User talk:Justlettersandnumbers/old7

User page Talk page Older talk Sandbox Toolbox References Articles created CSD log

Note: This talk-page archive covers all of 2021. Older archives are:

all of 2020

all of 2019

all of 2018

most of 2016 and 2017

about July 2014 until mid-January 2016

from when I first started editing until about July 2014.
But I often delete stuff from my talk, so none of these pages is complete.

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I'm not getting paid to contribute to Wikipedia. I contribute for several years. How can I state that my edits in Danaos Management Consultants are non profit ? I'm an employee of the company and I want to get the page restored in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelkoutlis (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Noelkoutlis, if you're an employee of the company you must make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure before making any further edit relating to it, in order to comply with our WP:Terms of Use. There's advice on how to do that on your talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I have already answered you on the issue of my post being a paid service, and once again assure you that it is not. I am waiting for you to advise me on this. The content which was attributed to Reuters and another website is replicated across the Internet by over a dozen sites. I plan to fix it and put up new content for your review. Please take the time to let me know of any further issues, without taking the page down. Thanks Lalita Vempati (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, Please let me know if I can try creating the listing for Hexaware again, seeing that it is similar to many other companies which are listed on Wikipedia. Thanks. Lalita Vempati (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I am planning to recreate a page that you have previously deleted, Mystic River Falls. You deleted the page at 22:18, on October 27, 2020. The user who originally created this was accused of being a sock-puppet account and subsequently banned. However, this is a valid article subject that has received extensive coverage, and I would like to rewrite it. Is it acceptable to do so?--Bigtime Boy (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Bigtime Boy! Yes, it's perfectly acceptable for you to re-create that page, it was deleted only because of the sockpuppetry. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I was just curious why you seem to have reverted what appear to be constructive edits on the page? I may be out of the loop regarding which long term abuser you're referring to, and why the purported edits were unconstructive - could you fill me in please?

Thanks,

BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

BrxBrx, that page has a long and tedious history of sock/meat editing, as do several others relating to people called Blumenfeld. The text I removed was ill-written ("... a I section beam which was supported by the stones walls ...") and ill-sourced (e.g., to this random local website). Rather than a text-dump from an IP in India, I suggest that what the page needs is attention from a capable editor familiar with twentieth-century architecture. Is that you, by any chance? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers Ah I see, thank you. Unfortunately I'm not an expert familiar with 20th century architecture. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, You deleted my page on Joshua "Crisco Kidd" Carmona citing it violated G11 and G12. Is there anyway I can get it back to continue editing it? I would appreciate any feedback you have to improve my page as this is the fist page I have ever tried writing for Wikipedia. I am open to complete rewrites if it is needed. Also, the picture that "violates G12" for copyright infringement was approved by Carmona himself. What would I need to do to provide evidence that this photo was approved and would not violate any copyright laws. I am open to making any edits as long as I can get all of the work I have already done back. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshliWhittaker (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

AshliWhittaker, your first step is to disclose the nature of your connection to Carmona, and specifically whether you are being WP:PAID in any way to promote his interests here. You may then start a new draft if you wish to, making sure that everything you write is neutral in tone and entirely in your own words, but before you do so you might want to check very carefully that he meets our notability requirements. The previous draft was deleted as G12 so I'm not going to restore it. The image was on Commons, so you'd need to follow the advice on your user-page there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Sir you placed a template on the article which I wrote named (Mudasir Zafar)! There is no undisclosed payment or connection to the subject. I have been reading about the person quite often so I thought of writing a page. Yes, the only connection that I can say is that, the person belongs to my state only. I am just a beginner and my intention is to contribute to the Wikipedia. This is my first article so there might be some errors on my part. If you feel the person does't deserve the page, you can add the template of multiple issues or need additional citations so that I can keep on improving it rather than asking to clean the page. As a new editor I expect a fair response from my wikipedia editors family. {{(talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)}} Thank you

Dear Justlettersandnumbers,

I would like to agrees the deletion of my article about Gianfranco Cicogna Mozzoni, He has had a great impact on the Republic of Kenya through the Order of Malta, so I would like to understand why you deleted this article without hesitation and as far as I am aware did not even bother to address any reasons. I have spent quite a lot of time editing and reviewing the article alongside another fellow Wikipedian and there seemed to be no problem, sources were in check and so was his importance and relevance to the Cicogna Mozzoni family. Please leave me a message on my talk page (here) addressing the issues you found and why you deleted it. Furthermore, with regards to the Gianfranco Cicogna Mozzoni image of his wedding, you reported it as copyright, "it is from Geni". Geni is a website where you can create profiles for people. His profile was created by a member of his family who not only gave me permission to use it on wikipedia but also posted it as a re-usable image. Thank you, Ben Achting. Achting428 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm too stupid to reply to this in any detail. The reasons for moving it to draft are on your talk-page, matters relating to images on Commons are discussed there. Hint: if you took the trouble to discover a little about how this project works you might make fewer mistakes. I'm just in the process of removing some (fairly minor) copyright violations from your draft. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sorry I got a little hefty, I have been trying to get this page published and keep getting into chats with people who don't give me everything I have to change so I have been on a constant preview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achting428 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I left a similar note on User talk:Sphilbrick, but of course do whatever you think is the best course of action on Nicola De Maria, as your knowledge of the field will be really useful. I am good at finding notable subjects-- but not so good at moving from stub to C, B or higher. If you can keep the sources I found that is appreciated. Possibly (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn't mess up any of my changes. :) I will be sourcing it and I did add a few sources to the talk page (which I might add as content). SL93 (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That's OK then, SL93! More sources would be good, because I don't think one magazine article and one doctoral thesis are nearly enough to establish notability. The good news is that I re-checked for copyvio and it seems to be OK. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I will add them sometime today. SL93 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I expanded and sourced the article. SL93 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Sir Sputnik § User:PPSOfficial. --Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. I've added the above link because you had previously deleted pages like Smallworld Smallband created by Norasky53 and Lourn Sochetra seems to be connected to that though this time there seems to be a PAID/COI declaration being made on the user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: Lourn Sochetra was blocked by another admin who also is an admin on Commons; so, I guess nothing more needs to be done here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I follow the port authority, went to city college in harlem, and got into chris ward after hearing a talk. I can pair it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joco179 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am somewhat new at this and was a little over eager. I have read this families work and as a historian was kind of over eager. I have no relation to them, and apologize for the poor wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joco179 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet, Joco179, you claim to have taken this professional-standard photo? If you're not a relative, I imagine that you are being (or have been) paid by them or by someone connected to them? In that case, disclosure is obligatory. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I got that photo of that internet. It was wrong to use. It is a photo found online. Again I am learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joco179 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I would love your help. I am new to this, and love Wikipedia. It is such a valuable resource and do not want to be a part of making it less reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joco179 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In all truth, I hope to one day write a book, (applying to phd programs), on the effect of 9/11 on the port and machine politics. Chris Ward is the key player in this. I have only seen him talk once but have emailed about a possible interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joco179 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Sidenote, I am very impressed by the pages you created (big blue note fan). I hope to become that person for the history of the port of new york, which is really what allowed new york to become what it is.

Please advise how to fix this, and the corrections needed. I aim to be a good wiki user and want to start off on the right foot.Joco179 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC) learned this just now.

Hi. You deleted Bicchoo Ka Khel as Mass deletion of pages added by Sadique sam, G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (ArthurCurry70) in violation of ban or block. Since then this article has appeared Bicchoo Ka Khel (TV series), I assume a similar sock? Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for mentioning this, Tassedethe. I've only the most superficial familiarity with that sockfarm, but based on this, my initial reaction is that it isn't. Cyphoidbomb, you've blocked some of the recent socks, do you see any significant overlap? Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing jumps out at me. The recreated article is different enough from the deleted version that it doesn't scream 'blatant recreation'. It's a little odd that this user created two articles on two separate days. When I see multiple articles being submitted on the same day, that tends to look like paid editing. It's not glaring here, but it is questionable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Justlettersandnumbers and Cyphoidbomb. I will move the article back to the basename. Tassedethe (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justletters, this may be worth revisiting for copyright violation; I'm finding some hits for and . Perhaps the Wiki article came first....Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, IPv6, good catch! The initial version seems to have been taken more or less verbatim from here or perhaps here. Now blanked and listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 January 25. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well done. When I remember, I try to do a cursory check for copied content at COI and promotional bios. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

So do I, IPv6, so do I. But I missed this one, so thank you for bringing it here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers! You've just deleted the . Can you please send me a text of this page? Sorry for bothering you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Po (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Catherine Po, that page has already twice been deleted as a copyright violation; that content can't be used in Wikipedia. However, most of it is available here. If you like I can restore the bare outline of the page, without any running text – let me know. If you have some connection to this person you are expected to disclose it on your user-page. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if it is not difficult, restore the bare outline of the page, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Po (talk • contribs) 12:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there: about Esperantist Fran Novljan in the article Esperanto. Don't you think that at least a brief mention of Novljan (and Yugoslavian Esperantists) is worth being included at some spot in the article? I couldn't find a source in English; however, I found Novljan has an article on wiki.esperanto (which I immediately linked to the page in English); there, there is another source (2002: Pleadin, Josip. Biografia leksikono de kroatiaj esperantistoj. Đurđevac: Grafokom 2002, p. 108-109 (kun foto kaj multaj pliaj detaloj). ISBN 953-96975-0-6) also in Croatian, or perhaps in Esperanto.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

EDIT; I hadn't read your note carefully. Now I rewrote the bit. See if you like it now. If you don't, you are welcome to improve it.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

EDIT 2: I just realized you reverted only my last edit! Sorry about that, and sorry about all the confusion!--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wiki.Jaap.07, I made a minor change to a couple of words. I've no opinion on your wider question, but suggest you ask at Talk:Esperranto. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I hope you are staying safe over there, my wife is English and her whole family is in the UK (I hope I am not wrong in assuming you are British).

I have just reverted two revisions at American Hairless Terrier (history) as COPYVIOs of https://www.nrta.com/newratstandards12.html and was wondering if you could delete them from view. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC).

Done that, Cavalryman, thanks for dealing with it. As for British, the answer's yes, but not for long ... and luckily I'm not there. You're doing a great job on the dog articles, thank you! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I wanted to circle back now and see if you can re-review the page for this film: Draft:Erēmīta (Anthologies) Much more credible sources and a release date is out for this month, which will be followed with reviews. I'd really like the credit of creating the page before another user creates it! Thanks so so much!! Jakoobcherry (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, can you please review Draft:Erēmīta (Anthologies) again? I even included links to major movie theatre's ticket sales page for the film. (Jakoobcherry (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC))

Please could you rev del the comments about paid editing on my talk page made by my impersonator User:TheroadisIlong. Thank you! Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Theroadislong! I've done that, for edits both by your fan and by the previous CynthiaSteele sock. Please let me know if she shows up under any other name. Thanks as always for all the good stuff you do, best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Another sock impersonating Theroadislong. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Possibly (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:5020:A54B:3957:26D1:B7B6:A8D3 spamming or adding good links? Steve M (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Steve M, that definitely looks like spam to me – the link is not of any conceivable encyclopaedic interest or relevance. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Textile&diff=prev&oldid=1005799367&diffmode=source. Is it spam? Steve M (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

For RuPaul's_DragCon_UK, I thought I'd reach out to you as the deleting editor. From discussion on the WP:RPDR project, I think that having that article makes sense, (It was deleted due to who the editor was, not content apparently). Can I have it restored into either Draftspace or my personal area for review? If I don't hear from you in a couple of days, I'll post to WP:REFUND.Naraht (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Naraht, please excuse me, I've been slow to reply here. I did look at that page. It's essentially all sockpuppet content (all but the first few revisions), and per WP:DENY I'm somewhat reluctant to restore it. How about if I email it to you for reference, but suggest that you write a new page on the topic? Let me know? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers thanx. I'll take a look. The first few revisions that I did get restored are so boring (for lack of a better term) that I'm fine with updating from there.Naraht (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you think this is a case of block evasion? The IP is from the University of New South Wales and is editing a draft created by the now-blocked WP:ORGNAME creator. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I do indeed, Drm310, and have given the IP a brief holiday from editing, all expenses paid courtesy of the WMF. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm reaching out about a false claim that you put forward on "Draft:CHENDA (artist)". This is actually my content and I own 100% of the rights to use this content, as I created the photo myself. Although I'm making a page for myself under "CHENDA (artist)" instead of "xChenda", this is because I'm doing a rebrand in order to become more industry-friend and so I have no further problems with music distribution due to my name being capitalized incorrectly. Could this claim be revoked as soon as possible? If you need evidence, please don't be afraid to ask. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChendaMusic (talk • contribs) 13:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

ChendaMusic, there are instructions on your talk-page for donating copyrighted materials if you want to try that. However, you should understand that Wikipedia doesn't tolerate WP:promotion of any kind, so stuff like "unique, talented, and charismatic just seem to scratch the surface" is never going to be used here. You are very strongly discouraged from trying to write an autobiography in this project, which is an encyclopaedia not an advertising platform. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalisms like this cannot be tolerated. You deleted the whole page, stop! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! EGL1234 (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your action on this. I am not at all familiar with the wiki voyage site, but this user seemed to be promoting the listing under "Sleeps" on this page that have contact info matching their username. I don't know what the criteria is for inclusion there, so I'd love to understand that better and also bring attention to their listings if action is required. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Peterborough DrGvago (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, DrGvago, I've just looked at WikiVoyage for the first time; it might well be the last, too. I don't know what goes on there, but I think it has to be up to them to manage it. It doesn't look as if they have the sort of no-promotion policy that we do. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I had never seen it before either. Thanks for the input. DrGvago (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm curious what you would think about me creating a new page for ResetEra, the gaming forum that originally started following the controversy surrounding NeoGAF but has since completely eclipsed the latter in popularity and relevance within the gaming community. Among other things, the website has been the source of all sorts of gaming leaks from industry insiders that then get extensively reported on by a variety of news outlets , and decisions by the largely progessive community found on the forum have the pull to generate news coverage on their own. These are just recent examples, and I could dig up plenty other large examples from the past few years during article creation. I get why back in 2019 the decision was to delete the original article and redirect it to NeoGAF, but considering how many of the industry insiders that previously participated in the latter's community are now on ResetEra, and NeoGaf is much less relevant(just look at the difference in their Alexa ranks, for example) then ResetEra to the community as a whole, I think ResetEra clearly demonstrates enough notability to stand on it's own.

