User talk:Justlettersandnumbers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User page   Talk page   Older talk   Sandbox   Toolbox   References   Articles created    

So overdue[edit]

CopyClean Barnstar Hires.png The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for always being conscious of and responsible with copyright issues. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe that I haven't spammed you with one of these before. I don't remember at what point you transitioned into being one of the people on Wikipedia that I just think of as awesome in this area, but it's been such a long time ago that I would have assumed I had already popped in a picture to express my appreciation. I consider this long overdue. :) Thank you so much for keeping an eye out for this and facilitating the cleanup of so many issues. You help keep our articles "Quality". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm honoured indeed! In fact doubly so, by the star itself (however little deserved), but much more by who it came from. Thank you, Moonriddengirl! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
On that note, you might want to peek at the cn tags here: If they can't be sourced and that section is tossed, it won't hurt my feelings. Montanabw(talk) 20:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Equally, it won't hurt mine if you make that call. However, it's one of the least debatable statements in that whole mess, and the tags haven't been there for so very long, so my inclination is to let it be for a while longer. Surely somebody, somewhere, on one side of the sea or the other, must have written an authoritative history of the mass emigration from southern Italy to the USA? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone has ... it's just likely to be in a genealogy library somewhere. Since most of my ancestry was from Northern Europe, unfortunately I don't have anything dealing with Italian immigration. Might ask the genealogy project? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Well that's a thought; I was thinking more of a social history. There's a curious and remarkably well-documented "museum of emigration" at Coreglia Antelminelli; but the principal industry of that small town is the production of religious figurines and funerary monuments (yes, they did a rip-roaring trade with Chicago), and that is the focus of the museum. It's too far north to be connected in any way with the buttero/cavalcante culture. I had another quick search on Google without any joy. I'll try to remember to look for something next time I go to a real, physical, library (which isn't often). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll be honest that I don't have enough interest to look into the matter, but I know that the notion that Italian culture is the source of all that is right and good in America is kind of common, so view the data with some dubiousness, given the strength of the pre-existing Spanish influence there. But if it can be sourced, it would be interesting. Montanabw(talk) 05:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Emailed you[edit]

Hopefully you'll find it comprehensible and interesting. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very clear, very informative, and much as I had thought, though I wasn't aware of the history. Thanks for taking the time to write. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Blocked 2 socks, going to SPI to look for sleepers. Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice work indeed, and thanks for the wide-ranging clean-up. All that leaves the interesting question of what to do with the remaining mess at Proportion (architecture). My vote would be to wipe it and start again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Stub it. I've suggested that on the talk page. I wonder how much more mess there is from Rktect? Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Should you be interested[edit]

I have long been seeking help reviewing the Spanish sources for Yeguada Militar de Jerez de la Frontera. Someone recently tried to add that the stud is now "closed", and complained to me when I reverted their edit (so what else is new), but the Google translation of the very short Spanish wiki article says "Stud went in 2013 to be an autonomous body under the Ministry of Interior", and that page and some other sites indicate that they may have had a big auction and sold off a lot of the horses - but not all. So I can't tell if they just downsized things a bunch when placing the program under civilian control, or if they closed all the farms, closed just the Jerez facility, or what.

I'd like the article to be accurate, but with a complete absence of English articles on the topic, I'm stymied. So any help is welcome.

I did the best I could when I created this article, using google translate from the Spanish wiki page, other research sources in Spanish, and some English-language sources (English source example, one of the better ones, more often I found stuff like this), but my attempts to find a Spanish-speaking reviewer to help me at the time met with a notable lack of interest, and I just let the article sit once the basics were done. I am certain that the article contains inaccuracies, but I did what I could. The biggest issue is that I am sure there are facilities other than at Jerez, but all the English language sources I know of either just say "Yeguada Militar" broadly and provide no details that help, or they specifically discuss the Jerez farm(s) and nothing else.

At any rate, this source MIGHT be discussing the shutdown issue somewhat, but I can't tell for sure: [1], (the google translation] is a useless disaster); and if it isn't on point, perhaps it could lead you to something more definitive?

To improve the overall article, I do not speak Spanish, but I did find a documentary that looks promising and could be used to improve the overall article: here. If you have the interest in adding sources to the article from the video, see what I did with video sources for Sheila Varian and William Robinson Brown. It's not too hard to do the pinpoint citations, just put in the minute and second on the film where the relevant material begins. Here is another source that appears to discuss the other Yeguada Militar installations across Spain: and this one appears to discuss the facility that handled breeding of farm/draft horses: [

If this is of no interest to you, no worries, but I'd be glad to know if you are aware of another fluent Spanish speaker who is on and on the side of sourcing one's additions who might want to help. Montanabw(talk) 04:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, for some reason I saw that edit and revert, and so took a quick look at the Spanish article, which as you say says that the stud will cease to be autonomous, citing this article. Since the change doesn't happen until 1 January it didn't seem to me too urgent to add it to the article here. It doesn't make much sense to me, because as I understood it the Cría Caballar was part of the military, so hardly independent in the first place; but maybe I missed something. Anyway, if the Cría Caballar is gone, that should at least solve the disagreement over who should hold the studbook for the PRE! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh gawd, don't even get me started on that drama! LOL! As for Yeguada Militar, all I seek is accuracy and proper formatting, be my guest over there. My primary interest in it is for its history, especially as it relates to the development of the Spanish-bred Arabian (which is a very nice subset of bloodlines in terms of athleticism and trainability) and in the preservation of the Andalusian/PRE. European state studs fascinate me; we have nothing like this in the USA, even our old remount system was mostly private, even in the brief period when there were remount depots. Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Unspaced mixed numbers[edit]

I have commented and added subthread "Opinions of unspaced mixed numbers" to gather user comments under the topic:

Thank you for posting that topic, during the busy year-end period, to allow more time to gather opinions and perhaps hide the internal space before the next 18-day reformatting of Template:Convert, planned for mid-January. Immediate discussion, in the next 4 weeks, could provide a system-wide solution by early February 2014, for a problem which should never have been slipped into system-wide operation without broader discussion in advance. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! And thank you for adding the RfC tag also - I was planning to do the same if anything resembling a discussion developed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Good to know you will watch the discussion, as WP has become a logisitical bureaucracy, now even with Lua {convert} running 18-day reformat to redisplay and relink the fractions among all 554,000 related pages. Previously, the markup-based {convert}, with 3,000 sub-optimized tiny subtemplates, would have directly reformatted the 2,400 fractional conversion articles within a day, but now it will take until late February (2 months from now) to decide the RfC and reformat fractional conversions! I get tired just thinking about it. Welcome to 21st-century typesetting. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Filmbarnstar.png The WikiProject Film Award
I, Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) , hereby award Justlettersandnumbers the WikiProject Film Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject Film.
Awarded 12:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yay! You added enough to where I moved the article to Mario Landi! If you find anything else, that's where it is now. Again, thank you so much!!! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm pleased. I'm sorry that the Mereghetti reviews were not more complimentary, but what makes his book so good is that he always says exactly what he thinks. Let me know if you ever need to know what it says about any other Italian film, I have at least two editions. And thanks for quite undeserved star! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


apologies for the unnecessary snarkiness on my part. i will do better in the future! --Lquilter (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No apology needed, it's all fine with me (but thanks anyway), kind of a storm in a teacup. I went ahead and made a CCI request after discovering what seem to me other more serious copyvios by the same user(s). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your turn[edit]

