User talk:Justlettersandnumbers/old4

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

How can i speak with you?

I'm not ignore you i want to be agree Master Studio (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Master Studio, if you want to talk about the Barozzi family, the place to do it is Talk:Barozzi family. Otherwise, I will see anything you write at User talk:Master Studio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi, I'm working on the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe page and I'm not sure why the content is being reverted to an outdated version. Yesterday, I added relevant footnotes and references and it has been reverted again. Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. CIRad84 (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

CIRad84, may I suggest that you read about (a) conflict of interest, (b) promotional editing and (c) independent reliable sources, which were my reasons for reverting your edits. I've replied here, but the place to discuss that article is the talk-page, Talk:Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Fénix Awards

Hi, Justlettersandnumbers, I've just edited "Fénix Awards" in order to rescue the page, maintaining part of your original information. I make the commitment to keep it updated. Following the Wikipedia advice, I'm letting you know this change, hoping that you won't mind and help me to improve the content of this page. Thank you. --Lunaliu (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's "my" information, Lunaliu, it's just what was left after I removed a copyright violation there. Anyway, we don't move pages by copying the content to a new page, so for now I've redirected Fénix Awards to Draft:Fénix Awards, which has the previous history of the page. May I suggest that you work on it there and submit it for review when you think it is ready? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I wrote you because I thought, erroneously, that you were the creator of the page. My mistake. Anyway, neither do I copy the content of a page from another page. The information contained in Draft:Fénix Awards is all mine, as it's seen in the History of the page. It was I who put it in there and in Fénix Awards at the same time, because I thought that replacing the old draft was a previous requirement to make a new publication. In any case, the Draft:Fénix Awards is the one to repair, delete or reverse, not the other one. The work in Fénix Awards is new and original, not a copy-paste, (only from my sandbox, where it's still remaining), and has not a copyright violation. I'm not a relative with this stuff, only a fan who asked for some kind of help. It's for sure that the article may suffer from many issues but, as some user wrote: "it needs revision from a movie-spectacle expert". Sadly, again this article was "lost in translation", multiple mistakes, technicalities, and other obstacles that are placing it to a limbo, doing a small favor to casual readers, movie lovers, or general culture. The cry for help is still on the air for someone who has the faculties and the interest to serve and honor what should be the raison d'être of Wikipedia: accurate, reliable and verified information.--Lunaliu (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I saw you reverted my edit on Lombard Street (Baltimore). I placed the article in Category:Guardia Lombardi because, as it says in the article, the street is named after the town of Guardia Lombardi. I think this makes the article relevant to that category. Do you not agree? Ergo Sum 01:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, certainly I had missed that rather surprising statement, Ergo Sum, so I may have been wrong there (though I don't think so). The talk-page of that article would be the best place to discuss it, I think. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Royal Microscopical Society

You seem to have reverted one of my edits...

...en route to deleting a pile of crap posted by a troll.

I approve. Narky Blert (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

David Ostrowski

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. You requested a revdel for large parts of David Ostrowski a few weeks back per WP:COPYVIO. Lots of content has been readded to the article again, so I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a peek to see if it's the same as the previously removed stuff. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw, Marchjuly. I don't see any substantial copyright problem with the new content. Nor do I see anything good about it – it looks like the usual gallery puff-piece ("... addresses a sense of subversive Post-Minimalist apathy"? – could we have that in English, please?). Someone needs to go in there with a brush-hook. I might try to do something about it if no-one else does. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I was just curious as to whether somebody simply re-added content which has previously been removed as a copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Baby Bootlegger

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. You requested a revdel for some parts of Baby Bootlegger. I tried to find the correct template for the article but could not find one, so I used what I found. I'm not a wikipedia expert but know about the topic of this page quite a lot. I will rewrite the article this week to remove the copyright violations. Thanks and sorry for the hassle. -- hki007 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not quite, hki007 – what is needed there is a copyright investigation and clean-up; the revdeletion comes after that. Please don't make any edit to the page until that is complete. If you want to work on a re-write you can do so at this page (please follow that exact link to reach it). Please don't copy anything from the various sources you copied from before (or indeed any other published source), as doing that would make your re-write useless. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

