate, glaring similarity: both Solvilo and Walsh create sandboxes that are copy-paste assemblages of copyright material, just as Trident13 did. User:Solvilo/sandbox/Jillian Haslam is copied from the Calcutta Telegraph, Draft:Victor W. Hwang is a copy-paste from the bio here. If you succeed in establishing the connection, these accounts will need to be added to the already huge Trident13 CCI. The absolute clincher, by the way, would be to find copyvios as hidden text in early sandbox versions of the pages. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

SCV

Hi JLAN, you may want to spot-check some of my other closes of late... Crow^Caw 22:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Only if you'll undertake to check some of mine, Crow! Take a look at Anubha Bhonsle, for example, where I seem to have managed to miss the copyvio and to fail to notice the previous AfD. I think you do really well at asking for input when you're in doubt; I'm going to try to do more of that myself, take a leaf from your book. Thanks for all you do! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Is CC BY SA good enough?

Is CC BY SA good enough? that's what the UNESCO folks seem to say the text is, somewhere in the legal verbiage etc. • Arch♦Reader 11:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) should be, if it's a question of inclusion-without-copyvio; Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA licensed itself I may or may not have got a tattoo of the iconography as a result Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You have a tattoo of CC by SA? Dude, and I thought I had obsession/addiction problems. You need a good 12-step program. • Arch♦Reader 01:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)My test is simply, "try uploading it with that license to commons and see if they take it or not." If the Commons crowd OKs it, you're golden. If not, good luck with a fair use rationale... :-P Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Too late. My edits have already been hauled up before Da Man. I had to email UNESCO. Repeatedly. • Arch♦Reader 04:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

07:08:09, 21 May 2015 review of submission by 213.34.87.34

• 213.34.87.34 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lita Cabellut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

213.34.87.34 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I made the edits suggested and gave it a more "encyclopedic" tone to this article. I hope it can be approved now!

Thanks a lot

213.34.87.34 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Harry Redknapp

Just ran across this, and what on earth is going on here? I'm concerned that it is being linked to a page that is clearly a copyvio in and of itself - the original page for that information would be this one, although any attempt to actually retrieve that article in the correct state is impossible (none of the archive links at the Web Archive seem to work). In addition to this, a huge number of the flags being raised would be triggered on almost any article, because there are very few other ways of describing things without deliberately going against the MOS, the standard formatting for the Football WikiProject, or without significantly changing the information present and presenting this in the wrong way entirely. Not only that, but there are a fair number of totally false flags in there as well. Whilst some of it definitely could, and should, be cleaned up and reworded, I really don't feel that this justifies a great big scare template on a highly-visible article - the evidence is just far too weak, and the scare template stops anyone from attempting to resolve the issue. I mean, the vast majority of flags are either people's names, club names, or references to seasons/times in seasons, with little else there! I strongly feel that you should remove the template. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Lukeno94! What's going on is that this is one of many articles where an editor who made or makes a habit of copy-pasting from copyright sources did just that. Here's a DupDet comparison. I expect you are right that the page identified as the source is not the true original one; however, the date there proves that the content was not written for Wikipedia and then copied by other sites. I've requested a CCI for this user, but that board, like almost all of them, is backlogged. WP:CP is in the same state. The template will be removed when the problem is resolved, not before. You or anyone else is welcome to rewrite the article at any time; that might speed things up a bit. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Just a (rather late) courtesy note to say that I've removed the copyvio notice and all of the copyvio content that was validly tagged. The detector is still going to complain, of course, but, well, I've already explained why the vast majority of it was a false flag. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94, I can't deal with this now, away from my desk. However, as you don't as far as I know have the right to remove that template and haven't resolved the issue, may I suggest that that you revert those edits, restore the template, and wait until someone who knows how to deal with this kind of problem sorts it out properly? I know it's frustrating that it doesn't get done quickly; on the other hand, those interested in the article have had eleven years in which to notice and fix it ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think doing so on such a high profile article would be rather daft. If it was on some obscure medieval article, then sure, but we look incredibly stupid by leaving that template there on a fairly high profile page. If anything else, IAR and all that. If there is a single real issue that I've missed, then I will happily resolve it. As to the issues not being fixed; well, I would lobby that a great deal of them were actually fixed, and it was just a few remaining bits that needed work. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Scarisbrick (surname) - copyvio?

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

I am the creator of the website "Scarisbrick - on the Internet" (url: http://scarisbrick.name) and I am slightly confused as to what happened to Wikipedia's "Scarisbrick (surname)" page on 28 April 2015 regarding the request for historical revisions of the page to be redacted because "the article history contains significant copyright violations" of my website. Does the copyright violation refer to the article history or my website and, if it is the latter, is there anything I can do to help?

I would be grateful if you could explain things to me in layman's terms!

Regards, Rob (User:Scaz) (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)No one can just copy and paste from anywhere else onto wikipedia, especially without proper attribution. Even if it's your own website... and technically WP:COI may apply to you if it is. But to the point of your question, as the editing window says, "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." That means that everything on wikipedia is free for anyone else to use for pretty much any reason. You also cannot plagiarize even public domain work. I'll let JLAN explain further to you, I was just popping by. Montanabw^(talk) 04:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Scaz! There's no problem (that I'm aware of!) with your website; and even if there was, it'd be none of our business. As Montanabw says above, our copyright policy does not allow copying of copyright material into Wikipedia. If you are the author of the content, you can release it to us – there are details at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials – but for the protection of the copyright owner as well as ourselves, we can't just take an editor's word that he/she is the creator of an outside page (even if, as here, it is obviously true). Until and and unless that happens, we treat it as a copyright violation; hiding it in the page history is part of that routine.

Some of the content you originally added to Scarisbrick with this edit appears to have originated elsewhere ("Descriptions courtesy of Lancashire Parish Council"), not just from your own site; for that to be acceptable, the permission of the council would be needed too. I'm not quite sure why it hasn't been hidden in the history of that page. There's no action needed from you, though you are welcome to go through the donation process if you wish. In general, as here, it's almost always quicker and simpler all round to just write new content in your own words. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Montanabw and thank you Justlettersandnumbers. 13:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Hi JLAN, I have been through the whole copyright and citing process with wikipedia administrator Bgwhite. The Adnews link you cited was copied from the TrinityP3 website which belongs to Darren Woolley. The original content (before your edits) was rewritten so that it wasn't exactly the same but with the amount of nouns needed to describe where and who he worked with it, was difficult not to "paraphrase". Also, why did you remove his 'Personal Life'? Darren Woolley provided me with that information so it's not copyright material. I do want to get this "right" and include more of the original text rather than as it is (which is almost stripped bare). The original is still in my Sandbox. Please help, thank you Hpe3121 (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! (1) Please read WP:conflict of interest; if you are personally or professionally connected to Woolley you should confine your edits to the talk page of the article. (2) We take particular care not to publish unreferenced personal details about living people – please see WP:BLP. (3) It doesn't matter where the content was copied from, copyright material cannot be copied into Wikipedia; please see WP:COPYOTHERS. (4) The best place to discuss this is Talk:Darren Woolley. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi JLAN, In response to your comments:

• 1. Darren Woolley is an extremely prominent Australian in the marketing and advertising industry. I have never met him personally but I am an admirer of his work and did email a third party for information on his personal and professional life because of the copyright issue.
• 2. I see what you mean - veracity can't really be proved without linking to births, marriages and deaths.
• 3. I didn't copy any material. I researched the material and rewrote it in my own words for clarity rather than ambiguity (as it is now). Wiki administrator Bgwhite said my rewrite was good, you say it is not. This is confusing.
• 4. Bgwhite told me to go to his/her talk page to discuss, not Darren Woolley's talk page. More confusion.

Aforementioned third party pointed me to the image of Darren Woolley which I accessed online. I uploaded this image to Wiki Commons and added it to Darren Woolley's page. It has since been deleted. How do I prove no copyright for an image of an individual? Most photos of individuals are from pages where there is no explicit giving up of copyright. Should it be on Flikr or similar? Can you give me instructions on what else I need to do?

Thank you for your time. This is the first article I have put on Wikipedia so it has been a huge learning curve for me. Regards, Hpe3121 (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Horses of India

Wondering if we need an overview article, I'm not finding anyone other than Hendricks and wikipedia morrors who mentions an "Unmol" horse, but if it's an extinct type, may have some relevance merged into something else. Don't know. IN the meantime, found these, FWIW.