Asking for your thoughts since I am a relatively new contributor and this is the first subject I've found where I have been really surprised about the absence of an article on Wikipedia. Would love to open this up to a deeper discussion, and should you agree on creating a new article, would welcome a collaborative effort. Happy to create a work in progress draft for you to consider as well. Thanks! Remoguy (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Remoguy! I'm afraid I don't know why you're asking me about this – I've no recollection of ever having seen or edited that page, no knowledge of or interest in the topic. I really can't offer any useful advice other than perhaps to tread carefully when re-creating a page that's been deleted following a deletion discussion. Sorry not to be of more help, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it says you were the one who deleted this page, but I may have misread. I'm still learning the ropes here when it comes to editing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:ResetEra Remoguy (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries, Remoguy. I did check the (full) page history and this log before replying above in case I'd mis-remembered. Anyway, good luck with it! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

But it's hubby's day off so we're remote gaming, so I hadn't wanted to get myself out on a limb .. but no, I agree, it's likely not a good look there. If I blocked him, though, it'd be my very first block and I'm sure I'd get significant blowback - not to mention distracting me from the important job of digital dinos in Ark: Survival Evolved. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Ealdgyth, it's Sunday - enjoy the games! I've walked with my dogs, dumped a lot of compost in the vegetable patch, and played some music. The problem will still be there tomorrow; sooner or later we'll have to see it through to the (at this point) inevitable conclusion, but I don't know if that will be this time around. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

good evening, if I make a translation and I verify that the original sources are reliable, how can I report them? because I reported them and someone delted my page. i am just a student so not my intention to do something of wrong thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliuni1998 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Aliuni1998, please read the message I've left on your talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

thanks, i replied to You: maybe it could be better if I look for new info from the books I have in my library and add them so I don't create problems with sources because i've them phisically . what do U think about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliuni1998 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello JLAN, I hope you are well. Thank you for picking up my error in the title of Desmond Morris' Dogs: the ultimate ~~guide to~~ dictionary of over 1,000 dog breeds, I seem to have plastered it across half of our articles. I think I have rounded up all of my loose ends now. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC).

You're welcome, Cavalryman, it only took me a couple of minutes to be sure that it had never been published under that other (quite plausible) title. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI https://translate.google.com/?sl=nl&tl=en&text=nooit%20gedacht&op=translate&hl=nl Ldhank (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Ldhank, that's Google Translate, not a reliable source by our standards, and not even remotely trustworthy for translation. I doubt if a translation of the meaning of Nooitgedacht will add anything to that page, as it is simply a place name (Nooitgedacht, South Africa, I believe). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I wanna ask a question with them. 9wo (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 9wo! See User:ClueBot NG (I'm assuming this this the bot you mean; for the older one, see User:ClueBot instead). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I asked all 3 of them the question. (I was talking about User:ClueBot NG.) 9wo (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

“Strongly discouraged” is still not "prohibited": could you help me understand this revert of yours? At a glance, the edits reverted appear constructive and appropriately disclosed. –xeno^talk 12:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The edits are however all primary sourced, I would have reverted too. Theroadislong (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong: If the edits are to be reverted for editorial reasons, then that should be the stated reason. In any case, most of the sources did not change with the revert, just the formatting and access date. –xeno^talk 12:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, xeno! Indeed, "strongly discouraged" doesn't mean "prohibited"; nor of course does "not prohibited" mean "unconditionally allowed" or anything like it. I agree that those edits didn't look too bad at a glance, but we have an edit request procedure for paid editors for a good reason: so that edits they want to make can be reviewed with care and in depth by a non-conflicted editor who can decide whether each proposed change is appropriate or not. I try to handle my share of those edit requests, but regret that this morning I had neither the time nor the inclination to review those edits myself, so reverted them with the suggestion that the editor use our established procedure. From what Theroadislong says, there may be more at that page that needs independent review. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If the desire is to change something that is encouraged into something that is required, the correct course of action would be to submit an RfC suggesting that change. (A recent discussion did not find consensus that paid editors must use a request process to publish changes directly.) –xeno^talk 21:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi JLAN - Help desk volunteer here. I was just pinged by a connected editor MV Alyssa saying that the David Rogier article disappeared after I responded to a COI request and moved it to mainspace. It looks like you turned it into a redirect to MasterClass, and said in your edit summary that "there doesn't seem to be any other reason for this paid editor article." It was sitting in limbo in draftspace, but seemed to have promise - wouldn't it have been preferable to send it to AfC, so there could be a recorded consensus? It straddles keep/weak keep in my mind (I haven't looked for other sources), but a revert makes it look like the COI disclosure is being held against it. We don't want to discourage others from making similar disclosures in the future. Best of all, once there's consensus, we won't get pinged anymore, and can hopefully go on to other things besides Rogier and MasterClass. Cheers! (P.S. we both created our accounts in 2010, but I beat you by a few months! Nonetheless, you've left my edit and article creation count in the dust.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtempleton, I'm so sorry, I read this but forgot to reply to it – please excuse me! I saw the exchange. I redirected it because it seemed to be just yet more paid promotion for MasterClass – there doesn't seem to be any other reason to consider him notable by our standards. When there's a suitable target (as here), I often use redirection as a first-level method of removing unneeded or unwanted content: if the redirect "sticks", then so much the better; if it doesn't, we can still progress through speedy, prod and AfD if those are appropriate. Anyone can undo a redirect, and of course you will feel free to do so if you think that my edit was ill-advised. Article creation ... I remember when I used to do that – not many years ago I started a new year with the aim of making a new page every day; now I seem to spend almost all my time on maintenance. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - if you think it's a definite delete as it sits, I'll just let it go. I'll add a Google alert for him and if he gets better coverage for something besides his Masterclass CEO role, I'll improve the article and restore it, and ping you. Cheers. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I had posted several revisions to Clinical social work since it was flagged for suggested Copyvio. Someone "reverted" them and then I was really confused. I tried to resolve the issue, but really do not understand how. Today, I have posted a rewrite for Clinical social work at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clinical_social_work/Temp. This is an effort to resolved the suggested Copyvio issue. I am a little lost in trying to resolve this issue and any guidance would be appreciated.JCarr8Wiki (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what you should have done in this situation, JCarr8Wiki, thank you! I will try to look at it soon; unfortunately, the copyright problems board is quite heavily back-logged, so it may take a while for this to come to top of the heap. Please bear with us! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. This is the first contribution that I have made to Wikipedia as a service to the profession of clinical social work even though I have written academic work for years. Evidently, the standards are different? I am anxious to get this resolved as I do not like the header on the page as it appears like I have done something terrible; any violation of any policy was not intended in any way. Thanks so much for your help and guidance. JCarr8Wiki (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Truth is, dogs CAN get osteoporosis, which is the one visible edit (without a ref) made by Thedogeater, reverted by ClueBot. Were you acting because of the edit, or the editor's chosen User name? David notMD (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither, David notMD, but this edit filter action (taken in conjunction with the username, I'll admit). I'm certainly prepared to reconsider if you can make a good case for that. I know of course that eating dog-meat is perfectly normal in a number of societies/countries, that "dog eat dog" is standard expression and so on. I just saw no prospect of this editor becoming a useful contributor after such a beginning. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO, comes under don't bite the newbies. I suggest insisting on a name change and mentioning that references are required. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I had walked away. I never quite get whetehr 3RR refers to the 'undo' function, especially when it is content rather than petty vandalism Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Any time, Timtrent! The user had reverted three times to re-insert the same content, thus crossing the "bright line". It might perhaps be an idea to use the 31 hours of respite to start a talk-page discussion, but I haven't examined the history in detail, so for all I know that discussion has already taken place. Regards, many thanks for all your good work, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There is an embryo discussion there. Folk more authoritative than I on that topic will continue the discussion there. I see why the editor insisted, and I feel their approach to be wrong, preferring BRD. Regarding Crisp per se I discovered he attended the same school as I did, but much earlier, so I have a passing amused interest. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to this article, you're a very good writer. I apologize but when I went to close my edit, it was open during your edits and it did not give me the normal warning. As a result it removed the edits, so then I attempted to manually bring them back. Please feel free to make changes as you see fit and sorry once again. Jooojay (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed your edits to the aforementioned articles, with the edit summary "definitely singular, apparently feminine". Olek is nonbinary and their pronouns are they/them; this is an instance of the singular they, which has been used in the English language since the 14th century. Sources for this information are widely and readily available, including the artist's own Instagram account and their portfolio site. It looks like others have already reverted and corrected both instances, but in the future please refer to MOS:GENDERID for guidance on this and similar subjects. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers!

I am planning to recreate a page that you have previously deleted, titled 2020 PFF National Challenge Cup. You deleted the page at 19:05, on December 19, 2020. The page was created by a banned or blocked user (SheryOfficial) in violation of ban or block. However, this is a valid article subject that has received considerable coverage, and I would like to rewrite it. Should I go forward with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toofllab (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me, Toofllab, thank you for asking. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I understand that the source page is not the best. I am happy to find a better source page, would it be satisfactory to keep the copy on that article? I have been discussing this breed with friends and noticed that the diet section is missing or does the diet section need to be kept off until a valid citation reference is made? Jerdman76 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jerdman76! In my opinion it'd be preferable to hold off until you can identify a good independent reliable source that supports the content. This project already has vast amounts of unsourced material that now ought to be either sourced or removed, and I tend to oppose any addition to that. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers - thank you for the suggestions. I will work on sourcing the current content in this project first - I am sure in that effort I will find a good source for diet as well. Jerdman76 (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick Facts

Close

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I would like to understand why you reverted my edit, which is believed to be constructive. Further, it contributes to the completion of the English Wikipedia page compared to the German one. I am not paid for my edits, but I am an employee of the company whose wiki pages I want to update with relevant and new information. I would appreciate some advise on how to proceed further in order to comply with your terms of use. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBZM (talk • contribs) 11:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

PBZM, if you're an employee of the society you'll need to make a appropriate paid-editor disclosure on your user-page, User:PBZM. Once that's done, you can use {{request edit}} on the talk-page (Talk:Fraunhofer Society) to propose the correction of verifiable errors or omissions of fact – always supported by independent reliable sources, of course. You are strongly discouraged from editing the article yourself. I do understand that things work rather differently on de.wp, but that's your best way forward here. If I've misunderstood and you are an employee of some other company (bloxberg?), then the only difference is that you will state that in your disclosure, and will be strongly discouraged from making any mainspace edit relating to that company. Please note that promotion of any kind is not tolerated here. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Justlettersandnumber, thank you for your response. However, I do not understand why I need to make a paid-editor disclosure eventhough I do not receive any kind of compensation for my edits. I would appreciate a short explanation here. Thanks.

PBZM, you wrote above "I am an employee of the company whose wiki pages I want to update". That means that you are considered to be a paid editor, and are expected to disclose the name of your employer, and to follow our guidance for editors in your position. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to apologize that I did a bad job (which you had to revert) in the Jim Truscott and the Marc J Lane articles. I really did think that it was for the best, and with a few exceptions (i.e. Amazon and Youtube, specifically) I added a number of independent, reliable sources. All in all I (wrongly) believed I improved the content by searching and identifying sources. I trust your judgment more than mine, so I’ll be extra careful in the future. Regarding the non-offending sources, do you suggest I go back and re-add them? Not the additional content, I mean only the added references. I’m OK stepping away from my own mess as well. I just want to be helpful.

In my defense, I’ve been going through a ton of backlogged Edit Requests, and I did all the low-hanging fruits already. As I started tackling more difficult ones (e.g. bad suggested sources, finding dead citations, advertising language, etc), I guess I let my guard down a bit. I leart from my mistakes. Cheers ! Ferkijel (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ferkijel! That's a most generous apology – thank you! – but really not needed, there was no "mess", just some edits that I felt were mistaken. I was going to leave you a note urging slightly more caution when answering some of these requests, but that's all – perception of these things varies among us, and mine has been criticised more than once. Of course I've no objection to you adding back any reliable sources that I've inadvertently removed (I did try to make sure I didn't do that, obviously not with complete success!). It's a difficult and mostly unrewarding area to work in, so many thanks for being prepared to do so at all. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

My name is Nikhil Kotwal and studying under this scholarship and I want to spread awareness about this scholarship as it has been 9 years now and no one has written an article about this scholarship yet on Wikipedia. I am a beneficiary of this scholarship and is not been paid by anyone to write an article for this. Sorry for my username I am new to Wikipedia and only created an account to write the article about PMSSS that's why. Now I have requested to change my username Please help me in publishing the article. I can remove the content if it is still looking like an advert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipmsss (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

With reference to the comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Theroadislong#I_am_a_student_Nikhil_Kotwal_and_is_not_a_paid_employer._This_is_a_government_scholarship_and_i_am_studying_under_this_scholarship._I_have_also_requested_to_change_my_username

With reference to your reply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikipmsss Sir I have again requested to change my username to my full name, I have included my middle name also. Hope this will not cause any misjudge as I have already explained that I was trying to spread the information about this scholarship and not an advert. Please help me with publishing the article through your source.

I will be very thankful to you Nikhil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipmsss (talk • contribs) 13:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I was the one who carried out the revert (my reason bring that other Singapore radio companies are still up). Actually, my intention was to seek clarifications on other articles given that one company was redirected (on the radio stations). Not sure where to go about it, should there be modifications to the articles? Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see Requests for undeletion, Draft:Martin_Luther_King Highlandword9 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of faculty members of the Courtauld Institute is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of faculty members of the Courtauld Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

CapnZapp (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sir as i am new to Wikipedia I was not sure whom to approach for help, I have also requested another sir for help in the following talk( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Theroadislong ) who is involved in this matter.

