User talk:Justlettersandnumbers

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

Help with copyright issue - Entry: Solvatten[edit]

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

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buttero&diff=584989445&oldid=567467574 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)

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 en.wiki 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: [http://tododeporte.elcomercio.es/asturias/2013-02-01/yeguada-militar-ibio-1318.html

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 en.wiki 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)

cheers[edit]

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 213.203.130.116 (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]

Hello,

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)

Navboxes[edit]

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[edit]

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 hitchhikersgui.de 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)

NBCC[edit]

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 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' 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 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' 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)

Donkey[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Apologies[edit]

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]

Hi,

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)

ENGVAR[edit]

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)

Italics[edit]

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

(UTC)

Your POV tag on Frank G. Fahrion[edit]

Hello,

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]

Hi,

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)


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)

Donkeys[edit]

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)

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)
The bishops are languishing - I've been very busy in real life ... and I'm waiting on the Wikipedia:OUP subscriptions to get out so I have access to the ODNB again. It's high gardening season here.. I'm busy with gardening... including some treats for my herd... who adore swiss chard for some reason. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Mailing you now ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:29, 11 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)
Solomon's sword: Mecate (tack). And yes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Had a discussion with someone else elsewhere raising the specter of things like Mecate (equipment) or Mecate (horse equipment, but to be fair to mules, perhaps Mecate (equine equipment). I'm beginning to wonder how hard to fight for WP:PRIMARY on some of this stuff ;-P Montanabw(talk) 18:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Might not be necessary - see here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm one of the editors (NatureGuy1980) who stopped contributing because of what I perceived as perpetual harassment and bullying (often via filibustering) from SMcC. Rather, I left because such behavior was not reined in. I was alerted what was transpiring here by an editor I know in real-life. The reason I'm commenting here is because a user named John has deleted the evidence he purports to not know the existence of in the current ANI discussion. I reverted his edit that seems an attempt to cover up the evidence, and his response was to threaten to ban me. Since his stance seems to be that anything he doesn't like deserves a banning, I do not wish to engage him directly. He's shown himself to be not trustworthy in my estimation. You may see the thread here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John#For_the_birds The evidence he has deleted was on the user page for NatureGuy1980. I understand that ad hominem attacks are not allowed, but how is an editor supposed to report bullying if he can't say it's happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.105.116 (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Natureguy1980 or 98.223.105.116! Please excuse me for not replying to this earlier; it didn't seem right to discuss anything but the matter immediately at hand while that ANI discussion was going on. I'm personally extremely sorry that you and other valuable editors feel that they have to leave the project because of a perceived failure to address the behaviour of one particular editor; that shows that something is seriously amiss here. I have no idea how it should be fixed, but I notice that John has mentioned on his talk page the possibility of an WP:RFC/USER. I also notice that he has received some criticism for the actions you mention, and that there is a discussion continuing there. Can I suggest that you join it? The project needs you, and while I'm usually the first to agree that walking away is often the best course in a dispute, this could be one of those times when it isn't. (John, for what it's worth, my own opinion of what went on there is that you were undoubtedly acting in good faith, for what you saw as the right reasons, but that your timing and your comments to Jimfbleak were unfortunate at best). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers. I posted there. 98.223.105.116 (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

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)

The mess behind Desperate Journey[edit]

After I discovered a copy-viol at Desperate Journey, I notified two administrators and the original editor who may have "close paraphrased" the text from an outside source (a TCM article). First, all my work on a re-write was blanked, and the information in a template was that a temp article was available. I then re-created the article there only to have it blanked again and this time, was templated for copying within Wikipedia as if I was the one who created this mess. I have now placed my work in a second temp space Talk:Desperate Journey/Temp/Temp but have been advised that I left no attribution in the first place resulting in my being templated as a copy-viol. What kind of attribution is necessary as there was a clear record of the original copy-viol on the talk page of the article and all my work on temp pages has an edit history. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Issue of Baari Tar Bangla[edit]

Hi, after your indication of copyright violation of the content, I made a significant change in the content [1]. The new content does not violate any copyright. But you have deleted it also without checking. Souravdas1 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I did check, and decided that the content was still uncomfortably close to the source. That is why I listed it at WP:CP. Someone else will now look at it, usually within a week or two. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A new version of the article is written at this temporary page. Souravdas1 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw. As I said, someone will probably look at it within a week or two. Unfortunately that noticeboard is over-loaded. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Credo[edit]