• http://horseindian.com/indianhorse.htm Indigenous horse society of India
• http://nrce.nic.in/breeds.php National Research Center on Equines (atrocious spelling: "Water horse" for Waler horse)

Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd have sent Unmol to AfD if I'd found only Hendricks (to be honest, my first thought was "hoax?"). But this reliable source from 1999 and this mention were enough to convince me that there is or was such a thing; I had meant to add those sources to the page. Based on the latter, it's probably a Pakistani breed not an Indian one; at a guess, Hendricks copied her material from a source written before Partition (1947), so has the north-west Punjab still in India. Hendricks is not a good source for this sort of thing. Got to go, more later. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We are in agreement here. Hendricks has her strengths and weaknesses. Comprehensiveness is good, critical analysis of source material, not so much... Montanabw^(talk) 08:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, you probably don't want to go near this with a 10-foot pole, but it's b-a-a-a-ack; the "kill all redlinks because they re awful": Wikipedia_talk:Red_link#Proposal_regarding_redlinks_in_navigation_templates so far also (closed) and (still open). Get out your popcorn and watch the show.  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Peperoncino

Hi, on 31 March 2015 you made several edits to Peperoncino, for which I'm grateful to you. However, you also moved the line in the intro which addresses the confusion with the friggitello to a note. I think this confusion should be clarified in the introduction itself instead of the note, because it should be as obvious as possible. A reader reported on the talk page Talk:Peperoncino#Pickled salad peppers that he was still confused. You responded with creating appropriate wikilinks to the friggitello article, but I still think it would be better if the note was moved to an in-text mention in the intro. Would you object if I change it back? --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the courteous note. In general, I don't think that the lead of an article is the right place to deal with misconceptions and confusions – the lead should be about the topic in hand. However, I'm fully open to suggestions. I think the talk page of the article would be a good place to discuss this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Another one you probably don't want to touch

Discussion of "race" versus "breed" at Talk:Race (biology); it's apparently a spillover discussion from the human race article, which is locked down and the combatants at ANI. I'm thinking that the animal one should just be moved and merged to breed to avoid the whole drama. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If interested

This article needs a rewrite: Freiberger. Lots of good images, but the writing is so bad that I hope it's not a copyvio, because a copyvio is usually of better quality. But this one is probably up your alley. Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely at least partly copyvio, another Horsecanter copy-paste from EquineKingdom. It would indeed be up my street, including sorting out the translated stuff, but I have little or no time for wp at the moment (busy in rl at least until August) so I'll blank and list it. Good catch! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If no one has cleaned it up by August, we might both be able to work together on it. I've got other wiki-fish to fry, so to speak (American Pharoah at FAC, for example) and RL is always there... meh. But yes. Onward... Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

animal breeds
Thank you for quality articles on animals, their breeds, including lists and templates, such as List of French horse breeds, for Category:Music theory articles by importance, for your modest "Yep, that's me! Abbreviates to JLAN.", for conservative caution regarding copyright, and for courage, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 912th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! I felt honoured then, and do so again now in retrospect. You are, by the way, a pretty good Wikipedian yourself! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I feel supported ;) - I hope you know - and don't mind - that it's the prize of the cabal of the outcasts ;) - "awesome" wasn't my invention but inherited from the great people who looked around for quality contributions before me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of COI tag

hi Justlettersandnumbers! just asking for a response to my query on the Brice Stratford talk page - what are the remaining issues with the article? 63399896enrique (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks to me the problem is that you aren't disclosing that you have a WP:COI with the subject. And, more to the point, that you are yet another sockpuppet account of the same troublesome editor who has been causing problems at that article in the past. Read the guideline I just linked and see if you can address that problem. You have only edited that particular article and then complained that your edits were reverted. Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ornithology

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Geometry of Fear

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, just wanted to come by and say well done and thanks for all your work on this article. I'm a huge fan of the work, and it's long overdue. Excellent job. Thankyou! The Dancing Badger (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, The Dancing Badger, for those kind words. I had some fun with it. What struck me most about them was how quickly and completely most of them were forgotten – that seems to me rather unusual. I put it up for DYK but didn't think of a very striking hook – if you can improve on that, please do! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! They were of such significance, and made such an impact, but are now relatively obscure even among enthusiasts. Bizarre. The Arts Council did a touring exhibition of them called (simply) Geometry of Fear a few years ago, that was my introduction. Have just put together a quick (and far from complete) article for Leslie Thornton (sculptor), to finish the set. The DYK's a toughie... The Dancing Badger (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Brera Academy

Good job, thanks a lot! --Carlomartini86^{(Knock-Knock)} 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ornithology part 2

As you and Jytdog may recall, one of the articles the sock/meat farm is involved in is Secret Cinema (company). Could you both keep it on your watch lists -- it is becoming a veritable ad/brochure. Also, the current main sock/meat editing it has also just created Fabien Riggall, also worth watching lest it become likewise fluff/puff. And in case you are wondering the connection, here is a photo of Brice Stratford at Secret Cinema with Fabien Riggall: [39] (click "and 33 others"). Also, Secret Cinema is the first thing listed on Stratford's official CV besides Owle Schreame: [40]. Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Uber-cool

This is interesting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2015/07/30/in-spain-the-american-mustangs-ancestral-cousins-live-on/

I was just judging a horse show down in Wyoming a couple weeks ago and there was a BLM Mustang born on the range and adopted as a yearling at the show, looked just like a Lipizzan - six years old, already near-pure white coat, about 15.1 hands, classic Baroque type. I was flabbergasted. (Also awarded him supreme champion in the halter classes, even though he was a gelding) Was a fun show, some other folks brought in three of those Gypsy Vanners. Threw a western saddle on one and took them in the trail (horse show) class. You never know what you can find out here in the wild west. Someone just put a Haflinger in the "free to a good home" section of the local paper. Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting indeed – that would be an event to see, always wanted to go there; but if a million people go, I think I'll steer clear, I don't much like crowds. I was surprised to see the skewbalds in there, though when you think about it of course the American paint colours must have come from somewhere... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In the USA, the assorted pinto horse or "coloured" spotting patterns (technically, "Paint" is the American Paint Horse over here...) in the Mustang are assumed to have come from Spanish stock, though a lot of other stuff has also been added to the mix. Researching the genetic roots/history of Tobiano, frame overo and splashed white is something I've yet to do; the yet-unmapped genes we informally call Sabino" are found in Arabs, but not the other three. Other spotting patterns - possibly even some of the "Sabino" ones - have now been linked to Dominant white—to the point some suggest the gene is misnamed as there are a lot of spotting patterns in the W alleles (I think they are at 20 now). Fascinating. Where cream gene dilution came from is also an open question — seen in Spanish lines, but also common in the Akhal-Teke which makes me wonder about an Asian origin. Dun is clearly a wildtype and leopard complex is... just weird... but very ancient. (Lascaux caves have spotted horses, once thought to have been artistic license but DNA now suggests they really did paint what they saw) Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

As for national parks, I can guarantee that if you ever hit the Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range and Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area you won't have much company. My dad used to have a saying, "it's the kind of country where a jackrabbit would have to pack his lunch." Pretty, though. Can access much of it with ATVs or a jeep. Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Geometry of Fear

Hello! Your submission of Geometry of Fear at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Taylor & Francis

You should have received an email a couple of weeks ago regarding Taylor & Francis - could you please either fill out the linked form or let me know if you didn't get the email? We'd like to get these processed soon, and may pass on unclaimed accounts to waitlisted editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Now done, Nikkimaria – I'm only sporadically able to access WP at the moment. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Palazzo Brera

Hello! Your submission of Palazzo Brera at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nutopia (Production Company)

Hi There, yes new to Wikipedia! This is my first attempt at amends and trying to understand it all - hence the only one page edit. I am a bit confused why the filmography has been removed as well as key people in the info box - i have found articles to back them all up? Also what "promotional language" are you referring to?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.143.252.2 (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

94.143.252.2, by "promotional language" I mean stuff like "Nutopia is best known for creating the ’mega doc’, huge scale series designed to stand out from the crowd. It is one of the top 30 “True” Independent producers in the UK"; that's also a copyright violation of this page or some similar common source, by the way. So do you in fact have a personal or professional connection to the company? If so, please read the links I left you. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Geometry of Fear

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Palazzo Brera

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Brera

Hi. I just want to let you know that this ip address, which is badly editing in Brera Academy, is in it.wiki a verified sockpuppet of User:Alec Smithson, which is doing the same thing. In it.wiki that user has been banned for a lot of troubles he caused. A lot of pages he wrote and a lot of edits from him in it.wiki have been deleted or reverted as copyviol, vandalism, not notable, source mystification... ALL his edits are potentially wrong, trust me, and the worst thing is that he uses a lot of nicknames and ip addresses, and that makes really hard to follow him. I'm not so active here in en.wiki, and my english is not so good, so I can't do here the same supervision I did in it.wiki. So I feel obliged to let you know this situation, and I hope that also here in en.wiki you will succeed to manage the situation. If you need, I can give you more details. Thanks a lot. --Carlomartini86^{(Knock-Knock)} 12:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Carlomartini86, that's good to know. I'll keep my eyes open. How much do you know about Giambattista Pittoni, which needs a complete rewrite? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the main thing I know about him is that now his article is much better ;) --Carlomartini86^{(Knock-Knock)} 20:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sheep breed stubs

For your information, I am expanding sheep breed stubs in connection with the Stub contest. I am choosing poorly referenced articles that are of a sufficient length to be easily expanded to the required 1500 B. I have about a dozen more on my list! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool, though I don't think any of "mine" that you've touched so far could conceivably be described as "poorly referenced". In general, I'd avoid using DAD-IS as a source when there are also conflicting and more reliable sources – the numbers you put into Brogna are way off those reported by the Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia for the same year, for example. Perhaps I could also ask you to respect the referencing system in use in those articles that I have created (list-defined, without cite templates)? Good luck with it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Some of the stubs are well referenced but others have no references at all. Since Wikipedia probably has stubs running into the millions, I have plenty of choice so chose a topic that interests me where I thought expansion would not be too difficult. I note the other points you make. Cheers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

Hallo Justlettersandnumbers, and thanks for your nice message! But who told you about this (totally undeserved) honor? Apparently I am still missing something about Wikipedia's communication channels :-) Thanks again, Alex2006 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Alex, we have ways … In this case, it's simple: your talk-page is on my watchlist. Congrats again, truly well-deserved. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh

FYI: [41] Long term abuse problem. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• may be over by the time you read this, but this may be of interest to you. Montanabw^(talk) 19:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Your input was the decisive bit. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Spent Idols