With reference to my article on Prime Minister Special Scholarship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prime_Minister%27s_Special_Scholarship_Scheme There was confusion with my previous username as I was wrongly judged with my article as an advert. I am not a paid employer, I am a student who is studying under this scholarship only I am new to Wikipedia Please help me in publishing my article and spread awareness through your medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil Singh Kotwal (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that this version is substantially the same as the one made by the sock account many, many years ago. When I ran toolforge, I looked at the top two articles flagged as possibly having issues, One pinned at 16% the other at 12%. Nonetheless, they highlighted some phrases that matched up and I took a look at those and rewrote them. If you really think there are still specific problematic areas, go ahead and note them at the talkpage, but seriously I think it’s fixed. Also, having done some copyvio cleanup myself, it is important to note that just because somebody committed mass copyvio much of the time does not mean every single thing they did was a copyvio. Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! I've posted on your talk about this – the article needs to be rewritten. But do please note that once a CCI is opened, we do treat the contributions of that user exactly as if every single thing they did was a copyvio – unless, that is, we can clearly demonstrate that it isn't. In this particularly egregious case, we're very unlikely to make many mistakes by doing so. Don't see you around much, hope all is well in these strange and (for those of us no longer exactly in the first flush of youth) dangerous times. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I moved the article into the sandbox and did another rewrite. Comparing it to the original now it comes up about 39.4% similar material, but much of what is being flagged are phrases like Montana rodeo Hall of Fame and the quotations. Running this version against the sources, it’s under 12%. In Local news, I just got my first shot of Moderna vaccine on Friday, so I’m hoping that relative freedom is around the corner. I hope that you have been doing well also, we do live in interesting times. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you or Vami IV kindly review the rewrite to see if it passes muster now? Montanabw^(talk) 15:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Totally missed that there was a clean version in the history since the original was also the mission statement. Let's hope no one challenges the PROD out of "omg, Bill Gates is notable" so it doesn't need to go through a pointless AfD. StarM 13:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Star Mississippi! I almost missed it too – it was the mention of CorenSearchBot on the talk-page that made me look more carefully at the history. I'm not very hopeful that the prod will stick, but thought it was worth a try. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the kind words; glad to be of help. I was wondering if "List of domesticated animals" and "List of Batman comics" were two of the things on your watchlist. If they were, again, I'm glad I could help out on these, especially on the latter list. As it stands now, only one DC Black Label Batman miniseries out there is left to put in and that's Batman/Catwoman. The only thing is, it's not finished yet as far as I've been able to determine. I've put in a link to the Wikipedia article and section so you can see for yourself. UPDATE: I looked at your watchlist and the two of them aren't on it.

Thanks for the editing tips, too, especially the one on Wiktpedia article references. Now I know not to do that one and just leave them alone. The reason I did things like, say, listing centuries AD with numbers instead of words is because, honestly, I thought that's how it was always done. What I also thought was always done was that numbers from 1 to 9 were written as words, while double-digit numbers, triple-digit numbers, etc. were written as numbers, except for anything above the millions, which I have seen on various Wikipedia articles were a combination of both; e.g., 1 million. I also didn't know that commas weren't written in numbers from 1000 on up to at least, say, 10,000. Again, I thought that's how it was always done.

If you don't mind, however, I'd like to be able to keep putting the term 'AD" before the year, not after it, if no one else minds, because I know that one's right. I keep seeing or hearing the same thing happen lots of times and it never ceases to irk me. I mean, it's often done and said by people who should know about this fact and yet they keep on doing it and saying it.

Again, thanks a lot!Mcfoureyes (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Mcfoureyes, you say "I looked at your watchlist". How exactly did you do that? I don't care a fig if you can see my watchlist, but it is supposed to be completely private; if you can see it we need to know how, so that the leak can be plugged. For the rest of it, please read and then follow the WP:MOS – your personal opinion is irrelevant, that document represents editor consensus (so if you disagree with it, you should try to change that consensus through discussion). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I actually looked up "Articles created" and thought that was your watchlist.Mcfoureyes (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, no problem then – I have almost 40000 pages on my watchlist, but have only created a miserable few hundreds. Several of those have been about domestic animal breeds, but none of them have been about Batman. Take care, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. While I don't disagree with your rational behind deleting the wiki page on the basis of not satisfying WP:NCORP, I do think there is sufficient third party coverage of this event and activity to merit the existence of a page. Previous users of course failed to demonstrate this through proper citation. In the next few days I plan to revamp the page with significant citations to meet WP:NCORP criteria. I hope that you can take a look at it once I update with a reworked and properly cited page, to provide input about whether or not the reworked page meets WP:NCORP.

On your reversal of my Peter Nagy edit, you may wish to consider that in 2014 Richard Milazzo authored the book "Peter Nagy: Entertainment Erases History (Works 1982 to 2004 to the Present)" for Eisbox Projects. That makes him significant to me. Thank you for your consideration. Valueyou (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I can understand that; the talk-page of the article would be the place to discuss it. Do you have some connection to Milazzo, Valueyou? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Did that. No.Valueyou (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mcfoureyes. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

See Exmoor pony and Dartmoor pony. Why is Bali Pony any different? YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And Shetland pony. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see Australian Pony. And the other articles are riddled with inconsistencies.YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Beyond me to understand, YorkshireExpat. WP:WPEQ has an unwritten naming practice/"policy", mostly established by one person, that the last word is capitalised if it can't be omitted; examples are American Quarter Horse (can't reasonably be called an "American Quarter", because that is a coin) or French Saddle Pony, (can't reasonably be called a "French Saddle", because that's a piece of tack). However, this is applied pretty randomly in practice, with innumerable inconsistencies. Of those you mention, Shetland can stand alone ("oh look, there's a Shetland"), but neither Exmoor nor Dartmoor can ("there's an Exmoor"; "yes, you're standing on it"). My advice, for what it's worth: just leave these alone. There's been so much futile discussion/argument/full-on battle over these names that even the thought of any more makes me tired. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, won't get involved, but I'm not sure I accept the premise, and, if you are correct, Exmoor pony in particular needs some work. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, could you explain which part of WP:DONOTFIXIT applies to the edit I made to Middle White? The links were already piped, my edit reduced the size of the source code, and the redirects do not link to sections. I understand if you're not a fan of unnecessary edits, but you made another one by reverting my change. NemesisAT (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, NemesisAT! I think it's well explained at WP:DONOTFIXIT. The section heading is Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. If Large White or Cumberland are working links, there's no point or purpose in changing them to other links that lead to the same destination. We have so much that needs fixing, can we really not find something more important to do? (and yes, point taken about my revert). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought my edit made things more efficient by shortening the source code but I do agree it was fairly pointless. I'll keep this in mind if I change any redirects in the future. I always feel a bit miffed when my edits are reverted but I see your reasoning here. Thanks, NemesisAT (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I noticed a few years ago (back in 2016) you turned the Torre Archirafi page into a redirect to it's municipality - I looked over the article prior to it's revision and spent a few hours working on the page to bring it up to date in standards. I noticed that you described the town as not being independently notable, which isn't necessarily false however it has a very detailed history referenced in various Italian historical books (references on the page) about it's significance along with many other small southern settlements in the 16th century. A much more detailed version of the page, along with a palace located in the town (Palazzo Vigo) exist on the Italian and Simple English versions of Wikipedia.

I spent a few hours translating the Italian version of the page into a more brief, English version. I was hoping you could look over the page to make sure everything looks fine since I'm not too savvy with Wikipedia editing, but I did try my best to make it a good piece of information to English readers that are interested in learning about it's history.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:c280:2720:7963:d368:8b5b:b824 (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, IPv6 editor! Thank you for taking the trouble to ask me about this. The problem with the text that you've posted is that it is without any citations whatsoever – the Bibliography section lists books that appear not to exist (did you translate the Italian titles and author names into English, perhaps?). I've done some searching and can find no reliable source that says anything about the place (in case you're wondering, I speak and read Italian without any difficulty). It isn't in Treccani, and isn't even mentioned in the entry on Riposto. If you have reliably-sourced information to add, I suggest that for now you add it to the Riposto page – and please, don't mention the sugghiu, this is an encyclopaedia, not FaceBook! Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am updating this message from yesterday. I have spent an hour properly citing and referencing the text I wrote.

As I said in my previous post, Riposto and Torre Archirafi are two separate towns that are about 3 km from each other - but have their own respective town halls. I did notice that many of the official Italian sites don't seem to even reference the village, which is very odd, but it does exist! I would ask that you Google the town if you still doubt me, as many articles related to it's town resort come up along with many YouTube videos.

I ask that you please review the page again, I have properly cited and have added additional citations to my text - along with additional geographical information and an image from the Wikimedia Commons of the town from a distance.

I worked very hard on the page, as it is my first serious attempt at editing on Wikipedia - I must admit that I am a bit hurt that you immediately removed my work. I only asked for assistance on properly adding citations to the text.

update (05/09/21): Hi, I've looked at WP:VERIFY but am still unsure on how to correct the citation issues. I've provided an additional citation on the page regarding one of it's historical structures if that helps. I've looked around at various Italian governmental websites but I assume due to the obscurity of the town that most documents related to it are likely locally-held or preserved through books and private documents. Is there anything I can do, within reason, to correct the issues? I don't live in the town itself but I do have family that lives there. Thanks.

Hi! I looked at it this morning, and thought you'd done a great job, better than many, many first attempts at an an article, and better than the vast majority of our articles on tiny inhabited places. If you'd had an account I'd have sent you thanks; that's something you might consider, perhaps? – we need all the competent editors we can get! If you still have questions I suggest that you ask them either on the talk-page of the article or at the WP:TEAHOUSE, which is a place for new editors to get advice. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much. Your words mean a lot to me. I took an interest in my ancestral hometown and saw that no English information outside of tourist advertisements really existed, so I sought out to make the Wikipedia page a simple, reputable piece of information for other English readers. The town will still likely remain an obscure place for the foreseeable future, but hopefully in time it will be expanded upon, along with many of it's other small neighboring towns. I will likely make an account in the next few months as school occupies most of my time, but I do hope to contribute further in time.

Thank you, have a nice day.

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, Sorry, you removed the entirety of my work on the Modern Metis Womans Page (MMW) for copyright infringement of www.modernmetiswoman.com. This is a Registered Charity, providing real Scholarships, and an honest and good NGO. Im trying to help them with this page, Im absolutely no expert, in fact its my first page, but can you help me PLEASE!! Super Please can you replace the work in the sandbox, so I can fix it, for the copyright infringement. I also NOW have written authority from the MMW to use materials within their website, published online, what do you need as proof, how can I use it, with wikipedia approval or should I simply rewrite the content? Noapplause (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Noapplause! I'm afraid we can't and don't restore copyvios; you can view all but a couple of words of the deleted content by looking at https://modernmetiswoman.com/ and https://modernmetiswoman.com/scholarships/. If the association or whatever it is wants to donate the text of its website to Wikipedia, for anyone to use in any way they want, including commercial reproduction, then a responsible person within the organisation should go to this page and follow the instructions there; there's absolutely no guarantee that all or any of the donated text will be used in Wikimedia projects.

Otherwise you can start a draft at Draft:Modern Metis Woman, taking care to write entirely in your own words, and to include only material supported by independent reliable sources (i.e., not its own website!). Please note that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind, not excluding promotion of worthy charities. If you have some connection to the thing or to Scott Milburn, you are expected to disclose it, preferably on your user-page, User:Noapplause. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:WPASIA10k has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

what can i do to participate at the article. Many information are wrong and old.

Can i send u my suggestions since i can not edit on my own?

Vita8123 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Could I ask you to bench that guy? I think they have pretty clearly demonstrated that they are only here for the lulz :/ . Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, done that. Thanks, Elmidae! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/151.36.215.167

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, good catch Voceditenore, I missed that though both articles are on my watchlist. He's on vacation now. That IP is in a quite busy range; I ran my eye down the contributions and saw nothing else that looked like him. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But what do you think of this, which I've just stumbled across? (I was looking for the bust of Petrocelli by Gemito, and ... well, there it was!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, quite a busy IP range. I found the Alleanza edit in one of my daily watchlist checks on the Simple and Italian WPs. I then look at the global contributions if I find a likely suspect. As for the Commons images, I doubt that's him. The labelling and licensing doesn't quite match his M.O.. Ditto the other contributions of that user. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks – I asked because you know his contributions there better than I do. I thought I'd seen "art archive" given as a source before, and that those peculiarly awful paintings (other than the Russian one) are probably in someone's private collection – at which point one might ask if they're actually verifiably by Petrocelli, I suppose. Didn't young Alec make edits related to Yusupov somewhere, or am I imagining that? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we please discuss this without more lurching around on the article page. There is little doubt that lerce is the origin. So unless you can really disprove that please leave it as it is. The sources are genuine. Thank you --Richard Hawkins (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I suggest you start a discussion on the talk-page. The OED is the reference dictionary of the English language, and it does not support your theories. What modern sources do? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a theory. The Dictionary of Medieval French, modern? The Statutes at Large are a primary source. Did it occur to you that the compilers of the OED were not perfect in their 'research'. "Lerce" origin does not contradict the OED, it adds to it.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Members of Unit One has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You blocked Securelinebd back in January for spam, but now they are back and spamming on their talk page. Can you revoke TPA? Aspening (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Aspening, thanks for alerting me to that. I'll do as you suggest, but only if Cwmhiraeth, who's just reverted and revdeleted copyvio there, has no objection. Cwmhiraeth? Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, so please carry on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, done that. Thanks to both, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello there @Justlettersandnumbers I came across this artist and wanted to create a draft, but in live chat they asked me to create it in sandbox which I created by mistake on my userpage, since it was salted by you can you unsalt it so that I can make and improve a draft slowly into it? Thanks Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 10:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Justlettersandnumbers, being new to editing i seem to have done something that has caused you to not only remove my edits but also remove the entire biography (list of exhibitions) on the page. My informations is correct and as up-to-date as can be, as i work for the paloma varga weisz studio. There has been no information added that is not already available to be found on the artists website itself https://www.palomavargaweisz.com/ (ie. the source). A response helping me to understand why and what i have to do in order to restore it would be greatly appreciated. Paloma varga weisz (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Paloma varga weisz! Roughly in order of priority, your first steps are to:

change your username – it's not even remotely acceptable for you to edit here under the name of a person that isn't you; you can request a change here or on your user talk-page, User talk:Paloma varga weisz
make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure on your user page, User:Paloma varga weisz I'll leave you a note on how to do that)
request any changes you want made to the article on the talk-page, Talk:Paloma Varga Weisz, ensuring that every part of what you propose is supported by independent reliable sources (i.e., not her own website); you can include a {{request edit}} template if you like
sit back and wait until an independent and uninvolved editor has time to evaluate your request.