George Crouch

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. Thanks for your fast response and sorry for the similar copyright issues on both of the articles Baby Bootlegger and George Crouch I have recently written. I want to fix these problematic issues so that the accurate information remains. However, I remain somewhat confused with the Wikipedia policies, what is accepted and what is not. I know about the articles' substance but I'm not that much an expert when it comes to the Wikipedia process or technical details. Where could I find some layman intro to the Wikipedia policies, starting from very simple questions like "are cross-references inside Wikipedia good or bad?". As an example, I had a link in the George Crouch article to the APBA Gold Cup Wikipedia article, and after the latest revisions I notice that this cross-link has been removed. Is it a bad thing to refer to other Wikipedia articles? Is there something I can do to get the copyright violation notification removed from the George Crouch article? Big thanks. -- hki007 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hki007, don't worry, those pages will get sorted out in time; the really important thing is to avoid adding any more copied content in the future. At George Crouch, the copyvio-revdel request will be removed by the administrator who hides the "bad" edits in the page history; it should be left there until that happens. You are free to edit the page, but not – of course! – to re-add any of the previous infringing content. Wikilinking is (within reason) always encouraged, and the only reason that "Gold Cup" isn't linked in that page is that I forgot to go back and see which Gold Cup it was – sorry! There's a lot of advice for newer editors at Wikipedia:Your first article, with plenty of links to various relevant topics. If you have specific questions, you can always ask at the Teahouse, which is there for that purpose, and particularly aimed at new editors.

A question: when you wrote Finnish transport vessel Wilhelm Carpelan, did you translate directly from some Finnish source or sources (such as fi.wp?), or was the text entirely your own? Because if this contains direct translation, it too may need to be sorted out and/or cleaned up (I'm afraid I can't read Finnish at all, so it's hard for me to judge). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. I'm a classic boat and historic ship aficionado. I wrote both the original Finnish wikipedia article https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/M/S_Wilhelm_Carpelan and the English article Finnish transport vessel Wilhelm Carpelan. The winter photo of the vessel in the Wikipedia articles is taken by me, I could see her for ten years from my office windows. I built the original Finnish article from information snippets from multiple sources, all in Finnish and Swedish, including printed military history magazines from the 1970s (http://www.rannikonpuolustaja.fi/archive/1979_2.pdf) and early 2000s, and the obituary of the person who rebuilt the ship after the Finnish Navy decommissioned her. There's some later edits and additions to the pages by other Wikipedia contributors and I have not checked where all that information is coming from. I pretty much translated the English wikipedia article from my original Finnish article. One Finnish wikipedia editor did remove sections from my original wikipedia text saying that the information is not "relevant" which to me sounded a bit odd, especially now that I look at the sections that have been added by others, and tell about similar technical details of the vessel. -- hki007 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal question

Please tell what one needs to do to get Wikipedia access to HighBeam and Newspapers.com? Thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Bbarmadillo, some questions are easy ... but this isn't one of them. It's all changed since I signed up. The starting point should be here, but that takes you here, which is a page I've never seen. I think you need OAuth to log in there, and should then see a "Start new application" button. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Just stopped by to say thanks again. I've got access to HighBeam following your advice! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Kaldighi

Hi, JLAN - Kaldighi is back in the NPP queue. I saw where you redirected it back in Aug last year. Not seeing any improvement so I'm inclined to send it to Draft space until it's fixed. Your thoughts? ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... {hi, Atsme!) ... I either missed that revert or decided it was a battle best left unfought. The editor is now check-user blocked. I think a redirect is the best choice there, but draft space could work too. I can't find anything about it other than its (probable) existence as a quarter or suburb of Gangarampur – but then I don't speak or read Hindi. We also have Kaldighi Park, which should probably go the same way. We don't have a page on the lake, which this page tells us will be used for "pissiculture" – so maybe not the best spot for swimming? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Opinion sought

I'm curious for your opinion on the Mariah Robertson page. Should only take about 2 seconds, specifically these unreferenced gallery exhibition lists. And of course she wants to add more, because these lists apparently aren't enough. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Corriente Cattle

You just reverted a set of edits I made to the Corriente article, because one of the three citations I added was to a magazine article that I wrote. I'm not clear on what was wrong with the citation. Generally speaking, a magazine article like that one is a perfectly valid Wikipedia cite. Is your issue that Acres U.S.A. doesn't have an archive of the article on their own website, or would it be a valid citation from someone else, but not from me? Thanks. Gary D Robson 20:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary D Robson (talk • contribs)

