User talk:Justlettersandnumbers/old2

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

Eleonora buratto page

I'm don't know Eleonora Buratto. My page it's only a report of date and events, also with notes. Why do you accuse my contribute ?

For looking deeper

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		At Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 19 and disclosing a continuing problem that would probably only have continued to grow. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonriddengirl! Defender of the Wiki, eh? This seems particularly undeserved in that you did all the hard work , and I added to it by not noticing that date. Perhaps it's unwise to say this before the SPI result, but for now I'm sort of relieved that the possible damage is to "only" 647 pages. I may live to regret that comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yuck, want to take a whack at this one?

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

Yep, already seen it (and edited it). I'm pleased it's a one-line stub, as that's what I asked him or her to do, rather than dump a mass of incompetently translated gibberish that would then need hours of sorting out. I probably won't translate the French article, as I prefer to write from the sources (but I will steal those from their page!). As for the title, I really don't know. Hendricks can't be talking about the breed, as it hadn't been recognised when the book was written; so she's using "Corsican horse" like others have used "Calabrian horse" or "Provençal donkey" - not the breed, just the animal that happens to be in that place at that time. The breed probably does not have any established English name yet. On the other hand, Corse horse just sounds too silly for words. If it was any other domestic animal I'd use parenthetical disambiguation, but that is out here. So I dunno. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll move it per Hendricks, which meets WP:V (and we all know that "verifiability" is not identical to "truth') -"The horse that's been there" is probably more genetically consistent than a lot of "breeds" like (my not-favorite) the Moyle horse. "breed" is such a fuzzy concept and I really don't want to get into the landrace argument until someone figures out if there is any kind of definable line between "breed" and "landrace" (which, to date, no one has and I have had other priorities than looking into it myself). Have at the writing part, I may pop by and tweak a few things, but I don't have any particular issue to address. I think we finally got the inverse hands template fixed so you can do cm first and then get all the others. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Adventure Time season 7

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

Yes, I had just gone back to look at at again, as I thought that might be what had happened. Sorry, your edit summary threw me right off. I've removed the speedy tag. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries! You're doing a good thing trying to cut down on copyright infringement!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Albert G Richards page

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

Double-check on revision id at Syracuse, New York

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

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

I'm happy to defer to your best judgment, it's proven excellent in the past, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a typo or something. Again, thanks for your great work here, CCI is important and often thankless. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 15:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI

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

OOOOOHHHH NOOOOOO!. Montanabw^(talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• http://dad.fao.org/cgi-bin/EfabisWeb.cgi?sid=e864058f2350f649e59a786c21892b8a,reportsreport8a_50006005 (Australia)
• http://dad.fao.org/cgi-bin/EfabisWeb.cgi?sid=e864058f2350f649e59a786c21892b8a,reportsreport8a_50006336 (UK)

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

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

Sovereign Wealth Institute

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

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

• reverted the article for deletion tag here which explicitly says "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" ( and of course bot added it back in,
• "added back" what he called "random deletions" https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sovereign_Wealth_Fund_Institute&diff=next&oldid=619880184
• wrote on your talk page (top)? Obviously is inexperienced in netiquette, to file new comments underneath, starting a new section, instead of butting in on neatly filed discussions. But thats no surprise, since all his contributions ever have been just on Sovereign Wealth Institute.

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

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

Cream Legbar

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

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

I had a few of those chronosynclastic infundibulums once, but they just wouldn't lay. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is a navbox warranted?

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

no ;) where to start, where to stop...

• the GEH has breeds, that are non ;) (for example, the "Bayerische Landgans" is a landrace. There is a new breed derived from it, the "Fränkische Landgans", but there are problems with it (the alsatian(?) goose is too similar to it.)
• the GEH worked together with the BDRG (Bund deutscher Rassegeflügelzüchter, responsible for the existing (all) european standards) an a List of heimische gefährdete Geflügelrassen[1] it includes only breeds of german orgigin (breeds and colours befor 1930).
• the german wp has a list of rare breeds (mostly DACH; de:Liste gefährdeter Nutztierrassen) refering to this literature: de:Liste gefährdeter Nutztierrassen#Literatur und Weblinks
• how ever there is a navbox: de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Gefährdete Nutztierrasse des Jahres in Deutschland refering to the "rare breed of the year" for gaininng interrest in the topic. But is this usefull for en-wp?
• but I could also think of a navbox on this balearean toppic: http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/home.do?idsite=173&lang=CA

Best wishes (sorry for not responding to the other things, yet. I am on the run and recent events are so sad and demotivating, on top.)