The first step is urgent, please address it as soon as possible. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I restored the inline portal links at the Dog article. There is an important reason why: in Mobile view, such as on mobile phones and smart phones, the portal links that are surrounded by a box do not show up at all; they're just not there. Conversely, the inline links are present in mobile view. It makes no sense to omit portal links from WP:READERS who read using mobile devices, and makes entire sense for the links to be available to those readers. In today's day and age, many readers use mobile devices, and they should see the links too! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers. I am new to editing Wikipedia articles, but am making much needed changes to several articles for the McGill University Faculty of Medicine on behalf of the Communications Office of the Faculty. The Faculty name and structure changed 1/2 year ago, and this must be reflected in our English and French articles, as well as other articles which reference us. These are valid changes - a new Faculty name (Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences), a new url (www.mcgill.ca/medhealthsci), and a new school structure (6 schools). Please see the following source: https://reporter.mcgill.ca/mcgills-founding-faculty-gets-a-new-name/

You deleted all the changes that I made on various pages. Please advise if there is something else I need to do to get the Faculty name updates to stick in the various Wikipedia articles. Thank you. Dayjen.wiki (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Dayjen.wiki! It's pretty clear from this that you are an employee of the university. Assuming that's the case, the steps you need to take are:

make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure on your user page, User:Dayjen.wiki (I'll leave you a note on how to do that)
request any changes you want made on the talk-page of the article, ensuring that every part of what you propose is supported by independent reliable sources (i.e., not the university's own website); you can include a {{request edit}} template if you like
sit back and wait until an independent and uninvolved editor has time to evaluate your request.

Please do not edit further until you've dealt with step 1. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message regarding my edits to the Manufacturing USA page. I had never edited Wikipedia before but recently began an unpaid internship at MUSA, and was tasked with updating the page. I used language that they gave me from other website publications. What steps do I need to take to make sure my edits are not taken down? Do I just have to cite where it's coming from, or is there another way to demonstrate permission to use that material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCR1010 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, CCR1010! Please see the advice in the section immediately above this, including the last sentence (even if you aren't actually paid, for our purposes an intern is considered an employee). If they want to release their promotional materials under a free licence for anyone anywhere to use in any way they wish, they can do so (there are instructions here); but I should warn you that such content is practically never actually found suitable for inclusion in this encyclopaedia, so that might all be a good deal of effort for no return. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It was request to cleanup, verify and remove pictures. I was doing it to improve my old input. What was wrong?

Please see Talk:Campania‎#Recent edits and discuss there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Re your revdel to Afghan National Anthem, the anthem's lyrics have been signed into law by the president of Afghanistan, and as all acts of law are in public domain there. Also, the Foreign Ministry of Afghanistan has published the anthem's lyrics on its website. Moreover, this source includes the Afghani anthem's lyrics along with a note that permission has been granted for all the anthems on this site to be used by anyone for any purpose. I think your revdel was too hasty. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Kashmiri! Well, perhaps not exactly hasty – we've removed those lyrics six or seven times in the last five years or so; but it's perfectly possible that you're right, and so that I'm just plain wrong. However, this morning I saw no discussion on the talk-page – and nothing in the article – to suggest that consensus has been reached on its copyright status, and our default position is always to err on the side of caution. I have no expert knowledge of Afghan law of course; if you do, may I suggest that a discussion on the talk-page might be the way forward? Or perhaps here? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi JLN, I hate starting discussions on articles that hardly anyone edits. But WP:LYRICS, which certainly reflects the current consensus, stipulates: National anthems are generally considered to be a special case of fair use, if modern, or copyright expired if older.

Also, I can't fathom a situation where lyrics of a national anthem would not be allowed to be published unless their original author consents each time. It's just absurd.

Would you mind restoring the lyrics? — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Polite ping on this quiet weekend. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually went to the cinema and watched this film on Thursday 3rd June 2021 and started to make a page about his film because I thought that if Scoob! could have a Wikipedia Page then so could this film ( Scoob! is a film I am thinking of taking my children to see this Saturday 19th June 2021 which I researched on WikiPedia instead of IMDB because I think Wikipedia pages about films are better than the IMDB stuff) - so I started to make a page about Granada Nights using the Scoob! page as an example of how to make a page ... I'm an IT & Facilities Manager by day and this was something interesting and different to do compared to my normal stuff and I joined Wikipedia to update facts about Southampton, specific to my interest - Listed Buildings ... My Granada Nights page is currently in Draft whilst I try and make a good effort at covering this film encyclopedically and neutrally whilst linking it to all the references I can find about it. Normancbc (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not sure how else to contact you. I'm a chicken breeder for over 12 years, internationally distributing eggs and species mainly from Poland, my native country. Since I was young I've read guide books, explored breeder museums (farm museums) and I often noticed how they respected a certain species or a variation specifically of a chicken from Poland. The breed Im talking about is Polish Chicken (polish Czubatka) also called Padovana Chickens. It has two names because it was first noticed in medieval pPoland in 12 th century and then it ventured to Italy and breed there as well. As centuries passed by we were erased from the map and international breeder group,illegally renamed all polish chickens to padovana, even though they had many differences and poland stillasked to respect the breeds name and origins. I would also like to point out that in other Cites/Quotes in the Padova Chicken article, there is almost always mention of how Padova Chickens derive from Poland, were moved to Italy in 1300s circa. Even quotes from Italian sites state the same thing. All of these evidences are explained in edit notes, and I hope you will understand what I mean and how much it means for us breeders to be honest when it comes to something as serious as that. Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biało-Czerwony Jantar (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Biało-Czerwony Jantar! Those are two separate breeds, with separate histories. Every solid reliable source says the same thing about the "Polish" – that nobody knows where it came from. Darwin's theory of the origin of the Padovana has been thoroughly debunked – please see the History section of that article (but if you can track down where he said that we should definitely include it there). It's probably a good idea to avoid edits that seem to be advancing a nationalistic point of view, and stick instead to WP:NEUTRAL reporting of the verifiable facts. Would you be kind enough to glance at two pages on Polish chickens that I've contributed to (this and this), and correct any serious mistakes I may have made? I'd be grateful. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you for advices and understanding in a way. I just wanted to get this explained as we did and I really appreciate it. I will definitely check out the polish chicken breed articles as well as many others in that topic as fast as I'll have time for that. I also wanted to point out that I know how it looks, a bit nationalistic but truly I just wanted to point out important factor of this breeds existance. Check my other articles when I will post them Im working On an article of polish miniaturę chicken its in draft state right now. Ill take your instructions into my heart and will respect them. Regards! Biało-Czerwony Jantar (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm glad it was created, but this new article needs massive cleanup and a copyvio check: Janus (horse). I moved it to a decent title, tagged it for the project and took a very brief whack at a copyedit, but it's beyond what I've got the time, knowledge and energy to tackle. Based on the shape it was in when I looked at it, before my cleanup, I suspect the creator may have done a lot of copying and pasting... I've pinged a couple other people who can help, but you are the copyvio guru. Montanabw^(talk) 17:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Montana! Looks as if someone is writing his family history on Wikipedia ... Anyway, the horse is surely notable, and although there was some slightly close following (of this, for example) in the early revisions I don't see any serious copyvio problems. And yes, I'm not managing to make as much time for writing articles as I'd like. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings Justlettersandnumbers, my apologies of earlier, I'm not efficent with certain details with wikipedia, I tried to set up a page profile for upcoming movie Skulls, the latest installment in the Predator movie franchise which is currently filming. Should there be more editorial adjustments in creating Skulls wikipedia page I'd be delighted for feedback and improvement, thank you. Doctor-Foster (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, Doctor-Foster, the main problem was that you over-wrote a Wikipedia guideline page. Please make your next attempt at this (red link) page. But you might like to read WP:CRYSTAL before you do so – in general, things that haven't happened yet aren't included in this encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers,Thank you. (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hope you are doing well, would it be possible for you take a look at it, and tell me if everything is correct or i will have to fix anything more? Draft:OtakuKart

Thank you! Sohel Moldharia 12:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sohel Moldharia, I'm afraid I have no interest whatsoever in helping you to advertise your business. Please remember that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand, Justlettersandnumbers. I'm not advertising my business here. I have added all the relevant details, and completely unbiased. I have also removed extra details after your reply. I do not understand, that how am I advertising my business here? I have added enough citations, details, and unbiased information as I do understand wikipedia is an encylopedia and one should never advertise anything here. Sohel Moldharia 21:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrblaze111 (talk • contribs)

It's your business, you are attempting to advertise it. Please stop! (i.e., unsubmit the draft, tag it with WP:G7, and in future edit only in areas where you have no conflict of interest – exactly as the rest of us do). Thanks (no reply needed), Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I commented on your RM and an apparently globally blocked IP objected, could you provide a little information on what's going on with the final letters of Italian town?—blindlynx (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Blindlynx! Really, I wish I could tell you, but the fact is that I just don't know – for me, it started here. Clearly this is just the tip of a fairly large iceberg. I've been looking at the histories of some of the now-blocked editors who participated in these move discussions in the past (this, for example), but I'm fishing in the dark. What I wrote on Vituzzu's talk-page is about all I know – if I had more I'd take it to ANI. This project has been plagued by editors obsessed with IPA pronunciation for Italian, and with syntactic gemination in particular. Some of the IPs in this range fall into that category, as does "your" g-locked IP.

As for the town (actually a tiny village), clearly both spellings are in use, but one predominates; I don't know if the same applies to the others that have been moved by the same editor(s). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

i see. I'll look into this some more too, but this whole thing just seems truly bizarre. Keep me in the loop?—blindlynx (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

See and . Note that the second IP is new but clearly him as per the cross-wiki contributions. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, good catch! – I'd even noticed the edits to Garau but not joined up the dots. It looks as several edits have got through, though – see here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

We would like to thank you for creating the page about Cambridge Sheep :) Carol & Georgia M. (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyvio history deletion. Same author also did large amount of copyvio at James Vaughan (police officer). Me and one of your fellow admins have removed the content from the article, but the history still remains - see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 June 19. Any chance you can sort it too? Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was a dumb mistake on my part – I thought I'd already done that. So, many thanks for the reminder, and thanks for helping to clean up there. Now to look at other edits by that user ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick Facts

Close

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you keep reversing my translation of the page Bale, Croatia!? That page is simply my translation effort, translated from the Croatian version of the same page into the English, the references are the same as the information mainly comes from the Bale city website and Bale tourist board website. Please stop and do not reverse the translation of that page anymore. If you have any other information to add to that page you're welcome to do so, but do not revert my translation effort. I will not hesitate to report your behaviour to Wikipedia admins next time you do so!

Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiborkusic (talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the translation, Tiborkusic. However, without independent reliable sources the material is of little use; please don't re-add it unless you are prepared to supply those – please see WP:Verifiability and Help:Referencing for beginners. I've left an invitation on your talk-page, please consider accepting it. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

Thank you for this, I've conducted my own research into the Bale city, from the official city and tours board pages and other Croatian government run sources. I have now added those as references to my translations. Note most of the referenced sourced are only available in Croatian and Italian, with some being in English as well. Hopefully you can now stop reverting my translation of Bale, Croatia and people interested in the city can now get to know these extra things about the city in one place on Wikipedia.

I honestly don't know how you have so much free time to just sit around and edit stuff on wikipedia, but oh well.

Thanks, Tibor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiborkusic (talk • contribs) 01:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have observed that you are making continuous changes to the Wikipedia profile of Fashion Designer Lloyd Klein, can you please share what is drawing you to initiate these changes?

If there are particular elements within the biography that you feel do not have appropriate coverage to justify, please kindly share that so I can ensure those are provided.

You have decreased his profile considerably and removed many factual aspects of his career, I appreciate your response.

Dear Sir:

I am not an experienced editor (I just opened an account a couple months ago), so I have no idea how to respond to the issues you have posted on our Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozzetti_%26_Gemmill). What is this about? I know that Tim had written to permissions@wikimedia.org, two days ago, asking that someone with authority create a file for our photograph (C&G_Quartet.jpg). Our photograph (from 1981) was recently approved for copyright by the US Copyright Office. We sent you all pertinent information off the US Copyright Office website (including the registration number). I don't know why you would then take down our entire History section? Seems a little harsh. Our 50 year history can be verified through multiple sources (see our references) and we have always owned the rights to any and all photographs posted to Wikipedia. There are no copyright issues, with any of the content on our page. Whatever you feel is the appropriate licensing (for our pictures) is fine with us.

I look forward to your reply. Thank you, Bob Cozzetti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coz21 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, Coz21, there've been several problems with that page. These include copyright violations from this promotional website, and promotional editing by more than one account apparently closely connected to the topic. Wikipedia doesn't tolerate promotion of any kind. If you are Bob Cozzetti then you have what we call a conflict of interest in relation to the page, and should (if you don't mind) refrain from editing it. Just for the record, it's not actually your page, but ours – Wikipedia pages are created and maintained by independent volunteer editors, and not by interested parties for promotional purposes. Sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your reply. We are looking into this and are hopeful we can resolve these issues shortly. I am not our technical person ~ that would be Tim. However; the bio by Alex Henderson on Music on the Web® is just a secondary bio to the history section on your site. As you know; it is only one of some 57 citations. If it presents some sort of problem, for you, then just delete the link and remove the reference. It has been common knowledge, with past administrators, that we own https://musicontheweb.com. I still don't see how that somehow creates a conflict of interest. Any content on our site (even by a third-party source, such as the C&G Biography), is still owned 100% by us. Just like the C&G_Quartet.jpg photograph that we submitted, the bio content was a work for hire. That makes us the copyright holders. If you have a license to fix this, then go ahead and add it to your page. We have no problem with that. I did get your email, but thought writing to you, in this open forum, was a better way to handle things.

We look forward to any questions you might have.

Sincerely, Bob Cozzetti

This has started again, I'm letting you know since you were the last administrator to revert it. Is worth RfPPing? Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 12:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent articles, including International Monument to the Victims of Fascism, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent articles, including International Monument to the Victims of Fascism, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Piotrus! Yes, I usually do that when the page has reached a reasonable stage of development. For that one, I started it because I was quite surprised that it didn't exist, but haven't had much time to work on it – hence its rudimentary state. I'd be grateful if you could check it over for any mistakes in Polish names or spellings. Should this Wikipedia have a page on Oskar Hansen, do you think? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Certainly. So much to do - Memorial Route of Jewish Martyrdom and Struggle, Warsaw is just a stub (and pl article is much bigger). Thank you for starting the one about the monument, if you could expand it a bit it would make a great DYK! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 900 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Quick Facts Seven years! ...