I think it's your turn :) Flat Out let's discuss it 01:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps yours again now? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

CCI update[edit]

That was over fast. MER-C 09:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! Thank you for opening it, and thanks to those who helped close it. Congrats on your new status also (which I had always thought you already had). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother others, cancel facts if you want[edit]

Please don't bother me about your paranoic issues on copyright. I never more will bring another contribution to wikipedia. I don't think a single phrase is violation of copyright if sources are cited. Otherwise systems as google news couldn't work. In any case if you are paranoiac don't bother me and do what you want deleting what you desire. Now do you the work. And if you are not willing to reframe something interesting saving the facts cancel them and put them away. Nothing will bother about and wikipedia will be poorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Si, hai creato davvero un sacco di lavoro. Ti consiglio di leggere attentamente questa pagina - o, se preferisci leggere in inglese, WP:COPYOTHERS. Buona giornata, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Remember, Justlettersandnumbers, just because you're paranoid - it doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Khaled's Moroccan citizenship[edit]


Do you really think that the problem with user:MoorNextDoor is related to some poor English skills? Don't you think that it is (more simply) only a POV-pushing/WP:TRUTH case? i.e. a new user trying to impose what he believes on Wiki? Even by interpreting French sentences the way he likes? [2][3][4][5][6]

Regards,Br/>--Omar-toons (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to impose anything and I really don't understand what your problem is with facts that are backed by reliable sources. Since we're not going to ignore them, how about you tell us which French sentences you're referring ? Feel free to come up with a better interpretation if you can, that's what discussions are all about. [7][8]
MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
In reply to Omar-toons, no, I don't think that. I think we should assume good faith; that is why I wondered if there might be a minor language problem there. Anyway, I don't really see any point in continuing this here as well as on the talk page of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright clerkdom[edit]

Thank you for your willingness to try out something new. :) I think you're temperamentally suited for the work (I know from our previous experiences that you are careful and thorough), and I'm very grateful for whatever time you want to give it. Seriously, every little bit helps.

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks talks more about the role. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for clerks offers some advice for doing the work. You are as you always have been very welcome to come by my talk page if you have any questions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, MRG! I will take it very slowly for now. Even if you don't see anything happening, that may not necessarily mean that I'm not watching what others do! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

John Skeaping[edit]

hi - just saw the edit for removal of the Lund Humphries book which is fact a catalogue raisonne…. but I see your point about the publisher info. What about incorporation it into the previous heading (resources) - it is THE publication of his work, so a shame for its loss here…? Cant find any independent reviews, but it is produced in association with Henry Moore Institute which has charitable aims. Regards Cazimir (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note! I removed it not because there was any specific objection to the book, but because someone apparently connected to the publisher had spammed similar links across 30 or 40 articles (that's a reputable publisher, you'd think they'd know better). Do please feel completely free to re-add it - perhaps without the weblink to the publisher's blurb page? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Edit: Studley, Inc.[edit]

Hi JustLettersandNumbers,

I am contacting you to request an edit for the article Studley, Inc. I've requested edits multiple times with no success and the prolonged lack of content in the article is damaging the brand's image while our competitor CBRE Group for example continues to have a full length article despite being flagged for potentially having a COI author over a year ago.

I've written a few paragraphs in Talk:Studley, Inc. #Request edit on 10 December 2014 that I hope are helpful, but I would be grateful for any content you can add to the article. Please let me know if you or anyone you know anybody can assist, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks so much for your time and patience. RyLaughlin (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan, thanks for for your courteous note. I'm sorry that your edit requests have not had a response; nor are you alone in that, I'm afraid. I'll try to look at the page and comment there soon. The tone and content at CBRE Group are in my opinion quite inappropriate to this project; I've listed it at the conflict of interest noticeboard in the hope that someone will look at it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your fairness in editing our competitor and for your willingness to comment on the Studley page. Both are much appreciated. RyLaughlin (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


I'd strongly recommend you read WP:NAVBOX, WP:NAVBOXES and WP:REDNOT before reverting my navbox tidyup any further. If you have any questions, or don't understand how some of it applies, please just ask. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Rob, I'd strongly recommend that YOU re-read WP:BRD, your "tidying" is not helpful and is removing tools that have been stable for quite some time. You are not helping. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

CCI update[edit]

Thanks for helping out with this one, seems like they're finally getting cleared a lot quicker. Wizardman 04:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I only did some of the easy ones, and left all the tough ones for you. Anyway, one down. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 11:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 11:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes! Another one bites the dust! Thanks for letting me know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your good work on First Presbyterian Day School when all my efforts failed. Theroadislong (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! But I thought you were doing just fine, and in particular had picked up and eliminated the old copyvio. I should be giving you this star! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your patient collaboration on the perfect fifth article. For your amusement, the following: Yesterday evening I got to hear a trio consisting of violin, cello, and guitar, in a small-town library. They were mostly playing traditional Scottish fiddle tunes and similar stuff. To adorn a waltz-time island lullaby, the cellist had a pretty good seagull sound, catching various harmonics on her D string while pulling the left thumb up towards the nut. She made it sound like a call and response among several birds. :) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, nice, Just plain Bill! I'll try and remember to look at the fifth talk page again soon; I was surprised at how difficult it is to phrase that clearly. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It happens[edit]

You know. Stuff. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Just saying thanks[edit]

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for the work you've been doing at WP:CP. It is, unfortunately, frequently a thankless job, but it's been noticed and appreciated. There are very few people who are willing to put any time into that at all, and it's such crucial work, and I am so grateful for the time you've been able to give it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl! I'm afraid I've been of very little use recently, for various real-life reasons visiting Wikipedia only briefly and infrequently. However, I've been quite pleasantly surprised at the number of "thank you"s a copyright clean-up can generate. As for "stuff", yes it does happen; but (much) more often to some than to others! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Talk:Antonio_Pio_Saracino - I guess I should be happy someone noticed the copyright tag, but it would be even better if you perhaps looked at the page's content. Thanks. Zanglazor (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Zanglazor, I did indeed look at the page content. It was unambiguously promotional, copied from the website of the subject, and almost certainly contributed by someone closely connected to that subject. You might perhaps like to read these guidelines. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: GT Advanced Technologies[edit]