--PigeonIP (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comunes / municipalities

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

Mongol horse

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

I saw there were several edits - it's on my watchlist - but didn't look to see what they were. I'll try to take a look, but may take no action. Mongolia reports five horse breeds to Dad-IS apart from the Przewalski Horse. It's a great horse culture, and they have millions of them. I still hope I might one day find the £5-7000 to go and ride there for a couple of weeks, preferably before I'm too old to be able to get on a horse at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No kidding! I know some people locally who did that by saving frequent flyer points for round trip airfare with their American Express card (I guess they used their credit card for everything from gas to toilet paper for three or four years to pull it off) and enjoyed it greatly. As for the article, my thought is that maybe the culture and breed stuff should be split. Or, perhaps the article could be named something like "Horse culture of Mongolia" and then new articles be spun off for the breed(s) (Hmm. Had not heard of those breeds before, either. Other than the Mongol Aduu (which appears to be our "Mongolian Horse") the others are low in official numbers). I'd say raise anything useful at the article talk; seems the editor is in good faith and working very hard, with decent sourcing (though I'm a little wary of the hardcopy sources - though that's probably all there is - and page numbers would be useful). Seems a definite candidate for positive mentoring. I'm kind of knee-deep in some other stuff here and in RL so haven't focused there. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your requested moves of sheep articles at WP:RMTR

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

Josephine Flood

Hi Justlettersandnumbers

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

TUCEMEMS Copyright issues

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

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

Achraf Baznani (photographer)

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

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

Junior Chamber International

A mess from the first version [2] on with presumably members continually adding copyvio and promotional material. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Discretionary sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

Template:Z33  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

• JLAN, I think, though I am not certain, that SMC is under the mistaken impression that there is an equivalency between his behavior and our responses to his behavior. I suggest we follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#SMcCandlish_temporary_move_ban_-_request_for_narrowing_clarification for now. Upon reflection, I see no need to engage insome sort of dispute resolution where there is only one person repeatedly creating the disputes, and that person is neither you nor I. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Moves

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

Just to clarify

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

FYI

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

Copyright problem: Kuhn & Komor

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

Thank you. Those listings usually get looked at in a week to ten days; I probably won't actually deal with this one myself (because letting someone else do it provides a sort of check on what I've done), but I will look at what you've written, and perhaps comment. The 64,000 dollar question, though, Gryffindor, is this: do you think there might be other articles where the same sort of thing has happened? Obviously I hope not, but if so, your help in identifying them would be greatly appreciated. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gryffindor, I haven't got mail. I know that Moonriddengirl received your message, but I didn't. Anyway, if it's about my question to you above, it'd probably be better to message me here than via e-mail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2014

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. Moonriddengirl has created a page here with a helpful listing [3]. I don't have the resources or a bot to go through every article to find possible problems. Do you think you could help us please with identifying issues and notify them there, and then I will try to repair it? Thank you for your help. Gryffindor (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gryffindor! Yes, I am aware of that listing, and I appreciate that you'd like to get it dealt with; your help will make that much easier. I'll certainly do what I can, but – I'll be honest – there are many dozens of those listings and it is very time-consuming work going through them (I don't have a bot either!), so I can't promise to work specifically on yours. It's likely to be much easier for you to look at, say, Kraków Town Hall, and remember where that content came from (within Wikipedia? the internet? a book?) than it is for someone else to try to work that out. You could perhaps then leave a short note against that line of the listing ("This came from ...") which would make it quicker for someone else to mark off as done. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi JLAN,