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Gerda, thank you for this! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the policy about using images of dead people? I swore there was some exception if free images can't be found. Thanks in advance for any help....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, WilliamJE! Yes, images of dead people for whom no free image can be found may uploaded (here, not on Commons) as non-free content, provided they're for use in a page about the person and not over about 100,000 pixels. The requirements are (rightly) pretty strict; this template helps get that right. Happy to offer help/advice if you need it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back. Why I was asking- Deceased professional golfers. There are old media guide books, for instance here, online and they have images of these people. The images aren't big. Just re-confirm for me that source is ok. I haven't done images yet. Thanks for the help....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That looks like a perfectly acceptable project, WilliamJE. I chose one (Miller Barber) at random and had a quick look; there's nothing on Commons, no image in the page on him, he died in 2013. I can't see any reason why you shouldn't add a low-resolution version of the image of him in the book to our page. But please note: I'm not an expert on this, and it's an area where people are pretty vigilant, so probably important to cross the eyes and dot the tees. Good luck! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

While I haven't yet looked at all of their edits, I see a pattern forming. Do you think the majority of their edits need to be reverted as coi/promotional editing? -- Longhair\^talk 21:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you've already done so :D -- Longhair\^talk 21:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Longhair! As far as I can see, almost all edits were of the form "in xxxx, [Pinco Pallino] was elected to the American Philosophical Society"; I've done a mass rollback of those that were latest revisions, but don't have the energy or conviction to go through the others. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how significant or trivial this membership is – do you have any insight into that? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a clue, but it's clear promotional editing and not within the rules. Your term, pattern bombing, was exactly what it appeared to be. -- Longhair\^talk 21:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The American Philosophical Society, founded in 1743, is a prestigious group such that being elected a member there is a real honor. Information about the (roughly 1000) people, mostly academics, being members there is relevant and useful to our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Does conflict of interest apply to Wikipedians in residence?

The policy WP:CONFLICT doesn't seem to require removal of neutral useful information entered by @MAHosieAPS: at such pages as John W. Dower. It says "There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations," and specifies at Wikipedians in residence that they "do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution." Adding information that the subject of an article is a member is clearly not writing about the American Philosphical Society, nor to any personal or institutional profit.

Many thanks for being vigilent, but wouldn't it serve Wikipedia's interests better to simply warn MAHosieAPS, who has posted notice on their userpage but not on each edit. This might also fall under Don't Bite the Newbies.

All the best in any case.ch (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this, CWH – you raise valid concerns, which to some extent I share. However, I don't believe that this editor is anything but an employee of the society, has shared any knowledge other than "... [Pinco Pallino] was elected to the American Philosophical Society", or can at this point still be considered a newbie. More than anything else, this seems to be an extended WP:REFSPAM campaign. That the society itself is notable and significant – per HouseOfChange above (thank you, HoC!) – doesn't really change that. I've undone some but not nearly all of those edits; of course you or any other volunteer editor are/is welcome to undo any or all of those changes. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

They still seem to be sharing an account regardless, which is a no no. -- Longhair\^talk 11:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Longhair, that is indeed definitely unacceptable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and people who add useful material to it should not be punished for breaking an arcane rule they had no reason to know about or to understand the reason for (e.g. sharing an account.) By massively reverting a useful change you have made unnecessary work for other editors. Biting newbies is a bad thing, and WP:AGF is a good thing. Making massive reverts should be a last resort after careful consideration. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The "newbie" is 8 months into editing, and editing every few days. It's clear from the conversation here neither of us knew of the relevance of the organisation at the time of the decision to revert. We both saw promotional edits en-masse, and after consideration, undid that promotion. What is becoming clear now is that there's some kind of acceptance for it, but at the time, neither of us knew. AGF works both ways, and admins see a lot of promotional editing, and it was apparent to us both at the time that this was more of the same. I myself decided to revert also, and by the time I had checked, it had already been done. Took all of a few minutes. The edits were added in the first place sometimes minutes apart, so it's hardly a lot of work, perhaps took some preparation, but not a mountain of work. I've never seen such an agreement for acceptance of such edits for mission-aligned organizations, but now that I am aware of them, I understand your defence of the editor concerned. We both acted in the best interests of Wikipedia at the time both by blocking and by the mass reverts. -- Longhair\^talk 11:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Longhair: I did not mean to question your good intentions concerning this matter. It is certainly an unusual situation for an organization to be as notable as the APS, yet probably unfamiliar to non-academics. But considering this particular situation, it would waste many editors' time for MAHosieAPS to make 1000 individual requests on 1000 pages of the living APS members for permission to add brief and useful information about their membership. I have seen only usefulness in what s/he in fact has added. The userpage not only discloses paid editing but expresses willingness to be guided in better editing practice by experienced editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has had two paid stints as a WiR (including at the UK national academy for science, the Royal Society), there certainly can be COI. Without looking into it, these edits seem unwise. Is the information really WP:DUE? A current membership of c. 1,000 American philosophers suggests APS membership is not a strong argument for notability. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: It is not an organization of 1000 American philosophers. "Membership of the APS honors extraordinary accomplishments in all fields." The 35 people elected for 2021 include US Poet Laureate Joy Harjo, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Arlie Russell Hochschild. Places like Stanford and Caltech put out happy press releases when a faculty member gets elected, e.g. I really enjoyed a comment by Longhair that "everybody with a cart" seems to be trying to promote some brand in Wikipedia, but the APS is an unusual case where it would benefit our readers if somebody is getting paid for the boring work of adding a short dab of useful information to multiple biographies, which otherwise might not include that information. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, with the "many" to make up for the fact that your essential work is often unthanked, and thanks also for being willing to discuss. I apologize if anything I said implied anything but good faith! But do think that APS awards are Notable, and APS is in no way comparable to the examples given at WP:COI, such as a rock band's manager or a for profit company. I do agree that the edits should have used the template notice, but this could be handled with a warning, especially since @MAHosieAPS: is obviously trying to comply with those "arcane" rules, so arcane that even I, after a lot more that eight months of editing, did not understand.

Again, all the best and gratitude in abundance! ch (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Further: I didn't appreciate how complicated the whole question of COI paid editors is. I did a little poking around and found a long, I mean loooong, debate at Village Pump (policy) Limiting_the_scope_of_COI_edit_requests.ch (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Category: Members of the American Philosophical Society

I had an odd experience with the bio Roger Shepard. I tried to add the category above and could not do it, possibly because you had reverted its addition by MAHosie, months ago? The only way I found to re-add the category was to undo your undo. I didn't mean to criticize your edit, whose context is well explained above. So also is my belief that it is a legitimate category. The category was created in 2013 by BoringHistoryGuy and has never been proposed for deletion. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, HouseOfChange, that's a weird one, new to me. Anyway, you found a way to do it ... and of course that's fine with me. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That site was from the most reputable breeder of Swedish Flower Hens in America. She’s writing the American book on Swedish flower hens right now. What I really have contentions with is the red and buff. Neither of those exist at least from what I’ve learned of American Swedish Flower hens from Leigh(most reputable American breeder). It’s called Splash for the red and no buff Swedish Flower Hen exists at least in pattern in America Dirke31 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Also Buff is Called Mille Fluer in America. I understand where you are coming from now Dirke31 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

ChattWiki423 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:United States Stove Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason for rejected article. You recently rejected my article on United States Stove Company on the grounds of "Blatant undisclosed paid editing." However, if you click my profile, it clearly discloses that I am paid for my work on Wikipedia. My employer and clients are listed. Can you please explain to me why you still declined my article despite all of this? ChattWiki423 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

ChattWiki423, I wonder whether you actually took the trouble to read the reason I gave for declining it: "Blatant undisclosed paid editing in violation of our Terms of Use – see, e.g., Special:Diff/1004227974"? Anyway, it isn't your article. It was dumped here on 27 January 2021 by User:PlanetPllc (who has subsequently changed his/her name to PlanetAya2), a self-admitted paid editor who however has made no paid-editor disclosure; that's why I declined it. By the way, it seems that you copied parts or all of that page to your sandbox, but did not provide attribution; please do so now (that page explains how). Also, it seems to me very likely that that text is copied from some published source, though I've not so far been able to identify one. Any ideas on that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I will add the attribution now. However, the original author is no longer working on the article. I was hired to step in and recreate the article. So, the finalize work you see now is mine. Once I add attribution, will that make it more likely to be approved? Also, I have no idea what published source you are talking about.

Sorry about my mistaken COI tag on Draft:United States Stove Company. It was a later user who had declared. --- Possibly ☎ 18:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this mean I can resubmit for approval? ChattWiki423 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No oops, no possible reason to apologise, Possibly – your tag looked just fine to me until I looked at the earlier history. Thanks for your edits there. ChattWiki423, what makes you think that that text is accurate (it certainly isn't adequately sourced)? And what makes you think it isn't copied from somewhere, as appears likely? You didn't write it, so I – somewhat strongly – advise against submitting it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to remove some of the content? Is there too much fluff? Or, is it better to include as much information as possible as long as it's reliable? Thanks!

Hi there. Long time no talk! Hope all is well with you. I saw your comment at the ANI discussion regarding Celestina, and just wanted to drop you a line. UPE is quite a problem. I do a bit of work over at NPP, and it's a huge issue. I estimate that about 5% of the articles I review are UPE, and I only go by the most blatant tell there is. I'm sure there are others I miss. Add to that, that I review from the "back of the queue", which has already been gone over by at least several other NPP reviewers. Not sure what to be done about it, reviewing is difficult enough. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Onel5969, good to see you! I was sorry to see you leave, pleased to see you return. Yes, it's a problem, the most serious we face (though copyright violation is a contestant for that title too). The undisclosed paid editors are only part of it – paid editors suck up immense amounts of volunteer time and goodwill for a net benefit to the project indistinguishable from zero. I sometimes review drafts (not as often as perhaps I should); my guess is that 90% or more of those submitted are COI, and that most of that is paid. The rate of disclosure might perhaps be less than a tenth of that. As for what to do ... until and unless we finally manage to achieve consensus that paid editing should be stopped (and introduce some measures to actually achieve that), I suppose we just carry on chipping away at the mountain – and give support to others who are doing the same. Thank you for all the good work you do! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I agree regarding CV, but that is much simpler to recognize (although mirrors are an issue for me). Has anything ever been attempted to quash UPE? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you were involved in the speedy deletion discussion of Amotz Plessner back in 2019. I created a second AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amotz Plessner (2nd nomination), because I believe he doesn't meet GNG. I thought you might want to join the discussion. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A few months back, you blocked this user for undisclosed paid editing. However, their argument (on #wikipedia-en-help) is that their notice of "this draft created by Marketing Agency" was intended to be disclosure. With that in mind, would you have any objection to them being unblocked so that they can disclose properly, etc etc? DS (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, DragonflySixtyseven, thanks for this! My suggestion is that the user post a username change request (see tsbky.com!) and unblock request on her user talk-page in the ordinary way, specifying what disclosure she'd make if she could edit her user-page, and the non-promotional edits she'd make to the project if unblocked (not that this holds out much hope of that!). That said, do please go ahead and do as you think best! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

I notice that you've reverted quite a number of my recent edits with the edit summary of failed edit I'm wondering how the following examples are failed edits:

Angryskies (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Angryskies, I've taken the liberty of numbering your links. Many of your recent edits were substantially mistaken – adding "UK" after "England" isn't really helpful, as there isn't any other significant England; removing the italic mark-up from the title of a newspaper is active damage to the encyclopaedia. For the five diffs you've listed, please see (1) WP:DONOTFIXIT, (3)/(5) the documentation for {{url}} (all that's needed is {{url|example.com}}), (4) WP:KDL. (2) is OK in principle, but please don't WP:SHOUT. If in doubt as to what edits are or are not useful, please ask (here, for example); if you are reverted, please immediately stop making edits of that kind until you have established WP:consensus that they are appropriate. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gesellschaft zur Erhaltung alter und gefährdeter Haustierrassen logo.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Good morning! Thank you for your comments. I responded to you on my user talk page, but thought I should write here to ensure clarity. My goal (along with two other editors) was to create a "Sant'Anselmo on the Aventine" page, and then create/edit four stand alone daughter pages (College of Sant'Anselmo, Pontifical Athenaeum Sant'Anselmo, Church of Sant'Anselmo, Curia/Badia of Sant'Anselmo). Note that the parent page and name is NOT "Badia"! My hope is to clear-up a conflation of Benedictine institutions that all use the term "Sant'Anselmo". So, I first created an article entitled "Church of Sant'Anselmo" to REPLACE the previous article "Sant'Anselmo all'Aventino" where you will note a lack of citations, conflation of materials not related to the church proper, and a general dearth of materials. The purpose was to bring an article on the church proper in line with other historical churches of Rome. We did a great deal of work to get those citations and history. That expanisve page is now gone and now redirected to the old Sant'Anselmo all'Aventino. I then created an article properly entitled "Sant'Anselmo on the Aventine" which was a parent summary article for the name used by four institutions that were birthed from the creation of the Benedictine complex located on the Aventine Hill. That article has now been removed by you and also redirected to the old article of Sant'Anselmo all'Aventino. Still to be done were the editing of the Pontifical University, the creation of a wiki article for the College of Sant-Anselmo, and the creation of the Curia/Badia of Sant'Anselmo. As I mentioned on the other talk pages, we had presumed the deletion and redirect would be the best way to achieve this goal of the summary page with four daughter pages. My apologies since your note that my method was in error. How should I proceed so as to achieve some of these goals of clarity? Ideally I would like for the reinstatement of that "Sant'Anselmo on the Aventine" page and the reinstatement of the "Church of Sant'Anselmo" page. I can then move to the work on the three other institutions referenced (create: College of Sant'Anselmo, edit: Pontifical Athenaeum Sant'Anselmo, create: Curia/Badia of Sant'Anselmo). My regards and humble apologies for any errors on my part.MonasticScribe (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, whatever else, ElijahOwens, this isn't the place to discuss it! I've already suggested WT:ITALY or Talk:Sant'Anselmo all'Aventino; whichever you choose it'd probably be a good idea to leave a note at the other. Our page on the church was here until it was redirected (without discussion) in 2015. You should be aware that attempts to completely overwrite existing articles without prior discussion are often unpopular and often reverted; you'd probably do better to make small incremental edits like almost everyone else does. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers Thank you for the correction and admonishment. I apologize as well about bringing the discussion here as I thought that was how the page was utilized. I will make the small incremental changes on the various existing language pages and just have to accept the limitations. Again, thank you for the direction.MonasticScribe (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gesellschaft zur Erhaltung alter und gefährdeter Haustierrassen logo.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Justlettersandnumbers, I have edited or created pages about highly cited scientists in Ticino, which sadly is still known more for tourism than for science: Michele Parrinello in chemistry (Google Scholar Profile), Marco Baggiolini and Antonio Lanzavecchia in immunology (Google Scholar Profile), and Jürgen Schmidhuber in artificial intelligence (Google Scholar Profile). You undid my edits of the latter referring to WP:COI/WP:PAID and you wrote that I may propose improvements using a request edit template on your talk-page. So here I am to tell you that I am not paid for this! A little dose of local patriotism is no COI. I think you'll find that my edits with lots of supporting references have at least improved the pages, which are still wanting, given the notability of the subjects. The revert actually reinserted errors such as the wrong location, and deleted many references. It would be very nice if you could approve of the changes, and undo your undo, and and perhaps even help to further improve things further, given your vast experience. Ticino100 (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ticino100! Clearly I was wrong there, so please go ahead and make your changes, my apologies. Just to explain a little: that page (like others associated with it, such as Long short-term memory and Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence Research) has for years been plagued by inappropriate editing and/or sockpuppetry so blatant that it was actually reported in the New York Times; I thought this was more of the same. Just a thought: rather than making a single large change, a series of incremental edits to a page may be less likely to set alarm bells ringing. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers! Ticino100 (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

can you add also his IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjoshua1

2600:8804:1000:EA00:B5D9:2E1D:B2ED:20AE (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2600:8804:1000:EA00:E57E:82:9B2B:63AD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2600:8804:1000:EA00:21B0:1CD1:8129:F4F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Thanks, BunnyHoppingPerson, those are now blocked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Add also Marrs13579 .

