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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolorivius (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

User blocked for being a spam-only account. MER-C 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey sorry

I am sorry that I copied and pasted text from the Minecraft Wiki and put it on the draft one on Wikipedia. However I am still learning the rules so ya. MoMoCool2005 | Talk•••Contributions 19:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh wait sorry wrong page :P MoMoCool2005 | Talk•••Contributions 19:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Smithson's at it again

FYI Special:Contributions/151.36.115.15. I just reverted him at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson. He tried the same trick at it:Progetto:Patrolling/Controlli/Alec Smithson. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Already blocked. I thought about protecting the page, but I think it's more useful not to – am I wrong? Many, many thanks for all the time you've spent on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you're right to leave it unprotected. 'nuf said :). Voceditenore (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I think I read that you are now away for a while. I forgot to mention to you this conversation and the conclusion it led to. I've not yet done anything about it, but wondered if we might perhaps work together on drafting a proposal when you're back or have some time? Meanwhile, have fun! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi JLAN! I imagine you read my vacation plans here (before he blanked the page after I told him I was finished trying to help him avoid the problems he's causing himself and everyone else and was having nothing more to do with his "translation projects". Grrrr. Anyhow, I think drafting something when I get back would be a good idea. I think we'd have a decent chance given the copyvio and hoaxing. I'll have a certain amount of internet access while I'm in California, so will check in on WP once in a while when I'm not tramping on beaches and through forests with the grandchildren. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was where it was, what a maddening situation that is too, the very opposite of collaborative editing! As for the other thing, to some extent I feel that if Commons doesn't have a G5 criterion it's not our problem; on the other hand, taking the extra step might perhaps help smaller and more vulnerable wikipedias as well, who knows? I don't think a few weeks are going to change anything much, so enjoy the holiday! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Re the "maddening situation", he attributes my "failings" and those of everyone who has tried to steer him in the right direction and/or anyone who draftifies his creations to a "generational thing", i.e. we're young and don't know any better. Little does he know that I am several years older than he is. He tried that line (and worse) at the French WP. Result... er... bannissement . I suspect the same thing is going to happen here eventually. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I thank you for your kindness and diligent guidance. Usedtobecool (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Hesse

Some admirer wrote a list of roles and recordings with details, which I'm to tired to source bit by bit. Please say what needs a ref, and why you think copyedit is needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, the text of the article needs to be supplied with citations which support the content; stuff like "thanks to her large voice with dark timbre and the capability to dramatic expression" needs to be put into English, stuff about "the imperial couple" does not appear to relate to Le Nozze di Figaro etc. I'm not sure why you would want to remove the maintenance tags without first addressing the problems they highlight? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought the concerns meant the uncited sections, but will look after what you mention. "Imperial couple" doesn't refer to Figaro, "Nurse" is in "Die Frau ohne Schatten", and the roles are in German Kaiser and Kaiserin, Färber and Färberin. What is "etc". It would be helpful if you put "citation needed" behind a fact, not on top where I musinderstood it. Her voice was described in the source as "dunkel timbrierte, groß dimensionierte, zu großer Dramatik des Ausdrucks befähigte Stimme", - I am sorry that I couldn't put it to better English than you quote above. A translator says "dark timbral, large dimensioned voice, capable of great drama of expression". What do you suggest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

ps: Sorry, I just don't like maintenance tags (can't help thinking: what will our readers think?), and prefer discussions on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

past midnight, can't keep my eyes open any longer, - will check tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Colloquial Welsh nouns

Hi. Could you take a look at this one? It gets an incredibly high rating on earwig, 89%, but when you look at the report, I think there's overlap, but I don't think it rises to a true copyright violation.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Onel5969! So, I took a look at this, and I think that it should go to WP:CP; the overlap is high but sporadic – mostly fairly short phrases – but it seems to be associated with a good deal of WP:close following. The page seems to me fundamentally unencyclopaedic in any case, but let's ignore that for now. Will you deal with the listing, or would you prefer me to? (it'd be later, I'm already halfway out of the door). And BTW the []Colloquial Welsh prepositions|prepositions]] are no better than the nouns. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. And I'll look at the Pronouns as well...Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Lady Rose Gilman