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

Finding copyvio

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

I'm not, you know (good at it), I'm a rank beginner. If you want to see "good at it" you should watch Moonriddengirl in action; it's an education, I can tell you. I use two tools, the Duplication Detector and the Article blamer. In an article like Albanian Horse, with a short history, they're hardly needed, the problems pretty much jump to the eye. I'm afraid I've requested a WP:CCI for that editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL. SEVEN YEARS. :) Lots of practice. Frankly, I usually just look for phrases that stand out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So basically, once you find one suspicious editor, then you review their other work? Ah yes, I remember the nightmare of cleaning up the ItsLassieTime sock, which had hundreds if not thousands of articles, and I think that CCI is still unfinished... Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you see this one

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

Interesting

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

I see that Montanabw is engaging in random personal attacks again, imputing nefarious motives.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It ran me off. But now I see he's ostensibly gone for a year. I'm considering coming back... 68.187.45.82 (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You'd have my support if you did so, whoever you are! For what little that is worth. Give it a try - if it doesn't work out you can always leave again ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

About to head out for a vacation...

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

Thanks, Ealdgyth! As it happens, I know that book quite well, and did indeed check it for this particular matter, and was planning to cite it in another discussion. Please let me know if you do get a real paper copy of it, as not all is accessible through Google books and I might impose on your good will. Meanwhile, have a great holiday! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Good to know, Ealdgyth. Further source to cite against the idea of any such standardized breed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

From what I'm reading on the talk page - the breed registry started up in 1998. Mason's was published in 1996, so it doesn't conclusively prove one way or another if the breed registry is going to stick. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is that we have to stick carefully to what the sources actually say and not insert more (or less) than what is stated. It will be good to not engage isn WP:SYNTH. Montanabw^(talk) 05:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

With Arapawa, there's not even any evidence of a breed registry. The facts we have are that some piglets were taken off the island for breeding and were bred successfully. To what we don't know. Years afterward, someone drafted a breed standard for the captive-bred Arapawa, noting that the phenotypic morphology was in flux, and even in what ways they expected their capitive pigs to differ from the feral landrace pigs the nascent standardized breed was based on. Then dead silence. We don't even actually know that this draft breed standard pertains to the descendants of those pigs in particular; that's just being inferred. The key missing facts are a) were they cross-bred to anything, b) if not, were they selectively bred to be more like everyday pigs, or to retain their most identifiable "Arapawaian" traits, and if so why that's not been working, and c) whether the experiment has continued at all to the present day, much less d) resulted an a standardized breed recognized by anyone at all other 6 people trying to breed them (which would never pass WP:GNG or WP:NFT).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Chicken breeds of Belgium

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

(edit conflict)I don't know what you are talking about. It isn't a disambiguation page or a "recently merged" anything, it's an article. I've just started it, at your rather annoying insistence (I mean, next time, fix it yourself, OK?). Please re-read, with some care, WP:BRD; if your edit has been reverted, don't make the same edit again, as that is edit-warring. Instead, take the matter to the talk page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So in fact it was not me who was messing... The Banner talk 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you fixed it yet? You should probably work on your apology skills, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not prepared to clean up your mess. The Banner talk 02:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Belgian Bantam vs Belgian bantam - two different articles. JTdale ^Talk 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Belgian Bantam

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

Yes, it's a separate breed, with EE recognition and so on. I made the stub because The Banner was messing about with the navbox. I hadn't realised you'd made that redirect from the capitalised title or I'd have mentioned it sooner. The only thing (I hope!) I've used Roberts for is to say that it isn't listed by the PCGB. I've added it to the disambiguation page you made. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I got a complaint from the Banner myself. I'm afraid I don't see how it's a single breed though? It's a group of related breeds, according to the British Belgian Bantam Club and the Belgian Bantam Club of Australia. Additionally the The Belgian d'Uccle & Booted Bantam Club and the Belgian d'Anver Club of America appear to hold similar positions. The Australian Poultry Standards and the Poultry Club of Great Britain hold identical views in that Belgian bantam is a breed consisting of what 4-5 varieties, which are classified in Belgium as separate breeds but are fundamentally identical to the 'varieties'. I can't read french to decipher your other reference. JTdale ^Talk 01:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