I see you affixed the relevant tag to the article. The history of that article from the first time i nominated the article for deletion as correctly stated by bonadea has been that of editors with a vested interest in the article's creation making rather dubious edits to that article. At some point salting the article would be the only viable method to dissuade potential COI editing in that very article. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Lin Tianmiao

added a link pointing to BFA

Zilia Sánchez Domínguez

added a link pointing to Museum of the Americas

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to show that "domesticated" is a valid conservation category. The IUCN has no such label, see here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the poor-quality edits from those two other users and removing the copy-vio issues from the page. Just a reminder that if you place tags, it's generally a good idea to start a talk page discussion and is in fact required for Template:Paid contributions and strongly advised for Template:POV. There are over 40 citations, the vast majority of which are to physical newspapers, reliable news outlets, and business journals. If you aren't interested in starting a discussion, please consider removing those tags from the page. Toa Nidhiki05 13:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Toa Nidhiki05! Feel free to copy my edit summary to the talk-page if you so wish. For reference, it was: "paid-editor text-dump, usual ref-bombing, not clear which of those 42 sources is reliable, independent and covers the company in depth and in detail, or whether there's anything here other than a predatory company conducting its routine business". I've nothing to add to that, but you might want to review WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that at this point, there is only one honoree on the National LGBTQ Wall of Honor that is a redlink. I see that you deleted the page as a created by a banned/blocked user. Is it possible for it to be Refunded into my area for determination as to whether it is acceptable as an article? If so, can it be published immediately, or would everything need to be rephrased to avoid the banned/blocked user's work actually being accepted. Thank You.Naraht (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, Thank you for reviewing my article on Deborah Santana and alerting me to the copyright issues. I have re-written the article to remove the copyrighted text and have resubmitted it for consideration. Can you please let me know if what I did was sufficient or if I need to make further changes? Thanks so much, --Moviecat (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon, I was going to add a couple of new book under the bibliography for "Stuart Conover" and saw that all of my edits were removed as Paid and Conflict of Interest. I haven't been paid to make any of those edits and, aside from being a reader of some of his work am not sure how that would be a conflict of interest? I'm wondering what wasn't supposed to be there so I can add at least the bibliography back in if not the rest which took me quite awhile to put together. (I'm sorry, I'm new here so if I did anything glaringly wrong on it I'm still learning! I'm trying to only edit bibliographies right now for authors while I make sure to know all of the other rules so that is the main thing I'm looking to add back in if something else was done wrong.) Thanks for your time and I'm sorry for any additional work this adds! SaraReadsSpecFic (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Does your edit to Russell Surasky mean it is not acceptable for Wikipedia to include descriptions of television shows from the sources? Because that doesn't make sense to me but if the wording was just biased I assume you would have reworded it rather than completely remove it. Also I am not a COI or paid editor this is my first article so it is bound to have some mistakes, I hope you understand. Canes Stains (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, you blocked Thener2013 (talk · contribs) yesterday for copyvio and spam. They are continuing the same behavior from a new account, Thene81 (talk · contribs). Also, Thener3 (talk · contribs) is another account they used previously; all three have been focused on promoting Nili Portugali. DanCherek (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this, DanCherek! – now all on permanent vacation. For future reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thener3. Thanks for all your great work, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! DanCherek (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you restore Series 21 and Series 22 to List of Grand Designs episodes? A lot of work has been lost. It was only the summaries that needed to be deleted. Khiikiat (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm trying to understand why the Byline TV page has been redirected to Byline Times. The two are under the same parent (in terms of organisational structure) but operate independently. The references used in the Byline TV page are generally independent coverage relating specifically to Byline TV not Byline Times (again the two are distinct). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayao Misery Sake (talk • contribs) 11:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hayao Misery Sake, you removed the existing redirect and filled the page with some fairly promotional content, which was then quite reasonably nominated for speedy deletion. Rather than delete the page I reverted it to before your first edit there. If you want your draft to be reviewed you'll need to submit it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you mass revert my edits? J0ngM0ng (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. You've been asked to establish consensus for them, and have not done so (that I can see – if you have, please link to it, of course). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You expect me to link the same source over and over for every edit? J0ngM0ng (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I expect you to link to the same discussion with other Wikipedia editors where you presented your thesis and achieved consensus that it should be implemented. And yes, in general, every edit you make should be accompanied by an explanation, preferably one based on consensus or WP:policy. Oh, an apology: when I wrote at Template:Infobox horse breed "nomenclature is decided by the IUCN" I did of course actually mean to write "nomenclature is decided by the ICZN" – I always muddle them, please excuse me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem. And I'll link you after I get consensus. I thought following the ASM was standard here, but I suppose not everyone is aware. Oh well. J0ngM0ng (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Why would anyone follow the ASM? That's just one organisation in just one of about 210(?) countries in the world; the international body that determines nomenclature is, as above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

ASM is the standard here on Wikipedia. J0ngM0ng (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, if you say so. Where exactly was that consensus established? (please supply the diff of the RfC close). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

According to @Jts1882:: "This gets tricky as the projects favoured source is still MSW3, which is outdated, so in practice we follow the IUCN and increasingly the ASM." J0ngM0ng (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wishing Justlettersandnumbers a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Blessed morning to you. You recently deleted a page/article about a Nigerian notable and uprising song writer and producer, Official Genius on Wikipedia. I believe this is misunderstood. And if there is any problem or issues that need to be resolved, kindly mention it while I fix it. Thank you as I await your response. From Haqulix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haqulix (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Haqulix, I deleted this because it was blatantly promotional and wholly unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia ("... decided not to put a stop to his creative juice ...", for example). If you want to write about this person I suggest that you start afresh, in draft space, and report only the verifiable facts in a neutral and encyclopaedic manner. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Quick Facts

October songs

Close

Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Today, mostly black&white, and standing upright as Psalm 15 says --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello friend, I hope you are having a good day. I was creating this page for a political campaign I volunteer on, and tried to follow the formula that other politicians I see on here use. This is my first time making a page, and I tried to change the title, then add references, but it was deleted before I could do that. Is there anyway I can have it reinstated so I can fix it up. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul325 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

No, Abdul325, that page was deleted as a copyright violation (of the promotional pap here), and we don't restore copyright violations. It was also completely unsourced and grossly promotional. If you want to write about that person you should (a) disclose any connection you may have to him; (b) read our notability policy for biographies (there's absolutely no sign that he might meet it); (c) identify a good number of independent reliable sources that discuss his achievements in depth and in detail; and, based on what those sources say, write neutrally about him entirely in your own words. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I've seen my edit on this article has been reverted, but couldn't think of a reason. I added CS1 cite act templates to the plain text references, similar to other edits of mine. Just out of curiosity and in good faith. Cheers, $swar$ e • 🗣 • 🏲 18:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Swaare! Well, perhaps that was discourteous of me – if so, I apologise. I'd intentionally formatted those two refs without a 'cite' template for two reasons: the templates make the wikicode for the ref almost impenetrably hard to read; and every time someone changes the syntax of the template, a bot goes round implementing the change in millions (literally, I think) of instances of it, resulting in yet more unnecessary watchlist clutter. I didn't see any substantial improvement in the actual output from your version, so reverted the change. I hope that's OK? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks for elaborating. I agree that plain text is more straightforward to read as it's almost a one-to-one correspondence, but citation templates are useful to give all references a common format without much effort. Now that this has been settled, I suggest linking to BOE in both refs instead (you can find the links on the diff above) since it gets updated as the decree is corrected. Cheers,

swar

e • 🗣 • 🏲 14:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for taking the time to review my draft. I went over your comments and changes the draft (removed some references and changes the text, however I wanted to ask you - I've added articles that are not always initiated by the company so they are sponsored etc., and as I understood they satisfy the WP:NCORP so I'm re-submitting and would appreciate it if you let me know if there is still anything else that is missing. Thank you! --Ravit307 (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please could you advise me how do I get my draft article published? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetieGentlyBird (talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, this 12-billion corporation is much a bigger name than ICON ever was. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps so, Kashmiri. But that doesn't justify having a crappy article with no non-routine coverage whatsoever, sourced principally to press-releases and its own tax returns, does it? Please review WP:NCORP for an idea of what we expect in an article on a company or organisation. I tagged it for doubtful notability in January last year, waited eighteen months for some improvement. If you want to write a proper article there then that's great; if not, perhaps you'd restore the redirect until such time as someone else can be bothered to? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep the article. Yes, it needs improvement, but why not trying to fix the problem instead of removing the company entirely from an encyclopaedia?

FYI, WP:LISTED also applies here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I accept without reservation the deletion of my Andan Foundation page on Thursday, I was actually quite enthusiastic about my draft in the beginning, but afterwards I realized that the article reads almost like an advertising brochure, especially because of the very high number of references to the Andan company website, also the external links were probably not very neutral. I have put down a new compressed draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deejott/draft2?action=edit, which is reduced to the essentials in terms of content, as a central point only the collaboration with MIT (MIT Solve & Andan Prize for Refugee Inclusion ...) is presented here. From your point of view, would I still have a problem with this redesign ? If that should not be the case, I would like to publish the new reduced and revised version ... --~~~~ Deejott (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your move of Angus cattle to Aberdeen Angus has created 166 wikilinks that need to be fixed. Since Aberdeen Angus appears to be the primary topic by a large margin, perhaps it would be better to have Angus cattle redirect to Aberdeen Angus and put the DAB page at Angus cattle (disambiguation). Leschnei (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Leschnei, sorry I've been slow to reply here. I don't think it was the move that created this situation (that was six or seven weeks ago) but my recent conversion of Angus cattle to a dab page. I'm pretty confident that that was needed – we now have articles on four different kinds of Angus cattle. I think I've fixed about half the links incoming to that page, but any help with fixing more would be welcome. It needs to be done manually, based on the context in each case. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

And I see that the number has been cut in half since my comment above! I'll see if I can fix any of the remaining links - though if they require any knowledge of cows, I'll probably have to leave them be. Leschnei (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

When disambiguating, please remember that there may be multiple instances within the same article that need to be disambiguated. I've noticed a few articles in which you've only disambiguated the first instance of many ambiguous links. One may argue that the link should only be in the article once, but the situation still needs correction. Thanks —ADavidB 07:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those two, Adavidb – I'd anyway have seen them when I reloaded this today. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You blanked, deleted, and redirected MCP to the General Services article. Your edit summary was, you didn't think there was any indication (the article) "does or could ever" be notable persuant to WP:NCORP. This is obviously not true. Because of that comment, I thought you were a new user. Needless to say, I was quite taken aback when I saw you were an admin. One of the first things one learns is WP:NOTE. It may not (currently) be able to be a stand-alone article, but it definitely can become notable (especially being a law enforcement agency). Also, it rates a subsection more than the deleted footnote that you put in. I would suggest in the future, if you are going to correct an article, you should take the time to properly readjust the information (i.e., don't just blank it, put a foot note, and call it a day). Take the time to transfer the information properly. If you don't have time for that, contact me on my talk page, and I will gladly fix it. Also, be sure to cite proper WP protocols in the edit summary. I'm not upset with you and I don't mind, but I now have to go back and fix what you did. Remember, as an admin, you need to hold yourself to a higher editing standard. Don't rush through things! New users are watching how we edit. Cheers! It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sallicio, before you tell too many other people what to do or not do, you might take the time to refresh your memory/understanding of WP:NCORP. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, lol... I am well aware of WP:NCORP. NCORP is irrelevant. Click here for a list of articles like the one in dispute. If you need more, I can provide more. Also, remember this before you get too snarky. I wasn't upset, and wasn't trying to hurt your feelings. Being an admin means being able to properly take constructive criticism. Regards, It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey I’m curious why you removed an edit i made on the Editas wikipedia page. I think the source linked here is very week. It’s an article about stock advice with no direct source about EDIT-101 results. I know that a press release is not exactly proof which is why I made sure to indicate that they “claimed” it’s efficacy. However I think it is certainly more trustworthy in this situation. Fentanyl13 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Is a run of three words, then seven words, then four words really a copyright violation? I think I could only copyedit the middle one (and even then, not obviously in a way that would make it scan better). This sounds like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333! In itself, no, not really; as part of a larger problem, yes, I think so. If we decline a G12 on the grounds that the copyvio has been removed then we should make damned sure that it actually has been – please! The creator of that page has a number of copyvio warnings/notices, not yet sure if there's a widespread problem. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I think this is just a difference of opinion. As you can see from the history, I did my own copyvio scrub earlier; I just thought everything left wasn't something that could be easily reworded or could be given plausible deniability if somebody complained about plagiarism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's what our copyright policy says, Ritchie333 – we're not aiming for "plausible deniability" but for straightforward removal. A few words like that might not even be noticed if they were the whole sum of problem, but if you're cleaning up copyvio, please do a complete job. Of course you or anyone else is then free to write non-infringing content to replace what has been removed. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it does - WP:CLOP says "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." Anyway, I'm not actually challenging the further copyvio scrub and revision deletion you did, just trying to understand your stance. I think we (and indeed pretty much any long-term editor) understand why copyvios should not appear anywhere in Wikipedia, but the precise specifics of what a copyvio is in marginal cases isn't so clear cut. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I made a significant contribution to Fawzia Al-Abbasi, Carlotta Barilli, and Božena Böhmová. Meaning that G5 no longer was applicable. Silver seren^C 21:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop violating CSD rules. You already know the multiple other articles you've deleted against the CSD rules. Silver seren^C 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You're continuing and not replying here. Should I take this to WP:AN? Silver seren^C 21:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my curtness above. It was just really annoying to put in the effort I did for source searching and the like and then have it be ignored. Thank you for restoring them. There's several others as well: Tereza Costa Rêgo, Ramón Escobar Santiago, Iñaxi Etxabe, Igor Chernykh, Gladys Ejomi, Elisabeth Ebeling, and Dick Klaverdijk. Silver seren^C 22:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Restored those too, even if your edits were not really substantial in relation to the size of the article/amount of sockpuppet content. I don't know, but your actions here don't seem to be exactly in the spirit of collaborative editing – from where I sit it looks as if you are gaming the system to preserve content created by a sockpuppet. We have rather good reasons for deleting sockpuppet creations, and I'm not at all sure that you are helping the project by trying to circumvent them. Anyway, I'm going to get some sleep now and will look at this again in the light of day. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The literal only difference would be me copy-pasting the content back in after deletion. Which is allowed as well, especially since most of the content was just translations from other language Wikipedias. Though it might have copyright issues, so I'm not sure what the point would be? Deleting these articles doesn't benefit anyone and hurts the project by removing notable subjects that other languages have already noted. Silver seren^C 22:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've thought of another way to explain it that might help. If these were deleted, I would go through the process anyways to get them undeleted through the usual policy channels and take responsibility for the content. That would take a lot more time on both my part and would give extra work to others at the same time. Instead, I am doing the same thing by making substantial edits to these articles that would have the same result and the articles are better afterwards at the same time. All with far less effort required on everyone's part. Silver seren^C 23:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers,

