User talk:Justlettersandnumbers/old5

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

please check the rewrite temp page of Ou Ning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ou_Ning/Temp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanyuan (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice

On 3 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Ospedale degli Incurabili in Venice, where Johann Adolph Hasse was maestro di cappella, was founded as a hospice for sufferers from syphilis and other incurable diseases of the time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Despacito lyrics vandal

For what it's worth, 99.112.22.186 did it again at Paper bag - [1]. Home Lander (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

This has to be the fifth or sixth copyvio-revdel you've taken care of for me in recent months. Cheers! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cymru.lass, that's perfect timing, just drained the last few drops of my Franziskaner. Anyway, happy to help, keep them coming! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Subodh Kerkar

Hi, I've created a fresh version of the article at this temp page. This version is free of copyvios. Also this particular revision is a clean revision of the page, free of copyvios. Do look into it at the earliest as he is an important personality here. Thanks. SerTanmay (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Martin Speake

Why was his article deleted? He a quite famous Jazz musician. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Govvy! If you follow the red link above, you'll see that I deleted it as "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.gsmd.ac.uk/music/staff/teaching_staff/department/12-department-of-jazz-studies/574-martin-speake/, https://www.martinspeake.com, http://www.woodwinds.daddario.com/woodwindsArtistDetails.Page?ActiveID=2022&ArtistId=46324". It was a few hours old and had no significant contribution from any editor other than the creator, nor did it have any independent sources. It consisted entirely of his own promotional materials and could also have been deleted as G11. Do you want me to restore the skeleton of the page so that you can write a proper article about him? Do you have the sources to do that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I should work on the page, probably a conflict of interest... Don't know, I had it on my watchlist because I know the guy. Was just a bit upset it got deleted. Govvy (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough (and yes, probably a good call). So how's this: if you can come up with five or six solid independent RS that clearly show notability and actually say something about him, I'll run up a quick stub (and I do mean quick!) if that's of any interest. Let me know? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, have you not done WP:BEFORE? He has played at Pizzaexpress live one of the top jazz venues in London, EFG Jazz festival and even had an review in the Guardian. Govvy (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, seriously, no, since this has nothing to do with AfD, which is what WP:BEFORE links and relates to. Anyway, I'll take your reply as a "no" – unless, that is, you'd like to point to several more independent sources with enough in-depth coverage to base a brief stub on? As it happens, I've played a few gigs myself, some of them in very notable venues, several of them – to my great and wholly undeserved good fortune – with very well-known musicians; that doesn't make me notable or anything like it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I know, can be hard in music, I've got a fair few CDs created by friends, now they are either accountants, lawyers, in computing, but excellent at music. I just thought Martin deserved a bit of an article, I had a bit of a go and a tidy on that draft. Govvy (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sydney College of Advanced Education

I don't really understand why you rejected this speedy deletion - the entire article is a cut and paste copyright violation from a user who didn't understand copyright that hadn't been substantively edited at all in those ten years. I really want to rewrite it and I've got the sources to do it sitting in my browser but I don't want to do it until the copyright issue is dealt with. I could have rewritten it today but now I guess I'm having to wait for another couple of weeks? Very helpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, The Drover's Wife, I should have explained that more clearly. WP:G12 says specifically: "For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems". I see no indication that the claim of public domain is valid, but there is one.

You can either rewrite the article on this temporary page, or – slightly out of process – simply create the new version above the copyvio template, leaving it in place for now. Either way, I'll tidy things up as soon as you're ready. For another time: you are completely free to remove copyright-violating content yourself; you can then ask for the infringing revisions to be hidden by adding a {{copyvio-revdel}} request. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I just had a go at using the temporary page, but ProveIt, the tool I use to reference, doesn't seem to work in that namespace, so it's just getting a bit hard. Might have to wait until after it's all sorted after all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

So I admit to having been frustrated by this in the past, albeit for different reasons than The Drover's Wife. JLAN, it feels like your actions while patrolling G12 are qualitatively different than general community norms; it's certainly not unreasonable but it is different. It's different even, from what I can tell, of how you acted prior to your RfA (where you indicated you would deal requests in ways that support the use of the COPYVIO template in equivocal cases, such as "where free-content edits overlie the infringement"). I would ask you to consider getting some sort of community support, if only through a discussion at a place like WP:CSD, for this alternative method of dealing with G12 tags on notable topics where the removal of copyrighted material would leave the page without content worth saving. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Page cleaned, The Drover's Wife, all yours. Barkeep49, could you be a bit clearer? What do you think is the "normal" response to a G12 nomination where there is a foundational copyvio, a ten-year page history and a dubious claim of permission? I'm open to advice if I'm doing something wrong, but I'd first need to understand what that something is. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Legend. Thanks very much! The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Prajakta Kale