On reading your EE reference, it lists the Belgian types as separate varieties as well and never mentions an overarching Belgian Bantam. JTdale ^Talk 02:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit - okay, I found out what you mean. Sorry for the confusion. Belgische Zwerghühner | Naine belge | Belgische kriel | Naine belge | Belga nana | Belgische kriel with no english name. Found this page; [4] which translated here appears to be an entirely different type of bird. More info here. This creates a major issue because outside Belgium and France Belgian Bantam refers entirely to a different thing. JTdale ^Talk 02:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! No apology needed, I'm almost as confused as you are at this point. I think we had this conversation before, somewhere else. There are a lot of different Belgian true bantams (12–15, I think). The Brits can't get them sorted out, so they've lumped them all together as "Belgian" in their true bantams section. That sort of makes it hard for them to see that there is also a Belgian Bantam, the Naine belge, the one your link [16] leads to. On the Rousseau site it's this one. The EE spreadsheet is a nightmare to use, but is I think accurate; it gives them all except maybe the Bleue de Lasnes, which isn't recognised. I think the Belgian bantam page you made was a good idea; I'm wondering, though, if it shouldn't be moved to Belgian bantam (disambiguation). What do you think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. Not very good with disambiguation stuff - never made one before. I think it might be less confusing though, so I'll go ahead and do it. Also, maybe it'd be best to move Belgian Bantam to one ofi ts native names since the breed seems to be entirely unknown in English? JTdale ^Talk 16:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Found an English version of that page; see here; also see this. This helps a lot. A ton of breeds there that may warrant their own articles. JTdale ^Talk 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor breeeds

I may be scratching a sore spot, but i hope I'm not. But use of the convert template on horse heights would be a gracious and helpful thing. I can do it myself later, but perhaps as you go would be simpler. See Template:Hands for the solution the techies worked out for us for the breeds with a European/metric standard: to convert cm first: {{convert|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2+1⁄2 to 8.2+1⁄2 hands; 30+1⁄2 to 34+1⁄2 in) I think you can change cm to m and get the equivalent results. Your call if you want to do it, hope you will not object if I add it later if you are not interested in doing so. Montanabw^(talk) 14:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Tony Cragg

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

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

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

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

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

My COIN posting

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

Should I prod tag?

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

That was a temptation you could safely have yielded to! Speedy as G11 might have gone through too, in spite of its age. However, there were other problems too, so I doubt it'll be necessary (though of course you can still prod it if you want to). Good find; how many more like that are there? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll prod tag too, might as well add insult to injury. What else is out there?? As always, Nevzorov Haute Ecole. But wait, there's worse: Brace for impact: Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star, Barbie Horse Adventures, and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. AAARRRGGGHHH! Montanabw^(talk) 07:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That should have been G11 on sight! Obvious COI, undisguised promo; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevzorov Haute Ecole. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Book is in!

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

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

One ILL at a time...!

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

I'm in full agreement about using correct terminology within reason, as long as it doesn't reach the level of jargon and is linked to an explanation - which we don't always have (where should "girth" link to, for example, when used as a measurement?). My thinking on the other things is just to try to keep things reasonably uniform with other animal breed articles. Our pig articles don't have "boar weight'" and "sow weight" in the infobox, though they could - the general "Male weight" and "Female weight" is used whether they're billies and nannies, cocks and hens, rams and ewes, whatever. Ideally I'd to see the horse breed infobox updated to match the others, with fields for height, weight, conservation status, distribution, coat colour, uses and the like. But yes, for now I'll put a range, the differences are usually marginal anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Glossary of equestrian terms is a good catchall, particularly where you need something not yet in the wiki... We can add a definition #2 (if sourced) at Glossary of equestrian terms#G (girth) or a new definition at #H ("heartgirth") for the measurement. Note we do quite a bit of cross-referencing between UK and US English so both are included (see, e.g. [Glossary of equestrian terms#H]] for Halter/headcollar.) Always room to expand so long as a source goes with the definition. Keep in mind that we should also compare to the dog breeds infoboxes, as horses exist in sort of a limbo between livestock and companion animals. I'm not opposed to a few specific fields for height - weight is not always as clear-cut a parameter (we don't eat them as often...), perhaps RexxS can help us with formatting and such, we can discuss there. I'm not overly fond of the design of the livestock breeds ones - too easy to confuse with species infoboxes (the breeds infobox links to the species infobox). But I don't think adding parameters does a lot of harm, as if they are not used, they don't show as blank spaces. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, and also, I really hesitate to add a "distribution" link, as we already have a nation of origin parameter, which itself has generated a couple editing disputes (mostly on Lipizzan), so many breeds are now pretty much worldwide. Conservation status is also a question mark, as these are not a species, but I can see some point of adding comments if we have rare breeds or not - I just don't want to shoehorn horse breeds into an infobox that doesn't fit. But let's discuss at the template talk... Montanabw^(talk) 00:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Template:COI editnotice