As you may have seen, I declined your request for speedy deletion of The Spent Idols because I wasn't sure how to handle the situation. This action is now the basis of a big thread at WP:AN, "What to do about additional articles by Orangemoody socks"; I had asked Risker's opinion of my decline, and he basically said "Let's ask the community". Your reasoning for requesting this page's deletion would be helpful here. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Nyttend, NP there – I see it's gone now anyway. My reasoning was very simple: the checkuser team said at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody#Articles "In this specific case, however, in order to prevent article subjects from continued shakedowns by bad actors who are causing significant harm to the reputation of this project, the articles are all being deleted". I took that to mean that they intended to delete all the articles, and that if any had got left behind then that was as the result of an oversight, so I tagged some for deletion. But as you can see below, at first I didn't tag them right. Should I be listing them somewhere or something? (other than at User:Justlettersandnumbers/CSD log, that is?). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem was that the same page said that admins "may" delete pages created by Orangemoody, but I took that as an implication that they didn't have to be deleted: in essence, it looked to me as if the instructions were self-contradictory. Not sure that there's a need to list them somewhere. Meanwhile, I don't see this as a G5 situation, since Orangemoody wasn't blocked until yesterday: I see it as a big case of IAR, with these deletions not meeting any criterion but still being highly necessary. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

CSD

You didn't specify the CSD code when you tagged Mirus Academy (U.S). Once all admin's are familiar with the Orangemoody situation, they will understand but it would be helpful if you would indicate that the criteria is G5.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sphilbrick! I really should have been able to work that out for myself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I know the feeling :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

George Ranalli

I would like to suggest that we remove (or edit) the COI in a way that removes the name of the editor in question. Why? Because the editor's name matches that of Ranalli's wife (assuming I have read some of the citations correctly). We don't know for certain whether it is actually his wife. But, either way, it is not good to (a) "out a person" or (b) have another editor maliciously use the wife's name. — Eurodog (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course you are completely right about outing and about impersonation. But she's freely admitted that she's his wife, at the link I added to the {{connected contributor}} template, so I don't see any problem in this case. Do you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Manada

Hello! I'm so sorry I never noticed your question on the talk page of my sandbox, not until today, finally. You asked whether of not the word manade in French might not correspond to manada in Spanish. You are probably right, since the term has roots in both the Provençal and Latin languages, as can be deduced from the first line of the article ( "A manade (prov. menada, originally from lat. manus = hand)[1]"). But I am not qualified to say which way it went, from the Spanish to the French or vice versa, nor do I have any sources to prove this point. My best guess is they used the same word as they shared the same interests. The last letter in the modern version of the words is only a co-incidence. Feel free to edit this article in any way you wish! Paj (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Paj, and welcome back (I think you have been away?). I too imagine that the two words have a common origin, but have no sources to prove it. Next time I'm in a library perhaps (if I remember …). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Just..., it'll be interesting to see what you find, the memory and other activities allowing. Rs Paj (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Francesco Filippini

I like to know why you erase my integratoion to Francesco Filippini without no reason. --Alec Smithson (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, Alec Smithson, the reason I gave was "Unhelpful edits, not an improvement". Your edits did not make the article better. You added a ridiculously long bibliography, a large number of inappropriate categories (for example, Category:Art genres, although Filippini was a person, not an art genre), an unreferenced list of museums and an unnecessary See-also section. Your edits on this wiki appear to suffer from many of the same problems that got you blocked on it.wp, with the added difficulty that your grasp of English is apparently very poor. I strongly suggest that you either familiarise yourself with the basic principles of editing here or limit yourself to creating articles only through the AFC process – or, better still, do both those things. I've had just about enough of trying to tidy up behind you, and should warn you that I am likely to ask for some limits on your freedom to edit here if I see much more of this sort of thing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

In first I think that the bibliography can help to improve the articles step by step and are checked bibligraphy not ridiculous these is sorry offensive, please check. In second the presence in the museums is an important section for an artist also to visit. For example I wrote the Awards in the rights space of the Infobox and you completly erase without reason. For category is true Filippini is a person not art genre but represent an important art genre in italian. I understand that you said me and I will try to improve the basics principles, but please give more respect and investigation about that the people write because maybe are interesting items that come from a long work of research and need only to be correct. Thank you. --Alec Smithson (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Madura Kulatunga

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

You recently put COI tag on Madura Kulatunga article. I create this article with help from Wikipedia Live Chat (IRC) support. I did all the things they told me to do. Lot of things they changed, remove, etc. Then they told me to submit for review. Reviewer also found errors and Rejected several times. Then I again got help from Live Chat Support and correct those errors. Finlay my draft got approved and become Live article. Then again User:CactusWriter Administrator & Senior Editor III revised this entire article completely with his neutral point of view. Plese look at this old revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madura_Kulatunga&oldid=679414220 and compare it with current article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madura_Kulatunga

I put this message on Talk:Madura_Kulatunga and then I added User:Madura Kulatunga to the Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles and Template:Connected contributor to the Talk:Madura Kulatunga. But User:Jytdog is not allow me to remove COI tag from article page. If you think User:CactusWriter's revision is acceptable you can remove COI tag and add Madura Kulatunga to your watch list. Thank you 112.134.148.4 (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

112.134.148.4, I think you were pretty lucky that the page was not again deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. Please don't copy content from outside sources into Wikipedia again. What exactly is your connection to Madura Kulatanga? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Palazzo Parisio (Valletta)

Regarding the potential copyright issue on the Palazzo Parisio (Valletta) article, could you please indicate the parts of the text which appear to be copyrighted? Unless User:Continentaleurope wants to do it, I can try to rewrite the parts of the article which are copyrighted. Best regards, Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have already suggested to do it but they did not answer me. I really dont know which part they are refering to. I am assuming there must be a small part of the article that i may have used close wording to the citations given. If you have some time please do for the community. Thanks for your dedication. Continentaleurope (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, Xwejnusgozo! I can't tell you which parts are and which are not copyvios – the whole article needs to be thoroughly checked in order to know that. However, you could start a rewrite from scratch on this page. If you do, please do not copy over any body text from the old article, it all needs to be written in your own words, based on what the sources say; it's completely fine to copy over the infobox, images, categories, references and so on, though. Most of the article is a sort of drifting account of the Maltese islands (the market in Merchants Street, the ministers in the ministry and so on). Obviously, all that is needed is an account of the palace itself, its history and architecture. If you could do the sort of job you did on the Auberges that would be great. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote the article here: Talk:Palazzo Parisio (Valletta)/Temp. I did not include the list of ministers, info about Merchants Street, details about the lives of the people who lived in the palace, Malta's postal history while the palace was the GPO etc. The article is much shorter than the original one (14350 bytes, while the original had 74146 bytes), so there is room for expansion, but I believe that it is at least a good start. I wrote the article entirely in my own words so it shouldn't be a copyvio. Best regards, Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Xwejnus, thank you for doing that, a really nice job. There do seem to be one or two places where your excellent page is a bit close to one of the sources (no-one would have noticed that unless they were specifically looking for it - but of course I have to do just that). Would you feel like rephrasing some of those a little so that I can recommend moving this into the place of the previous copyvio version? I'd be most grateful. I'm afraid we are going to find a lot more of these; certainly Palazzo Parisio (Naxxar) has similar problems. I'll look into this further. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of the phrases on the duplication detector are just names (eg. "sir joseph de piro baron of budak" and "antonia muscati xara") or common phrases (eg. "acquired by the" and "in the palace"), but I changed a few of them here and there, and I believe it is OK now. Best regards, Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

WHY?

Why you erase the integration of Triennale? Please explain because I insert all the reference with the links also. Is not important the person that founded and finance the Museum? Please explain, you did 2 times without reason and these Andrea Bernocchi is really very famous, you can check. founder =Andrea Bernocchi. --Alec Smithson (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Because what you wrote was not in comprehensible English, and was not supported by the sources you added. Please find a different Wikipedia to edit; you do not have the necessary level of WP:COMPETENCE in English to edit this one. I've now added Bernocchi's name to that article. Cleaning up after you is more or less a full-time job, and my patience with you is near to being exhausted. Try to understand this: it is not enough just to add a reference with the material you add to a page; the reference must support the content. That means that what you write here must be based on what is written in independent reliable sources, not on what you think they might say or wish that they said. So the source you cite (which I have now added to the article) does not say he was the "founder", or any of that stuff about "binding him to his will", whatever that may be supposed to mean; it says that the building was partly financed by a donation from him and his brothers. Since that is what the source says, that is what we write in the article. Is that clear? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Alec, this is also probably a discussion for the article's talk page, not this editor's page. He is right that you need a little better level of English for contributing to English Wikipedia. I suggest you edit the wiki for your own language and then place a message at the article talk page that we can go to the other wiki for more material. Montanabw^(talk) 02:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

New article to peek at

I'm kind of busy with my pending RfA, but this was a new article and it's a new editor, but I think good faith and they just need some hand-holding to find sources and such. Campeiro. Only concern I have is if it's a fork of Campolina, as the same editor did a bunch of edits there also. Montanabw^(talk) 16:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it's no fork, it's a well-documented breed, and he/she has added good sources to support that. However,there there appear to be other problems (see the talk page), so thanks for the heads-up. I hope to be able to sort it without frightening him/her off. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'll leave it in your hands. Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not going well, now at WP:CP (as you've probably seen). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It helps that you have foreign language skills, it would not have occurred to me to factor in a translation as a copyvio. Montanabw^(talk) 01:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Our boy has been busy

Another new article for you to run your copycheck eyes over: Pampa (horse). I also proposed a merge of that article into Pampa horse, which looks like a duplicate, but far less content. I'm kind of worried about all the photos, I think he's going to wind up with them all being tossed because he's pulling them from random web sites and they aren't free content, but I have other fish to fry right now... I guess alert any gnomes who can help. Montanabw^(talk) 05:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Checking contrib history

Hi, Justlettersandnumbers. I've been looking over the contrib history of the editor you and User:Sphilbrick were talking about - the day I shut down prematurely - and I'm seeing more of concern but after spot-checking 30 articles not quite the tipping point for me to be sure we need a CCI. Close. But I'm unsure.