Why did you delete this article, edit history and all without discussion? That's very nice... one cannot even have access to the content. I'd like to know. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Anotherwikipedianuser! I deleted it because it was nominated for deletion as G4, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion; that discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Rose Gilman. I believe you must already have access to the content, as you were able to reproduce it very closely when you re-created the article two years later. For example, where the deleted version had

Lady Rose was born at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, London, and at birth was 12th in line of succession to the British Throne. She was baptised on 13 July 1980 at Barnwell Church, Northamptonshire.

the re-created version had

Lady Rose was born at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, London, and at birth was 12th in line of succession to the British Throne. She was baptised on 13 July 1980 at Barnwell Church, Northamptonshire.

You are of course welcome to ask for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review (which, following an edit-conflict, I see you have already done). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't have access to the content as you have deleted everything. When I recreated the page, it was a redirect, so I could use the previous content. I'm not an admin, so now I would have to start from scratch. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

On second thoughts, maybe the article was deleted, but I was able to retrieve the contents somewhere else on those Wikipedia mirror pages or something... which I can't do now. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lady Rose Gilman

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lady Rose Gilman. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Page deletion

WOW! That was a superfast deletion - just a couple of hours - no chance for me to go back and correct the offending issue! I still do not even know what the actual issue was with the Catriona Fraser article - nor can I learn by visiting the original article and comparing it to the sources???? Question: Is there is a difference between a "sentence" being copied from a site - which I did not do and which is clearly a copyright issue, and a "list" --- the only thing in that entire and now deleted article that was a direct copy was a list of awards... a list of awards! not a sentence! So please help me: if that's a copyright violation - then the only way to prevent it is by re-arranging the awards? When I re-do the article from scratch - since it was deleted and I can't fix it - should I then just re-arrange the list of awards? I do regret that it violated copyright - please understand that it is my first article and that I never suspected that a list of anything is a copyright violation. In any event - thank you for your forthcoming advice.--BoriquaZurdo (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, BoriquaZurdo! So, I've checked, and not quite every word was copied from here, though I think that both the G12 nomination and my acting on it were justified (but then I would, wouldn't I?). I've restored the page, removed the most obvious copyvio/close paraphrasing, and blanked it for listing at WP:CP. You are welcome to work on a rewrite, or wait for someone to process it – your choice! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Sir or Madam! - Will learn from this and promise you a much cleaner approach from now on! --BoriquaZurdo (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #24614

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #24614 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Hawk Studios Gaming (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Apr 05, 2019 20:59:25

Message: Hi, I should welcome your reaction to the coment I have placed on this appeal, please. Thanks.

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Just Chilling, thanks for responding there. I'm unfamiliar with that interface, so please forgive any mistakes I may have made in trying to use it. To summarise: I'm not in favour of unblocking unless the reservations I've expressed there are addressed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your very clear response at UTRS. Just Chilling (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Time to Debate

Hello Sir

On my film I've few references & i think thats enough to say this is notable now if its not why this article is live? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buz-e-Chini

Search the reference in google news & GBooks & you won't find nothing but the article is live, on my article it has references but the guy who put deletion page is from "india" as this film is anti indian & showing how Pakistan Military gave response to india therefore he put deletion tag, it's a violation of wikipedia because once it was approved & after two months someone put deletion tag.

I request you to kindly investigate & give your decision.