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of GT Advanced Technologies, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I've compared it with the link given, and I can't find any chunks of text which have been copied directly so it doesn't look like a copyvio to me. Happy to reasses if you disagree. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Olaf Davis, I'm actually quite familiar with the speedy criteria, and G12 in particular. This isn't a new page, it's already been deleted twice. Please take a look at this and [9]. I agree that the second is not a word-for-word copy, but it nevertheless shows up a lot of copied stuff and close paraphrasing. Or perhaps either you or Jimfbleak would be kind enough to compare the recreated article with the one he deleted on 19 February? Otherwise I can go ahead and list it at WP:CP. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The version I deleted on 13 Feb is very similar, although not quite identical, to that SD-declined by Olaf Davis. Three admins have looked at this now, and reached two different conclusions, two deleting and one declining. Much as I dislike referring anything to WP:CP, unless Olaf is swayed by your Dup Detector links, I don't think there is any alternative. Its content is predictably selective (products and awards, not employee numbers, profits or turnover) but not actually spammy (and I've just had my wrist slapped for deleting on the basis of selective content) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jimfbleak. To be honest, I probably wouldn't have speedied it this time around if it hadn't seemed so similar to my recollection of the previous version. I don't there's any doubt it was created by copying the page; I've no idea whether that page can be regarded as copyright or not (deleted copyvio content copied from us, no free licence, a right muddle). We'll see what Olaf decides. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. First off, sorry if the template message I left seemed patronising or, on the new pages point, inaccurate. I use a tool for processing CSDs which I installed about a billion years ago and didn't even remember what the messages it left looked like.
On the duplication reports (which I couldn't access earlier due to a down server, or I would've reviewed): in the second of the two links you give, the duplicates are all pretty short phrases which don't, to me, seem like copyvios - I'm not really sure how one would paraphrase "directional solidification system dss multicrystalline and monocast casting furnaces". Regarding the first link you posted, I confess I'm totally confused. The duplication detector claims to have found numerous matches of whole paragraphs, but none of them appear as far as I can see to exist in the cached version of the mirror which the tool claims it's making the comparison to. Can either of you explain what's going on? Am I missing something? Also, since the site in question appears to be a Wikipedia mirror anyway, even if they were identical it surely wouldn't make our article a copyvio of theirs. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Olaf, and np! It would be so good if the Duplication detector worked all the time. Frankly, I'm confused too; the hitchhikers page is indeed a mirror; it's mirroring content which we have previously determined to be a copyvio and have thus deleted; it doesn't carry a copyleft notice that I can see. I've really no idea what the copyright status of that page is, but I'm in no doubt that the current version of our article was copied from it. I've now listed the article at WP:CP and hope that a better brain than mine will come to bear on it there. There is to my mind a quite unacceptable level of copying/ close-paraphrasing from the investorwand page which in any case needs to be sorted out. As for how to paraphrase the phrase you quote, an editor who was here to improve Wikipedia rather than clock up points for a class assignment would probably know what those things are (as I do not), and have no trouble describing them in other words. Regards, and thanks to you both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, good call on sending it to CP I think - I'm also not entirely sure how to deal with it really. I guess I've made some extra work for you and some lucky other person by declining the CSD. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, speedy would have been quicker, yes. But not I believe quite 100% justified in this case. So I think all-in-all you made the right call. Thanks! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I went in and fixed it by writing a stub summarizing the content. A lot of that content was promotional anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 01:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks for that, CorporateM! I've now nominated it for deletion; like so many of the articles created by this school project, it is non-notable by our standards. I hope you didn't spend much time on it! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Burning Paradise[edit]

Yikes! Just give me a warning first! I thought I wrote it different enough from the source. :S Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article is listed at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2014-03-05; I'm assuming that MadmanBot left a template on it to say that? Unless of course it wasn't you that created the previous version of it (which of course I don't have any way of knowing), in which case I apologise, but would anyway ask you to take a touch more care to write in your own words. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi, could you please take a moment to read the talk page of Norwegian-British Chamber of Commerce, with its OTRS notice, and then consider adding back in the correctly sourced material that I had added to the article? I do not see how blanking basic facts sourced to old copies of The Times and other sources benefits Wikipedia.

The OTRS release means that you have blanked a valid article with no copyright justification. Thanks -- (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've self-reverted. The article has been a blatant copyvio since November 2006. I suppose the OTRS release makes that sort of OK; I wonder what Moonriddengirl would think about that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
By all means ask MRG, we have worked together in the past, she may have a view on the OTRS ticket and I am happy to invite feedback. This is the second time an editor has missed the talk page OTRS ticket. If there is a better way of flagging to editors that they ought to check the talk page I would be open to suggestions. -- (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's okay, since they created it themselves. Otherwise, we'd need to use an attribution template on the face of the article. Those are sometimes helpful, anyway. With a history that recently complex, overlooking an OTRS note is understandable, and the face tag can help avoid confusion. That said, I generally check the talk page anyway in case there's an OTRS tag or a link to a license on the site itself. :) , the issue here is that the article was listed at WP:SCV, which is why it was being investigated. Unfortunately, that's easily overlooked in the history as well, or you could have marked that it was handled there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into it. -- (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)OK, thanks, MRG! Does the old history need to be hidden? What I was going to say to Fae: Well, I was just wondering exactly the same myself. Something like {{CC-notice}} for OTRS releases might help to avoid other misunderstandings, but I don't know of any such thing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it's probably okay - I worry about that kind of thing more when the newer content looks inferior to the older. In this case, the old content was, er, not so good. :) All content added by Anno1906 is included in the release, as I read it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision deletion requests[edit]

Thanks for your revdel requests.As soon as I see your username in the history of a page I'm tempted to not even check for the copyvios and just delete whatever you have requested because your reports are always accurate. I see you already have a Copyright Cleanup Barnstar on this page so I'll just leave a message instead of another. Your work on keeping WP copyvio free is much appreciated. James086Talk 19:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! And thank you for dealing with so many of those revdeletion requests, you seem to be one of the few that do that. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Parabola Films[edit]

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. Have I dealt with the copyright problems in this draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Anne! No, in a word, I think not. It's not the shortage of references that I saw as the problem, but the fact that the text was copied directly from the company's website. Since that goes right back to the first version of the draft, there's no clean version to revert back to; the best thing is probably to let it be deleted, and then wait until someone (you, perhaps?) is interested enough in the company to write a proper article. As far as I can see, the creator of the draft has anyway lost interest in it. Sorry if that isn't the answer you wanted, do please feel free to ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems if you have doubts. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, I had rewritten all of the text in the paragraph in my own words. I have never seen the company web site, so I doubt that I could have accidentally invented text that was just like it. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, of course not. I'm sorry if I made a mistake there (can't check now); my recollection is that it was unfortunately still too close. I'm sure that Jimfbleak would restore the content to you if wanted him to. You do great stuff at AfC. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Angelo Rules removed[edit]

Hello, You've removed some sections of the article Angelo Rules. I don't understand what's the issue about the information I put on this page. They are neutral informations such as the list of episodes or description of characters and it's not a promotional content at all. My source is indeed the official website of the series but as I sent recently an email to '' to allow the uses of this copyrighted content without rewriting it with other words, I would like to ask you to delete your removal. Thank you, Constance Lassort (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constance Lassort (talkcontribs) 09:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you once again delete the sections I've just added on the article? I've put some references for each sections to prove the neutral point of view of these information. I really don't get your problem. I've done exactly the same for the French page, and I've just added external sources as well. As this series is a notable series, broadcasted all over the world, why can't I put information about it on Wikipedia? Moreover, I had some emails exchange with Wikimedia official permissions to freely use the content of the official website to fill the article. Thanks for your reply in talk to me? --Constance Lassort (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Plankton Invasion speed deletion[edit]