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

For looking deeper[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
At Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 19 and disclosing a continuing problem that would probably only have continued to grow. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Moonriddengirl! Defender of the Wiki, eh? This seems particularly undeserved in that you did all the hard work , and I added to it by not noticing that date. Perhaps it's unwise to say this before the SPI result, but for now I'm sort of relieved that the possible damage is to "only" 647 pages. I may live to regret that comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Just wow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yuck, want to take a whack at this one?[edit]

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

Yep, already seen it (and edited it). I'm pleased it's a one-line stub, as that's what I asked him or her to do, rather than dump a mass of incompetently translated gibberish that would then need hours of sorting out. I probably won't translate the French article, as I prefer to write from the sources (but I will steal those from their page!). As for the title, I really don't know. Hendricks can't be talking about the breed, as it hadn't been recognised when the book was written; so she's using "Corsican horse" like others have used "Calabrian horse" or "Provençal donkey" - not the breed, just the animal that happens to be in that place at that time. The breed probably does not have any established English name yet. On the other hand, Corse horse just sounds too silly for words. If it was any other domestic animal I'd use parenthetical disambiguation, but that is out here. So I dunno. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll move it per Hendricks, which meets WP:V (and we all know that "verifiability" is not identical to "truth') -"The horse that's been there" is probably more genetically consistent than a lot of "breeds" like (my not-favorite) the Moyle horse. "breed" is such a fuzzy concept and I really don't want to get into the landrace argument until someone figures out if there is any kind of definable line between "breed" and "landrace" (which, to date, no one has and I have had other priorities than looking into it myself). Have at the writing part, I may pop by and tweak a few things, but I don't have any particular issue to address. I think we finally got the inverse hands template fixed so you can do cm first and then get all the others. Montanabw(talk) 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Adventure Time season 7[edit]

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

Yes, I had just gone back to look at at again, as I thought that might be what had happened. Sorry, your edit summary threw me right off. I've removed the speedy tag. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries! You're doing a good thing trying to cut down on copyright infringement!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Albert G Richards page[edit]

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

Double-check on revision id at Syracuse, New York[edit]

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

That's a fair question and a good point, Joe. I did think about it – a moment of self-doubt – when I made the request (and I was anyway one revision off from what I had intended). The first revision that I actually know to be a copyright violation is this one; however, I presumptively reverted to one of the earliest revisions by the editor in question to be sure of not missing anything (there are 466 articles in the CCI, a hundred or more edits to this article alone, checking them individually just does not seem feasible). Whether it is then in order for me to request revision deletion based on that presumption I just don't know (and am happy to be told). I see that Mike V has started the revdel from slightly later in the history, and that seems to me to be entirely a good call. Once again, many thanks to you both. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to defer to your best judgment, it's proven excellent in the past, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a typo or something. Again, thanks for your great work here, CCI is important and often thankless. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 15:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

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

OOOOOHHHH NOOOOOO!. Montanabw(talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
And hey, it looks like we are all marching in lockstep in an evil conspiracy! EVERYONE knows that JLAN and I ALWAYS agree on EVERYTHING. (SMC, really, get a grip, dude). Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sovereign Wealth Institute[edit]

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

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

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

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

Cream Legbar[edit]

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

Hmm, that was an unfortunate chronosynclastic infundibulum - seriously bad timing on my part, sorry about that! I (a) had not noticed that you had edited the article and thus (b) hadn't noticed that you had done so so recently (I did however check that that content was added in a lump by an IP in 2012 before I removed it). It's taken from Victoria Roberts (2008). British poultry standards: complete specifications and judging points of all standardized breeds and varieties of poultry as compiled by the specialist breed clubs and recognised by the Poultry Club of Great Britain. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 9781405156424. or some earlier version of the same. I don't think there's any doubt it's in copyright. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I had a few of those chronosynclastic infundibulums once, but they just wouldn't lay. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is a navbox warranted?[edit]

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

no ;) where to start, where to stop...
Best wishes (sorry for not responding to the other things, yet. I am on the run and recent events are so sad and demotivating, on top.)
--PigeonIP (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comunes / municipalities[edit]