Gary D Robson, I haven't examined the source in detail, so can't comment on its reliablility. It's generally considered poor form to quote oneself in Wikipedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. If it's basically an etiquette thing, I'll make sure not to cite anything I've written and go back to my original sources.Gary D Robson 21:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary D Robson (talk • contribs)

"The National memo" dispute

Hi. As requested by Robert McClenon I am notifying you that a Dispute resolution request has been raised for your edits to The National Memo article. Please share your point of view at the dispute's page. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Remy Blumenfeld

@Justlettersandnumbers: Hi, May I know why are you reverting my all edits from article Remy Blumenfeld. It takes two days for me to prepare the whole article with proper citations and formatting. And, It took only few seconds to revert the whole article. The article complies Wikipedia guidelines and all the information is verifiable. If you think my edits not complies Wikipedia rules, you are free to add maintenance tags or can resolve the issue as per WP:FIXIT. Also, I would request you to please refrain from reverting my edits. I am taking the issue to Wikipedia Helpdesk. If there is any problem in my edits, they will inform me. Thanks 223.189.17.142 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

223.189.17.142, what you wrote here is your first edit to Wikipedia. I reverted a large addition by another IP. My edit summary there was "rm a mass addition of promotional content (promotional both in tone and in intent) – WP:neutrality is one of the core principles of this project" – surely that tells you clearly why I did so? A question for you: what is your connection to Blumenfeld? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Thank you for explaining reason. What you reverted that was my edit. As I am associated with the subject, I do declare my conflict of interest here. As you told the article does not meet the Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. I'm again preparing it complying neutrality guidelines and would share it with you for approval. Do it need to register myself on Wikipedia to make further edits. As edit option is disabled now. 106.209.177.61 (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Hi, I have registered myself on Wikipedia. Can you please check my sandbox, I have reworked on the article, complying Wikipedia's policy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MrDavies/sandbox. I have cited only reliable references, also have removed promotional wording as per Wikipedia:Neutrality. I would appreciate if you can do a favor and let me what more can be done. If you find any error or any kind of violation in article, please feel free to fix it. Thank you. --MrDavies (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, MrDavies, your first step is to disclose the nature of your WP:conflict of interest, specifically whether you are WP:PAID. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, As earlier I disclosed that I am associated with the subject and have WP:conflict of interest. I work for Blumenfeld, but not directly paid to edit the Wikipedia article. You can consider me paid, if Wikipedia policy says so. I do not have problem.

Also, Please let me know if current article violates any policy. Also would request you to accept the article if it meets for approval. Thanks--MrDavies (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There's another thing you need to clarify, MrDavies. If you previously edited as the IP 223.180.3.39, as you stated above, how was your very first edit to Wikipedia a lengthy and complete re-write in polished idiomatic English (in contrast to the English you use here), with perfectly formatted references, infobox, and filmography table [1]. That is not the sign of a new editor. It takes a great deal of experience here to produce something like that. Have you ever had another account here? Or perhaps Mr. Blumenfeld paid someone else to write the article and you simply uploaded it? Voceditenore (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Liberal and Left-Wing

In the United States, 'liberal' has lost its original nineteenth-century meaning of referring to liberal democracy, partly because the original objective of liberal democracy has been considered achieved in the United States since the end of the eighteenth century. Liberal instead does mean either left-wing or progressive, and I mostly agree with Spintendo that left-wing and liberal are equivalent in context. In any case, it isn't worth volunteer editors spending a lot of time working to tweak the wording to provide a better advertisement for a paid editor. However, Spintendo is mostly correct in an American context, and that is the relevant context. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't agree. Those words have to be used in a way and in a context that makes it possible for anyone, anywhere in the world, to understand them. I wasn't there, but I understand that Russia under Stalin was pretty left-wing, but not at all liberal; these are common and widely-understood meanings. But – though of course it's always a pleasure to hear from you – I really can't bring myself to devote one more word or brain-cell to the infernal National Memo or its politics. Sorry, but my patience there has worn thin. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Guardian News & Media Archive

Would you care to let me know how the business deal between GNM and Fleet Street's Finest Ltd. be covered in this section without just deleting it. It seems to be acceptable to cover other means of income generation for the paper in the sub headed - "Membership" subscription scheme - and other business links to DigitalArchive for example. Is it just the outbound link that's an issue? Should it just go to the Guardian page? Best regards, Bret Painter (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Bret Painter, please see the notice I left on your talk-page about disclosing your WP:conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, Well that's good news, I'm struggling to write anything on this platform. How do I register my COI properly? And please consider my previous note on your talk page a personal request for you register the business dealing between Guardian News Media and Fleet Street's Finest in the archive section as you deem fit. Cheers Bret Painter (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Changes in Article.