You've asked for the speed deletion of the article Plankton Invasion. I don't understand what's the issue about the information I put on this page. They are neutral informations such as the scenario, list of episodes or description of characters and it's not a promotional content at all. My source is indeed the official website of the series but as I sent recently an email to '' to allow the uses of this copyrighted content without rewriting it with other words, I would like to ask you to delete your removal. Thank you, Constance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constance Lassort (talkcontribs) 09:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Constance Lassort, you were advised of the copyright problem on 9 October last year, so "recently" may have been a little late to send that email. It is in any case very unlikely that the promotional materials of a film company would be suitable content for Wikipedia. As far as I recall, the Plankton Invasion page was entirely promotional in tone, and copied directly from your press release. I can't see it or restore it to you, but you can ask Jimfbleak, the admin who deleted it, to do so (he will see that I have written this). If, as it appears, you work for the company, you have what we call a conflict of interest with regard to this page and others such as Angelo Rules and TeamTO; please take the time to read that guideline carefully, particularly where it says: "you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral", and the section on European fair trading law. You are of course always welcome to suggest improvements on the talk pages of those articles. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As you guess, I'm working indeed for the company TeamTO which produce Angelo Rules and Plankton Invasion and as I'm working here since a few months, I wasn't aware of the copyright problem advise before. I still don't understand why you call this content a promotional one as it's only a synopsis of the series (and I'm not allowed to re-write it because it has been validated by its author himself and the producer) and the list of episodes (which I can't obviously change the titles) or such things. Why these information are allowed for the Article Space Goofs, or any others series or companies such as Xilam, and not mine? I don't want to convince you, I really don't understand your point of view. Maybe Jimfbleak will be able to reply to this conflict, by restoring at least some sections of these pages or answering to my concerns. Thank you again for your time Justlettersandnumbers --Constance Lassort (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this discussion, and I'll reply in due course. I'll respond at User talk:Constance Lassort unless Justlettersandnumbers indicates a wish to keep the thread here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

For heroic activity in the area of copyright[edit]

Placeholder male superhero c.png The copyright hero award
Specifically inspired by your helping with the really old issue, but just general appreciation for the time you have been giving copyright cleanup. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You are the first to benefit from my finding this awesome image when trying to find a generic superhero to award you - it's obviously a copyright placeholder where non-free images don't exist, but how appropriate is this? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Moonriddengirl! Of course, I don't look quite like that in real life ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Feel free to replace with your own picture if you choose. Just make sure you have a cape. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
No, no cape! - see The Incredibles for my reasons... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. In the alternative, I suppose we could settle for very visible branding - either a massive logo on your chest or some kind of helmet. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Recent Edit to Education Theory[edit]

Hi. You recently made this edit [10] to Education theory. You gave the following edit summary: "Reverted to revision 559194811 by Aeternus: Presumptively restore last apparently clean version before additions of possibly copyright-violating material (see talk); some subsequent edits may need to be redone". Whilst I fully agree with your stated aim of reducing copyright violations, the way you have attempted to do this here is not within our community customs and guidelines. A commonly-followed approach is "Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit."

I strongly feel that you have been deeply unwise to revert in the way you did: you have not merely reverted to an immediately preceding version of the article, but to the 40th preceding - a version of the article written ten months ago! You have cavalierly disregarded a large number of bona fide edits to the article since then, and have added insult to injury by remarking that "some subsequent edits may need to be redone". This is not even slightly helpful. Whilst I am aware of the current investigation into work by Stmullin it would have been far more helpful to re-write that editor's contributions, rather than simply throw away a large number of good faith edits. The situation is made worse by the fact that you have done all of this "presumptively": if you don't have good evidence of a clear copyright violation, to simply wipe out ten months of work by other people than the suspect editor is excessive. Finally, your remark that "some subsequent edits may need to be redone" is an inadequate performance of your duties: you should have worked out which ones these were, and redone them yourself, rather than leave a mess for other people to tidy up. My overall point is this: an extreme revert like this is not an acceptable way to deal with the problem you are trying to solve; you would have been better to re-write with care, rather than indulge in a slapdash revert to a much older version. Please "revert your reversion" and perform a re-write of the appropriate bits of the article. Thank you.

RomanSpa (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this accolade. I particularly enjoyed the bit about the "inadequate perfomance of [my] duties". As far as I can see, you have made exactly one edit to Education theory, in which you changed the word "than" to "from". I have redone that edit for you, though you could perfectly well have done it yourself. If there are other significant edits that also need to be redone as a result of the rollback, please either go ahead and make the changes, or list them on the article talk page. Of the 40 edits you mention, 20 were by the editor in question; several are vandalism, reverts of the same, bot edits; what did I miss?
That said, I welcome review of my edits here. If I've been over-hasty or over-zealous in this case, or failed in some way to follow the cleanup instructions here, I hope that more experienced copyright cleanup editors will feel perfectly free to tell me so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You have missed my point, which is that it would be far better to delete the parts of the article that you felt were violating copyright, rather than reverting to a version of the article from ten months ago. Reverting to such an old article without cleaning up afterwards is not helpful, and it is not acceptable to blithely wave your hands and hope that someone else will redo lost work. You are certainly engaged in good and important work, but this doesn't exempt you from our general guidelines on reversion. RomanSpa (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The essay you link to is not a guideline. It contains a notice at the top clarifying that it is not policy or guideline. It is Wikipedia policy that no editor has any duty to make any edits per WP:NOTREQUIRED. It is also Wikipedia policy to remove material that is strongly suspected of being a copyright violation per WP:DCV. ParacusForward (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for tidying up this article. I am still getting used to how this works and the guide lines you sent will help. Is there a place I can send proposed edits for correction before posting them so as not to inadvertently violate these policies? GJS Greg Sheppard (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@Greg Sheppard: - the best place is on the article talk space - i.e. its "flip side" - so it'd be Talk:Sheppard (band) (and Talk:Geronimo (song) for that matter). Generally anyone who's edited the article will see an alert come up on their watchlist and then can discuss and determine what/how to add. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Greg Sheppard! As you saw, Casliber actually did almost all the work, and is much more deserving of this star. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
You've done a boldly remarkable job at Los Angeles College of Music. You did a lot of reading and bold cutting. It was a puffed up piece of peacockery before! I saw the work in progress and I guess you started right when I discovered it by way of a vandalism report. I had done some stuff back then, but I was motivated to polish it up today out of a desire to reciprocate the effort you'd put into it. I absolutely couldn't find any archival copy of the two dead links anywhere though. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this, Smuckola, and for your attention there too. No, I couldn't find those articles; Highbeam has the Pasadena-Star, but doesn't seem to have that page (I didn't go through every article from that month to check, of course). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I think sometimes we just have to let it go, huh? ;) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 16:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I think I've been very clear about the reasons for my reversion of this edit and I certainly have no trouble understanding the sources. The OED has never claimed that its own earliest citation is "the earliest recorded" use of a word. That would be an impossibly ambitious claim because it would require the editors to have read every word of English on record. Another source has an earlier citation and does actually make that claim and as such there is no contradiction at all between the sources, nor can there be any logical doubt that the earliest recorded use is not 1785. I've tried to explain this as clearly as I can. On the subject of your other reversion, "ass" has been largely superseded by "donkey"; it has certainly not been "replaced". "Ass" is still in use in a biblical context ("the ox and the ass"); it was also in common use as an insult in British English until very recently, and is still heard occasionally. Finally, it is still used fairly often simply as an alternative for "donkey" --Lo2u (TC) 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and although "arse" and "ass" may have become homophones in most (but not all) dialects of English in North America they are not homophones in most of the rest of the English speaking world. --Lo2u (TC) 18:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Given that JLAN here has a strong language ability and is a go-to source on what is copacetic in "the rest of the English speaking world," I'd say if he's chopping that bit, it needs to stay chopped. My own view is that your edits exceeded what can be verified in the sources cited, so if you want to find more sources and discuss at the article's talk page, go for it. But don't edit-war on the article itself. Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
You offer nothing relevant here and I'm not going to go on repeating myself, except to say an initial edit followed by a reversion several days after you ignored by talk page comment is not edit warring. --Lo2u (TC) 05:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
You are the one who came over here with your complaints, to which JLAN has so far chosen not to respond. So I'm not going to hijack JLAN's talkpage any further, I have commented at the talk page of the article. Montanabw(talk) 17:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Montanabw! I'm not really clear why this was brought here at all, given that a discussion was already under way at Talk:Donkey; I suggest continuing it, such as it is, at that page. However, I will take this opportunity to say that I have no particular expertise in etymology, and wouldn't really want it to be thought that I do. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your clarification of the editors to Tendon and Epitenon, it is always reasurring WP's content is regarded as high enough quality to be considered for publication.