Hello, Thanks for the soft approach and notification about Prajakta Kale's page, Like you advised I have created a Temp page and this rewritten version is void of copyright problem, I hope you look into this for me and restore the page. Thanks once again for helping out.Epaomo (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of the the public domain

I see you are new and no doubt young. Please investigate what is and is not in the public domain before removing my work on the articles I created. If content is produced by a government agency in the US, it is automatically in the public domain. There is no copyright on government work. I will ask you to revert the hyperactive vandalism you did to the articles I created by removing them even though there is no copyright inifringement. I wonder how many other articles you have vandalised through your lack of knowledge of the law on copyright?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ives_-_Henry_murders

I believe you also proudly but erroneously "clean up" nonexistent copyright issues on the article about Colorado Center for the Blind ...and what else? Please correct your mistakes. In the future consider your age and level of experience compared to others before wrecklessly hurting the free sharing of knowledge in your efforts to show off your imagined expertise. I see by other comments you have taken it upon yourself to "police" copyright infringements even though you are untrained and unknowledgeable about the issue. May I kindly suggest you find a way to contribute based on your knowledge and not your psychological need to exert power by miscorrecting the work of experts?

Leidseplein (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, young no doubt! And yes, I do always try to edit "wrecklessly" – I so hate filling in those insurance claims! On a more serious note, would you like to answer the question I asked you: are there other articles where you have copied material from copyrighted sources into Wikipedia? If you think I've removed public-domain content from something you've written, please say what and from where. If you think the Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture is PD, please read this page, which will disabuse you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

If the educated and experienced did not have to constantly correct the young and inexperienced, Wikipedia would reach a billion more people everyday. It does not matter what a website CLAIMS it matters what the actual copyright law IS. I can write on my website that my work is copyrighted, but this does not make it true. Please gain some humility appropriate for your age and study the law of copyrights which will disabuse you of any notion that you somehow have knowledge enough to vandalise the work of those with much more experience and more education than you. Try writing an article and contributing instead of using Wikipedia to address your psychiatric issues. Will you kindly revert your vandalism? On a more serious note, would you like to answer the question I asked you: are there other articles where you have vandalised the work of others based on your lack of knowledge and teenage level of education?Leidseplein (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Leidseplein, our copyright policy is here, my contributions are here. If you find evidence of vandalism, the place to report it is here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Are we being trolled or just patronised?

Hi there,

I see that you, I, and others have been clearing up various copyright infractions on Leidseplein's articles and drafts.

To which his responses have been both insulting and boringly standardised - that we are inexperienced, young (woohoo!) and vandals.

I do find this quite humorous, but he doesn't seem to be reducing his copyvio frequency - his public domain defence also doesn't apply in quite the way he thinks it does, attribution aside.

I've responded to his queries to me, but I was hoping for some thoughts on what can be done pre-ANI? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You two are the poster boys of new arrivals. Do you actually think that arriving a few months ago and then threatening to "take someone to ANI" is scary or helpful in anything but your psychiatric needs? Within 20 minutes of a conflict you are already so frightened that you're asking for helps for the grownups. ANI is a last resort - try understanding and practicing the letter and spirit of Wikipedia instead of pedantically quoting what you imagine policy is and what you imagine is here to protect your wounded ego. You can link tp WP endlessly and threaten all you want if it helps build your confidence, but this is not the mission or style of Wikipedia editors. To wit: works produced by the State of Arkansas and published online are automatically in the public domain. Now, kindly recover from you errors and remove your vandalism. Leidseplein (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I think the best thing to do is to sit back and relax. Your answers to date have been both correct and sufficient. The user has a week in which to rewrite the draft, and whoever reviews that will surely look at his/her other contribs – of which, fortunately, there are very few. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyvios?