I do appreciate the Reference changes, of which I did not know the correct way of adding them.

I am though upset of the major changes to my article without my notification or request. As I noted it was just my first published version being to a certain stranded but not my final. You watered it down to an absolute boring piece of pure information with more errors and inaccuracies than original noted. Taking out a lot of information that I had citations for. As Dury did very little teaching throughout his later career, as well with the incorrect version of emigrated and immigrated. As Dury did not leave the US to "emigrated" to the country. "emigrated" Is From, not to. (He immigrated to the US.) As well with removing his marriage which is the reason why he left Europe as well with the change in the caption of his self portrait. It is noted he's 18 on the back, therefor it is from 1835. As I am irritated to such major changes without just suggesting them privately. Of Which some are better, yes, but it still doesn't give you the grounds to change so much without my notice.

I do appreciate the References change, but it's even more inaccurate then before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin.P.L (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Er, no, Benjamin.P.L, when he left the Kingdom of Bavaria to go to the United States, he emigrated. And, sorry, but it isn't your article, it's ours, Wikipedia's. Unwisely in my view, you chose to move it to mainspace before it was ready; it was (and I think still is) at risk of deletion because this person is apparently not WP:notable by our standards (the only explanations I can think of for the absence of any coverage of his work in Bavaria are (1) that he changed his name or (2) that all that stuff is a post-constructed myth). I tried to improve its chances of survival by strengthening the sourcing and removing some unsourced stuff; I'm sorry if you don't like the result. Anyway, the place to discuss errors in or changes to the article is the talk-page, Talk:George Dury. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I disagree completely, I see that as just a sad excuse... Articles are by people and are direct references of their work, they do not go out to the whole community but allow the community to improve errors or inaccuracies. Wikipida makes it clear that people's articles are their work. I could make the same claim to anything the you've made. It was ready, it was to a good stranded with correct information with nothing wrong with citation. Just because it was not to a layout of your approval does not mean it wasn't. Don't throw me in another forum for your own changes which I see are worse. The direct TN State Museum article I cited had the same information. Along with the citation from the white house itself on the first ladies portrait. (He Immigrated to The U.S. He did not Emigrate from the U.S, If you included that he did emigrate from Kingdom of Bavaria to the United States, that would work. But, that wasn't added.) Mr. Dury is one of the Finest artist from TN, doing portraits of presidents and kings, he is notable by Wikipedia's standards.. Not yours. (As there are articles on lesser figures even shorter and sadder than mine, so don't be unreasonable.)

Benjamin.P.L, I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here (perhaps English is not your mother tongue?). Anyway, I do understand that you are upset. I left on your talk-page an invitation to the Teahouse. Why don't you try posting there if you don't want to use the talk-page of the article? – you might find someone sympathetic to your point of view, or get some friendly advice beyond what I am able to offer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Chulbul Pandey

The page comes under Wikipedia's Fictional characters portal. Kindly don't redirect, remove or try to delete the page. Instead help improving and expanding it. I am aman goyal (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Mea culpa

At some XfD or other in the last month, I recall saying something like "This is just the same tendentious breed-moves pattern by someone making the same argument over and over again", about an objection you'd raised. In retrospect, that was cranky on my part, and hypocritical, since I'm as consistent as you are in the arguments I make about such things, and I was recently professing a desire for us to get along better. So, I'm sorry about that. I don't quite recall the context, but it was at the tail end of a lot of stressy stuff from various parties all day long, and I took it out on whoever was handy. I vented in a similar way in the direction of Pigsonthewing around the same time span. Kind of a more-than-momentary loss of temper.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, SMcCandlish, though it really wasn't necessary – I took no notice of it at the time, and I'm certainly not going to start worrying about it now. As a result of the years (yes, years) of one person trying to impose his will on the naming of animal breed articles, I now have a profound disinclination to discuss them, or indeed to edit in that area at all. But thanks for the note. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

George Dury

Thanks for fixing the refs at George Dury I just couldn't figure out what was going on there! Theroadislong (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem, it was my fault, not his – I added those refs. What I'm wondering now is whether he just scrapes through notability, or if it should go to AfD. What do you reckon? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

George Dury

I'll be Glad to explain myself for the concerns you brought up.