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

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

Mulling over structure

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

Great Lakes Page

Hi,

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

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

GQ

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

Thanks for your vigilance there. I think the main question is really whether it's notable at all. I was sort of letting it slide, partly for WP:CSB reasons. But I'm about ready for AfD. Otherwise we could ask for semi-protection. I wonder if Sphilbrick would mind being dragged into this again, perhaps to advise? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's "probably" notable enough not to be deleted, judging by the articles on other international versions, though some of them are in dire need of de-promo'ing themselves. The notability guideline on magazines is still "proposed", so no telling. This version may very well fail the GNG though. I'd just prefer it if the IP would actually discuss their changes rather than blindly reverting every time we explain why their edits are out of policy, so maybe a semi-prot after they inevitably re-add the November cover to the article will get them on the talk page. Crow^Caw 23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm here, but not up to speed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: The article is GQ Thailand. It started as a copyvio and has since been subject to a slow edit war with what looks like one user on multiple IPs to add promotion and non-notable stuff to it. They have blindly reverted without discussion. They only stopped reverting the copyvio when the history was revdel'ed. The latest bit now is to keep the current cover shown in the infobox, with no context, thus failing nfcc#8. I had reverted to the infobox with the issue #1 cover as that could be seen as a meaningful image, especially as that cover was discussed specifically in the article. They responded to that by db-user'ing the image! At this point I just want them to discuss what and why they are doing. Crow^Caw 20:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI

He's b-a-a-a-a-c-k: [5] FYI Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious what constructive purpose you think that commentary like this serves?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To warn the general population to brace for impact of another round of tl;dr. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Enough

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

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

Copyright Prob's page

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

Crow, the quick answer is that I wish I knew. I think each editor has his/her own take on that. Factors over and above the "would need to be fundamentally rewritten" criterion that make me personally more inclined to tag for speedy deletion are: simplicity (one or few editors), recentness, obvious COI and/or promotional content, and lack of importance and/or notability. If something is complex, or clearly notable, or just old, or might help counter systemic bias, then I'm more inclined to list it. Either way, at least one other person is going to look at it too, so there's some room for error – luckily! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I like your thinking there. :) To add, Crow, that if there's a suggestion of permission, WP:CP is usually the appropriate avenue. (Although if it's a G11 and a G12, I myself just delete and cite both. I have some tension when content is clearly permissible but otherwise unusable.) I wrote a template that I have long used for this situation - User:Moonriddengirl/vp. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, MRG! I remember seeing that text and thinking it'd taken a while to write all that - now I realise it's a template. Crow, another factor that I forgot to mention above is the editor's history: if an editor is fairly new a copyvio can probably be put down to inexperience; if it's a long-established editor, or one with several apparent copyvios, I'd be more inclined to list it so as to draw attention to a possibly larger problem - of which unfortunately there seem to be quite a lot. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you! Crow^Caw 22:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Harvey Schiller talk page, edit assistance request

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

Elmgreen & Dragset

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

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

Dorset H/horn

Hey,

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

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

MP Anil Kumar

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

European Federation of Psychiatric Trainees

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I declared my conflict of interest concernign EFPT here. [6]. I hope we will find a solution to use text from our website to improve our WP page. I changed the license but it wasn't good enough. Bw --Ofix (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

We listed most the references concerning articles published here.--Ofix (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Of interest

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

SALT (institution)

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

Hi, EuroCarGT, I'm afraid I have no idea what to do about that. They've released one page of their website, but the copying/close paraphrasing was from more than one page, definitely including also this and this. So I'm going to ask, for about the thousandth time, if Moonriddengirl would be kind enough to offer guidance on whether the rev-deletion is still necessary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for my delay - I've got some family issues that are impacting my online time.