I see you moved Draft:Thermoelectric acclimatization, an article from which I had already removed some copyvios, to draftspace. Looking at the creator's talk page, there is some suggestion that the creator Aeronauticengineer67 is Michele Trancossi, author of various papers. While new page patrolling, I have now come across Hybrid electrical aircraft, which appears to be largely a copyvio of this site, but one of the authors of the paper concerned is also Michele Trancossi. We aim to encourage experts to write about their areas of expertise, but it is difficult to know how best to proceed if they copy their original papers verbatim without affirming their right to do so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

[Swanee Songs]

So, when will Swanee Songs be put back whole? I did take my blog post down. That was what rang the copyright bell. The fact that I wrote them both, which is why they were the same, is now neither here nor there. On a separate thing. I created a page for the author and film showman Jack Stevenson. On that page I have had a picture of the dust jacket for his most recent book deleted twice. First, Jack sent me the art, then I put it on Wikimedia commons, and put it on the page. After it was deleted I advised Jack that he should put it on wikimedia commons and then I could put on his page. That was done and it was deleted a second time. The dust jacket art was created for exploitation and has no copyright. Further, it is the property of Jack. I appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks, Dennis— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis william nyback (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

My questions weren't rhetorical

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

• You haven't elaborated on what you meant by "and other cited sources" after your link to Hertfordshire Constabulary's press release on your blank out message on the page Berkhamsted child rape network. Please provide the full list of every source with which an issue will need to be resolved. The reason you should do this is obvious.
• Most of the highlighted phrases in your Copyvio report are the names of criminal offences which are listed on the UK government website and reusable under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Does the Open Government Licence v3.0 allow me to include these names of criminal offences in my article if I attribute their webpages in my article's Talk page? If I reword everything else and retain and attribute the names of criminal offences do I still face having my article deleted and being permanently removed from Wikipedia? Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

By "cited sources" I meant, of course, "the sources cited in the article". You can see clearly which are the most problematic by using this useful tool (click the "compare" link against each source to see what text has triggered the alarm). The exact legal jargon used to describe each offence is presumably derived from national law in the UK, and so not subject to copyright as far as Wikipedia is concerned; the value of endlessly repeating that jargon is questionable, and it might be preferable to omit and/or rephrase some or all of it. The other material copied from the sources should not be included in your rewrite, though it may be rewritten in your own words. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, thank you for linking to this tool. This is actually very useful and seems to have most of this information I need. I have one final question. How much rewriting in my own words or deleting must I do for my article to be accepted? Is it enough reword the page to make all the percentages green once criminal offence names are ignored? Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You can work on a rewrite on this temporary page. Please don't copy any copied/copyright content from the old page into your rewrite, as that would make it useless. Essentially everything you write must be in your own words; those technical legal terms may be an exception, and quotations – provided they are attributed, are brief, are relevant and are the subject of discussion in the article text – may be included in moderation. Phrases like "a year-long investigation that identified hundreds of other ..." may not be copied – you have to express the meaning in your own words without using those of the source. You shouldn't pay too much attention to the actual percentages that the tool shows – what matters is the content highlighted in red, and whether there's a reason for that to be acceptable (which it often is, and also, unfortunately, often is not). Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I have rewritten much of the article. I have not yet found all the names of the criminal offences on the UK Government's website, so I am temporarily using placeholder phrases such as "multiple child sex offences". I believe the copyright issue is resolved. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I've had look at the rewrite, and I'm afraid it still contains many phrases copied (for no good reason) from the sources – please see here. These might perhaps not be enough to trigger an alarm in a new article, but in this case they are simply the remnants of the earlier copying of non-free content, and so need to be removed. Will you deal with that or do you want me to? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Which phrases? Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Discovery Institute

I think I finally figured out the copyvio situation there, and made an attempt to fix it. Can you take a look and let me know if the issue has indeed been resolved? Appreciate it, thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Andy Picci

I'd love you help us contribute to the Andy Picci page, as I am quite new to wikipedia. But I'd also appreciate you not destroying the research work I am doing on this subject. If tone is inappropriate, this might come by the fact english isn't my mother tongue. There's no need to be patronising here. Even if you're not sensitive to Picci's work, it doesn't mean it isn't worth credit.

Please help us instead of slow us down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fineartsfrance (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Fineartsfrance, I've left you a note about conflict-of-interest editing on your talk-page. You might also like to read about what we think of promotion in Wikipedia. What's your connection to User:Dandyanartiste, by the way? And who exactly do you mean by "us"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, User:Dandyanartiste and I obviously know each other. We both are working on a research Master of Fine Arts. Our research is about artists using internet and social media as an art medium, which led us into the work of Andy Picci, but not only (Arvida Bystrom, Signe Pierce, Andy Kassier and many other are on the "to do list"). Our idea was using our research to complete/create some wikipedia pages, as we felt there was a lack of informations about it. We are new here, and try to learn each day a little bit more about how wikipedia works. Our tone might not seems impartial sometime as we are passionate about our studies, but we try our best to get stuck to facts. We have no affiliations with Andy Picci, although we are currently trying to get a meeting with him to discuss our research further.