Thanks MemonBhai (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, MemonBhai! I imagine you are talking about Operation 786? The person who nominated it for deletion may or may not be from India – neither you nor I have any way of knowing that; what is certain is that he/she is one of our most level-headed long-term administrators, with almost 50000 edits to the project. The deletion nomination is undoubtedly made in good faith, and because that editor actually believes that it "appears to be someone's home-made pet project, not a notable film" and should not have a page in our encyclopaedia. Now that you have acknowledged your connection to the film, you should place a proper paid-editor disclosure on your user page, User:MemonBhai, and also leave a note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation 786 disclosing your connection. If you want the page to be kept, you should present solid and reasonable arguments for keeping it, rather than flinging accusations around. You might find this page helpful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Let me clear I'm not paid for editing or creating as I'm writing for many celebrities & films such as operation 786 , noor zafar khan, Sumbal khan etc. Second thing the surname is indian who edited my article & put deletion page. Third on article buz e chini why u didn't put deletion tag? You just put the tag articles need verification if person didn't fulfill your demand what would be the result ? Will u guys delete buz e chini? I can point you 6 articles from same category & same country the articles have no references but it went live. I hope wikipedia administrator will give decision to all articles.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemonBhai (talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

MemonBhai, you are quite new here. However, I'd advise you to avoid making baseless statements which might sometimes appear to be accusatory in tone. Operation 786 was nominated for deletion by Huon. "Huon" is a username, not a surname; if you look at User:Huon, you will learn that the name is taken from that of a character in this tetralogy by Michael Moorcock. As for Buz-e-Chini, I did what I thought appropriate, others may think differently; you might also read Wikipedia:OTHERSHITEXISTS. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine but I'm not talking about Huon, I'm talking about someone else who requested admin to put deletion tag & that guy is indian :)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemonBhai (talk • contribs) 12:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A few comments. Firstly, I'm not Indian, and if "Huon" is an Indian surname name, then we don't seem to have articles on anybody with that name: Huon lists three people, inluding two fictional ones, and all are European.

Secondly, nobody "requested" me to put a deletion tag on the article, and while on the internet I can't tell the nationality of people, I strongly suspect that the person who brought this article to my attention is Pakistani. They were trying to write an article on some non-notable person from Karachi and argued, "If Wikipedia has an article on Operation 786, then why not on my person?" Whenever I'm given such an argument I take a look at the article that's pointed out, either to explain why that article belongs on Wikipedia or to nominate it for deletion, whichever is appropriate. Since you now argued "Why Buz-e-Chini and not this one?", I took a look at the Buz-e-Chini article, too, and I would almost agree that that film indeed also shouldn't have a Wikipedia article - but Deutsche Welle reported on that film. That's a reliable third-party source, international media coverage. If the film has that level of coverage, likely additional sources in Urdu, Pashto, Dari or Hazaragi exist, too - I would be ill-equipped to find them, though. Thirdly, even if I and/or that other person were Indian, that wouldn't invalidate the reasons I gave in the deletion discussion. Huon (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Helena Artillery

Please review my rewrite of Talk:Helena Artillery/Temp and see if it is now free of copy write issues. Thanks! Aleutian06 14:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there someone else I should submit this to? Aleutian06 21:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Bohumil Herlischka

Can you please check if draft:Bohumil Herlischka now meets your requirements? I'll work on it more but in draft, I can't even use DYK check ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, they're not my requirements, they're the requirements of the community. You've brought the page to a point where it doesn't just meet, but abundantly exceeds, those requirements. I'm pleased to see that it is already in mainspace. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and please excuse my sloppy wording, - I should have put "your" at least in quotation marks. - For some reason, I sometimes feel as part of the community, and when I see that an article is a translation, I am "surer" about notabiiy and references somewhere - even if not inline - than without. I found all references I added via Google, and every patroller could see that they are there. - I am not familiar with draft space: is it right that it may be deleted - but with a warning - after some time? ... and when then work is done, that time begins again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A draft is subject to speedy deletion as G13 after six months of inactivity, Gerda Arendt; however, it's a soft sort of deletion and the page can be restored on request. DYK check may not work, but the pagesize script does. I noticed that you didn't link happy ending in that page; our article is fairly direly awful, but lieto fine is a broad and interesting topic for an opera expert – the contrast between the Baroque Orfeo of Monteverdi and the Enlightened Orfeo of Gluck being an obvious example. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to add such a useful link next time. - I do hope that there won't be a next time for draft. Could you please just add an article that needs attention here? Spares readers who come from the :de: or :fr: an irritating "was deleted" message (go to de:Joseph Kupelwieser and see what happens when you click left on English, and the same happens for all links to him, and no sign of German and Esperanto). I hate articles loaded with tags on top, but hate that "deleted" even more ;) - Lieto fine? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Christian Elsner