In the future, WP:CP is the correct forum for bringing these concerns up, right? Can this be done via Twinkle? --LT910001 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think so, yes. You can add {{copypaste}} and {{close paraphrasing}} tags with Twinkle, as you did at Tendon, but to be honest I'm not sure how much attention that will attract. If you manually blank the suspect content and list at WP:CP it will definitely get looked at, though, as that board is over-loaded, not necessarily immediately. By the way, if you are satisfied that there are no other problems, you could probably go ahead and remove those tags from Tendon now. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I'm sorry for the tone of my previous post at Talk:Donkey, which was not really aimed at you at all. I don't think you are "intent" on anything and I don't think you are being "obtuse", though I do think that word applies to attempts, not by you, to close down the argument after a source was actually mentioned ("drop the stick", "end of discussion here..."). --Lo2u (TC) 10:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No apology needed, I didn't take any of that personally; but thanks anyway. I'm sure that this will all work out, though, as I've already said, I'm not convinced that it is very important. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Aqua (the band)[edit]


I was just on their article and I clicked on the group's official website and I have noticed that the first 4 paragraphs are a word by word copy of the information found on the band's website. At first it looks like it's a copyright violation, but it seems more like what's on their site is actually copied from Wiki, considering it actually contains exactly the same numbers that Wiki used for the verification of the information. This should be looked into as well. Norum 10:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Norum! That can happen too. I'll take a look at it and see if I can work it out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Norum 13:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your note on my talk page regarding my recent changes to Mondovì. You are quite right about the hyphenation of north-western, per MOS:COMPASS. I stand corrected, and I will be more careful about this in the future.

On the other hand, MOS:CONVERSIONS says, "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, follow the 'primary' quantity with a conversion in parentheses: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long." I noted some time ago that almost all of the articles about Italian population centers lacked conversions from metric (the primary unit) to imperial, and I've recently been adding the conversions. When you reverted my edit to north-western, you also reverted my unit conversion in the first sentence of the lead. I can't be sure whether that was intentional or not. If you have no objection, I will restore the phrase to read "about 80 kilometres (50 mi) from Turin". My best. Finetooth (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course; that was a careless press of the button on my part, sorry about that. Please do as you suggest. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Goat breeds of Italy[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Goat breeds of Italy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

That's a TfD by the same person doing all the page moves. FWIW, note this. Montanabw(talk) 03:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I know which editor it is – the same whose pointless and misguided crusade against the bird project has resulted in the departure of truly valuable expert editors such as Sabine's Sunbird (note capitalisation!). You'd have thought that crusader would have learnt to sign a talk-page post by now. Anyway, be prepared for the same pointless and misguided crusade against current consensus at all animal breed articles; this stuff is just a warm-up. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes it is worth digging in here and there, the bullies need to not win every damn time. The capitalization wars have been ongoing for years, and it's all because WP programming treats Capitals and lower case like different characters, hence the obsession with sentence case in titles instead of title case capitalization. Silly. Montanabw(talk) 15:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
How interesting. You mean that a software change might prevent such wars?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Quite possible. I know squat about computer programming, but I remember feeling that the wikipedia default of sentence case article titles was Not. What. I. Was. Taught. In. Grammar. School. (grin) And it drove me nuts the first year or so I was here. I eventually got used to it, but frankly, as with so many other things, I'd love to see wiki be more open to using a manual of style that is akin to one (or more) of the ones used in the real world; I trained mostly to use the Chicago Manual of Style, but there are, of course, others equally valid. But that's just my opinion, and I have no idea where to even start to change that particular issue. Montanabw(talk) 23:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


Uhm sorry, but I think there might be a misunderstanding... Cologne, Milan, Munich, Rome, Bangkok... Using italics in the article's introduction looks like an established convention to me. MOS:FORLANG even recommends that kind of format. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. But I don't think so, MOS:ETY is quite clear on that. However, do please try to change that consensus if you wish. It seems by the way that Senales is by far the more common name in English for both the valley and the town (cf for example this and this). I'll restore the boldface, but leave it up to you to request a move to the WP:COMMONNAME. There may be several other placenames in the same area that should also be moved for the same reason. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
No, nothing should be moved, please have a look at WP:NBZ and Wikipedia:Search engine test. Your Google results are extremely flawed, by the way. First of all, you should note that Google searches may report vastly more hits than will ever be returned to the user. Secondly, you should use more reliable search engines like the ngram viewer. Thirdly, you should take into account that a search for Senales will always bring results for both the municipality and the valley, while the German place names disambiguate between Schnals (the municipality) and Schnalstal (the valley). These graphs show quite clearly that Senales and Schnals+Schnalstal are more or less similarly spread. However, all these search findings are completely unrelated to the question, if the numbers enable us to talk about a common English usage as such and as required by WP:NBZ and MOS:FORLANG.
MOS:FORLANG says: Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English. If names like Roma and Milano don't suffice to that requirement, Senales certainly doesn't either. I leave it up to you to make your case there, there and there. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Helen Schnabel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Helen Fogel) was born in [[New York]] and grew up in the the [[Bronx]]. She made her debut at [[Carnegie Hall]]
  • {{reflist|refs=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Always a good sign[edit]

when two reviewers look at the same article at the same time and reach the same conclusion. --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, great minds indeed! Within moments of each other, too. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

High-flying pigeons[edit]