I am sorry if we started on a wrong foot, but we feel that by changing "staged an artistic performance in which he dressed up as Pete Doherty; fooled some photojournalists, and had his picture published on Le Parisien's front-page as Doherty's" into "dressed up as Pete Doherty; the impersonation fooled some photojournalists, and his picture was published in Le Parisien as Doherty's" is very diminishing about his work and process. Maybe it is our level of english misleading us, but we believe we can meet middle way. Once again, we started contributing because we felt artists we are interested in were not yet present on wikipedia, and that I we are interested, some other people might be. But if this is a wrong motivation, we sincerely apologize.

EDIT: I am done. My aim was to contribute to this beautiful encyclopedia, adding informations I felt were missing. But I don't have time to lose fighting whith your egocentric patronising closed mind. Have fun, hope you'll be proud to discourage in such an impolite way people from contributing to world knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fineartsfrance (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mary Weatherford

Hi, Why did you make major edits to the page on Mary Weatherford? All was cited properly. Mary's galleries do have websites, but her wiki reflects her history not theirs. Please advise so we can work together on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaiseyCox (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

MaiseyCox, please see your talk-page, where I have asked you to make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure before making any other edit. It would be really, really good if the David Kordansky Gallery would stop, once and for all, trying to use Wikipedia for publicity purposes, but I don't suppose there's much hope of that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a bit—a very interesting artist. Seemed a pity to let her languish as a stub :). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I saw that you were working on it, VdT, will glance at the end result in a minute. Just looking at Jennifer Guidi now (a copyvio blurb by Almine Rech overwritten with another blurb from David Kordansky), but not convinced I've the interest to do much about it. You? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Me neither at this point, although it has a lot of the flaws that Mary Weatherford had. While not flamingly so, it does have the flavour of a PR write-up. Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Richagoel108

I saw that you had blocked that guy for copyvio. His most recent creation, Rohit Suri is also a cut and paste job. He doesn't seem to be getting it. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, FR30799386, unfortunately it seems he's not. Thanks for letting me know, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User: Boscosodi499

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

I am trying to edit the Bosco Sodi page and the changes I had made based on the requested Wikipedia standards except the text is gone. Is there anyway to modify it so that I can remove the copyrighted material / alter it to fit wikipedia standards?

I spent a whole afternoon writing this page and this the second time that my changes have been discarded.

If you can please let me know what I can do to salvage my revision without rewriting it I would really appreciate it.

Thank you Boscosodi499 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not really, I'm afraid, Boscosodi499 – you have a very evident conflict of interest, and so are strongly discouraged from editing that article. Please read the last of the three rather long messages I've left on your talk-page (User talk:Boscosodi499#Managing a conflict of interest), which offers some advice for people in your situation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Keith Griffiths (architect)

I created a new version of this, can you let me know if I may take out the COI box? I clarify that I am not editing the page on behalf of anyone. All sources linked. Whywhy99 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I strongly believe that Whywhy99 has undeclared COI. Citobun (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Citobun:I once again clarify that this is not the case. I suggested ways to edit the page and have requested for help awhile ago from you on your talk page. We are here to help editing articles, instead of raising issues without fixing. Suggestions made on article's talk page as well. Grateful if anyone can help. Whywhy99 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Whywhy99, you don't need my permission or anyone else's to remove the COI tag from Keith Griffiths (architect), provided that you are sure that there is no COI problem (and, of course, provided that you have no COI yourself); I myself am pretty sure that there is a continuing COI problem at that article. Could you please answer two questions: who do you mean by "we" when you say "we are here to help"? and why does virtually every edit you've made since 27 November 2012 relate in some way to Aedas – which, as you will understand, gives a very strong impression that you have some connection to that company? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