I hadn't changed the References yet because I was in the process of adding more, especially for the "Other Notable Subjects" section. Like I noted, if people were Interested they could find them all on the Tennessee Portrait Project's website with little difficulty, while I was in the processes of adding the rest.

As well Explaining that Dury was a Tennessean and spent a longer art career in the state of TN rather then Europe. (That he was primarily a State painter rather than a national.) I was in the process of coming up with a better sentence then putting a State and Nation together.

Dury's Marriage is the reason he leaves Europe for the US. I understand it not being a strong Citation, But it's something simple that shows they were married, as "Mount Olivet Cemetery" has it cited being the Same George Dury.

If you read the Full citation from the "Memorials of Sarah Childress Polk" you would have noticed that the President and First lady paid for their official portraits out of Pocket when leaving the White House in 1849. (Allowing them to bring them Home to Nashville with them.) President Polk would not have a portrait in the White House till the Buchanan Administration, While Sarah till the Arthur administration. Dury Was commissioned by the Ladies Association of Nashville to copy Mrs Polk's official Portrait(GPA Healy's) the one she owned for the white house. As Sarah's White House Portrait is the copy by George Dury, not the the GPA Healy. (You can see the GPA Healy's at Polk's presidential museum.) As For Sarah's other Portrait it was a widowers portrait with no relation to the White House commission, that's why I left it out.(http://tnportraits.org/polk-sarah-childress-dury-1878.htm)

I'll be glad to Fix these problems in just a short Time, Including the References which I know are a mess. (So Excuse them for just the time being.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin.P.L (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Ida Kar by Mark Gerson, 1974, grayscale, cropped.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ida Kar by Mark Gerson, 1974, grayscale, cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Justlettersandnumbers

Dear Justlettersandnumbers,

I was wondering if you could help me out with the Artist biography of: AIX1 And i was also wondering if you could help me with the biography of Recordlabel: Akhadir Recordings Amsterdam Wiki Link AIX1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIX1 Wiki Link Akhadir Recordings Amsterdam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhadir_Recordings_Amsterdam

These pages are not for commercial purpose endings but for independence for both the artist and the record label

Thanks for your Time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akesc (talk • contribs) 12:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Akesc, but there's little help I can offer. I've nominated both articles for deletion because I can find no evidence (at all) that Ismaël Akhadir and his various projects are in any way WP:notable by our standards (and yes, I have searched for that evidence). If you want to prevent deletion you'll need to add a good number of references to solid independent reliable sources (major newspapers, music magazines, national music charts, books and so on) which discuss him or his projects in depth; you should then leave a note in the deletion discussions to say that you have done so. Also, if you have some personal or professional connection to him you should disclose it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Religious promotion?

How is indicating the influence that a church has over a school promotion? People are free to decide for themselves whether they want to choose that school, but they have a right to know who's influential in running it. I note that there are as many editors who categorize themselves as atheists and agnostics in Wikipedia as Catholics and Christians, so I have no fear that a religion-friendly thrust will impose itself in Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, given the circumstances, I think it would be very unwise to continue this conversation. Just briefly: if you can't see why some might think that you are here with an agenda, that may help to explain how things got to this unfortunate point – which I greatly regret, as I hope you know. My best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Jzsj (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Richest Americans

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. First, a small technical issue: the talk page of List of Americans by net worth wrongly redirects to Talk:List of members of the Forbes 400. Could you please change that? Secondly, how do you suggest that names be added to that list without copyright controversies? The fact that Forbes lists in their entirety are found on Wikipedia - for years now and with virtually no opposition - should be taken into consideration. Regards, Yambaram (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the first issue so you can disregard it... I'd also like to hear your opinion on whether the Richest american/s redirects should redirect to 1) List of Americans by net worth, or 2) List of richest Americans in history (the latter is the current state). Yambaram (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Late apologies