Thanks for fixing the tag. I've re-declined it because I'm not at all sure that All Caps is the best route to take; I've seen lots of bird articles (and articles on other kinds of animals) moved to caps-less titles recently. See the recent history of Common wood pigeon and Rock dove for a couple of examples. With this in mind, I can imagine the page getting moved back before long, were I to move it as requested. Personally, I think it makes more sense to go with your suggestion, but if everyone else is using few caps, it doesn't seem particularly helpful to move one page that way. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a fairly fundamental difference between a bird species such as Rock dove and a breed of fancy pigeon such as the Chistopolian High-flying Pigeon. I am of course aware that there is a recent consensus to lower-case the proper names of all bird species, so I wouldn't have requested such a move if it were comparable. This one is precisely analogous to those discussed at Talk:American Paint Horse. But no matter. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Massive edit dispute across multiple animal breed articles. Proceed with that knowledge. Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tiger Horse[edit]

I'm in the middle of leaving a detailed message on User talk:Tiger Horse Founder to explain my undo. I'm really not sure what that was all about, but there were too many problems even attempt to fix them myself. Meters (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think you made the right call there, for several reasons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not my field at all so I was a bit uncertain. There appear to be similar problems (not as bad) with her edits to Ambling. Perhaps you could look at them since your edit history shows that you have some knowledge in the area? I was going to just fix the obvious signing problems, but I didn't want to bury the subject edits. Meters (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I completely reverted everything at Ambling, which is being prepped for a GA run. Montanabw(talk) 01:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, one of us did, anyway :). Thanks to Meters for noticing that. Looking at this again this morning, in the colder light of dawn, I realise that much of the copyvio/ close-paraphrasing has already been removed from Tiger horse, possibly mostly by Montanabw, and that I may have over-reacted there. However, it seems to provide an opportunity to look at sources and perhaps notability at that page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll grant notability issues. I kind of think something that is about three generations removed from crossbreeding really is just a designer crossbred and not yet a "breed," but my view is not a popular one in the US of A. I tried to get Moyle horse dumped once and succeeded, only to have it appear again and that time my RfD failed because someone mentioned it in a breed encyclopedia or two. Yet, years ago, there was another editing "war" over calling ANY of the warmblood "breeds" a breed if they had an open stud book, and they weren't sure that even the Trakehner qualified as a "breeed" because they apparently still allow a minimal amount of TB and Arab breeding (by that standard, even the Appaloosa and the Quarter Horse aren't "breeds" yet) So, per all the other kerfuffles out there, I've sort of given up on any argument about what a "breed" is versus a "type" versus a "landrace." I found my own views were amazingly in the middle of the road (from a worldwide perspective) but the ditches on both sides were filled with more venom than I care to face. I'm only going to dig in at the species level; if someone wants to call it a breed, I'm pretty much saying if it can pass GNG and not just be two farms's private crossbreeding program, then go for it :-P . Montanabw(talk) 19:27, 18 June 2014


Your POV tag on Frank G. Fahrion[edit]


I am just a neutral editor passing by and I did a bit of a clean up on the aforementioned page. I also noticed that you have concerns about its neutrality. Do you have any concerns in particular? Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I definitely should have written something on the talk page. My concern is that it reads as if were written by the US Military. That's not surprising, as that is who it was lifted and copy-pasted from. It's public domain material, so there's no copyright problem there; it is of course still WP:PLAGIARISM, and full of WP:PUFFERY such as "superbly organizing and directing the target and salvage units". I did express some concern at this method of article creation at Talk:Jesse J. Taylor, but received no reply from Dual Freq. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Up your alley[edit]

Per a comment by an editor that he "mainly copy and paste" from other articles here, can you review Easy Goer? I was trying to help this editor clean up "his" writing, but now that I realize he was probably copying verbatim, I don't want to get caught up in a bigger mess. Maybe my cleanup helped eliminate the problem, but as you can see from the edit history of the article, my advice seemed to be falling, for the most part, on deaf ears. (As it so often does, but oh well, that's just something about my charm and personability...) Plag tracker flagged more than just wikipedia here, if that helps. Montanabw(talk) 22:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I had a quick look, by which I mean quick, and didn't immediately see anything out of the ordinary. An apparently non-encyclopaedic passage like "blended sizzling speed over a mile with comprehensively authentic stamina" does not get any G-hits. Anyway, I see that you've also asked MRG, who is in a class of her own at this sort of thing, so anything I might say carries little weight. One option I might consider is to simply ask. All that jargon is infuriating, but mostly unsourced as far as I can see. By the way, looking at the edit history, I have to say that I did wonder if there had been quite as many editors as there were usernames. I'll try to do something about my over-reaction at Tiger Horse tomorrow, should really have got to it sooner. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I went over an AfC he had done up (that had been declined) and it was verbatim copy and paste from the cited sources. I cleaned that up and if he doesn't throw another fit at me like he did at the link above, at least that article will be OK. I hate to open up a CCI on someone, but when they flat out admit to copy and paste, well, sheesh... that plag tracker site is pretty cool as it picked up the obvious, that it was from wikipedia, but also tagged many of the inline sources too. It has a feature where you can click on a source and it will highlight the material from that source. Interesting. Useful. Must remember for the future. No worries on the Tiger horse, fix it at your leisure. Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Versus You[edit]


You have nominated my article for speedy deletion, because of copyright issues but it isn't a direct copy, from somewhere I have to get informations or should I write a Fairytale and I also cannot invent a new language. Ok some parts can be similar but I don't now how to say that differently. Slowly I loose the patience to work on this wiki because everything i do, isn't good enough for anybody. That's the third or fourth time that my article maybe gets deleted. I am at my wit's end. --Irukandji85 (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The speedy deletion request was declined by Ronhjones, who instead has listed the article at copyright problems for the copying to be sorted out (I think that was a good decision, by the way). It'll probably be looked at in a week or two. Meanwhile, if you want to start rewriting it, you can do so at Talk:Versus You/Temp (that's red now because no-one has started that page); if you do, please leave a note on the article talk page. Please don't copy the existing content to the Temp page. No, you shouldn't write a fairy tale, you should write, in your own words, the plain facts about the band that are reported by independent reliable sources - reliable websites or articles in well-known newspapers and magazines, for example, but not (for most things) any material put out by the band or its members. Each fact you write should have a reference. The references don't have to be in English. If you can't find a reference for a fact, don't put it in the article. If the article doesn't have enough independent references to show that the band is important and has been written about by many different people, it runs the risk of being deleted as not notable. Yes, I know, it isn't easy. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Santa Cecilia Orchestra (Los Angeles)[edit]

Thanks so much for whacking the PR out of that article. The recently created Sonia Marie De León de Vega (its conductor) can also use the red pencil. The orchestra is a client of Diálogo Public Relations [11] and I see their heavy hand elsewhere. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin Food Fest for background. I've pointed both editors involved to the COI guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure! That article was created as a copyvio, which is why I had it watch-listed. You might like this if you haven't already seen it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep. I've seen it. Interestingly, like the original creator, the brand new account "contributing" to the article has a similar lack of clue about copyright violation—6 images deleted at Commons and one about to be. Voceditenore (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of goats[edit]

Your page listing at Talk:Argentata dell'Etna amongst others should be to "goats" or Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of goats in line with the rest at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of mammals. I'm in the process of moving them myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ricky81682. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