The OTRS ticket doesn't actually name the source; it names the Wikipedia articles that the correspondent claims to own and release. With respect to this it says, "SALT (Istanbul based cultural institution founded by Garanti Bank), the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SALT_(institution) and http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/SALT" While this is generally acceptable on English Wikipedia where we are able to verify that the person placing the content is an authorized representative of the source, I think this situation is a little more convoluted. We've got content additions being placed by at least two people here and no verification that the OTRS correspondent has legal right to license the contributions of both - or, really, either. (That would change if the users in question acknowledged that they were working on behalf of SALT, perhaps on their user pages.) The name of the correspondent does not clearly align with the usernames. :/ User:EuroCarGT, would you mind asking your correspondent to clarify that he is licensing the content published at saltonline.org and not the content published on Wikipedia? This should eliminate all doubt and rev deletion on earlier edits can be removed. Whether or not the content is restored is a matter of editorial discernment. :) OTRS doesn't say the content will be used, but only that it can be. At that point, other factors may determine, as copyright issues are off the table. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl:  Done. Thanks, ///EuroCarGT 21:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your mention of me here

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

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

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

A pleasure to have met you too! Keep rockin' it! ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The horse book

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

Re:Admin help

I'm actually in the process of investigating that a little right now; I've found this blog post, of which parts are written verbatim whats written in our article [7], however the version I'm looking at is 2008 and its 2014 now, so I can not prove who had which version first. That, and the language in the article (In particular phrases like "You may guess on one hand that the Portuguese cinematography and those of Portuguese expression distinguish themselves by this motive, which gives them a voice in the world of cinema, like the voice of Cesária Évora in the world music") lend themselves to having been copied from someplace else online and pasted here. I'm hopeful that its just my imagination, but experience tells me that may not be the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Found one article arguably in violation of BLP - Daniel E. Thorbecke. I put it up at afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Found a maybe - and I mean a really long shot maybe - copyright violation for Antonio Campos from here; and I say "maybe" and "long shot" because there are four tabs, Wikipedia is one of them, but the verbatim content on their site is alleged to have been posted in 2002, whereas our article's history claims that the material wasn't created until 2009. Not sure then which came first, and since its all in a foreign language I can do nothing with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Found one dangerously close to copyright. The Original O Pão e o Vinho article created in 2009 appears to have been taken nearly verbatim from here, and while the single inline citation given to the article credit the page, the whole section then and now is essentially one blockquote. He also apparently copied and translated the technical information at or near verbatim, and that still isn't cited. In point of fact the article is almost identical to what we have now. I think the first part might be from Films by Portuguese Directors (Study Guide): Films Directed by Antonio Lopes Ribeiro, Films Directed by Antonio de Macedo since google linked the phrase "O Pão e o Vinho is contemporary to the tetralogy Homem Montanhês (Mountain Man) " to the book. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction, it may have been lifted in its entirety from the book, according to a Barnes and Noble Book Summary. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes, some of it seems to be just unattributed inter-wiki translation (still copyvio, but easier to fix), like the Thorbecke one, created here 27 minutes after it was made on pt.wp. I see that MRG shares your concerns here, so I'll see if I can look at this tomorrow, and perhaps make a CCI request if I find enough to justify one. I don't speak Portuguese, but I can more or less read it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for the talk page message follow up, it is always nice to know that people care enough to keep in touch. In gratitude, please accept this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this, TomStar81, it's much appreciated! Though I can't help thinking that in this case it would be better named the "Trying to make up for random acts of unintentional discourtesy to a smart detective Barnstar". Nice work there! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Accademia delle Arti del Disegno

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

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

Edit warring

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

I would appreciate your input as to whether I am being too zealous but given you previous comments on the article about copyright issues I felt that it was better to be safe by deleting any potentially controversial edits.Dan arndt (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for the page to be semi-protected. Edit-warring, even if you think you're right, is never going to get anybody anywhere good. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right I allowed myself to get sucked in. Should have stopped and taken a breath. Will concentrate on improving the article with factual referenced information. BTW think you can remove the proposed merger with Trinity Chapel. I think I have established that it is a notable article in its own right - let me know if you feel otherwise . Dan arndt (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Marina Tchebourkina