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

Mongol horse[edit]

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

I saw there were several edits - it's on my watchlist - but didn't look to see what they were. I'll try to take a look, but may take no action. Mongolia reports five horse breeds to Dad-IS apart from the Przewalski Horse. It's a great horse culture, and they have millions of them. I still hope I might one day find the £5-7000 to go and ride there for a couple of weeks, preferably before I'm too old to be able to get on a horse at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No kidding! I know some people locally who did that by saving frequent flyer points for round trip airfare with their American Express card (I guess they used their credit card for everything from gas to toilet paper for three or four years to pull it off) and enjoyed it greatly. As for the article, my thought is that maybe the culture and breed stuff should be split. Or, perhaps the article could be named something like "Horse culture of Mongolia" and then new articles be spun off for the breed(s) (Hmm. Had not heard of those breeds before, either. Other than the Mongol Aduu (which appears to be our "Mongolian Horse") the others are low in official numbers). I'd say raise anything useful at the article talk; seems the editor is in good faith and working very hard, with decent sourcing (though I'm a little wary of the hardcopy sources - though that's probably all there is - and page numbers would be useful). Seems a definite candidate for positive mentoring. I'm kind of knee-deep in some other stuff here and in RL so haven't focused there. Montanabw(talk) 20:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your requested moves of sheep articles at WP:RMTR[edit]

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

Josephine Flood[edit]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers

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

TUCEMEMS Copyright issues[edit]

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

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

Achraf Baznani (photographer)[edit]

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

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

Junior Chamber International[edit]

A mess from the first version [14] on with presumably members continually adding copyvio and promotional material. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Moves[edit]

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

Just to clarify[edit]

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

FYI[edit]

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

Copyright problem: Kuhn & Komor[edit]

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

Thank you. Those listings usually get looked at in a week to ten days; I probably won't actually deal with this one myself (because letting someone else do it provides a sort of check on what I've done), but I will look at what you've written, and perhaps comment. The 64,000 dollar question, though, Gryffindor, is this: do you think there might be other articles where the same sort of thing has happened? Obviously I hope not, but if so, your help in identifying them would be greatly appreciated. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Gryffindor, I haven't got mail. I know that Moonriddengirl received your message, but I didn't. Anyway, if it's about my question to you above, it'd probably be better to message me here than via e-mail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2014
Hi Justlettersandnumbers. Moonriddengirl has created a page here with a helpful listing [15]. I don't have the resources or a bot to go through every article to find possible problems. Do you think you could help us please with identifying issues and notify them there, and then I will try to repair it? Thank you for your help. Gryffindor (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Gryffindor! Yes, I am aware of that listing, and I appreciate that you'd like to get it dealt with; your help will make that much easier. I'll certainly do what I can, but – I'll be honest – there are many dozens of those listings and it is very time-consuming work going through them (I don't have a bot either!), so I can't promise to work specifically on yours. It's likely to be much easier for you to look at, say, Kraków Town Hall, and remember where that content came from (within Wikipedia? the internet? a book?) than it is for someone else to try to work that out. You could perhaps then leave a short note against that line of the listing ("This came from ...") which would make it quicker for someone else to mark off as done. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi JLAN,

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

Finding copyvio[edit]

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

I'm not, you know (good at it), I'm a rank beginner. If you want to see "good at it" you should watch Moonriddengirl in action; it's an education, I can tell you. I use two tools, the Duplication Detector and the Article blamer. In an article like Albanian Horse, with a short history, they're hardly needed, the problems pretty much jump to the eye. I'm afraid I've requested a WP:CCI for that editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
LOL. SEVEN YEARS. :) Lots of practice. Frankly, I usually just look for phrases that stand out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
So basically, once you find one suspicious editor, then you review their other work? Ah yes, I remember the nightmare of cleaning up the ItsLassieTime sock, which had hundreds if not thousands of articles, and I think that CCI is still unfinished... Montanabw(talk) 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you see this one[edit]

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

Interesting[edit]

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

I see that Montanabw is engaging in random personal attacks again, imputing nefarious motives.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It ran me off. But now I see he's ostensibly gone for a year. I'm considering coming back... 68.187.45.82 (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
You'd have my support if you did so, whoever you are! For what little that is worth. Give it a try - if it doesn't work out you can always leave again ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