He's at it again

See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alec Smithson {{{{SIGH}}}}. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted, what a bore he is! I commented there, asked for a lock here, and left a note for AttoRenato about the IP, who has a number of live edits there. On the bright side, he hasn't bothered us so much here recently. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No, he hasn't bothered us much, apart from his ministrations to his LTA page. He still periodically nips into Simple English WP, but hasn't created any new "articles" there for several months—probably knows I'm watching all his targets there. Interestingly, the multiple throwaway accounts at Commons never seem to edit anywhere else. The problem is, virtually every file they upload is a copyvio. Once the checkuser investigation there concludes, I'm going to bring this to the admins' attention at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Then they can decide what to do. I personally don't have the time or energy to start deletion discussions for dozens and dozens of copyvio files. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, certainly not worth nominating files individually. I think we could start a bulk deletion discussion with a title such as "Files uploaded by Alec Smithson and sockpuppets", though. I'd be happy to collaborate on something like that if you don't get any joy at User problems. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Even bulk deletion requests can be messy unless they have a single factor making them copyvios. His have a variety of issues. Sometimes claimed as own work when they're all over the internet. Other times the publication date has been falsified. Anyhow, perhaps we'll get some advice from the User problems board. Meanwhile, it's a pity that AttoRenato doesn't edit Italian WP much any more. You could also try User:Civa61 and User:Carlomartini86. Both of them have gone after Smithson sock edits in the past, plus Carlomartini86 is also an administrator there. You could also try posting at Progetto:Patrolling/Controlli/Alec Smithson although it doesn't have many watchers. Voceditenore (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You might want to add Italianpassion89 to your global lock request. He popped up yesterday and uploaded over 30 copyvio images. I've also added this one to the Commons checkuser request, which so far has not attracted any response. Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sanjay Pradhan

The latest version of Draft:Sanjay Pradhan wasn't unambiguously a copyright violation, as most of the duplicated material were things like proper names and titles. Prior to tagging the submission button on the draft, I had reviewed the deleted versions as well as the most recent version compared against the web pages and I was satisfied that the creator had done good work to avoid copyright infringement.

I'm working with the creator on OTRS, who is justifiably confused as to why the draft was deleted again, and why she is blocked again. Would you object to me undoing those actions so that we can proceed? I'm watching the draft and the OTRS communications. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I see you undeleted the draft, thanks. I am explaining to the editor that she's blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and not just copyvio. I will instruct her how to proceed with an unblock appeal. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Anachronist, I've restored it, but I'm in no doubt that it was a wholly unacceptable copyright violation. Even an innocuous little phrase like "Pradhan grew up in Bihar" is copied (from here). I can't be responsible for leaving something like that in circulation, so I'll blank it it and list it at WP:CP – I hope that's acceptable to you? It gives the editor a week to produce a copyvio-free rewrite.

As for unblocking, please do as you think fit. However, if the editor doesn't understand the reason for the second block, that seems to suggest that he/she doesn't understand our copyright policy either. There's also the matter of what appears to be undisclosed paid editing ... Over to you! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Anachronist, that sounds good. I liked the questions I saw added here earlier today ... Oh, and I forgot to mention that the image in the draft seems to be a copyvio too – I've nominated it for speedy deletion on Commons. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Guidi Date of Birth

I am trying to add Jennifer Guidi's date of birth to her Wikipedia page, as per the artist. However, the edit has been undone twice. How would you suggest I source this information other than it is being requested by the artist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.165.46 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, 45.48.165.46. We have fairly strict rules against adding unsourced personal details of living people, which I have already linked to twice when reverting your edits. Of course, this is for the protection of the privacy of the individuals concerned. If her full date of birth is widely reported in independent reliable sources, please mention one or two of them on the talk-page, Talk:Jennifer Guidi; but if it is not, Wikipedia will not publish it and attempts to re-add it are in vain. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I work for Jennifer and she is asking that this be added because her age is currently incorrect on Wikipedia. How do other artists source this? Thank you for any guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.165.46 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand you – the year of birth now shown in the article is exactly the same that you have twice added, 1972; it is sourced to VIAF, which gets it from the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, not an institution famous for its mistakes (it gives the year only; the day and month you have tried to add are unsourced to my knowledge). Is it wrong? – if so I will remove it. But if so, why did you not try to correct it, and why is it also given here, a page which is presumably under her control? Are you sure that she is looking directly at Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Guidi), and not at some other site which transcludes our content? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The year is correct, but her age is wrong because she was born in June of 1972. It is saying she is 47, which she is not for another 5 months. I don't understand why the month and date cannot be added so her age is accurately reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.165.46 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Because there is no independent reliable source for it, as explained above. Her age is not mentioned in our article; where do you see it? Please copy the url from the address bar of the page where you see it and paste it here – oh, unless it is something like https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22jennifer+guidi%22, in which case don't bother, I already know what the problem is: Google. We can't control what Google publishes in our name; neither Guidi's age nor place of birth are in our article, so if Google is showing them then it's getting them from somewhere else even it says Wikipedia, and Google is who she'd need to contact to get them to stop. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Nicky Spence