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

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

Joseph Rodney Moss

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

Oops. Advice accepted for the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

1937 in Poland

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

Toggenburg (goat)

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

Help with copyright issue - Entry: Solvatten

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

Joe Williams (jazz singer)

A page you previously contributed to, Joe Williams (jazz singer), had many prior revisions deleted due to copyright issues. For details please see Talk:Joe Williams (jazz singer). Your prior version may be temporarily restored upon request if you need it for reference to re-incorporate constructive edits that do not make use of the copyright infringing material. Please feel free to leave me a talk message if you need this done. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Painfully bad article

May require your touch with languages as well as general copyediting... Arriero. Reading it made my head explode. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm

Found a totally unsourced horse breed article, want to do your copyvio check magic on it and see if you can find some RS on it? Nordlandshest/Lyngshest. Possibly @Pitke: can help if arnoudn en.wiki these days (Pitke usually hangs on Finnish wiki, but has helped with the Scandanavian breed articles) Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly all my sources are in Finnish, some lost to link rot, but I should be able to help with Norwegian sources to a decent degree. --Pitke (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Been there, done my thing. Please c/e since my equestrian English is totally rusty. --Pitke (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Apulia

Hi. I can't agree that this name is an archaism. We have our article at Apulia, not at "Puglia". Moonraker (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, Moonraker, nobody's perfect! However, you must surely be aware that Puglia is very frequently so called in spoken and written English (see this Google Scholar search, for example). That means that going round changing it to "Apulia (Italian Puglia)" is contentious at best, and could easily be regarded as WP:DISRUPTIVE - unless, of course, there is substantial editor consensus for such a change? I don't recall seeing any discussion of it at WT:ITALY. May I suggest that you self-revert those edits? May I also suggest that you brush up a bit on some of our style guidelines: proper names are not usually italicised, per MOS:ETY; and four-digit numbers do not generally require a comma (see MOS:DIGIT). You might also like to note that while we use the preposition "on" for small islands, we usually use "in" for larger ones; thus "on Montecristo", but "in Australia", "in Britain", "in Sardinia" and, I submit, "in Corsica". I'll put that back unless you get to it first. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As you say, no one is perfect, and some of these questions are more subjective than they used to be. To me, although clearly not to you, when writing in English the use of "Puglia" is as much a mistake as the writing of "Torino" or "Fiorenze" (which may occasionally be justified, but there does surely need to be a very clear and specific justification) and is likely to be the result of poor translation. If you feel Wikipedia needs diversity in the use of names and exonyms, then I don't see the benefits of it, but it is I suppose a point of view, and I shall try to be more tolerant of the use of "Puglia" out of deference for your view that it is now acceptable! On your other points, you are of course right that we would never say "on Australia", but we also would not say (or I should not) "in the Isle of Wight". I don't suppose it would be feasible to have a Wikipedia policy which distinguishes between the "on" and "in" islands , so we may need to agree that Corsica can be either. You are of course right that proper names are not italicized, with certain exceptions, such as the names of ships. Thank you for the link to MOS:DIGIT, do you have a more direct one? Moonraker (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Misprint! Sorry, it's MOS:DIGITS. Corsica is a lot larger than the Isle of Wight – I've switched that back to "in". Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will read it. Moonraker (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I did a quick Google search and Puglia gives me 76,600,000 hits, whereas Apulia is only 8,080,000. According to this site, "Puglia" is replacing "Apulia" much as "Mumbai" replaced "Bombay" or "Beijing" replaced "Peking." Hope this helps resolve that matter. Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Montanabw, helpful as ever. Up to a point I am surprised by those figures, although I suspect they may not reflect the usage in English-language reliable sources, which is the acid test. Clearly the site you have linked may be right that there is a movement going on in the world at large. Moonraker (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I did an advanced search limited to English language pages, but unfortunately, Google chose not to provide me with a total count for hits with that method. I did notice, however, that USA-based travel guides such as Fodor's [8], Lonely Planet and Thinking Traveler use "Puglia," Also, somewhere, I read that Apulia is a Latin word... No position on this, just data. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Violet Brown GRG sourcing