About to head out for a vacation...[edit]

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

Thanks, Ealdgyth! As it happens, I know that book quite well, and did indeed check it for this particular matter, and was planning to cite it in another discussion. Please let me know if you do get a real paper copy of it, as not all is accessible through Google books and I might impose on your good will. Meanwhile, have a great holiday! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Good to know, Ealdgyth. Further source to cite against the idea of any such standardized breed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
From what I'm reading on the talk page - the breed registry started up in 1998. Mason's was published in 1996, so it doesn't conclusively prove one way or another if the breed registry is going to stick. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The point is that we have to stick carefully to what the sources actually say and not insert more (or less) than what is stated. It will be good to not engage isn WP:SYNTH. Montanabw(talk) 05:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
With Arapawa, there's not even any evidence of a breed registry. The facts we have are that some piglets were taken off the island for breeding and were bred successfully. To what we don't know. Years afterward, someone drafted a breed standard for the captive-bred Arapawa, noting that the phenotypic morphology was in flux, and even in what ways they expected their capitive pigs to differ from the feral landrace pigs the nascent standardized breed was based on. Then dead silence. We don't even actually know that this draft breed standard pertains to the descendants of those pigs in particular; that's just being inferred. The key missing facts are a) were they cross-bred to anything, b) if not, were they selectively bred to be more like everyday pigs, or to retain their most identifiable "Arapawaian" traits, and if so why that's not been working, and c) whether the experiment has continued at all to the present day, much less d) resulted an a standardized breed recognized by anyone at all other 6 people trying to breed them (which would never pass WP:GNG or WP:NFT).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Chicken breeds of Belgium[edit]

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

(edit conflict)I don't know what you are talking about. It isn't a disambiguation page or a "recently merged" anything, it's an article. I've just started it, at your rather annoying insistence (I mean, next time, fix it yourself, OK?). Please re-read, with some care, WP:BRD; if your edit has been reverted, don't make the same edit again, as that is edit-warring. Instead, take the matter to the talk page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
So in fact it was not me who was messing... The Banner talk 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Have you fixed it yet? You should probably work on your apology skills, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not prepared to clean up your mess. The Banner talk 02:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Belgian Bantam vs Belgian bantam - two different articles. JTdale Talk 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Belgian Bantam[edit]

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

Yes, it's a separate breed, with EE recognition and so on. I made the stub because The Banner was messing about with the navbox. I hadn't realised you'd made that redirect from the capitalised title or I'd have mentioned it sooner. The only thing (I hope!) I've used Roberts for is to say that it isn't listed by the PCGB. I've added it to the disambiguation page you made. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I got a complaint from the Banner myself. I'm afraid I don't see how it's a single breed though? It's a group of related breeds, according to the British Belgian Bantam Club and the Belgian Bantam Club of Australia. Additionally the The Belgian d'Uccle & Booted Bantam Club and the Belgian d'Anver Club of America appear to hold similar positions. The Australian Poultry Standards and the Poultry Club of Great Britain hold identical views in that Belgian bantam is a breed consisting of what 4-5 varieties, which are classified in Belgium as separate breeds but are fundamentally identical to the 'varieties'. I can't read french to decipher your other reference. JTdale Talk 01:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
On reading your EE reference, it lists the Belgian types as separate varieties as well and never mentions an overarching Belgian Bantam. JTdale Talk 02:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit - okay, I found out what you mean. Sorry for the confusion. Belgische Zwerghühner | Naine belge | Belgische kriel | Naine belge | Belga nana | Belgische kriel with no english name. Found this page; [16] which translated here appears to be an entirely different type of bird. More info here. This creates a major issue because outside Belgium and France Belgian Bantam refers entirely to a different thing. JTdale Talk 02:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi! No apology needed, I'm almost as confused as you are at this point. I think we had this conversation before, somewhere else. There are a lot of different Belgian true bantams (12–15, I think). The Brits can't get them sorted out, so they've lumped them all together as "Belgian" in their true bantams section. That sort of makes it hard for them to see that there is also a Belgian Bantam, the Naine belge, the one your link [16] leads to. On the Rousseau site it's this one. The EE spreadsheet is a nightmare to use, but is I think accurate; it gives them all except maybe the Bleue de Lasnes, which isn't recognised. I think the Belgian bantam page you made was a good idea; I'm wondering, though, if it shouldn't be moved to Belgian bantam (disambiguation). What do you think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not sure. Not very good with disambiguation stuff - never made one before. I think it might be less confusing though, so I'll go ahead and do it. Also, maybe it'd be best to move Belgian Bantam to one ofi ts native names since the breed seems to be entirely unknown in English? JTdale Talk 16:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Found an English version of that page; see here; also see this. This helps a lot. A ton of breeds there that may warrant their own articles. JTdale Talk 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor breeeds[edit]