In addition to the two you identified, I have found the following:

• Very minimal copying & close paraphrasing in Courtney Dike
• Sentences copied from multiple sources in Ben Murray-Bruce
• Copy-pasted plot (from 2 days ago) in 93 Days
• Copying within Wikipedia without attribution in Lagosians.

I've seen a few other paraphrasings that were closer than I'd like, but not extensive enough in individual articles that I would assess them as copyright issues.

I have removed the user's rights because of the demonstrable copy-pasting in multiple articles in the past week, but I'm not really sure if a CCI is warranted here.

The user seems to be a fluent writer, and I'm at a loss to explain the copy-pasting. When I thought it was just plot-sections aside from the potential anomaly of the one article, I figured perhaps there was a lack of understanding that those were copyrighted, but that doesn't explain edits like this one where the second paragraph of the "Early life and education" section and the second paragraph of "Show business" are almost entirely copy-pasted from [42].

Anyway, I would welcome further thoughts from both you and User:Sphilbrick. And anyone else who assesses this stuff. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Not yet having looked at any of those items, just commenting generically, I think some authors think an appropriate course of action is to copy paste some material and then rewrite it to eliminate the copyright problem. We both know that's a bad approach, for more than one reason, but I am sure some editors do it. My guess is that in some cases they carry through cleaning out anything that would look like a copyright violation, but maybe in other cases they get distracted and forget that the material needs further work. I'm sort of in a stream of consciousness but I'm thinking this is yet another reason why it's a bad idea to take that approach.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You may very well be right, User:Sphilbrick. It's a shame. So far, the user seems to have cited everything copied, so I don't imagine there's intent to do any wrong here. I do wish he'd read the policies when notified by CSB. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

MRG, Sphilbrick, I don't know what to think about this – it'd be much easier if there was some willingness to discuss. I looked at a few more, and found little or nothing to worry about in Gurara Waterfalls and Oskido; then I came to Eyo Edet Okon, where there is substantial copy-pasting from here and possibly here, both cited in the article (I've taken no action there for now). This seems to be a valuable editor, particularly from a WP:CSB point of view. Part of me says that most of the problems are minor and the CCI backlog is already huge; another part says better safe than sorry, and the backlog is so huge that another 257 articles will hardly change it at all. The second part seems to have the better argument. The re-creation of Gabriel Olutola as a copyvio after Sphilbrick had deleted it bothers me, I have to say. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that decision didn't help. Here's my hope – as you know we take a tougher stance on copyright then is strictly required by law for reasons that have been well documented. One possibility is that the editor has some knowledge of copyright law and knows that the re-created article which is not a pure copy-paste, as it had some changes, might be safe in the legal sense. As I've stated before we use the term copyright violation in a bit of an ambiguous way, meaning both compliance with the law and compliance with the Wikipedia rules. At the risk of drifting from the main point, this reminds me of one of our favorite CCI's where the editor maintain steadfastly that their edits are in compliance with copyright law, and hasn't fully grasped that we require compliance with Wikipedia copyright rules.

All of the above may be fine but obviously you are trying to figure out where we go from here. I'd like to offer to try to have a chat with the editor, but my plate is full the next couple of days.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Sphilbrick. :) My concern right now is less about moving forward with the editor at the moment - I've reminded him to review the pages in removing his userrights, and I think he's very capable of following our policies - but figuring out what to do with what he's already written. I've gone through 10 more and found one kinda sorta close paraphrase here to this blog. That's the kind of thing I think needs to be rewritten, both for WP:C and WP:Plagiarism issues, and happily it already has been. But it's not really the kind of clear-cut issue I like to look for in a CCI. I think you make a good point though, Justlettersandnumbers, and that a CCI is likely necessary. I'll look into opening it later. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Opened, regretfully, at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20150927. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Mountain Pleasure Horse

Sorry for putting the wrong link up on WT:WikiProject Equine. I have corrected the problem. Don't know what I was thinking about, unless it was the TWHBEA and all the other associations who use their abbreviation for their web address. I've been scatterbrained this week because on Monday I had to put down a rabbit that I'd raised from birth and who had been ill for over a month...😳 White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Trident13 CCI

I saw your note on Talk:Slow ageing about the CCI for Trident13. I'd be happy to help with the list, although I'm not quite sure about the procedure to follow. Do I just pick an article from the list, do a similar analysis as I did for Slow ageing and then if necessary, list it as a copyvio the same way I did? Then once I've evaluated an article, do I update the CCI page, or does that get done by whoever takes action? For example, for Slow ageing, would I change

N Slow ageing: (39 edits, 39 major, +34857) (+14481)(+7357)(+34857)(+692)(+174)(+555)(+1094)(+253)(+2003)(+582)(+671)(+658)(+388)(+1131)(+599)(+662)(+576)(+661)(+1145)(+454)(+1257)(+1163)(+325)(+174)(+240)(+169)(+305)(+172)(+200)(+210)(+2943)(+5482)(+843)(+321)(+2697)(+5184)(+1283)(+285)(+2115)

to something like

N Slow ageing: Y unattributed copying removed by Justlettersandnumbers and article redirected to Ageing. Ca2james (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

? Thanks for your help. Ca2james (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ca2james, thanks for responding! And thanks for reminding me that I haven't ticked this one off at the CCI. Very impressive detective work there! Basically, yes, you've got it. However, the big difference with working on CCI pages is that you don't need to show that each and every bit added by the editor is copyvio – presumptive removal is part of the process. It's more that you would only keep content by that editor if you can be absolutely sure that it is OK (e.g., if you can see the source, and see that the content has been correctly rewritten). Also, you can be very economical with your reporting – replacing the diffs with "Y Redirected [sig]" would be quite enough. If you do decide to work specifically on Trident13, please let me know – there's something I should tell you about that editor. I'm more than happy to answer any questions or take a look at what you've done or whatever; but someone like Diannaa has infinitely more knowledge and experience of this work than I do, so it might be better to ask her. The CCI backlog is horrendous, any help would be welcome. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

List of alumni of the Central School of Art and Design

Hi, thanks for the correction on my name-editing there. When I change name links in lists like that, I nearly always shift the descriptor to outside the link, because most of these lists are made up of names with brief bios ("Diana Ross, singer," etc.). In general I just try to match the pre-existing format of the list. This one was a bare list of names, so that's what I went with - and I guess I spaced on the fact that those parenthetical descriptors are actually useful for telling same-named people apart! Just wanted to let you know I hadn't done it thoughtlessly (at least not 100% thoughtlessly anyway), and to thank you for fixing it. Cheers! Jessicapierce (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Do please add those descriptors if you would like, even if it's only to some of them. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Bates College article Copyright infringement?

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I have noticed that there was "Investigation for Copyright infringement" on the Bates College Wikipedia Article. I was wondering as to why that is. The links that were listed as problematic, have zero copyright issues with them. There is no copying of the sources in any capacity nearing that of copyright misdeed. Let me know whats going on here, because I am a little confused. Thanks so much, DonSpencer1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonSpencer1 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, DonSpencer1! You can read about our copyright policy here. Did you read the explanation I posted, with links, at Talk:Bates College#Copyright blanking? The copyright violations go back to 18 June 2005 at least. The whole page needs to be checked and either cleaned or re-written; that will probably happen in a week or two. What exactly is your connection to the college? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I do not have any connection with the college. I was seeking to update educational and informational platforms in Maine, starting with Bates College, etc. I did not mean to cause such a stir; hopefully it will be resolved. I just don't want all the hard work others have put into the article to be erased over my updating of facts. I noticed throughout the page, facts and figures seemed to be from 2011, 2012, and 2013. Certain aspects of the endowment, majors available, admit rate, faculty, etc. were very outdated. Thanks! DonSpencer1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonSpencer1 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers. I do have a connection to Bates, in the Communications Office. You and other users have done good work cleaning up some sloppy additions to the article in the last few days. Thank you. I do think that the article can be cleaned up without blanking the whole article. I'm very familiar with the contents of the article and see no major copyright violation but I understand that there are formal procedures to follow, and welcome forward motion to solve this. Thank you. HJayBurns —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ousmane Sow

Now that the Afd nomination for Ousmane Sow has been withdrawn, I don't know about other editors, but I would like to take you up on your offer to work on the article. --Bejnar (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be pleased to, Bejnar, though I may not make any very substantial contribution. I'll try to get to it in a day or two. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I left citations to some additional sources on the talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

RE Sarah Hamilton AFD

Hi. I don't know what happened. I screwed up royally. Somehow I failed to notice the AFD template when I did a general revert. Obviously I know not to remove an AFD template nor have I ever done so. I don't know what happened. I must have been dehydrated or need new glasses. Sorry. I also support the AFD, as a matter of fact. Apologies again for the snafu. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Rms, for your generous, though not actually necessary, apology – and for restoring the earlier version there. As we all know, mistakes can and do happen, with monotonous regularity; unlike in real life, those here are usually easily fixed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I very much appreciate your assistance over at Cheval du Morvan. Do the referencing issues you encountered often occur when using ContentTranslation? This is my first time using the tool and I certainly won't put myself or anyone else through that hassle if it can be avoided by simply translating from scratch. /wia /talk 19:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, first off, wia, no thanks needed; and second, the job still isn't done. To be quite honest, I have never seen such an appalling mess – html mark-up scattered everywhere, but the actual references hadn't been imported. Did you see that I removed 13K of unwanted mark-up with one edit – half the article size? I've never used the translation tool, but if that is what it usually does then someone should shut it down quickly. It took me a good hour to get as far as I have with fixing the references. In general, it's my experience that translating an article just isn't worth the candle – it's far more productive to take the sources, read them, and write new content based on what they say. Our French friends are way, way ahead of us in the standard of their coverage of horse breeds, but their style is very different from ours; I think the article needs quite a lot of work to make it read like an encyclopaedia entry. With your agreement, I'll try to do some of that in the next few days. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright investigation