Draft:Christian Elsner, can you please check. Yes, some bits are unsourced, the lead is too short, and recording are missing, but a believe that it's better to have that article now than not. Need to leave for real life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I found someone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Cautious Clay

Hi there, I am looking to lend a hand in getting this page published (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cautious_Clay), but I am unsure about a few of the reasons why it got denied (likely because this is my first time doing this). My main confusion is with the section that mentions that some of the citations seem like they were "edited in return for undisclosed payments." Coul dyou point out which those were so that I can find replacements and get this approved?

I appreciate your help! Cpcalabrese120 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpcalabrese120 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

First time doing what, Cpcalabrese120? The only thing you've done so far in Wikipedia is to post here. Did you have a different username before? Why are you interested in "getting it approved"? If you'd like some advice on suitable activities for brand-new editors, I'd be happy to try to give some (it wouldn't include trying to "get approval" for any drafts). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Tourniquet blanking

Two months ago, you blanked tourniquet in this diff. There's been no attempt at resolving this problem that I can see. I'm particularly concerned as the article seems to have tens of thousands of pageviews per month, and it's been listed at CP for two months with no progress. Can I simply rewrite the passages marked as duplicated by Earwig's Copyvio Detector to solve this problem? Even just removing them outright and reinstating the article would be a big improvement for the many readers who want to see this page. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 08:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That would be excellent, Bilorv. A rewrite is what is needed, as there is no clean version to revert to. The copyvio, and any content deriving from it, needs to be completely removed to avoid the risk of creating a derivative work. I'll try to comment further on the talk-page there once I've looked a little more closely at the history (at least two other pages, Surgical tourniquet and Emergency tourniquet, may also be involved or affected). It'd be great if you'd take this on, thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten bits and blanked others. Earwig's tool is still showing a lot of matches with tourniquet.org but I'm wondering if these are backwards copies. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Great! I'll try to look soon, Bilorv. We don't really need to consider the possibility of backwards copying here, as this archived page predates all but a few early stub revisions of the page, and both tourniquets.org and delfimedical.com are cited in the second revision of the page. As I'm sure you have by now understood, this was a promotional exercise in deceptive advertising by associates (at least two) of James McEwen, so we can be quite ruthless with their text. Thank you for taking this on! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, Bilorv, I looked. It was much worse than I had previously thought; with hindsight, the best approach would have been to remove everything and then add back only material that was demonstrably not copied from the publicity materials of Delfi Medical. I had completely missed the more recent massive copyvio edit by another COI editor, which only showed up after the earlier problems hd been removed. The article is pretty much a wreck, I don't know if you have any inclination to do something about that? If not I'll probably leave a note at the medicine Wikiproject. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, oh dear. I don't think I'm going to be able to do anything about it in that case. I hope you can find a solution. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 21:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Elena Matei