I may be scratching a sore spot, but i hope I'm not. But use of the convert template on horse heights would be a gracious and helpful thing. I can do it myself later, but perhaps as you go would be simpler. See Template:Hands for the solution the techies worked out for us for the breeds with a European/metric standard: to convert cm first: {{convert|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2 12 to 8.2 12 hands; 30 12 to 34 12 in) I think you can change cm to m and get the equivalent results. Your call if you want to do it, hope you will not object if I add it later if you are not interested in doing so. Montanabw(talk) 14:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Tony Cragg[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

My COIN posting[edit]

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

Should I prod tag?[edit]

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

That was a temptation you could safely have yielded to! Speedy as G11 might have gone through too, in spite of its age. However, there were other problems too, so I doubt it'll be necessary (though of course you can still prod it if you want to). Good find; how many more like that are there? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll prod tag too, might as well add insult to injury. What else is out there?? As always, Nevzorov Haute Ecole. But wait, there's worse: Brace for impact: Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star, Barbie Horse Adventures, and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. AAARRRGGGHHH! Montanabw(talk) 07:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
That should have been G11 on sight! Obvious COI, undisguised promo; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevzorov Haute Ecole. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Thank you, Victuallers! And the same to you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Book is in![edit]

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

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

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

I'm in full agreement about using correct terminology within reason, as long as it doesn't reach the level of jargon and is linked to an explanation - which we don't always have (where should "girth" link to, for example, when used as a measurement?). My thinking on the other things is just to try to keep things reasonably uniform with other animal breed articles. Our pig articles don't have "boar weight'" and "sow weight" in the infobox, though they could - the general "Male weight" and "Female weight" is used whether they're billies and nannies, cocks and hens, rams and ewes, whatever. Ideally I'd to see the horse breed infobox updated to match the others, with fields for height, weight, conservation status, distribution, coat colour, uses and the like. But yes, for now I'll put a range, the differences are usually marginal anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Glossary of equestrian terms is a good catchall, particularly where you need something not yet in the wiki... We can add a definition #2 (if sourced) at Glossary of equestrian terms#G (girth) or a new definition at #H ("heartgirth") for the measurement. Note we do quite a bit of cross-referencing between UK and US English so both are included (see, e.g. [Glossary of equestrian terms#H]] for Halter/headcollar.) Always room to expand so long as a source goes with the definition. Keep in mind that we should also compare to the dog breeds infoboxes, as horses exist in sort of a limbo between livestock and companion animals. I'm not opposed to a few specific fields for height - weight is not always as clear-cut a parameter (we don't eat them as often...), perhaps RexxS can help us with formatting and such, we can discuss there. I'm not overly fond of the design of the livestock breeds ones - too easy to confuse with species infoboxes (the breeds infobox links to the species infobox). But I don't think adding parameters does a lot of harm, as if they are not used, they don't show as blank spaces. Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, and also, I really hesitate to add a "distribution" link, as we already have a nation of origin parameter, which itself has generated a couple editing disputes (mostly on Lipizzan), so many breeds are now pretty much worldwide. Conservation status is also a question mark, as these are not a species, but I can see some point of adding comments if we have rare breeds or not - I just don't want to shoehorn horse breeds into an infobox that doesn't fit. But let's discuss at the template talk... Montanabw(talk) 00:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

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

Template:COI editnotice[edit]

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

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

Mulling over structure[edit]

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

Great Lakes Page[edit]

Hi,

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

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

GQ[edit]