Got an alert to these four or five copyright investigations; Kent Warner Smith, Arthur Samish, Montgomery Block, Father Fitzgerald, Justin Hertman. Yes, I cut and pasted. Can I just rewrite the material? I did some of those a long time ago, and most of my work has stood up. Maybe someone should check my other entries. User;Hank Chapot 10/9/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.48.224 (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Hank chapot, and thank you for this. I agree that it would be wise to run a check through your contributions over the years in case there are any more instances of cut-and-paste. I asked for such a check on 28 August 2015, and notified you that I'd done so (it's the last message on your talk page). Unfortunately that board, like so many others, is back-logged, and the request hasn't been looked at yet. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Braunvieh

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I translated it from German Wikipedia. They may have taken their info from the links shown as German Wikipedia is not as fastidious about inline citations as we are here. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Then, Bermicourt, you would need to place a {{translated}} template on the talk-page to provide attribution for the work of the German editors who created that content. You'll forgive me for pointing out that (unless my memory is playing up) we have already had this conversation. To put it very plainly: anything you translate from de.wp requires attribution (unless you wrote every word of it yourself). Could I ask you to go through all your contributions and check that attribution has been made in each and every such case? Thank you!. As for unreferenced content, I don't believe you are doing the project any service by adding it. That ship sailed long ago, and is now rotting on the bottom of the sea. Wikipedia is built on what is verifiable in reliable sources, not on the vague hope that someone else read those sources and interpreted them correctly. Please forgive me for speaking plainly, but that is how I see it. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course you're entitled to your opinions, but please try and refrain from being rude and harassing, otherwise it's difficult to persuade others to share them. And it's not how we are supposed to work around here anyway. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:Yuki Ip

I've dropped the protection so you should be able to get at it at your earliest convenience. Good luck with the rewrite! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TomStar81! It'll be more of a stub-it-and-leave than a re-write, but I'll do what I can. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Epsom Salts Monorail

Dear Justlettersandnumbers: Thank you for your help on the Epsom Salts Monorail article. I have today started from scratch and came-up with this draft. However, I couldn't get one of your tools running to assess it. Could you have a look at it, please?--NearEMPTiness (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, NearEMPTiness, with pleasure, thank you for asking. However, it looks as if the Earwig tool is down yet again. I looked at your draft, and it doesn't contain any very blatant copyright violations; however, some parts of what you have written still look like close paraphrasing: it's similar to the earlier version, and the earlier version was similar to the source (please note that I was specifically looking for this – someone else might not have noticed it). May I suggest that it might work better just to edit the article in the usual way, adding content a sentence or two at a time, taking care to write entirely in your own words? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Bot to create subpages

The daily subpages of Wikipedia:Copyright problems should be automatically created every day by a bot. VWBot has previously done this.2607:FB90:62F:4EA0:0:1C:5886:3F01 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. See here (not my first request). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Article on Eliot Hodgkin

Hi Justlettersandnumbers Thank you for your comments. I'm not sure why you question any of the contents I've wrote just based on my name. You can read the whole page Eliot Hodgkin and confirm that everything has a source. You will only find facts on the page and no personal opinion. I encourage you to read the article and please be specific if any references are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markphodgkin (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers and Markphodgkin. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Eliot Hodgkin. In my view, the maintenance tags are all inappropriate, and especially the notability tag, which I have just removed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Penelope1114 (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's up, but needs work

Per your comment, I un-redirected Riding horse and redirected Saddle horse and Saddle-horse to it. Totally a one-sentence stub, feel free to add anything you think relevant. Huge topic, hard to know where or how to start. Equestrianism also has redirects from horse riding, horseback riding and so on. Also, FWIW, see here where I've had ideas languishing for years. You are right that an overview is needed. Any thoughts or ideas welcomed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! That's a tiny step but a useful one, I think. Maybe it is not quite complete as it stands? There's room for more of the same, of course – Carriage horse, Farm horse, what else? I don't know how much I'll be able to help; at least it's a start. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Braunvieh

added a link pointing to Bünzen

Lierna

added a link pointing to Celtic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Proper French Names

Hi, I saw you took the italics off Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Saint-Étienne Métropole. I started to put them back, then checked around, and am now unsure. Proper name (philosophy) says John Stuart Mill defines a "proper name" as "a word that answers the purpose of showing what thing it is that we are talking about but not of telling anything about it". I would say that means the name cannot be reasonably translated. Charles de Gaulle would not be translated into "Charles of Gaul". But I always use italics for foreign phrases that are followed by the English translation, in this case,

Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Saint-Étienne Métropole (Saint-Étienne Metropolitan Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art).

(I use French capitalization for the French form and English capitalization for the English form.) Now I find Wikipedia:Writing better articles saying "Non-English words should be used as titles for entries only as a last resort." So I wonder if the article should be moved to an English translation of the common name:

Saint-Étienne Metropolitan Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art (French: Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Saint-Étienne Métropole).

I don't like that at all because even English sources rarely use the English form except as a translation of the French. Dunno. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your changes there, Aymatth2. I said nothing because the last thing I want to be is an MOS warrior; so thank you for posting here. MOS:ETY is clear that "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used"; and I hope we are clear about what a proper name is (the name of a specific person, place, object, concept or entity), whatever Mill says? So I think there's no doubt that "Musée d'Art Moderne" should be in plain text, whereas, say, ménage à trois is in italics. I don't know about the capitalisation, but tend to use English-style capitalisation if it helps with clarity (as I did there). On the article title, as I understand it, we use the name that is most common in reliable English-language sources; and WT:AT specifically enjoins us "do not ... use obscure or made-up names". So – my take – if the English-language version of the name of the museum is well documented and predominant in the sources, the article should perhaps be moved; and if not, not. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• O.k. – I stand corrected. I will fix the italics. I see italics used for foreign names of organizations all over the place though, e.g. in Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, Republican Federation or International Exposition of Modern Industrial and Decorative Arts. I like it, because it makes the foreign text stand out. As for capitalization, I will stick with the French convention. A French or Spanish name with English capitalization just looks wrong. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism in Prud'homme knight

you know what are the acts of persecution? you're making them. You deleted prudhomme night. That is present in many other sources merging it with a page that has nothing to do. I ask you not to enter more in relationships with me in my no written once again. There are other people and you do not feel qualified to evaluate anything. You do not have the culture to do so. You do not know nothing about prudhommie concept and you erase without reason very important content. --Alec Smithson (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Museo del Novecento

added a link pointing to Realism

Palazzo dell'Arengario

added a link pointing to Piazza del Duomo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper taken on facebook

Hello, what is this? "rm refs to newspaper clipping on Facebook per WP:LINKVIO" Why the newspaper is not a valid source? Thank youPizzole (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Pizzole, if you read WP:LINKVIO you will find the answer to your question; I gave the link in my edit summary to enable you to do just that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Coldwell Banker

JLAN - thanks for helping make sense of my edits to the Coldwell Banker page. I found some interesting information about the company but its on the company's website - http://legacy.coldwellbanker.com/ - I know that Wikipedia prefers not to use primary resources, so how can I work that in otherwise? I thought the Philanthropic elements were good insights to the company - like the social causes on the Coca-cola page. Perhaps they should be less wordy and directly about the good done? I.e. 130 homes built for Habitat For Humanity or the placing of over 20,000 dogs with Adopt-a-Pet.com - I also found WWII war effort support on the company website, but couldn't validate it with a 3rd party link so I chose not to add it. They have some awards too but I didn't know what would be deemed "marketing speak" so I chose to skip those additions as well. One last thing I found, was a recent CNET partnership centered around Smart Homes, but again I kept my edits strictly facts in the timeline. I aim to be a good Wiki contributor and value the assistance of experts like yourself.

Sorry for the SFGate link error - that was an input mistake on my part.