All Saints[edit]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, this is embarrassing, please check my talk page for my reply.--Rochelimit (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've re-edited the template page. Apology for the rather late response, terrible (and frustrating) internet connection at this moment. Some sentences in the previous edit I didn't change because it is my own sentence.--Rochelimit (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Someone will probably review it with in the next week or two, and decide whether to move it to article space. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A failure to communicate[edit]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I should say that I was really surprised when, after deciding to check how Ken is doing with his newly created page, Logoly State Park -- found it blanked! Is he a serious and multiple offender? I see him around usually making small but constructive contributions that is why I volunteered to help him with the references. But back to our park business... Yes, this is not a BLP, or some hot and controversial topic, just small Arkansas park with several paragraphs of text. And then comes a case of failure to communicate. Ken probably thought that putting a name of that ranger in the text would be enough for the attribution of the authorship and I instead erroneously thought that it was an oral communication which you cannot hold as reference here. Now I blame myself for not asking Ken a question about it and also for deleting the name of that ranger which really did put him in trouble. Also when I was doing a cursory search on "Logoly State Park" I did not find the source page ( that Duplication Detector uncovered. (I wished I have used it too since Google stopped excepting chunks of text.) Bottom line, I think that we have enough controversies here on WP and don't really need to multiply them, -- only if we have a serious reason, as I wrote above, multiple and serious violations. Actually, that page now can be fixed in minutes by writing "according to:", quoting or paraphrasing, and providing a link to the source that I have now in possession, without it I was helplessly beating around the bush. Regarding the park facilities, there is certain limit to rewording while describing them with over 7000 state parks in America all having near similar accommodations and corresponding number of articles on WP. Please let me know what you are thinking. Regards, --Nabak (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nabak, I listed this at WP:CP rather than just cleaning out the copyvio because the situation is not simple: the copyvio was in the article from the start, and was previously present in McNeil, Arkansas. This will get looked at eventually; unfortunately that board is rather overloaded. At a quick glance, it seems to me that Ken Gallager copied the content from there in good faith, rather than from the external source identified by the bot. There seems to be a rewrite at Talk:Logoly State Park/Temp, which you are of course welcome to work on. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply and I will help Ken to do it right this time! Have a wonderful Internet day! --Nabak (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sonia Marie De León de Vega[edit]

A huge thank you for whipping this into shape! I just couldn't face it. I loved your edit summary "this stuff reads as if it were written by some damned publicity agency". It did because it was—more of the heavy hand of Diálogo Public Relations [12]. Alas for them their CEO and their FoodFest are no more. All the best and thanks again. Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I allowed myself a little fun there. Actually I'm not convinced that she and the orchestra each have enough individual notability to justify having an article on both, but I'm going to let someone else worry about that. What sticks in my throat is that the agency probably gets paid based on whether the article stays up or not, rather than on the quality of the content. Hey-ho! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

edit warring[edit]

Hey, Recently I came across a situation with a number of Estonian singers articles, Katrin Siska, Lenna Kuurmaa, Kerli, Luisa Värk and Maarja-Liis Ilus. I was involved in an edit warring with a number of Estonian users. The problem was, all those people were born in Estonia, but before it gained the independence in 1991. So the way I see it, they were still born in the Estonian SSR, which was part of the Soviet Union. But a few users kept reverting it, claiming it should be just listed as Estonia. I was trying to reason with them, but to no avail. I looked at some other people that were born before the fall of the Soviet Union, their place of birth was listed the proper way, as a republic of the Soviet Union. Would it be possible for you to have a look at the issue, please? Norum 17:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Norum, this issue of nation of origin is an ongoing debate across wikipedia. One classic example was the article Franz Kafka, a featured article which arrived at an elegant solution that you may want to look at. Montanabw(talk) 22:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It is actually written the proper way aboot him. He was a German, born in Prague, at that time it was a part of the Austria-Hungary Empire, but now it is in Czech Republic. It would have been incorrect if it was written that he was born in Czech Republic. And basically that's how they have it written with the above mentioned Estonians. Norum 11:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I took a quick look at Katrin Siska, sorry I didn't do that before. Montanabw's (unspoken) advice is spot-on here - compromise if you can. Other options I can think of are: WP:Third opinion (be sure to mention that there is one brief intervention by a third editor; they may decline it anyway for that reason); an WP:RfC; or the really tough one, which is just to walk away from it. I'm not going to get involved there because I don't care enough about the topic. My take on the "letter of the law" (i.e., WP:OPENPARA) is that it is correct to refer to her as Estonian, as she became notable when Estonia was (definitely) a country, but not correct to give Estonia as her place of birth in the first sentence because "... previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". That completely sidesteps the question of whether it was a country when she was born, and might I hope give you a basis on which to try to reach another "elegant solution". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


JLAN, if memory serves, you have some knowledge of Arabic, correct? User:Tigerboy1966 is working on the article Mukhadram (about a race horse) and was wondering what the word meant. I wasn't much help, looks like it's some type of poet (?) I thought you might be able to help. Any insights? Montanabw(talk) 22:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

My dictionary (Wehr/Cowan) has "designation of such contemporaries of Mohammed, esp. of poets, whose life span bridges the time of paganism and that of Islam; an old man who has lived through several generations or epochs"; this definition is more or less the same (and requires no knowledge of Arabic script). The root meaning is "openhanded, generous, liberal, munificent", though I'm damned if I can see the connection ... HTH, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This source gives a different root meaning, however. It seems not enough camel-ear-cutting was done for that word to have made it into my reference dictionary! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tigerboy1966: Want to pop over here and peek at these sources? Thanks, JLAN! Montanabw(talk) 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Am mostly letting the donkey articles go without taking a real hard look at them because I have other projects to do, but if all those new ones have some consistent problems that routine cleanup will help (such as where I added the equine navbox), ping me. Did notice no convert templates on one; won't insist on 3-way conversion to hands, as the donkey folks don't seem to use them as much, but two-way is a standard courtesy. Also noticed that the donkey breed infobox looks more like a species box, may want to consider whether to make it look more like the horse breeds one. Just a thought. Final thought was whether to add a donkey/asses/mules "task force" to WPEQ, we could then add a parameter to the project template as we do for horse breeds and horse training. I was thinking "longears task force" would be kind of cute and all-inclusive (don't want to dis the mules, after all) But not a front burner issue for me, just running some rambling thoughts up the flagpole. Montanabw(talk) 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'm mostly on top of it; I pre-emptively created one French one as an easier path than cleaning up after someone else (that editor has got the hint, his latest effort is much better). However, there are a couple of things that I've noticed, one easy to fix, the other possibly less so: there's nowhere in particular to link shoulder-stripe to; would you like to make a separate section for it in Primitive markings, which I think you have worked on, for a redirect or three to go to? Secondly, Seal brown (horse) is, as its title implies, all about horses; but if Tsaag is right that "noir pangaré" means seal brown (and I have no doubt that she is), then maybe it should be about donkeys too (I don't know, and don't plan to do the research myself) as that colour is applied to donkey coats also - see e.g., Norman donkey. Still in that general area, the lead of Black (horse) needs a bit of retouching so that it's clear that, as we both know, horses can both be and be called black without necessarily having the true black gene; at the moment, as we found at Catria Horse, there's nowhere to link black to if (a) you don't actually know what genes the horse can carry or (b) you know it is not true black, but it still looks black and is so described; and that is sort of silly. If you felt like fixing any or all of those things I'd be grateful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
For now, I redirected shoulder stripe to primitive markings, I'd be cool with you adding a bit there on donkeys if you want - their markings are pretty much the same as on horses, though the visibility of the transverse stripe (i.e. shoulder stripe) is more common in the asses than horses. Not speaking French, I don't know if "Noir-pangere" is seal brown or not (after all, the Germans call bay "brown"), but I DO know that seal brown has NOTHING to do with pangaré in terms of genetics, and it clearly is pangaré that we see in donkeys. As for the black horse article, not sure what you want ther (but you can post at the talk page there and I can look at it more specifically) Sure, people might think a dark bay is a black horse, but they are simply wrong. If "E" is modified by "A" the horse is a bay or seal brown, end of story. I agree that people make assessments based on visual observation (some "sunburnt" blacks are similarly mistaken for bays), but if there's a lawsuit over coat color, DNA rules. (FWIW, In the American Arabian horse world, the nonsense and romance over black horses is so extreme that people like to call a dark bay or seal brown horse a "black bay" for advertising purposes, and claim it will "throw black". Those people drive me up a F---ing tree, as do most color breed breeders generally) Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Follow up: Looked at Primitive_markings#Other_markings where "vertical stripes" are mentioned; AFAIK, feel free to improve on that and make a new section on transverse striping if you want to, I didn't write that bit, and I've never seen a transverse stripe anywhere except across the withers and shoulders; whoever created that section didn't really work on readability. The Dun central station link is dead, too, and that was a major source. Montanabw(talk) 21:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
One more follow up: Take a look at Black_(horse)#Black_mimics, I think that addresses your concerns there? Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Eli L copyright issues[edit]