Please accept my late apologies for being rude and obnoxious during The National Memo discussion. You were right and I was wrong. Having 140% of my contribution deleted got me a bit off the track - this should never be the case again. Thank you for being patient and tolerant all the way through. I learned a lot about the concept of notability and depth of coverage from this discussion. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That is a very gracious apology, Bbarmadillo, and thank you for it. But it really isn't necessary at all – it was, after all, my own choice to get involved in that discussion and to continue with it even when it became difficult. I'm not going to apologise for my opinions of the harmful effects of paid editing in this project, but I do apologise if at any time my expression of those opinions has seemed to be directed at you personally – that was never my intention. Oh, and I learned a lot too! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Offer to Help Improve Paolo Casali Page

Hi justlettersandnumbers, I wanted to reach out to you and ask for your assistance on improving the Dr. Paolo Casali page. If I can offer assistance on helping the page be neutral and utilize Encyclopedic content, please let me know. I am not a paid editor and have no intention of making unwanted changes on this page. The COI was disclosed on the talk page as well. Again, any input from you will help enhance the page and make sure it is written with a neutral point of view. Burles104 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Burles104

Burles104, I think the best place to talk about this would be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paolo Casali, again. As I have said there, I'm prepared to devote a small (and I do mean small) amount of time to improving that page; that improvement would, in my opinion, include the removal of most or all of the existing COI text. What you could also do is start listing, on the talk-page, the independent reliable sources: not his own website, his university bio, his papers and publications, the in-house paper of the place he works and so on, but major independent newspapers, books and journals which talk about him in depth and detail. You'll also need to explain the nature of your connection to the other COI editors who have plagued the history of that article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I wasn't aware until you said something that a company with actual newspaper articles on its web site might be violating copyright. I went back to the web site a few years after using those as sources and they weren't there, but that was because an editor with a COI wanted to improve the article and I was helping him. I had to find the articles the proper way at that point.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me a hint which article this is in relation to, Vchimpanzee? (I'm assuming it's not Juliette Benzoni, which you don't seem to have edited?) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

DriveTime was an article I created many years ago and helped improve several years ago. But the newspaper articles on the web site are gone.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

COIN Ping

I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Eyes_on_editor_Rusboot over our seemingly mutual concerns about User:Rusboot. Hope this is ok.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Natives Éditions

Hi Justlettersandnumbers! I would like to ask you for some advice. Recently, I have contributed for the page Natives (Éditions), but it was deleted. Maybe, Natives Éditions is not a huge company, but it is a very serious publisher and a really original music label. Do you think it is possible to do something in order to restore this page? I don't have now any access to its content on Wikipedia, the only link I could find is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natives_(Éditions)

Thank you in advance for your advice! 1996Paris (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

On balance, 1996Paris, my advice is "don't". The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natives (Éditions) is not overwhelming, but I don't see any reason or justification for you to ask for a review of the decision reached. You could try starting a new page at Draft:Natives (label), but unless you have a lot of solid reliable sources (say, at least five) which discuss the label in depth, I personally doubt whether that would achieve anything. There seems to be another problem too: every edit (but one) that you have made in this project has been to promote Marina Tchebourkina and her work; if you have a personal or professional connection to that person you should declare it, and should refrain from editing the page about her and also from making any edit about her to any other page. Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind, and can be quite hostile towards editors who attempt it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, Justlettersandnumbers. No, I don't have any personal or professional connection, neither to Natives Éditions nor to Marina Tchebourkina. I know her CDs, they are remarkable. This musician as well this publisher worth to be known all over the world. Natives has an other outstanding French musician, Philippe Foulon; I had an intention to create an article about him, but now I think I willn't. I will try to find some reliable sources for Natives Éditions, but it is seems to be much more difficult to find them for a publisher, than for an artist… Best wishes, 1996Paris (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

PC Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Justlettersandnumbers isn't an administrator yet? Alex Shih (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Whaddya say JLAN? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for extra userright, Amorymeltzer, now I'd better see if I can find out how to make use of it. As for the other suggestion, I'm going to think that over for a day or two at least; meanwhile, thanks for the confidence (probably misplaced) you've both shown. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that, bollockings aside, JLAN is a possible future RfA candidate. I haven't looked in-depth though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Bump ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

ah ha!