Pdogsi (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem there, we all make minor mistakes, Pdogsi. On the other stuff, with a page that has a long history of COI editing like that one, I feel that it is best to keep the tone very neutral and avoid anything that might even look promotional; so I'd be hesitant to include anything more based the company's own pages, and I'd be very hesitant about including awards unless they have received coverage in the mainstream national press. You could raise this on the talk page if you think that might help. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

UK terminology

Have you run into the term "block-coloured" as UK English for pinto horses? See here It would be nice to have the UK equivalent for the generic pattern, without using the loaded term "coloured" (which has human racial implications, thanks largely to the history of South Africa but also because "colored" is viewed as a racial slur in the USA too) and thus not having to designate "piebald" and "skewbald" (and is Tricoloured (horse) really used? At the time we did the articles, the UK editors assured me it was, but someone recently argued otherwise... I had been taught that bay pintos were also simply "skewbald"). Anyway, help!? Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is just opinion:

• "block-coloured" normally means the same as "solid-coloured" (see, e.g., this nasty blanket); I think Fisker Hansen uses it atypically here as a lazy way of saying "piebald or skewbald"
• "tri-coloured" is commonly used of dogs (foxhounds, Jack Russells etc) instead of "black-white-and-tan", and of rabbits (Tri-Coloured Dutch"); it's obviously used of horses too, but I don't find much in way of reliable sources for that use
• the "correct" term for it is probably "odd-coloured" – see, for example, Julie Brega, Essential Equine Studies: Anatomy & physiology, Book 1, page 281, but that is sometimes used as a catch-all for all pied colourings (both usages visible here)

I'd support a move to Odd-coloured if you think it's worth bothering with - at least that is easily sourced. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Meh, that's a 1973 source, though; in 1973 even Americans still said "piebald" and "skewbald" (There was also "oddbald" in the UK?) Maybe just merge tricoloured back to skewbald? Or leave it be? I honestly don't really have that much investment in it either, but I think "Tricoloured" came up years ago when I spun off skewbald and someone threw a fit when I defined it as, basically, "not piebald." But what do I know, I'm a Yank...  :-P ( "Skewbald" as "not piebald" ref in snippet view here but an American author, here in child's book, ) Some days one just can't win... sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

And LOL on the blanket. It IS ugly! Montanabw^(talk) 23:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Developmental Association for Human Advancement

added a link pointing to Indian

Pazzi conspiracy

added a link pointing to Francesco Salviati

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Up your alley

Not a death struggle, but you probably can shed enlightenment on this: Talk:Master_of_the_Horse#Requested_move_29_October_2015. Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Barony of Blackhall

I have launched an arbitration request to request removal of Justlettersandnumbers from editing this site.Endidro (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Request was closed without action (wrong venue, and also wrong approach for what it's worth). Happy editing. MLauba ^(Talk) 19:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Drahmahz

Seeing the above, my sympathies if the sorting out you and I are doing at the horse article is causing you more stress than you need. We'll get there. In the meantime, on that topic, found this little gold mine to perhaps lighten your mood: [43], [44], and [45]. LOL!

The Baron of Blackhall? No stress there, just a light salad of COI, POV and copyright violation, probably with sock dressing (on the face of it, it looks as if someone bought a very minor Scottish title and is trying all the wrong ways to promote its importance here). And yes, those are funny pictures! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Too bad I was too busy judging in one ring to get a photo of the Gypsy Vanner/Irish Cob that was wearing a western saddle and competing in a Trail (horse show) class in the other ring. The owners had what a weanling at the show as well and that little bugger was to-die-for cute. (Only think cuter was the mini mule foal someone had at a different show... little fellow tried to bray but it was more like a squeak. Montanabw^(talk) 05:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Debating...

I do see your point, but [46]. There's also walking, but consistency does fit with trot and canter. Dunno. But is Amble the town really WP:PRIMARY? (Wondering) Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that in itself doesn't matter, a bot will fix the double redirects if it hasn't already, and the other links will work through the redirect. Whether it was a right call or not is a different question. I linked "ambling gait", was surprised to find it was red, and was about to make a redirect when I glanced at the article and saw that that is what it's called throughout anyway; so moved it there instead. I'd imagine "amble" as in "shall we amble down to the pub?" is probably what most people would think to be the principal meaning. I'd expect opposition if anyone were to try to dislodge the town from that name, partly because the gait is at a reasonable, even if not perfect, title. But I'm not tied to it in any way if you want to give it a try. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If I get bored and need to go find some drama, I could give it a shot... but have enough other drama for now... :-P Montanabw^(talk) 05:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Tarlac National High School

Hi! I do really appreciate you guys for checking this matter, however my question is how and where can I access the old article? since we all know that wikipedia is an open platform anyone or everyone can edit an article or contribute, I do see that copyright issue came from several sources who contribute and edited this article, is there any way that we can undo all the changes from where I started the article? and probably delete all the other changes that a contributor did?. Thanks! CarlaAllison0787 (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

{tps}} CarlaAllison0787, I checked back right the way to the very first version of the article, which you created, and it already contained a substantial body of text copied word-for-word from another web site. It is difficult to understand how you can not have been aware that you copied much of the content, and that you somehow imagined the copied content was all added by other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, CarlaAllison0787! JamesBWatson was quicker to reply here than I was, and found, just as I did, that the problems in the article went right back to the very first version you created (the article is gone now, by the way). Please read carefully the links in the template I left on your talk page. We welcome your contributions here, but they must be your contributions – it's not OK to copy stuff from other places on the internet, and (just a friendly warning!) if you do a lot of that you may lose the right to edit here. If you have questions about this you can ask here or on your own user talk page – I will see it in either place. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Global Goals logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Global Goals logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Middle ground

I'm really trying to seek some middle ground here and not push a win-lose situation with the height, characteristics and sourcing on horse breed articles. I have a lot of respect for your ability with language, which I lack, and I also respect your ability to spot copyright violations. I also saw this at the time and took it to heart (though FWIW I remember how awful I felt at the time, so, yes, I also appreciated your acknowledgement that it does take two to tango), but I have to note your own actions played a role in this and this, so I'm really hoping we can just take some deep breaths and avoid another round of acrimony. I'm discussing here rather than at WPEQ because I think this is mostly a personality clash we need to thrash out. Here's my thoughts:

1. Last time we had a dispute over metric and imperial measurement, I went out of my way to meet in the middle to support the development of 3-way conversion templates to allow metric units to be placed first, and I see no reason not to use them. I cited my policy arguments at the Campeiro article; I hope we can reach agreement to allow them to be used.
2. I personally think it is unnecessary to use sexual dimorphism in height as a horse breeds distinction because it is negligible, partly because all horse breeds have similar differences between mares and stallions (plus it's more often weight than height that distinguishes the sexes in fully mature animals). If sources provide an average, I think that is superior to the awkward FAO attempt to make horses quantifiable in the same manner as cattle or swine (seems more a FAO "something to have statistics on" than anything). I can live with these stats if you really insist they are critical in your articles, but I must say that I don't care for them.
3. As horse breeds are defined by many additional characteristics, with height only one factor, I do think that if a trait is noted in the characteristics section, I see no reason it can't be in the infobox. (Seriously, both Haflingers and Arabians are roughly of a similar height, but in breed characteristics they could not be more different). JMO.

• When I ask to find some agreement above, keep in mind that you do a number of things differently from me where I have backed down and not insisted on "my way". (This includes sfn style citations, LDR refs for small articles [I agree they do work better on longer ones]) Also remember that I also backed you on your preference for parenthetical naming on the other animal species breed articles, even though I personally didn't care for the style. I think I fought that battle harder than you did, actually, for all the good it did. Montanabw^(talk) 22:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

AGF, AGF... you're a good human being; so am I. You're an intelligent human being; so am I. We can sort this out. Speaking only for myself, I'm going to trot off to read WP:NAM ... again... Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Definitely your realm

You are the best at figuring out foreign language copyvio; this might just be a bad fr.wiki translation, or more. [47] Your call. I'll go take a whack at it in a few days for bad writing, but don't want to do so if it's got even bigger problems. Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop your edit war on Music OCR!

And calm down. --L.Willms (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

L.Willms, reverting your addition of unreferenced material written in poor English is not edit-warring – please read WP:BRD. Also, you should not change the referencing format of articles without first obtaining consensus – see WP:CITEVAR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

OTRS help

Hey Justlettersandnumbers. I noticed when taking care of some RD1 redactions that you are an OTRS volunteer. I was just wondering if you could shed some light on the draft, Draft:August Puig, that I've just listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 14. See there for relevant background. In short, I would have just deleted this as a G12, but it appears an OTRS email *may* have been sent and never reviewed, so I hid the infringing page content rather than deleting it, awaiting OTRS review. However, I suspect such an email may never have been sent (at least properly) since the OTRS email was putatively sent three months ago. I wouldn't have a clue how to check, and probably lack the permissions to do so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha, great minds! I've just been looking at it. The email was received, but it didn't say what article it related to, so no action was taken. The ticket is assigned to another agent, so I've left a note and will try to follow it through. What I was going to do in any case is to drop by your talk and offer to look into these if ever you need that. I don't use my OTRS access as much as perhaps I should, so please feel free to ask at any time. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I will take you up on that when it comes up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Keith Sequeira/Temp

Hey there. Regarding this recent edit of yours, I'm not sure that this is the best way of notifying the user about the proposed deletion. He appears to have correctly created the page in accordance with the instructions on the copyvio template that was formerly on Keith Sequeira, whereas the wording of your templated notification implies that he was in error to have produced an article which partially duplicates the content of Keith Sequeira. Perhaps you might consider adapting the templated message, or removing it altogether? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Psychonaut, the template was quite inappropriate in that case; I've replaced it with a brief personal note. I'm going to have to remember not to use Twinkle for those temp page deletions. Thanks for pointing this out!