Nothing to do with the "Milanese Pest", but repeated attempts to add PR promo, much of it copyvio, and a lengthy list of every bit part he's ever sung in opera, starting in college. Needless to say the editor doing this is named... er... NickySpence. He's been reverted by three different editors (including me), but he's very persistent [2], [3], [4], [5]. Talk: Nicky Spence has more background as does User talk:NickySpence. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

ipfs.io

Thanks for the hint on that - I confess I hadn't looked properly at the page. I googled a couple of phrases, that site came up, then I used Earwig's tool to compare them; if I'd actually read the page properly and scrolled to the bottom, I'd have seen that it was a mirror site. One to remember for next time. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hazrat Data Mehboob Shah Wali

Dear, Sir

I will request you to review Draft:Hazrat Data Mehboob Shah Wali and accept for article creation.I hope you will do it. Rural3857 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of tools to delete a page

[6] bad call. School closed over 100 years ago so WP:NCORP does not apply as there is not a chance of any promotional benefit. You just deleted a good title using your admin tools after no one asked you to do that instead of doing a merge (if that was even needed). That is an abuse of tools that should not be allowed. Don't like it use AfD. Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Which admin tool was that, Legacypac? I used the ordinary page mover right to suppress a redirect from a blatant and implausible spelling mistake (Prepatory? – what exactly were you thinking?). I used ordinary editor discretion to redirect it to its parent. What makes you think WP:NCORP does not apply to companies and organisations from 100 years ago? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, ping fail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

kindly guide me about page

Hi,

it seems that you have declined my content here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domenico_Vacca

kindly guide what should i do to improve and how to make it live

Waiting for your kind response

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamskinner608 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Adamskinner608, both the page and draft have been deleted as unambiguous advertising. Given the history, my advice would be to leave things that way, and write about someone or something else instead. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aggie83#Wikipedia_and_copyright

You indicated that I posted information that is not public domain information. In fact, I posted information that I personally wrote. I referenced this to www.kikogoats.com as that is the official webpage of the American Kiko Goat Association, of which I am the current Treasurer. Do I need to submit incorporation documents to wikipedia to prove that our organization was founded in 1994? I want to correct the erroneous information on wikipedia, but I am stumped. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggie83 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Aggie83, we've no way of knowing who you are or what you wrote. We just don't allow editors to place previously-published copyright material in Wikipedia. There are instructions here for donating copyright text for use here, but in practice such text is hardly ever used. The website can be used as a source for facts, but not for the form of words used to convey the information – that must be new text, purpose-written for Wikipedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Navy Department (Ministry of Defence)

Hi. Taking you at your word, so I don't bother Diannaa so much. Looking at this copyvio report, it shows a large tract of text directly cut and paste from this government website. But that site is under an "open government license", so it's not a copyvio, but does it constitute Wikipedia:Plagiarism? The passages are cited, but is that enough to cover attribution? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Onel5969, nice question! I have to admit I'm pretty hazy about the OGL in general. Anyway, I think that here the existing attribution (in reference #7) is quite sufficient, and we don't need to worry about plagiarism. That said, it's a bit hidden away, and I don't think anyone could reasonably object to an extra {{OGL-attribution}} at the end of the reference section (any more than they could reasonably object if someone were to edit that text to read little more like an encyclopaedia and a little less like a government handout). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, thanks for looking into it. Normally I simply know it's a copyvio or not. Plagiarism, on the other hand, I've never really come across before. Take it easy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Michele Catti

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I was notified that you undid the revision of the page on Michele Catti. Your comment makes sense. Unfortunately, it is difficult to substantiate the statements by linking to paid online art pricing databases that provide more elaborate support. In your opinion, could a revised version of my text be included, if latter part on prices is left out? I am a descendant of Michele Catti through his firstborn son Ugo -my grandfather- and the booming business in forgeries at online auctions such as Catawiki is detrimental to my great-grandfather's legacy. It would be good if more prospective buyers are aware of these issues, which is why I wished to add these comments in the first place. Thank you.

Best, Marina-Vera Catti — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMO SICILIA (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Marina-Vera! There's no reason why there shouldn't be a mention of forgeries in the Michele Catti article, provided that the material is fully supported by independent reliable sources that have discussed them. These might be major Italian or foreign newspapers, or reputable magazines, learned journals and the like. If the problem has not been reported by such sources, it won't be included in Wikipedia. I understand that this may be frustrating for you, but this is not the place to warn people of fraud in the art market. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Guidance kindly requested

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

Could you please have a preliminary look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:W._Patrick_Murphy? It has been rejected a few times without clear explanation, we feel that the suggestions do not match the bio nature of the page, therefore we are uncertain about the exact expectations.

Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenobook26 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, Stenobook26, I had a look. It's definitely better than it was – it had no citations, and now it has some. As I see it, the next steps are:

• disclose your conflict of interest, which as far as I can see neither you nor Redmercw has yet done. Disclosure is expected in any case, and is obligatory if you have any kind of paid connection to Murphy
• explain what you mean by "we" in your post above; Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for individual use, so if there's more than one of you then you'll need more than one account
• remove from the draft whatever content isn't supported by independent reliable sources (which as far as I can see is most of it)
• try to identify more and better sources that discuss him (rather than just tangentially mentioning him while discussing something else); the official dressing-down he got in Thailand may have attracted press interest, for example.

Ping Praxidicae, since you posted the same request on his/her talk-page too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Italian wine

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, yesterday, february 20, I've modified the "Italian wine" page adding a link to a website that lists all the Italian wine denominations, with informations extracted directly from the Italian Ministry of Agriculture website, which is already provided, but translated in English for non-Italian speakers. I've read the conditions for such links, and can't understand why it has been deleted and tagged as spam. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWineNerd (talk • contribs) 10:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, TheWineNerd, perhaps I was wrong. It seems to me that this is just somebody's website (registered to Contact Privacy Inc.), and not a very good one at that. I tried clicking on Sangiovese, and the first name that came up was Amarone della Valpolicella; that's not an expected result (which would have been a list of Sangiovese wines). Anyway, your best way forward is (1) to disclose any connection you may have to that website and (2) start a talk-page discussion – I suggest at Talk:Italian wine – to see if other editors think this is a valuable resource which we should link to. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Bigelow

Your recent block of User:CharlesBigelow reminded me of a similarly-named editor (InternetBigelow) who posted at the Teahouse recently, and who had also edited font-related articles, and whose account was created just an hour before the one you blocked. I replied to them here. I will keep a watch on their edits - they may be unrelated, of course.

BTW: do you happen to know how to search Special:ListUsers for any usernames containing a string of characters, not just starting with them? It must be possible, but I really can't see how to do it. It would be so helpful in finding and investigating potentially related accounts. The nearest I can get is this search of User pages and User Talk pages, but both are dependant upon one or other of those pages having actually been created, and that doesn't always happen with disruptive accounts. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Nick Moyes, that could be a different editor – surely worth keeping an eye on. I'm about the world's worst searcher, though I'd have got to the same point as you with that one; perhaps some page watcher can answer? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Lakshmi Bai Kelkar ‎

Since you have deleted the article for copyvio, I would like to know if my new changes to this version violates copyrights anymore. See this. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does – the phrases highlighted in red are those that the tool picks up, but the whole thing is WP:Close following of the source. Why have you posted it on Wikiquote? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Cause by posting on wikipedia I was risking block. I will work on red phrases. Thanks for reviewing. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely does not belong at Wikiquote. It was user-blanked and then deleted. Misusing Wikiquote this way is definitely risking a block. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ningauble! If I may, I'm going to make a note of your name for next time I feel I should contact a Wikiquote admin. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art

Hi, as you refined the article name of Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art some time ago, I'm wondering if you might be interested in contributing to this discussion on a further change: [7]. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sharmeena Begum

Hi there. Further to the AfD and the copyvio, I wanted to let you know that I have started a draft that can potentially replace the problematic article, should AfD swing to keep based on notability. See Draft:Sharmeena Begum. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool, Jake Brockman. I've moved it to Talk:Sharmeena Begum/Temp, the standard copyvio rewrite page – it might otherwise have been overlooked. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft Riccardo Crespi Gallery

Dear Justlettersandnumbers. Thank you for your comment. I am surprised to read that my Draft is on “Speedy Deletion”. I don’t intend to steal anybody’s copyright and I am not doing it. The gallery has its objective relevance to be on Wikipedia and the gallery is happy to share any content with me for the Wikipedia Community. If you personally need a letter of agreement of the gallery regarding these sentences, I’m happy to provide. Let me know how I can keep the draft and maybe one day be allowed to publish it as an article. I’m a new and most of all enthusiastic member of Wikipedia, looking forward to keeping that spirit! AnniRes