It would be better in a situation like this for you to just delete a page than tag it for speedy deletion. Because AFDs are transcluded to other pages, this page tagging resulted in about 7 or 8 AFD-related pages showing up in speedy deletion categories because the CSD tag on this page was transcluded on to them. I've seen a similar thing happen when templates are tagged for speedy deletion. Personally, I don't see a problem with admins doing the deletion themselves rather than tagging a page and having a different admin delete it. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Liz, how are you? Damn, didn't think of that possibility, sorry about that! Most of the time I try to tag rather than instantly delete speedy candidates (exceptions are promotional user-pages created under a promotional username, and duplicates of an already-deleted copyvio), as I like the idea of checks and balances and think two pairs of eyes are usually better than one. But if I ever come across this particular situation again I'll do as you suggest. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Now you have cut down most of the weeds I can see very little true notability. What I did not want to do is to upset you by sending it to AfD without speaking to you first. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I've placed a source assessment table on the article's talk page. It's so poor I am going to proceed to AfD Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is very courteous of you, Timtrent, but not necessary – I would not have been upset even if I had thought her notable, which at a superficial glance I do not. I'm not sure I'll be able to summon up the interest to participate in the discussion, but it's definitely a good move to start it, thank you! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought to tell you because you had just done a lot of hard work in the article. I didn't want it to be a slap in the face P:aid editors really must do a better job! I expect them to hit the ground well versed in our policies and to be able to create perfection. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to add my 2 euro-cents to that discussion, Timtrent. And yes, they should know policy, but also know that they are so strongly discouraged from editing in mainspace that it amounts to a outright veto. So, what's your take on notability at Emunah La-Paz? I've been trying to cut out some dead wood, and am now far from convinced that she is notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say she does not pass WP:NAUTHOR and that the community should decide. But I have not done a BEFORE and am about to fall asleep. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The community now has a formal opportunity to decide. A prior AfD was no consensus Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I may be wrong about Liz Ogbu. Please correct me if so Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi

On 10 November you reverted the changes I made to the National Research Foundation of South Africa page to an older, out of day version. You cited copyright violations and you blocked my account. I am an employee of the National Research Foundation and was requested by my employer to make considerable changes and updates to the page. No copyrights were violated as all the information, text and images, belong to the National Research Foundation.

Could you please unblock me (I am new to wikipedia page editing so if I have neglected to do something that was required it was an oversight on my part). Also, is there any way that my edits can be restored or do I have to start over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.26.166 (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Will reply at User talk:NRFCorpComms. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The creating editor has expressed strong sentiments there. You may or may not wish to participate further in the discussion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd seen. Started a discussion here. Thanks also for trying to explain stuff on her talk. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a feeling I am less welcome than are you, but I am trying to help her with the few processes needed. I'm working on Commons too. I have commented at COIN. I have a genuine wish to help the editor. The article will stand or fall on its merits, but the editor requires help. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have examined the article closely from the revision prior to your pruning. It would have failed WP:NAUTHOR anyway. The creating editor is attempting to characterise the issue with pruning and deletion as some form of racially inspired set of acts, which is rather disappointing. I'm putting this down to frustration and indignation, and counselling them against that path Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vhubbard Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

As the RM here is now closed as no consensus you may ask to have you're previously-proposed RM reopened if you wish. FOARP (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, FOARP, I had thought of that, but decided to let the dust settle for a while – it's not something I feel strongly about. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello JLAN, I hope you are well.

I dropping a quick note to ask if you know of any sources for the Hierran Wolfdog, you have a pretty remarkable knack of finding Iberian sources. I have been looking for anything under the article title (which is undoubtedly just an English translation that has probably never been used), perro de pastor herreño, perro lobo herreño or lobito herreño (the last two from Spanish Wiki). The table on page 96 of this source states they are provisionally recognised by the Real Sociedad Canina de España, that is false. I cannot access this paper.

I suspect they exist, but are incredibly rare. Further, I suspect they are a local shepherd dog breed with absolutely no wolf blood and because of a resemblance they have been given a nickname. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

Yes, well, thank you, Cavalryman; you too, I trust? I'll look at that later, the kind of challenge I enjoy; just to be going on with, here's the draft standard. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Well thank you, we have recently been released from the world’s longest lockdown which is a boon. I see you have just moved the page, if we can only find one source I am thinking of writing a list of Spanish dog breeds with a blurb for each which will be able to encompass it. Cavalryman (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

I'm not exactly delighted with the sourcing, but I think it's now enough to keep the page as a stand-alone. The list of Spanish breeds is anyway a good idea – I did the same for the Italian ones. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

My goodness, I spent over an hour looking for sources, thank you. Yes, there appears to be a number of regionally known Spanish breeds that a list might be able to capture. Cavalryman (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

JLAN, can you run your copyvio check and discerning eye on Eskimo archery? The tone and style really feels like there’s a bunch of plagiarism in there. Thanks much. Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Montana, how's life? Yes, it does feel that way; a lot of that is caused by all the lengthy (and unjustifiable) quotations. I don't immediately see anything else, but several of the sources are offline so it's hard to be sure. Do you want to seek out some of those next time you're at the library? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I looked at issuing a similar CSD, but decided to ask Diannaa to take a look since they offer vast copyright expertise. Yours may be equal.

I have left a further comment at AfD. I am half aggravated by the accusations of racism, but choose not to take that to the drama boards, considering it to be caused by indignation and frustration Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No, Diannaa has far greater experience than I, Timtrent, and does a lot more in that area than I do (mea culpa) – thank you, Diannaa! The racism slurs could have been taken as offensive, but they weren't overtly directed at any one person so perhaps not drama-board material; I chose to simply ignore them. However I'm beginning to think that the editor has had about enough rope now. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

D is my go to editor for difficult copyright issues. More power to their elbow. I'd be tempted to consider withdrawing the CSD pending D's thoughts. That file has just been deleted on Commons.

The racism slurs are being repeated on Commons as well. They are offensive, yet I still characterise them as indignation at being caught out as a self publicist, and at not being notable in a Wikipedia sense, coupled, I suspect, with having paid the paid editor to produce material that has patently failed..

The picture itself is somewhat bizarre, and open to interpretation. What I think I am seeing is a self publicist of self published books considering that she is a hidden figure. The placement on her website is also open to misinterpretation Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The photo was previously published on the website https://www.littleantproductions.com/about-us-black.html which means we can't keep it without an OTRS ticket. There's also a huge image of a copyright movie poster in the photo. I don't think there's freedom of panorama for 2D artwork in the US, so the permission of the copyright holder of the poster would also be required.— Diannaa (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa I suspect that, seeing the placement on the Little Ant web site, the copyright holder of the movie poster is more likely to issue a take down notice than to grant permission. Unless, that is, Little Ant Productions is the copyright owner of the poster and that the movie is one of their movies. That I was unable to determine that does not mean that they were not involved at that level.

Thank you for your expertise. As usual it is way above my pay grade! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again JLAN, I have just deleted pretty much the entire contents of Ca Mè Mallorquí as a verbatim COPYVIO of the various tabs at http://www.camemallorqui.org/castella.htm. If you concur, would you be able to revdel all revisions prior to . I am about to start a rewrite. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

Yes, agreed, done! – I had left both pages open last night for just that reason. Sorry to have forestalled you on the list – it didn't occur to me that you might have started it in user-space. It still needs a lot of sorting out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. I had a good chuckle when I saw you link it to the navbox, great minds. Cavalryman (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

Thank you for spotting and removing the copyvio at Himachal Pradesh. However, I'm not sure that also revdelling was needed. Between the insertion of the offending text and its removal, there are sixty, mostly constructive, revisions, and now they're gone. I don't think removing a large chunk of the article's history is a price worth paying for the suppression of less than 800 bytes of copyrighted text. Also, as far as I can see from the policy text, WP:RD1 shouldn't be used if it would remove attribution to non-infringing contributors, which appears to have occurred in this case as the edits redacted contained the addition of non-trivial amount of text . Or is there something important that I'm missing here? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, Uanfala, it's always a balancing act in such cases. This was a blatant copyvio by a user who has routinely violated our copyright policy; it seems to me that hiding 61 of the 4647 edits to that page was reasonable in the circumstances, and fully in accordance with our standard practice. They're not gone, just hidden; the usernames of the editors are visible in order to maintain attribution as required. Do please feel free to get a second opinion on this if you like – perhaps from someone in this category. Or perhaps a TPW will comment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the content added or modified in those 60 or so revisions is now untraceable: we can't see who did what. And given that revision deletion apparently never hides the usernames, then why does the policy make a mention of that at all? – Uanfala (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, look, that appears to have been discussed before: Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RfC on Change RD1-wording. – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The legal code states that all contributing authors must be credited. ("The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors.") It does not state that each sentence and phrase in the document must be credited to an individual author. Therefore in my opinion providing a list of contributors via the article history is adequate attribution, even if the edits themselves are no longer visible. I think the policy wording is a holdover from the old days where the only method of removing edits was to do a delete-and-partial-restore, whereby if there were any intervening edits by other contributors, the task could not be completed because contributor's names would be removed from the history. — Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If the text of such a widely used policy is incorrect, then really, someone needs to have it changed. In the meantime, we've apparently heard a third opinion, those revisions remain deleted, and I for my part haven't been able to find within myself any particular joy at having them gone. So, what's the next step in challenging the deletion? DRV? – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, what about Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion, Uanfala? Wouldn't that make the most sense? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala, in case it's of interest, I have now found a discussion I wanted to refer you to earlier (but couldn't find), which largely formed my personal take on this question: here. The definitive "ruling" is that of Moonriddengirl/Maggie Dennis, now head of Trust and Safety and unfortunately no longer very active as an editor here (not pinging her for that reason). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

But that discussion only affirmed the current wording of RD1, no? The objections that got addressed there were apparently against revdelling in principle. Anyway, I've now started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RD1, attribution and intervening edits. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a FYI that I un-redirected Iberian horse from your list article and am trying to expand it. My goal with the non-list article was/is to be more of a history; your list is more than adequate to handle whatever is considered the current group of breeds. Basically, the reason I think we need both is because the historic Iberian breeds influenced a lot of other breeds, particularly in the Americas, and thus linking that article to a list of modern breeds isn't as helpful. That said, if there's a place to discuss all the modern politics around the current recognition of breeds, any efforts to improve the article are, of course, welcome. Montanabw^(talk) 02:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I accidentally did a rollback on one of your edits, I was aiming at a different article and missed… new device…my apologies .Montanabw^(talk) 07:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

May I ask what prompted you to do this name change at this time? May I also enquire if you read any of the discussions that surrounded the current name and article merges ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course you may, Laurel Lodged! Hmm, Twinkle doesn't exactly leave an informative edit summary in these cases, sorry about that. The redirect at Christianization of the Roman Empire was tagged by Avilich for speedy deletion under criterion G6 ("asserted to be non-controversial maintenance") to allow the article to be moved to that title, so I did that. I didn't (and still don't) see any discussion of renaming on the talk-page; there was a brief merge discussion in 2012. If the move is in fact disputed I will of course revert it so that a WP:RM discussion can take place – please let me know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: The G6 rationale given by Avilich was "Word 'late' is unnecessary here". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The page was originally supposed to be moved from "Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism" to "Christianization of the Roman Empire" (see Talk:Christianization of the Roman Empire#Total restructure of this article), but, since the latter was a redirect with a slightly-less-than-trivial history, a manual move couldn't be performed, and so Jenhawk777 just added "late" to the title. I pointed out in her own talk page that this was unnecessary, and that the original proposal did not include the word "late", and she agreed. I brought it up again in the article's talk page for good measure, and there was no opposition. Avilich (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, Avilich, Laurel Lodged, please work this out between you. If you can't, I'll revert the move and anyone who wants to can start an WP:RM. In any case it'll be a while before I do another G6 deletion, I can tell you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I know we don't know each other, but I got a notification about this, and I feel bad that you got sucked in and were blindsided. I feel responsible, and I'm sorry. Four of us, including Avilich and I, had a big hullabaloo with no resolution over retitling Persecution of pagans in the Late Roman Empire. It was in the midst of that discussion that Richard Keatinge raised the idea of merging Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism and Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal into one article. I was against that - and then decided he was right - so I did it, and it became this article: Christianization of the late Roman empire. Since I did the merger, I titled it, and I added 'late' to avoid conflict with an already existing redirect.