Since we're talking: I know everyone has more to do than they have time to do it in, but is there any chance you could review some of the outstanding CCI requests? I feel its a bit hard on a user to be warned and informed there may be an investigation, and then wait for weeks or months to hear if it's actually going to happen. The oldest one outstanding (a valuable and productive editor) seems to have been there since May. If there's anything I could do to help reduce that backlog (apart from not making any more requests, that is), please let me know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing, actually. I will see if I can process one or two of them today. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, yes, there is something you could do to help reduce the backlog. You're welcome to apply to be a CCI clerk yourself at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations. If you're accepted (and I see no reason why you wouldn't be) then you can endorse or self-endorse CCI requests. I generally have time to process only a few requests per year but I suppose this is better than none at all; if you could maintain a similar rate then that might be enough to eliminate the request backlog. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that's food for thought. I'd be very uncomfortable self-endorsing, though. I don't make a request lightly, but I think a second pair of eyes is pretty much essential in fairness to the editor. And of course the whole thing can seem a bit futile anyway unless a way can be found to deal with the CCI backlog, so maybe I should be working on that … Anyway, thanks for opening that one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't self-endorse a request unless other editors (possibly in other venues) had pointed out further copyvios, either before or after the request was filed. I think the only time I've done this was was for User:Srahmadi, whose sockpuppets had been racking up copyvio complaints by others before I was even aware of them. Once a CheckUser confirmed the connection betweeen the accounts, I was satisfied that there were enough independent confirmations of the problem to endorse my own request. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:August Puig copyright question

Hi JLAN, thanks for following up with me at Draft talk:August Puig. I missed the connection between Galleri MDA and https://www.artsignaturedictionary.com/artist/august.puig. Next time an issue like this comes up (when there are OTRS emails pending or claims of copyright ownership), would it be more prudent for me to send it off to WP:CP instead of trying to handle it myself? I don't want to step on anybody's toes or cause a hassle. Thanks, /wia /tlk 22:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, wia! What you did there was, in the normal way of things, helpful and perfectly correct (anyone could have missed that tiny notice at the foot of the page). However, when a situation is "complicated" – and a claim of ownership or a pending OTRS ticket are certainly complications – or it just isn't clear exactly how it should be handled, then I think that, as you suggest, sending it to WP:CP is the better option. It got there anyway, as you've seen. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll keep this in mind as I work away at AfC. Thanks for the guidance! /wia /tlk 22:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Request

Will you look at the bottom half of my sandbox again and see what still needs fixed about it. I will remove it when I get your feedback. I've rewritten a majority of it, removing some parts. Any help would be appreciative because, I'd like to keep the article. Thanks. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 20:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Corkythehornetfan! Thanks for asking! So, two main things:

• first, that isn't the right place to rewrite it; you should do that at this page (please follow that exact link to get there). Please don't copy over any running text from the old version, so as to be sure of not making the same mistake again; but feel free to copy the infobox, categories and so on.
• second, your text is better than before, but definitely not OK as it stands. I use this useful tool to get a quick reading of how much overlap there is between the source and the article, and in this case there's a lot too much. Your target is roughly to get it to where the only red highlighting in the left column is for proper names – the names of people and places and so on. Remember that you shouldn't copy-edit "bad" text, but remove it, and then write new text to replace it.

One last thing – just a heads-up – is that you shouldn't remove speedy deletion tags from a page you've created yourself. If you have more questions, ask away! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Corkythehornetfan, I forgot to say: please do remove that content at once, as it is not acceptable here. You could store it and work on it offline, but not here (that's why I tagged it for deletion before). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. What about the lead section? It isn't copied from anywhere as it is just a summarization of everything. There will probably be some text that is the same, just because I wouldn't know how to re-word it, but I'll make sure it isn't the "bad text". Hopefully you or others will be willing to help me with that. I will work on it there, and will continue to check in with you about it. Thanks again. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 23:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Update

Justlettersandnumbers, will you please review Talk:Thomas W. Butcher/Temp and tell me what you think? I've gone ahead and rewritten it. The tool shows 2%, but it only highlights the "president of Central State Normal School" in the Infobox. Thanks. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 03:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan, I'm glad to see that you are on the right track there. But in fairness to you, since I was the one who listed the article, I'm going to wait for someone else to review your rewrite and decide whether to move it into place. The tool doesn't tell you everything, though it's a useful guide; you also need to avoid close paraphrasing, or re-ordering the words of a source text a bit while still keeping the overall "look and feel" of the original. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ta' Kola Windmill

1. Please see history of changes, data by user Continentaleurope has been removed and hide by administrator in 15:11, 24 October 2015.
2. Why add template:Copyviocore to article? Please quote specific contents in article who is copyvio - I'm waiting or if you made a mistake please revert your edit in article and my talk page. Subtropical-man talk
   (en-2) 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Subtropical-man:

• Please read what I wrote about this here; this has nothing to do with that user or that CCI
• Please do not remove copyvio templates from articles; you do not have the right to do so, and doing so repeatedly can have undesirable consequences. If you look at the template, it reads in large letters across the top "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent"; I'd have thought that was pretty clear
• Just a little further down is a link to the page the content was copied from.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• You wrote "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". Is that not completely clear?" and "I'd have thought that was pretty clear" - is clear but issue is resolved by an administrator ("rm copyvio") - for me, this is also clear.
• I see source (your link) and not see copyvio. Please give quotes in article who is copyvio. If you add template and hide whole article, so - if this not mistake, please "clear" show which content is copyvio. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see the text highlighted in red in this comparison. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh my God!! This is not copyvio. There is not one whole sentence, just similar few words next to each other. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. Why comparing version of article from 2 March 2010? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Close paraphrasing is little better than wholesale copying-and-pasting when it comes to Wikipedia. Also, the URL is currently non-functional, so the Wayback Machine is used to get a working version of the website. clpo13_(talk) 22:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

comparing version of article from March 2010 is no make sense. This is current version: [48]. No copyvio, article is clear. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply

	Thanks for your prompt reply
	HI Just Letters & Numbers, Thanks very much for helping to clarify my question about translation. Nadnie (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Nuking Hathorn

"By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." So I can't stop you :-) More seriously, I'm slightly confused what you mean. Can't you just say "Nyttend said:?<blockquote>text text text</blockquote>? Regardless of what you mean, (1) you don't need permission, (2) thank you for asking anyway, and (3) thank you for continuing to work on this. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll try to move on with it. I just don't want to do the "Nyttend says" bit without being sure that Nyttend still says that, or to give any appearance of making a sort of appeal to authority. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay; thanks. I figured you were doing something like Back at WP:AN, Nyttend made the following suggestion: [text] I agree with this idea, so let's implement it by doing X. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-pub prod?

Blue Blue Sea. I don't want to be a bitch, but this is kind of self-promotion for a self-published book. Would it be evil if I put on a prod tag? There was some coverage of this story in the horse racing press... but... Montanabw^(talk) 09:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

re: Managing a conflict of interest (Toll Brothers page)

Thanks you Justlettersandnumbers for the information on how to manage the page. You are right that I have a conflict of interest with this page. My edits were used to help keep the information accurate, well referenced and neutral. I will propose future changes using the talk pages instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelKlouda (talk • contribs) 12:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MichaelKlouda, I think that will work better all round. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

and I too am looking forward to seeing how this article proceeds. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Lierna Castle

I added new text to the Lierna Castle article. Can something be done to hasten the resolution of the copyright issue(s)?  --Bejnar (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, Bejnar. Unfortunately the copyright problems board is badly back-logged, as you have probably seen. Since it was I who listed this particular article, I don't want to be the one that reviews it; I'm afraid more patience may be needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Castle of Sperlinga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Notable?

Or just free advertising? It's your side of the pond... your call: Warwick International School of Riding. Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

How to Move Existing Page to New Name

We have tried to change the name of association with reference but they are changing again. Please help me how to move the article or please help me to create Wikipedia page for Premier Badminton League.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratanrawat (talk • contribs) 06:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ratanrawat! I've moved that page for you; it is now at Premier Badminton League. I've also removed the copyright violations you had added back to Draft:Premier Badminton League; you may not copy text written by other people into Wikipedia. I'm concerned that you refer to yourself as "we" - Wikipedia accounts are for individual, not group, use. Lastly, if you are personally or professionally connected with the league, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article about it, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk-page, Talk:Premier Badminton League. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy New Year

To all who watch or visit this page:

Duccio di Boninsegna, Maestà (detail), Museo dell'Opera del Duomo di Siena

My very best wishes for the Christmas holidays and for the New Year. For family reasons I will be on Wikipedia only infrequently (if at all) for several days from now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that season again...

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Have to Create New Article or Update the Content?

We are thinking to create article for 2016 Premier badminton league before that I have doubt. We have found that second session for Indian badminton leagues(which was renamed to Premier badminton leagues) was already mention. Which was supposed to be held on 2014 but it was postponed to 2015. But currently it was schedule to be held on 2nd Jan-2016. You can also see the article in Google Search, related to 2016 Premier badminton leagues matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.150.157 (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Tisziji Munoz

Thanks for all the fixes on the copyvio problems on Tisziji Munoz! · rodii · 22:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding copyright violation at Bobby Lockwood

Hello,

I noticed that my question on the Teahouse was archived so I'll ask you here; do I blank the whole page or just the top part? People are still editing the article so I am unsure whether or not I should do this.