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

Thanks for your vigilance there. I think the main question is really whether it's notable at all. I was sort of letting it slide, partly for WP:CSB reasons. But I'm about ready for AfD. Otherwise we could ask for semi-protection. I wonder if Sphilbrick would mind being dragged into this again, perhaps to advise? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's "probably" notable enough not to be deleted, judging by the articles on other international versions, though some of them are in dire need of de-promo'ing themselves. The notability guideline on magazines is still "proposed", so no telling. This version may very well fail the GNG though. I'd just prefer it if the IP would actually discuss their changes rather than blindly reverting every time we explain why their edits are out of policy, so maybe a semi-prot after they inevitably re-add the November cover to the article will get them on the talk page. CrowCaw 23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm here, but not up to speed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: The article is GQ Thailand. It started as a copyvio and has since been subject to a slow edit war with what looks like one user on multiple IPs to add promotion and non-notable stuff to it. They have blindly reverted without discussion. They only stopped reverting the copyvio when the history was revdel'ed. The latest bit now is to keep the current cover shown in the infobox, with no context, thus failing nfcc#8. I had reverted to the infobox with the issue #1 cover as that could be seen as a meaningful image, especially as that cover was discussed specifically in the article. They responded to that by db-user'ing the image! At this point I just want them to discuss what and why they are doing. CrowCaw 20:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

He's b-a-a-a-a-c-k: [17] FYI Montanabw(talk) 06:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious what constructive purpose you think that commentary like this serves?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
To warn the general population to brace for impact of another round of tl;dr. Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Enough[edit]

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

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

Copyright Prob's page[edit]

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

Crow, the quick answer is that I wish I knew. I think each editor has his/her own take on that. Factors over and above the "would need to be fundamentally rewritten" criterion that make me personally more inclined to tag for speedy deletion are: simplicity (one or few editors), recentness, obvious COI and/or promotional content, and lack of importance and/or notability. If something is complex, or clearly notable, or just old, or might help counter systemic bias, then I'm more inclined to list it. Either way, at least one other person is going to look at it too, so there's some room for error – luckily! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I like your thinking there. :) To add, Crow, that if there's a suggestion of permission, WP:CP is usually the appropriate avenue. (Although if it's a G11 and a G12, I myself just delete and cite both. I have some tension when content is clearly permissible but otherwise unusable.) I wrote a template that I have long used for this situation - User:Moonriddengirl/vp. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, MRG! I remember seeing that text and thinking it'd taken a while to write all that - now I realise it's a template. Crow, another factor that I forgot to mention above is the editor's history: if an editor is fairly new a copyvio can probably be put down to inexperience; if it's a long-established editor, or one with several apparent copyvios, I'd be more inclined to list it so as to draw attention to a possibly larger problem - of which unfortunately there seem to be quite a lot. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks to both of you! CrowCaw 22:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Harvey Schiller talk page, edit assistance request[edit]

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

Elmgreen & Dragset[edit]

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

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

Dorset H/horn[edit]

Hey,

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

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

MP Anil Kumar[edit]

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

European Federation of Psychiatric Trainees[edit]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I declared my conflict of interest concernign EFPT here. [18]. I hope we will find a solution to use text from our website to improve our WP page. I changed the license but it wasn't good enough. Bw --Ofix (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Of interest[edit]

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

SALT (institution)[edit]

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

Hi, EuroCarGT, I'm afraid I have no idea what to do about that. They've released one page of their website, but the copying/close paraphrasing was from more than one page, definitely including also this and this. So I'm going to ask, for about the thousandth time, if Moonriddengirl would be kind enough to offer guidance on whether the rev-deletion is still necessary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for my delay - I've got some family issues that are impacting my online time.
The OTRS ticket doesn't actually name the source; it names the Wikipedia articles that the correspondent claims to own and release. With respect to this it says, "SALT (Istanbul based cultural institution founded by Garanti Bank), the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SALT_(institution) and http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/SALT" While this is generally acceptable on English Wikipedia where we are able to verify that the person placing the content is an authorized representative of the source, I think this situation is a little more convoluted. We've got content additions being placed by at least two people here and no verification that the OTRS correspondent has legal right to license the contributions of both - or, really, either. (That would change if the users in question acknowledged that they were working on behalf of SALT, perhaps on their user pages.) The name of the correspondent does not clearly align with the usernames. :/ User:EuroCarGT, would you mind asking your correspondent to clarify that he is licensing the content published at saltonline.org and not the content published on Wikipedia? This should eliminate all doubt and rev deletion on earlier edits can be removed. Whether or not the content is restored is a matter of editorial discernment. :) OTRS doesn't say the content will be used, but only that it can be. At that point, other factors may determine, as copyright issues are off the table. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl: Yes check.svg Done. Thanks, ///EuroCarGT 21:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your mention of me here[edit]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