AnniRes (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

AnniRes, as you can see here, the draft has been deleted because it was copied more or less word-for-word from this page, archived in November 2015. It is possible to release material for use in Wikipedia (see WP:DCM for how the owners of that website could do that), but promotional content of that sort is never going to be included in an encyclopaedia, so it would probably be a wasted effort. It seems that your only activity here to date has been to try to promote the Galleria Riccardo Crespi. If your connection to the gallery involves financial reward of any kind you are obliged to make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure on your user page, User:AnniRes; you should do that before you make any other edit. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

QuisLex - Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard

Please see my reply to your comments on WP:COIN under QuisLex. Thank you very much. Dylanexpert (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Two additional copyvios

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. Thank you for removing the copyvios at Alexandria Cortez. I have since found two similar copyvios that were added just before the copyvios you revdeled at that article. They are from the same Fox news source as the revdeled ones. This is the first and this is the second. Perhaps, these should to be deleted as well. Thank you again. Dr. K. 02:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done those, Dr.K., thanks for noticing them. Have you looked at the other additions to that article by the same editor? If not, I will. Let's hope this was just a temporary aberration. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You are very welcome Justlettersandnumbers and thank you for removing these as well. I checked a few pages of the history of the Cortez article before these copyvios and didn't find any more, but I will check more systematically and I will let you know. Best regards. Dr. K. 21:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

We have more. It seems many of the large-scale edits to articles by this user are copyvios. Copyvio from Kansascity.com (link), copyvio from Washington examiner.com (link), copyvio from politifact.com (link), the usual copyvio about Greenpeace but pasted to a different article. Dr. K. 22:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking further, Dr.K., and for documenting so nicely what you have found. I've revdeleted the last of those. Unless I'm missing something, the other three show similarity in using some identical short phrases, but not extended passages of copied content; I think they fall short of the level of infringement that we need (or can afford) to be concerned about. However, I'll try to dig around a little myself too ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you for your help in this, Justlettersandnumbers. For the short copyvios I did not search extensively, and I did not use Earwig's detector due to time limitations. In any case, at least now we have a frame of reference. It was nice meeting you. All the best. Dr. K. 19:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ilaria Cucchi

Thia article was kept at AfD, closed by Ritchie333, and I believe it did not qualify for G5 which specifies "... and that have no substantial edits by others". I'm pretty sure I remember editing it substantially myself, including linking to her brother's death on Italian wiki. Please reinstate this article. Thanks. PamD 08:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I've restored it. A CSD cannot override community consensus, and this is an invalid G5 because the most edits were made by BritishFinance and a significant amount of content was contributed to the article by MarnetteD. Deletion will require a new AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, PamD, Ritchie333, my mistake – thanks for fixing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Duan Yingmei

Thank you for your constructive criticism. You seemed to have deleted most of the information on Duan Yingmei page and then sent it into drafts. Would you be able to send me what was deleted from the page so I can further work on it and see what areas were not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyBarbarella (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

LadyBarbarella, as you can see from my edit summary, what I removed was a machine translation of this page – a few words were different from what Google suggested, but no more. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Farewell Angelina (Band)

Hi, I had an infringement issue when I tried to submit an article about the band Farewell Angelina. I had cited the source I got my information from but it was not correct, could you explain to me how I can solve this problem? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachFarnum (talk • contribs) 21:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, ZachFarnum! That page was deleted because it was copied wholesale from non-free sources on the internet – what we call copyright violation. I've now also deleted two other versions of the same material, this and this, for the same reason (I should have done this earlier, my mistake). You appear to have a financial connection to this topic, but have not made any appropriate disclosure. That should be your first step, before you make any further edit elsewhere; after that, you may contribute in draft space, ensuring that everything you write is entirely in your own words. Please understand clearly that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Dexithea (mythology)

Hi. Can you take a look at this page, technically it's not a copyvio, but almost the entire article consists of quotes. Any issues with it? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Onel5969! The only potential copyright issue I see is that the English translations of the quotes are unsourced, and might still be in copyright, though the language seems very old-fashioned. The other problem, of course, is notability – if there aren't any modern sources, why do we have the article? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's what I figured. Regarding notability, we don't have a specific criteria regarding mythological figures, many of them are obscure, and many don't have a lot of new research done on them. My thought is that I apply the rule that if they are mentioned in 2-3 sources, it passes WP:GNG, as notability isn't temporary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

New independent sources in the page Draft:WebRatio

Hello, following your ccomment, I added new independent sources: - reference 4: A research done from people external from the company - reference 6: A research done from people external from the company - reference 7: A research done from people external from the company - reference 11: A news on one of the most important italian newspaper - done from people external from the company

Are they ok as independent resources?

Thanks