When Avilich next wanted to retitle the merged article, I didn't want a repeat of pagans, so I just agreed. The others were not consulted. Richard has not been to the merged article at all, as far as I know, and I am thinking that perhaps he doesn't want to be involved. Laurel has, and her views should be considered. I should not have just agreed with him without asking her. On that basis, the change should probably be reverted until there is agreement between the two of them. I'm so sorry about all of this. He's gonna be upset with me about this, but it's the right thing to do. Where is Batman when you need him? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: What you're describing is a completely different issue that has 100% nothing to do with the G6 move. Please don't turn this simplest of issues into something actually complicated; please don't barge into a disinterested party with a trainwreck of unrelated events; and please discuss it first on one of our own talk pages, as Justlettersandnumbers already asked. Avilich (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, I am in the process of finishing up all the fish in the genus Phoxinus.

I have noticed that you deleted Phoxinus likai for copyright infringement.

I would like to finish the genus by adding Likai. Is there are problem I am not aware of?

Thanks Phil Fish (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course not, Phil Fish, do please go ahead. Oh, and thanks for asking! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I did enjoy seeing your work on English Longhorn. I'd just dealt with a single sentence and not thought through the sourcing issues or the rest of the article; you did and incidentally may have taught me to be a little more bold - thank you! In that vein, would you like to have a look at Imprisonment? I fear my edits have left questions to consider, and it may all be a bit more contentious. NebY (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, NebY, for those kind words. What little I did there was fairly easy for me, as I already most of the references to hand; there's still a lot more to be done to that page. It was of course your edit that drew my attention to it. I'm afraid I'm going to pass on imprisonment, though. I try within reason to steer clear of pages on broad topics – I'm better with details, I think. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That references page of yours looks like a great idea - I'd been thinking of recording a few of my usual ones as i went, and now I see how useful that could become. Anyway, I quite understand you trying to stay clear of such general pages, having wound up on that one almost by accident and now fretting that following policy's going to be uncomfortable. But I'll hope to be wrong about that! Best regards, NebY (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the correction on the Slovene Late-feathered Hen. If I understand you correctly, it is customary on English Wikipedia (different external sources list many various rules about English naming/capitalizing etc.) to capitalize all breed names, as well as all parts of a name. E.g. Slovenian Barred Hen, Cika Cattle, Drežnica Goat, Slovenian Cold-blooded Horse etc. are thus proper namings?--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 16:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Melaleuca alternifolia, I'm afraid it's not that simple – this has been the subject of much discussion, and much unpleasantness, for many years; there's no firm consensus on what should be done. There is a sort of tacit understanding that breed names should be capitalised, as they invariably are elsewhere. My advice for now would be to move the hen to the capitalised name, the horse to Slovenian Cold-blood, and leave the goat and cow where they are for the moment. Much more important: thank you so much for creating those pages! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought so, thank you for your answer. I agree with you prepositions and I will take care of the mentioned renamings later.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk

Hello, I saw that you deleted Gelora Bung Karno Aquatic Stadium. I'm not sure if it's this article or not but I have a feeling I did make some contributions to it. Did I make any edits? Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, NemesisAT, on 27 September you removed a WP:prod tag from an earlier version of the page (which I deleted on 19 October 2021). Neither you nor anyone else had made any significant edit to either that version or the subsequent sock re-creation thereof, just routine gnoming. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay. No problem. Probably no big loss then. Thanks! NemesisAT (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have read about what constitutes a [[WP:RS|reliable source] The page source is specifically about glamping, the history and types of glamping. If that is not a source, let's get rid of half the other sources like the opinion piece someone wrote on HuffPost or the listicle article as a source from travellers.com.au. If those are examples of a {{WP:RS|reliable source} then half of Wikipedia is not reliable. Kind of ridiculous micromanaging in my opinion.TheSimulati (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, TheSimulati, the place to discuss the reliability of sources is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You have not made one edit unrelated to allaboutglamping.com. What is your connection to that website? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers Well, I attempted to start to help Wikipedia last year during covid. Attempted to add some info on the Glamping page as it said it needed work. I was told that I needed to get authorization from the source for copyright issues. Finally got back to it and got the required authorization from the site to fix what I had started last year. Then I get that the source is not good enough. Seems like helping Wikipedia is too much of a convoluted process. I'll leave it to you admins, no worries.

Saw you blocked Elitereplay as suspected UPE. I've got them Confirmed to Penstrope, whom off-wiki evidence connects to Get Wikified. Good block :). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Good to know I got that one right, GeneralNotability! Unfortunately I've no recollection of what made me certain enough to hand out the block. I took a quick glance at the contribs, and it looks as if stuff like this and this is straight out of the same stable. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Fellow-editors, friends and colleagues, I wish you all happiness and tranquility during the holiday season and in the year to come. For family reasons I'm likely to be on Wikipedia only infrequently, if at all, for the next few days at least. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Justlettersandnumbers!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from London ...

and may the New Year be a safe one, filled with peace and plenty.

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is safe, festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2022 will be safe, healthy, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist Modernist (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really want to get into the drama of an ANI thing, and saw that the preface to ANI suggests contacting a recently-online admin to skip it. I just came across Cherkezy at Chokha, and posted a talk-page message to them, reminding them that it's not appropriate to tag an edit that changes ethnicity as "minor" (people get very upset about ethnicity). But I'm worried about the situation at Chokha where two editors seem to be losing the plot. A few examples selected from a generally bad-tempered set of edit summaries:

"Do not lecture me about fairness and nationalism after your little edits. Hypocrite" at

"Sick person" at

"I think there is brain barrier between you and historical facts. nobody but Georgian wore this. 9th century blah blah, shamil blah blah. all made up. I already explained ths fact please scroll down. as for now enjoy Georgian culture and first Caucasian who invented this:) GEORGIAN)" here

my feeling is that these two editors (Cherkezy and Kebapkebvab) are behaving very badly to one another, and that no other editor is likely to step into such an ill-tempered fight to offer a much-needed third viewpoint. This reeks of nasty, ethnic editing and personalised attacks. I wonder if it's worth warning them both to tone it down a bit, and seek a third opinion as they clearly can't agree. Elemimele (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, thanks for bringing this here – if there's something going on that you don't like the look of, then asking the opinion of another editor is always a good plan, I think. I've looked at the history of that page and would certainly have taken some kind of action if I'd been aware of it a couple of weeks ago. Now it seems that one of the two editors has not edited since 14 December, and so the situation has calmed down. I've left a brief note for the other editor, let's hope this will die down now – but please let me know if it starts up again. By an extraordinary coincidence, I thought the article you meant was Chokha, a page in which I have a minor interest (see this upload). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Oooh, that's what I love about WP. Always something new to learn. I've put a hat-note on the two articles for those readers who find their way to the wrong one, and for those readers who've found the "right" one, but (like me) enjoy discovering something unrelated... Thank you for your reassurance and drama-circumventing actions. Elemimele (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong venue, but I noticed you were the blocking admin - a completely new user just submitted Draft:Akribis Systems Pte Ltd, the same company that Sjchin was trying make a draft for, using very similar sourcing (and probably language, but I don't remember their wording). Rusalkii (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Rusalkii, it does indeed seem likely (and of course you're always welcome to ask here). However, the two incarnations of the page, though quite similar, are not identical and I don't feel certain enough to block immediately. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sjchin. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Rusalkii, check-user confirmed what we suspected. Thank you for catching that! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Here is where I'm confused. I thought I had I had noted it at the top and in the references section. I have gone back and added the disclosure to my profile too. How do I add it to the article, so it is correct?

The part I'm trying to understand is the "advocate" or "references" section. There isn't information available from other resources, besides the Agency website and an outdated state directory. If there is going to be a Wikipedia page, then it needs to be accurate. If it cannot be accurate, or if we cannot edit it to be accurate, then I need to have it deleted. The incorrect information, as we are a State Agency, can truly harm our Agency. The information I provided in my revision is taken directly from our website, which I am in charge of... so again, I don't know what else to do. DanCherek keeps saying I have to release it into the public domain in Wikipedia, and I went through the automated thing... I'm waiting on a response. But the information that is on there now is wholly inaccurate and points to pages that do not exist.

What is my next step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibraryLadyA (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, LibraryLadyA! Your first step is to disclose your relationship (which I assume is a paid one?) to the library; I've left instructions for that on your user talk-page. Thereafter you may request changes to the article using {{request edit}} on the talk-page (Talk:Maryland State Library); please ensure that you provide independent reliable sources (i.e., sources not connected to the library) when doing so. Please note that the page does not belong to you but to Wikipedia; that we simply do not care if you don't like what it says or if you want it to say something different; and that our content is based (almost) exclusively on what independent sources say. We do care if there are glaring errors of verifiable fact in the page – please mention those on the talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers.

I have updated my profile to reflect that I'm an employee of the Maryland State Library Agency. It looks like this: $ This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Maryland State Library Agency for their contributions to Maryland State Library.

Here's where the issue arises - there are no independent resources for this. We are the resource. There are no places outside of our website and outdated government pages from the State of Maryland that would have this information. In fact, MOST of the information I have been able to find, I've had to update because it was wrong, outdated, or misleading. So now what? If I can't provide that, then what am I supposed to do? The page is inaccurate, and if read by our stakeholders (The Governor, State Legislators, County/City executives), could potentially harm us. If I cannot have the page updated to reflect the accurate information found on our website, then I need the page deleted.

Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibraryLadyA (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

LibraryLadyA, you may nominate it for deletion if you wish. You'll need to disclose your paid connection to the topic, and to provide convincing evidence that the library is not notable by our standards. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have recreated this page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generic_Vehicle_Architecture/Temp to replace the one in question over copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithmsmith (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I work for the not-for-profit IEEE. I have edited my user page to reflect this. Every year IEEE awards various well-respected medals and prizes to researchers and professionals in the electrical and electronics engineering fields. There are Wikipedia pages for most of these awards. See the list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IEEE_awards I update the relevant pages after the awards ceremony. In doing so, I include links to Wikipedia page for the recipient, if there there is one. I also correct and/or correct reference links and update the Awards and Honors sections of those individual's pages if there is one. Note that these recipients are not employed or necessarily otherwise associated with IEEE.

Occasionally IEEE institutes a new award in a relevant field. When that happens I try to create a new Wikipedia page for that award. This is what was done for the [IEEE Mildred Dresselhaus Medal]. Please reconsider the deletion of this page. Note that another user, AFAIK unrelated to IEEE, has added a link to this page on this page for the award recipient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristina_M._Johnson#Awards_and_honors That said, since this is a new award for 2021, there are very few available references, thus the use of text from an IEEE website page. The site owner has approved this use. (How can I affirm that?) As more awards are given, there will be more references added to the page (as is done with other similar pages...)

I don't think this activity contravenes Wikipedia policy. It is purely informational, ensuring the accuracy and currency of these pages. By adding to the recipient's pages I am enhancing the available information for them. I have been doing this consistently for at least 5 years, after some initial contact and apparent approval from other Wikipedia "overseer" editors. Dgoessling (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finally making an appropriate disclosure, Dgoessling. Please read and take note of our guidance for editors with a paid conflict of interest, particularly where it reads "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". You should instead propose any necessary changes on the article talk-page, using {{request edit}} if you like, and taking care to disclose your paid connection each time. If you want to create a new page you may do so in draft space (with the usual disclosure), and submit it for review by an independent Articles for Creation reviewer.

I deleted IEEE Mildred Dresselhaus Medal as "WP:G12, Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://corporate-awards.ieee.org/corporate-awards/", so I will not reconsider – we don't restore copyright violations, full stop. There are instructions for donating written materials to Wikipedia here, but in practice such content is rarely if ever found suitable for use in this encyclopaedia; it is almost always quicker and easier to write new content in your own words. If there are few or no independent reliable sources for this or any similar award, Wikipedia will not have a page about it; that doesn't preclude a mention of it in the page on the society itself. Please ask if you have further questions! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

A token of thanks

Hi Justlettersandnumbers! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Does conflict of interest apply to Wikipedians in residence?

Category: Members of the American Philosophical Society

Does conflict of interest apply to Wikipedians in residence?

Category: Members of the American Philosophical Society

Danaos Management Consultants

Hexaware Technologies

Mystic River Falls

Capel Manor House edits

Joshua "Crisco Kidd" Carmona

No undisclosed payment

Gianfranco Cicogna Mozzoni

Nicola De Maria

Victor Togni

Discussion at User talk:Sir Sputnik §&nbsp;User:PPSOfficial

Ward's

Bicchoo Ka Khel

Kristian Alexander

Elena Tarasova

Esperanto-Novljan

COPYVIO at American Hairless Terrier

Recheck page please

impersonation of my account

another sock

Is this spam or good-faith?

Is this spam or good-faith?

RuPaul%27s_DragCon_UK

Block evasion?

False copyright claim on my own artist picture/bio - Draft:CHENDA (artist)

Vandalism

Thanks for blocking somalism.co

Yourlettingsuk

ResetEra

I saw the edits this morning...

translation

Bad citation

nooitgedacht

what user owns ClueBOT??

“STRONGLY DISCOURAGED”

David Rogier

Concerning Copyright problem: Clinical social work

Reconsider block on Thedogeater

Quentin Crisp

Accademia di Belle Arti di Perugia

Your reverted edits to Olek (artist) and Yarn bombing

2020 PFF National Challenge Cup

KuneKune Page

Modest flowers

PBZM

I apologize

I am student beneficiary of this scholarship and currently studyinig under this scholarship . i have requested to change my username. I dont want to do any advert please help

With reference to your rejection on my PMSSS Article as an advert

Just a clarification

Draft:Martin Luther King

Nomination of List of faculty members of the Courtauld Institute for deletion

ir my username is changed now , hope this will not make any confusion as my objective was to spread the awareness about the scholarship under which i am studying and doing any advert

Respectfully disagree

Maternal Health Task Force

Answering message

National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence

Peter Nagy (artist)

ANI report that mentions a warning you gave Mcfoureyes

Ponies

WP:DONOTFIXIT

Torre Archirafi redirect

Modern Metis Woman

Nomination for deletion of Template:WPASIA10k

German Airways Article

Thanos98765

Our friend is back with a slightly different IP

Re "lurcher' origin

Category:Members of Unit One has been nominated for listification

Blocked spammer needs TPA revoked

Can You Unsalt Draft:Vivek Verma

Paloma Varga Weisz

Portal links restored

McGill University Faculty of Medicine

Manufacturing USA

Campania

National anthem of Afghanistan

Granada Nights

Discussion at User talk:Sir Sputnik § User:PPSOfficial

Cozzetti & Gemmill