Hello! Would you mind helping me out with removal of the copyright issue on the Eli Lieb article? I'm trying to go about all this the right way but have never encountered this issue before and realize I might not be doing everything properly (but I'm trying)! Earlier today I clicked the "you can help this article by improving it" link and pasted in the text of the article I had re-written (to make sure anything lingering from the initial copyright violation would no longer be in the article). I thought I WAS creating a draft, but I guess I was not? How do I go about doing this so the copyright violation can be removed? Because I agree, the original entry (which I didn't make) was inappropriately copied from a fan site, but the article as it stands now has been completely re-written from that original. I really appreciate your help with this! Thanks! Sunandsea37 (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: figured out how to create the temporary page - the rewritten draft is up now! Thanks! Sunandsea37 (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I just don't have time...[edit]

But per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision ... the parties of the case were "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus". I'm looking at the ANI and seeing a good bit of personalization going on ... "As noted below, the complainant here is conflating wildly different kinds of page moves, just because they inolve animals and he's taken an intensely censorious, punitive dislike to me", "That comment looks like the typical venting at other editors for self-satisfaction, that does not help ANI or anyone one iota", "You having a different take on it all of a sudden (one that's gone from tentative to condemnatory in the space of a few hours, perhaps simply because I'm standing up to you and you're looking for an argument?), it does not make for a case of wrongdoing or negligence on my part, and shaking your fists at me about it won't change any of that.", "You can't come in here with an uncertain, questioning attitude about my AT interpretation and three hours later be an ostentatious firehose of certainty and accusation just because I'm not agreeing with you", etc. Normally I'd post this myself but .. I'm about to head out of the house for most of the day. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Ealdgyth! Someone else posted something on these lines quite soon after you wrote it. How are the bishops? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC) copyvio[edit]

I've been tracking Bombing Run for a while, so we'll see what happens with it at AfD. I noticed your templates at User talk:Krokuss and just wanted to point out that the wiki license is cc-by-sa, which should be fine as long as the source is attributed and the wiki entry itself wasn't a copyvio czar  17:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, missed that, thank you for pointing it out. Now I'd better go and see if I've actually done any damage .... Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Another rodeo, I see[edit]

Posted at the ANI. Note my diffs. You were right to raise SMC's behavior and his attacks on you are out of line. He ran off a number of excellent editors at WP:BIRDS and it is time for something to be done. I posted messages at WP ag, birds, dogs, mammals and equine, as these appear to be the main places where there have been past discussions. May also post at cats. Not sure personally if there are other projects that may be interested or not. I don't think a neutrally-worded notification at the project level constitutes canvassing, though given that SMC threatened you, it's probably best that you aren't the one to do it - so I am! As you know, I tend to hold my own in a fight and I happen to think it's high time SMC learns how to seek consensus and how to cooperate with others. Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I wasn't concerned about policy, just about appearing even-handed. A sea change in breed naming conventions will affect cats too, and eventually of course all plant cultivars, but I don't think any of those have been affected yet. They will be ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Free popcorn!
Note my diffs at the ANI, SMC already was renaming cat breed articles, he was originally trying to make everything parenthetical disambiguation, including all the horse breed articles. Then I won a battle over natural disambiguation of those, so he changed his tune and is now warring in the opposite dirction, which Is one reason I jumped on his behavior with the sheep articles - though I'd like to AGF, I must note that he seems to just do these mass moves for their own sake. My own view is that the MOS has good arguments for both natural and parenthetical disambiguation, so it makes little sense to enforce a totally hard and fast rule across all animal articles, one may make more sense than the other in various contexts. (In WPEQ, where we have about 9,000 articles tagged for the horse racing project, an overwhelming number of which are named horses, we may have a unique situation vis a vis other animals). The issue in the dogs project was the "Billy" breed, where there was a breed, and indivually-named animal and of course billy goat, the combo of which, I had to admit, made a good case for parenthetical disambiguation there, though I sure would hate to see (foo breed) as a common disambiguator. Anyway, grab some popcorn and let's watch this show. Montanabw(talk) 22:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. It's not a one-size-fits-all by any means. I'm sure many of the moves were good, as was Sphilbrick's move of Suffolk sheep; and I know that many of them were bad, such as the move of Tacola (sheep) (I do actually think quite carefully about what to call something when I create an article, and I do know what that breed is called). Your move of Romagnolo (donkey) was probably wrong ("made-up names"); and so on. It's not easy, it's not simple, and it can't be fixed by one loose cannon crashing about in the lower decks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the line between natural disambiguation and "made up names" is probably a bit fuzzy and gray (I'm mulling mecate rein and mecate (rein) as the mecate is a type of rein but it's not called a "mecate rein" whereas the animal breeds named after geographic regions such a muddle ... bleech!). I'm not a fan of parenthetical disambiguation though I understand the need for it, but the real point is BRD is normally a beautiful thing, so long as one doesn't boldly change dozens of articles at a time. Wonder if the BRD rule needs some sort of change such as "seek consensus at the relevant project pages before boldly making the same change to more than 5 or 10 articles" :-P Montanabw(talk) 07:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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

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

That is a very beautiful sapphire, and I am honoured to have it on my page. Thank you, Gerda! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The stone comes with a history (photographer, article), that we share. - Did you know that I translated the Invisible Rail? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)