The page wasnt edited at all by me. From the notes the page has been in Pending for over 6 months which shouldnt happen. The page should have either been published or deleted. They had qustions about notability in October. From what I can tell the page was cut down to about 3 sentences since then, the links were ammended (sort of, not a great job), and there was at least some discussion on the talk page. If someone feels the person hasnt achieve WP:Notability they should nominate it for speedy deletetion or allow the article to be published as a starter article. According to the references provided she has been on at least 3 major magazine covers in the 2 months which, with research I am not willing, to do means she probably has done enough to meet basic WP:Notability for a starter entry. I am not really invested so. Trutth563 (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Also on the talk page it says she probably meets the WP:Notability because she is one of the only celebrities out of Moldova. Trutth563 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No, that has no bearing on anything. Draft:Elena Matei appears to have undergone a good deal of UPE and/or sockpuppet editing. If you think it should be in mainspace you can submit it for review by a trusted AfC reviewer (press the blue bar that says "Submit ..."), who will then evaluate it and make a decision. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the draft could possibly be deleted completely and rewritten. Might be the cleanest option, thought I am not going to step in some else's pond or vendetta. That being said, I think the subject while possibly not notable enough when the article was submitted has likely achieved enough notability to at least be included due to her being one of the only famous people from Moldova. To me it looks like the promotional content was removed and the article was being developed as a starter article of stubb. The entire article is only 3 sentences long. What do you think? Looks like you have created 100's of pages, would the combination of her nationality, her recognized work in fashion and the VS stuff to qualify for an article? Is there a reason you haven't rewritten the page and published it? Seems like 3 sentences wouldnt be that hard. Trutth563 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Two reasons, Trutth563: I have absolutely no interest in the topic; and I don't – as a matter of principle – help sockpuppets and undisclosed paid editors get their material into Wikipedia. I repeat: If you think it should be in mainspace you can submit it for review by a trusted AfC reviewer (press the blue bar that says "Submit ..."), who will then evaluate it and make a decision. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Newbie wiped comments

I’m sure this is okay per WP:OWNTALK but merits vigilance going forward nevertheless. I think that removal was more aimed at my comment, and yours is probably just collateral damage.Thanks for your efforts there. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw. And no, in a way I'm part of the problem, Mathglot – but then you've already seen the discussion at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English#Art Nouveau in Italy. I objected quite strongly to this mass of Google-translated garbage, probably too strongly; I don't think that made the user very receptive to subsequent advice. I've created redirects for Stile Liberty and Jugendstil in Germany, will try to clean up the Chini article, and write this down to experience. My opinion: we should either deprecate the expand-language templates completely, or rewrite them so that it's completely, blindingly clear that it's only worth translating if (a) the content is properly sourced and (b) the translator is fully capable. Translation is a difficult skill – that must be why it's so very badly paid! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Have a look

Hello! I noticed your notability tag on Nate Lewis and followed the breadcrumbs. Please have a look at my "Bad sources" note and list on User talk:Artdoofus. I might drop you an email with some other info, no need to reply to it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, I still have that contribution page open, but have been distracted by other stuff. Email is fine, but please – in the interest of openness – post here unless it's something you can't or shouldn't or don't want to make public. Nate looks to me like an AfD candidate, but I think I've used up my quota for today. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Roger that, I think Nate would pass AFD as there are some minor Washington Post reviews.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I just realized now that you are an admin, wow. You're so mellow on wiki :) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Userspace copyvio

I know you've cleaned up after this person before, but they apparently left behind some copyvio in their userspace at User:MasiyaPeter/sandbox. I'm probably too cautious about editing other people's userspace pages, but if you could take a look I'd be grateful. If not, no worries. Thanks. Bakazaka (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bakazaka, done that. My take on userspace: you're right to be cautious, but violations of the Terms of Use (copyvio, BLP violations, undisclosed paid editing and so on) should take precedence over that caution. You're certainly always welcome (if there's demonstrable reason) to blank any page and list it at WP:CP. Thanks for noticing this one, best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Many thanks for taking care of this one. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Joseph H. Vicari

Is it ok to revdel from here until your edits? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Aarggh! I thought I'd done that (and now have). Many thanks for the reminder, Amanda/DeltaQuad. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Murder, She Wrote episodes

We have copyright violations there again. I just removed[8] three episode summaries copied word for word from Imdb....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It is more than 3 episodes. I found multiple word for word copies from Amazon where seasons 1-5 are now available for streaming. Should we go back to no edit summaries at all again?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

WilliamJE, thanks for your vigilance! If I had my way we'd have no episode summaries at all in Wikipedia, they're just so much more trouble than they are worth. Do you see any remaining overlap with external sites now that I've removed the recent IP copyvio? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I entered a Season 1 summary into a google search when those edits first appeared and it came back it clean though I had to correct one episode for a factual mistake. So I suspect those are fine.