I see now ... I should have looked under Recent listings. Sorry for the extra work! And thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem, not enough extra work to justify any sort of apology. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of contributions ('digital painting')

Hi, justlettersandnumbers, I have given you the only ticket number that I have. I can not confirm what you write, "that a copyright violation was found". On the contrary: no violation was found. A substantial contribution was deleted unjustified. Even if it was deleted unjustified, you write, 'it would not mean that the content will necessarily be restored to the article'. I am surprised that the administrative procedure does not respect contributions untill they are proven to be incorrect, imprecise or in any way improper. After all, we donate time, effort and money. (April 1, 2018)

Best regards, Pauline van de VenVandevenp (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Bojana Sentaler

Hello, I've reverted one of your edits by adding back the background section in the Bojana Sentaler entry (your comment mentioned it was deleted due to a lack of references). The references were already listed in the previous paragraphs but I've now added them directly to the background section text so it's more clear. Thanks Abonzz (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, Abonzz! What I don't understand is why the tone of that page is so promotional, and apparently becoming more so. Why would we want to have something like "... worn her luxury brand ..." in an encyclopaedia? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Luxury brand" is a term often used in fashion lingo to describe a clothing line so I was unaware that it was promotional in tone. However, I can always remove that sentence from the lead. Previously, the lead also indicated that she was known for her alpaca coats. If you like, I can put that part back so the lead isn't too sparse.Abonzz (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyright issue...

Battle of Poison Spring appears to be pretty much a straight copy-paste from here. You're my copyright-problem-go-to-person (aren't you thrilled?). Ealdgyth - Talk 11:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ealdgyth, there are better people to go-to! But this one was, I think, not too hard. At first I thought it was completely straightforward: the "dwindling supplies" stuff is, I'm pretty sure, public domain (published on nps.gov, copied without attribution by OSU); however, it seems that the "war was not as flashy, but no less bitter" section, copied from a different OSU page, is not. I reverted to before it was (recently) added and requested revdeletion of a few revisions. I've added attribution for the PD content, which was originally cited but at some point in the last thirteen years got un-cited. Let me know if you think any of that is wrong. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfounded copyright issue, please restore text

Dear 'Justlettersandnumbers'. In february, you deleted and blocked a large and rather valuable contribution to 'digital painting' that I made over a long time, because of an unfounded copyright issue. You were checking he matter with the help of the ticket number that I gave you. As you can see, the lemma now only offers very limited information, partly inaccurate, and certainly not without commercial influence. What did you find out about the assumed 'copyright infringement'? Please let me know how we proceed. Kind regards, Pauline van de Ven (26/4/2018). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandevenp (talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Walking and Biking in Florence

Hi, I made a section in the Transportation about walking and biking in Florence, and was wondering why it was removed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katieadeclue (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Katieadeclue! If you look at the edit summary I left for that edit, you'll see that it reads "sorry, this is not encyclopaedic content (you can walk or bike in almost any city); you can't cite your own sandbox as a reference". Most of the content you added was not specifically about Florence (can you name one city, town or village where walking is not a possible way of getting around?) except for the date of creation of the pedestrian zones – which was not supported by independent reliable sources. Does that help? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 May 10

I do not know what is your role in deciding this matter but since you removed the comments last time around thus I am reaching out to you to request that this matter be decided with urgency before the discussion gets out of hand again. I have been trying to avoid commenting there since you removed the comments but it is hard to keep oneself at bay seeing the gross distortion of facts and personal attacks by OP. OP has provided the evidence and NadirAli has responded, there is no place for the last comment by OP. I request you to please remove that comment. Also, please know that this report has nothing to do with copyvios, this is all about the content disputes between OP and NadirAli. OP has no pain in his heart for copyvio rather their heartache is different, it is all about getting an opponent blocked to tilt the consensus building process on multiple pages. OP's grudge against NadirAli is shown in below diffs.

Capitals00 Feud with NadirAli

[2], [3], Deceptive edit summary when reverting the WP:STATUSQUO restored by NadirAli. After that Capitals00 goes on the talkpage to make WP:PERSONALATTACK (the one in number 2), [4], [5] Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)