Kindest regards,

Chesnaught555 (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

So called "over linking"

Of course, there are blatantly obvious examples of overlinking, but the tone of the infobox article is either pro-link or ambiguous (one of their examples is even internally inconsistent within itself!). I'm not sure if we can define where countries like France stop and "obscure" places like Tuva begin. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

	Happy New Year 2016
	Wishing you a very prosperous and happy 2016. Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Copryright issue with Forbes list articles

Hi, I've noticed you've deleted a lot of the Forbes lists for a supposed copyright issue? You did not appear to start conversations about this on the talk pages, and appeared to move unilaterally. According to some research I've done (including on some of the individual talk pages for the respective Forbes lists), having the top 10 people per year on these articles does appear to fall into fair use, while publishing full lists of the winners of that respective year does not. I would ask you to research this, as my experience with Wikipedia copyright is limited, and see if there is enough rationale to restore some of these lists, as the articles are threadbare once the results are deleted. I have restored mos of the Forbes articles and started discussions on each of their talk pages. I would ask that you please do not make major edits on these articles until a consensus has been reached. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Justlettersandnumbers!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Justlettersandnumbers, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

John Cabot University

I'm speaking with a person from the university on Tuesday about helping them improve the page in my usual COI role. I really appreciated your note here, which was exceptionally civil and straightforward. I've done some research so far and the page history looks like a pretty routine case of copyvio/spam. I thought I would just ping you to see if there was any context I was not aware of. If you have any interest, it would be great if I could get them to circle back to you later with a proper encyclopedic draft using secondary sources. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

PS - this is CorporateM. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 22:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CorporateM/David King, Ethical Wiki! As far as I recall there's nothing particular to know about this page, just more of the usual, as you say. It could certainly do with some better references - in fact some of the unreferenced claims should really be removed. I've no interest in the topic, I came to it as part of a copyright clean-up. Sorry not to be of more help. Oh, if you like my boilerplate COI message for talkpages, please feel free to use or adapt it as and when you wish! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Indian Badminton League v. Premier Badminton League

It was created as Indian Badminton League then someone usurped the page to Premier Badminton League. Then, it would appear, that you moved it to Premier Badminton League. Both leagues still appear to exist. 14.140.220.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to take it back and I've been reverting. I was just about to report the anon to AIV then figured out (I think) what was going on. It appears that the anon tried to rebuild Indian Badminton League and you reverted it back to the redirect. There has been quite an edit war going on. Any suggestions on correcting this? Please ping. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jim1138! Yes: my suggestion is start a discussion on the talk page. If you think the old name is still in use, you could propose a split; if you think that I was wrong to to move the page (and that the newspaper reports of the name change are wrong), you could start a move request back to the old name. If you think, as I do, that the name has changed and that one or a tiny group of editors are attempting to conceal that fact, you could just leave it be. I suggest that you immediately undo your copy-paste recreation of the Indian Badminton League page – that isn't how we do things, because it breaks the page history (the attribution for the work of the editors who made the page, required under the terms of our licence). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Both websites seem to be active. http://www.pbl-india.com/ and http://indianbadmintonleague.co/ The Twitter account of IBL seems quiet. There seemed to have been quite an edit war to convert it from IBL to PBL. I'll leave it up to you. I am not going to pursue it further. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Anna Fleischle

If you look at the coi page it states that if you add this notice to a page you have to state what the bias is you are talking about and that you should also first try to edit out the problem. As copied below. Please read the coi page because it seems to me you are not following proper procedures.

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. Be careful not to violate the policy against WP:OUTING users who have not publicly self-disclosed their identities on the English Wikipedia.

Would you please respond by stating what the problem is on the article talk page as is correct procedure or suggest a way to solve the issue? Regards

L1R5M1 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Actually, no, L1R5M1. You've only edited since September and almost exclusively one article, so a COI issue is pretty clear. It isn't JLAN's duty to go to a whole bunch of work to fix someone else's article; it is your duty to follow policy. I suggest you listen to JLAN's advice because he is one of the best editors I know for conflict of interest and copyright issues. Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What is JLANs advice I'd like to know?

I'm not asking anyone to fix the problem but if you take the time to look at the coi page is is clearly stated that an editor placing a coi tag should start a discussion as to what is biased on the page. If you can take the time to write your paragraph perhaps you could take the time to look at the page in question and point out where the bias is? I am not experienced at this and am only trying to resolve the issue. If I cannot then I will undo all of my edits which I am happy to do.

L1R5M1 (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In one of your paragraphs to me you mentioned edit warring referring to the talk page to try and resolve the situation. I have been asking for your contribution in resolving the issue through talk but you are not replying.

L1R5M1 (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

L1R5M1, the talk-page discussion you are looking for is at Talk:Anna Fleischle#Conflict of interest – but you already know that, as you have commented there. I've also explained our conflict-of-interest guidelines on your talk page, as you know. So I see little value in offering advice here too; nevertheless, at your insistence, my advice is this:

• If you are the subject of the article Anna Fleischle, do not edit that page; editors are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves (see WP:Autobiography). You are welcome to propose improvements to the article on the talk-page, Talk:Anna Fleischle.
• If you are a friend or relation of the subject of the article, do not edit that page; conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from writing about connected topics (see WP:Conflict of interest). You are welcome to propose improvements to the article on the talk-page, Talk:Anna Fleischle.
• If you are an assistant, a manager, an agent or some other paid associate of the subject of the article, do not edit that page; conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from writing about connected topics (see WP:Conflict of interest). You are welcome to propose improvements to the article on the talk-page, Talk:Anna Fleischle. Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact; disclosure should be made on your user-page, User:L1R5M1.
• If you have no real-life connection whatsoever with the topic of the article, please feel free to edit as you see fit, reaching consensus with other editors.

In case it isn't completely clear: you are under no obligation to disclose your identity, and should do so only if you want to. One more bit of advice: please don't stray into the area of WP:Disruptive editing – your recent evisceration of the article (which I have reverted) appears to have been motivated more by pique or spite than by any desire to improve this encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would accuse me of acting out of spite and conflict of interest as the two surely don't seem to go together. As I have explained I am new to this and after this episode I really don't think I'll get involved with Wikipedia at all in future. I thought that by removing material I had edited you would be happy there is no longer conflict of interest and nothing to do with spite. It seems ironic that you feel there is a bias in my editing but you will not let me remove it.

My only concern now is that the subject of the page Anna Fleischle (which is not me) does not have her career damaged by a page that looks as if she has edited it herself. It could be highly damaging if she were thought of as promoting herself in this way. I'm sure that perspective employers will see the message and wonder why it is there. At the least it looks highly embarrassing. I would be completely happy to have nothing more to to with the page if that tag were removed.

L1R5M1 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

TOP 10 LISTS COUNT AS FAIR USE!!!

Please, go to Talk:Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People#Copyright issue- January 2016. You are acting unilaterally out of occurdance with the rules, and if this continues, I will consult Wikipedia admin. CONSULT TALK PAGES, and please, get your facts straight.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Premier Badminton League

My apology for not mentioning the ANI posting to you. I definitely now agree with you that IBL is now PBL. Thanks for your help on resolving this. The Copyright vio notice on PBL was added Dec 22nd, nearly three weeks agon. Should it be cleaned up by an admin? You did request full protection for Indian Badminton League which was "fixed", but not protected. I wouldn't think move protecting PBL would be necessary unless it happens again? Kind of strange that the IBL website is still up. Thanks again. Jim1138 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see how long it stays fixed this time. The copyright issue should be dealt with, but that board is badly back-logged, so it may not happen imminently. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

artsome.co

I'm concerned that the blacklisting of artsome.co might have been overkill. I see that you removed it here. Do you have any thoughts about it being used as an external link or even a source? --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I've no opinion of it, I simply removed it because it was flagged as blacklisted – so please feel free to revert that if consensus changes. However, I believe artsome.co/our-contributors.asp to be entirely convincing that it's nothing like a reliable source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Good point about the contributors. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Tristram Stuart

Have you checked that against the sources? A couple of them are behind paywalls, and I'm a little suspicious there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi! What I did there was to remove the copyvio you correctly identified (thanks for that!) and run this check. I'm confident that the two high-probability hits there are copied from us (note the numbers in square brackets in the TCD Theological Society page). The FT article is available here, and I don't see any problem there. However, if you can identify any other suspect content there or you think I've missed something, do please let me know and I'll do my best to put it right. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Fashion Institute of Technology

Hello - I am seeking consensus on the alumni question on the FIT talk page, but I was wondering if I could talk to you about the changes to line 68 regarding a source on the museum's history. Here I sought to replace an fitnyc.edu source that no longer exists with a better third party source, namely a book on the history of the collection published by Taschen. Can you provide some insights. I believe what I did is in keeping with Wikipedia best practices. Help out a newbie? Librarianhelen (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That would seem to be an excellent idea! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

So if I put that reference back in you won't remove it? Great. Thanks. Librarianhelen (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Pi Sigma Epsilon

I'm looking to fill in (or at least stubify) the Greek Letter Organizations that belong to the Professional Fraternity Association. One of these is Pi Sigma Epsilon. As you were the one who started the AFD for it, I thought I'd touch base with you. There does appear to be enough information in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (the 1991 edition) to generate a stub for the group. Please let me know if you have concerns about my plans.Naraht (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Naraht! I've no recollection of that page; I see that participation in the AfD was minimal. I can't see that, on its own, an entry in a directory of similar organisations would be enough to establish notability, but I'll leave that up to you. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Museum of Rome in Trastevere

Thanks for your message and edits. Not quite sure what topic a DYK would address. But if you want to do so, please go ahead. I was going to work on the Museo di Roma after that. Now I will transfer my attentions to the Arch of Janus, about which there is much more to be said. I am trying to write about topics close to my home in southern Rome so if you know of any glaring omissions please let me know. Roundtheworld (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ps I note you have changed the name of the page to Italian. What is the Wikipedia policy on this? After all, the Roman Forum is in English. It is not Foro Romano. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I should have discussed with you before doing that, sorry! As I understand it, the policy is to use whatever name is used in reliable English-language sources. So if you compare a Google books search for "Roman forum" Rome with one for "Foro romano" Rome, you get far more hits for the first (in fact "foro romano" is hardly ever used in English). But if you compare Museum of Rome in Trastevere with "Museo di Roma in Trastevere" museum, you get essentially no hits for the first. The Italian name is pretty much always used in English-language sources. There's a (much-ignored) bit of policy at WP:NATURAL, where it reads "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names"; I think that's important: as we are now, for better or worse, a very powerful influence, I believe it's important to avoid creating neologisms. And on that topic, I'm a bit concerned about Museum of the Walls, Rome – I don't see that that name has any real currency; what would you say to moving it to Museo delle Mura? Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I see the point. In Paris it is "The Louvre" but the "Musee d'Orsay". I would never say Musee du Louvre to an English speaker. So if you want to change to Museo delle Mura please do. Thanks. Roundtheworld (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)