Surprisingly I didn't watch MSW (I watched Ellery Queen with Jim Hutton and David Wayne when it came out in 1975 when I was 14) when it was on the air but for a few episodes. Around 6 months ago I bought the whole series on DVD. Right now I am working on the latter part of season 5. Season 5 is kind of weak. The episode '"The Last Flight of the Dixie Damsel" should have won an award for sci-fi writing. A plane crashes 40 years before intact and after sitting around all those years without any upkeep is flown several thousand miles. Sure and I thought the sci-fi/magic transgender fiction that I make a living from was realistic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Quick copyvio-related favour

Hi. Could you pop over to Pensions in Germany and confirm my suspicions that this is in fact a reverse copyvio, not a G12? The first revision of the article in 2011 lights up Earwig's bot, which suggests Wikipedia had the text first and others copied, but I can't easily prove it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333! Is the "lighting up" done by this blog post dated 14 June 2011? Because that was surely copied from our page after the edit of 3 May 2011 in which "Pension provision in Germany is based ..." was changed to "Pensions in Germany are based ..." (which is also consistent with the publication date). But if it's one of the sources cited in the first version of the page we may have a problem; I checked the first (only) of those, and found no cause for concern. I've revdeleted the recent copyvio. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Possessives for church buildings

Hi JLAN, thanks for you work in cleaning up Wikipedia. However, it's common practice to refer to churches, abbeys, etc, as "St. Foo's Church" or "St. Fee's Abbey". Famous examples are St. Peter's Basilica in Rome or St. Paul's Cathedral in London. So would you mind reverting your move of St. Märgen's Abbey to Abbey of St. Märgen. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bermicourt! You are surely right about the second of those two examples, and possibly about the first too. It's my impression that we do not do that when the name of saint/person is in a foreign language (Basilica of San Vitale, not San Vitale's Basilica, Abbey of the Santissima Trinità (Venosa) not Santissima Trinità's Abbey (Venosa) etc) or simply unfamiliar (Mausoleum of Theodoric not Theodoric's Mausoleum), but I'm open to correction. It's also common practice to use the "Abbey of Foo" form (Abbey of Santa María la Real de Las Huelgas, Abbey of Saint-Remi etc). What I did here was (a) check that there were no book sources at all using the possessive 's form and (b) follow the example you had set in the first sentence when you created the page. I don't really care too much – I'm happy to self-revert and start an RM if you'd like. Time would probably be better spent on something like actually identifying Sankt Märgen, which neither we nor de.wp yet seems to have been able to do. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right, it's not a hard-and-fast rule, so when I'm translating these articles I usually do a google books and general google check to see what English literature uses or, failing that, English websites. In this case it was a 3 to 1 in favour of St. Märgen's Abbey. However, I do agree that it'd be worth finding out who St. Märgen was. Bermicourt (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Template:Z152

Copyvio help (Microloan Foundation)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

I don't run across copyvio especially often and when I do it's usually not too complex, but today I ran across Microloan Foundation which, to me, appears to be a complete mess of copying and complete NPOV junk. Earwig shows two major issues; the first is the entire lede, so I'm guessing this is someone copying from us (although I couldn't actually find the text on their website, so I can't be entirely sure, and half the website being in French doesn't help); the second is almost certainly copyvio throughout the article, added by Iwami45 and/or 81.136.164.220, neither of which have edited outside that article. I can't tell how extensive that is, but it looks to be fairly significant. I'd appreciate if you took a look at it. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, I'm sorry to have been so slow to answer here. I've spent a good deal of time looking at this, and found it surprisingly tricky. I think I've now dealt with it (ignoring the gca-foundation site which seems to have copied from us), but if you see any remaining problem do please let me know. Thank you for keeping your eye open for copyvio! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks much better now. I really appreciate you taking the time to sort all of that out. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Template:Z83