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

No apology needed here - it really isn't very clear in the article, though I suppose the title was a bit of a give-away. Anyway, no harm done, pleased to have "met" you. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
A pleasure to have met you too! Keep rockin' it! ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The horse book[edit]

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

Re:Admin help[edit]

I'm actually in the process of investigating that a little right now; I've found this blog post, of which parts are written verbatim whats written in our article [19], however the version I'm looking at is 2008 and its 2014 now, so I can not prove who had which version first. That, and the language in the article (In particular phrases like "You may guess on one hand that the Portuguese cinematography and those of Portuguese expression distinguish themselves by this motive, which gives them a voice in the world of cinema, like the voice of Cesária Évora in the world music") lend themselves to having been copied from someplace else online and pasted here. I'm hopeful that its just my imagination, but experience tells me that may not be the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Found one article arguably in violation of BLP - Daniel E. Thorbecke. I put it up at afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Found a maybe - and I mean a really long shot maybe - copyright violation for Antonio Campos from here; and I say "maybe" and "long shot" because there are four tabs, Wikipedia is one of them, but the verbatim content on their site is alleged to have been posted in 2002, whereas our article's history claims that the material wasn't created until 2009. Not sure then which came first, and since its all in a foreign language I can do nothing with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Found one dangerously close to copyright. The Original O Pão e o Vinho article created in 2009 appears to have been taken nearly verbatim from here, and while the single inline citation given to the article credit the page, the whole section then and now is essentially one blockquote. He also apparently copied and translated the technical information at or near verbatim, and that still isn't cited. In point of fact the article is almost identical to what we have now. I think the first part might be from Films by Portuguese Directors (Study Guide): Films Directed by Antonio Lopes Ribeiro, Films Directed by Antonio de Macedo since google linked the phrase "O Pão e o Vinho is contemporary to the tetralogy Homem Montanhês (Mountain Man) " to the book. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Correction, it may have been lifted in its entirety from the book, according to a Barnes and Noble Book Summary. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes, some of it seems to be just unattributed inter-wiki translation (still copyvio, but easier to fix), like the Thorbecke one, created here 27 minutes after it was made on pt.wp. I see that MRG shares your concerns here, so I'll see if I can look at this tomorrow, and perhaps make a CCI request if I find enough to justify one. I don't speak Portuguese, but I can more or less read it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the talk page message follow up, it is always nice to know that people care enough to keep in touch. In gratitude, please accept this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this, TomStar81, it's much appreciated! Though I can't help thinking that in this case it would be better named the "Trying to make up for random acts of unintentional discourtesy to a smart detective Barnstar". Nice work there! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Accademia delle Arti del Disegno[edit]

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

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

Edit warring[edit]

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

I would appreciate your input as to whether I am being too zealous but given you previous comments on the article about copyright issues I felt that it was better to be safe by deleting any potentially controversial edits.Dan arndt (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I've asked for the page to be semi-protected. Edit-warring, even if you think you're right, is never going to get anybody anywhere good. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right I allowed myself to get sucked in. Should have stopped and taken a breath. Will concentrate on improving the article with factual referenced information. BTW think you can remove the proposed merger with Trinity Chapel. I think I have established that it is a notable article in its own right - let me know if you feel otherwise . Dan arndt (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Marina Tchebourkina[edit]

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

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

Joseph Rodney Moss[edit]

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

Oops. Advice accepted for the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to stop by and apologize for my last edits to the article about Justice Moss. I was in a very bad mood this afternoon when I was sitting at my computer, and I shouldn't have reworked the text using a bunch of ridiculous phrasings just to make my point. I did not (and still don't) believe that there was any copyright issue, but I am sorry to have been so snide in response to what was clearly a sincere effort to improve the quality of the article.ProfReader (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

1937 in Poland[edit]

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

Toggenburg (goat)[edit]

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