Jawanda

Hi, I notice that you deleted Jawanda earlier as a recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD. I had tagged it as such but now notice that the creator, Yuvi Jawanda (talk · contribs), has repeatedly created the thing, albeit it with a large gap. Further, at some point in the past they had copied info from the open wiki that is jatland.com and the latest recreation was similarly copied - see here.

Caste articles are something of a specialism of mine and I've never been able to reliably source this one. Is it reaching the point where the title should be salted or is the long gap between the most recent recreation and the prior one too great to justify it? - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Sitush! Thank you so much for keeping an eye on this stuff, which to me is completely obscure. That wiki seems to have copied content from our article in 2009, which perhaps explains why the recent creation was so similar to the version (first) deleted in 2015. It's also licenced GNU-only, so not compatible here; anything copied here from there is also copyvio (unless previously copied from us, I suppose). On salting, I'm in two minds: it's been repeatedly re-created; but isn't it kind of handy to know what title it'll be at if it pops up again? I'm inclined to suggest "wait and watch" for now – is that OK with you? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, fine by me. Thanks for the considered response. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sriharsha7969 and AP24x7

Hi Justlettersandnumbers! I hope you're having a great weekend and that life is treating you well. :-) I'm messaging you because I saw that you blocked Sriharsha7969 for sock puppetry, but the parent account you tagged on User:Sriharsha7969 (AP24x7) was only soft-blocked because of their username. Unless there's something I'm missing or not seeing, Sriharsha7969 shouldn't be blocked as a sock puppet because the block placed on the AP24x7 account came with a note that gave them instructions telling them to go create a new account. I also note that the parent account was blocked back in February 2018, but this account was created just two weeks ago (more than a year apart). This is unusual to me - are you sure that you linked the correct accounts together as 'sock' and 'master'? Can you take another look at this or let me know exactly what I missed or didn't see? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Oshwah! I was doubtful; and indeed, if it had just been those two accounts, the new one surely should not have been blocked. What persuaded me otherwise was reading this, in particular the username Sriharsha6556. That, coupled with the apparent WP:UPE/WP:COI, seemed to show long-term determination to misuse multiple accounts. If you think I misjudged, please do whatever you think best in the situation. I think I wish we didn't actually invite soft-blocked editors to start socking ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers! AHA! There were more accounts involved than just these two! That's what I was missing! ;-) Nope, I'm pretty sure that the evidence is clear and you did the right thing - this was exactly what I was looking for. The only thing I'd do is just update the soft block on the AP24x7 so that it reflects the blocks set on the others. Other than that, I see no crime and hear no crime (on your part). ;-)

Well... we allow the user to simply create a new account when they're soft blocked for their username is for a number of reasons. We try to provide options that'll accomplish the same thing but where one may be easier for the user than the other. Otherwise, instead of giving them the option to just make a new account - we force them to request an unblock, wait for an admin to review the request, wait for a global renamer to change the username for the account, and then wait again for an admin to unblock it... The primary reason I applied and became a global renamer was because of how many times I saw users sitting and waiting for their unblock requests and suggested new usernames to be processed, and how many of them probably gave up and left because of the red tape and the process involved... when they could've just created a new account. Yes, many times they result in more abusive usernames and the like, but in my experience... I think there's enough legitimate use that justifies its existence and any attempts for users to create more accounts in this situation so they can cause more damage is handled pretty quickly. :-)

Thanks again for the response and the explanation. I appreciate it a lot, and I wish you a great weekend and happy editing. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Really?

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, with regards to DJ Flevah all the references were already cited in the body per WP:LEAD. If you access the references almost half of them state "born Tendai Tembo". Please access references properly. Thank you Ceethekreator (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

All you need to do is put a WP:RS citation against any personal information that is not cited anywhere else in the page – such this person's real name. You can't expect other people to plough through all the refs to see if any of them support that info, the WP:BURDEN is on you to cite it properly. I checked one source, The Herald, and there's nothing there but a bare mention of his stage-name, Fleva. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright understood, I have cited the source that mentions his real name on the info box to avoid "other people to plough through all the refs...". Thanks :) Ceethekreator (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

New message from KCVelaga

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. You have new messages at Talk:Thukral & Tagra.
Message added 05:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

KCVelaga (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

List of sovereign states by financial assets

Hi,

You recently deleted that article as G6, however, could you have a look at List of sovereign states by external assets if possible? The article still has a redirect link and I'm unsure whether or not to restore an earlier revision which would have been [9] before the said redirect got put in place. Note: I was going to place a G8 but not sure whether or not to place it on the article. Any help would be appreciated. ImpWarfare (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ImpWarfare, I didn't think to look at that page – I'd assumed that Christian75 would go ahead and move it to the new title once the redirect was out of the way, but maybe that wasn't the intention? Anyway, I've restored the content and it can now be moved if there's agreement that it should be. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@ImpWarfare: It was moved today. I first saw it was deleted when I got the ping. I have moved the article to List of sovereign states by financial assets. The red links are gone :-) - Christian75 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

CSD G12 question

Howdy, question about how you handle CSDs. A couple times, I've seen you add G12 with justification when deleting a page I marked G11. Does it make a difference in how you handle the deletion if it's a G12? I've been assuming that a CSD is a CSD and not going out of my way to look for evidence of copyvio, but if it does change things, I'm happy to start checking for copyvio to make things easier for you and the other people doing the deletion. creffett (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Creffett! My take is this: G11 always involves a subjective assessment, and, while sometimes that's a complete no-brainer, it can at times be borderline or doubtful; I pass on a good proportion of the G11s I look at (including some of yours), not because the nomination is necessarily wrong, but because I'm not convinced that it's an "unambiguous" case. G12 is much more black-and-white – if there's copyvio it has to be removed; if it affects most or all of the page there's just no question, it's a delete. Personally, I find that easier to assess; I've no idea what other more experienced admins might think. I used to find that a combined G11/G12 nomination – if appropriate – was really quite unlikely to be declined. Oh, and thanks for your good work, by the way! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies things nicely, I'll start keeping an eye out for copyvio just to make things easier. Happy to help, and thank you for all of your cleanup work as well! creffett (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Page Edits - The Optical Society

Hi, I see you made some edits to The Optical Society (OSA) back in April. Thanks for taking the time out its appreciated! I just wanted to point out a problem with one of your changes.

You flagged the OSA as a professional association and removed the scientific society tag, which is incorrect. OSA is actually a scientific society (learned society), not a professional association, these are two different types of organizations with a very key difference. OSA is a society focused around the promotion of a specific field of science, optics and photonics, we do not however maintain control or oversight of the practices and legitimacy of skills and competencies of people in those fields or provide any sort of certification or accreditation in the field. It is possible for an organization to be both, but that is not always the case.

For example the American Society of Civil Engineers is both a learned society and a professional association. They work to promote their field and to provide certifications of skills in their programs such as their Civil Engineer Certification (CEC). Contrasted with the American Association for the Advancement of Science which is a learned society promoting science in general which does not provide any sort of certification or accreditation.

I know that for a period of time it was incorrect on our website. A past employee had made the change in error, with the same misunderstanding that there is a difference, but it was corrected once discovered. Could we possibly get that change reverted? Also please let me know if you need any additional data backing this. - Tinynull (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)