Hi, can you please tell me why you tagged the GRG in Violet Brown's article as potentially unreliable? I know they're the official Guinness World Records verifier (or something) for supercentenarians, and also, they are typically used as the source for birthdates in most, if not all, Wikipedia articles on supercentenarians. I'm merely curious as to your reasoning here.74.131.251.19 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it doesn't appear to meet our definition of a reliable source. I've asked about it at the reliable sources noticeboard. And because with two discrepant dates reported in the press, it's remarkable that the GRG should have chosen to "verify" neither of them, but instead have taken their arithmetic mean, don't you think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. I responded at the BLP board. If there is not an abundance of source material regarding her age, and this is the primary thing she is known for, it seems to me that she may not notable enough for a separate article. Especially given that she is ranked #40 in oldest people alive, and we would almost never cover 40th place for anything. I'm sure the top 1, 2 or 3 warrant an article, as there is probably some in-depth analysis available about their perspective on the changes that have taken place in the world during their lifetime and how they stayed alive for so long, the state of their health, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 00:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The GRG is Guinness-approved, though, and actually does the research into the birthdates of supercentenarians.74.131.251.19 (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, a lot more supercentenarians that the three oldest ever have Wikipedia articles, precisely b/c many of them get coverage in the media. Also, it is a good thing to note that Violet Brown is the first validated supercentenarian from Jamaica, and is at present the oldest living and oldest ever person from the country. Violet Brown is also much, much higher than 40th oldest living person (I think she's somewhere around 6th oldest living person).74.131.251.19 (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh now I see; there are lots of sources, but some say March 15, 1900 and others say March 4, 1900. The way it's done now seems fine. An alternative would be to just say "March 1900" and leave a footnote with the varying reported dates. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pixie mandarin, et al, copyright violations

With respect to the Pixie mandarin, et al, copyright violations by a particular user, I noticed your comment on the cleanup on that article and took a look around in the contribution history of this particular user. I found a lot of copy-n-paste edits primarily in biographies -- especially when this particular user created the page. It appears that the articles on various kinds of apples do not have this problem: however, this user may be using sources which aren't so readily available online to make this blatant plagiarism so easy to detect. Also, many of the copyvio instances I found by this user were generally done weeks/months ago -- he/she may have taken the warnings and stopped doing this (although, he/she did not go back and edit the articles to repair the existing problems). More simply, though: it could just be this user slowing down his/her edits during the holidays. By the way, I am not affiliated with the University of California, in any way (most of the sources in question are copyrighted by UC, or UC-Riverside, in particular) -- copyright violations simply make me angry and need to be flagged. Nusumareta (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I had already flagged this user's edits as needing a check, because of the number of CorenBot notices on his/her talk page (which do include at least one Malus cultivar, btw, a crab-apple IIRC); your listings today gave me enough cause for concern to request a CCI. We'll see if it is accepted or not. I believe this person to be potentially a valuable asset to the project, so I hope you are right that he or she has changed after the earlier warnings. If you are interested in working on copyright problems there is an almost unlimited amount to be done - the CCI backlog alone was just under 70,000 articles last time I checked - and any amount of help, however small, is always welcome. Thanks for picking up these, and for your other recent listings too. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio process question

I've been looking at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Riversid. I'm curious why we go through this process for articles that are entirely copypasta. Why not just nom the articles that are complete violations for speedy deletion? I get the idea of checking individual diffs when it might just be a sentence or a paragraph.

Along those same lines, as we determine Riversid's articles were copyvio's at what point do we just start blanket deleting them? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are hard questions, Chris, and I may not be the best person to answer them. The CCI process just lists all major contributions by a particular editor, so that we can then go through them and decide which articles need attention, and how to deal with them; some may be wholly copied, some wholly clear. Nomination for speedy deletion is one of the options for the former, certainly; however, as you surely know, admins are more likely to decline speedy for older articles or articles that have contributions from several editors, and many CCIs go right back in history to when less attention was paid to copyright. Personally, I try to weigh the potential value of each article to the project. If it's a topic that I think we should have an article on, or it in some measure helps to counter systemic bias, then I'd be more likely to leave it as a stub or even try to add a couple of sentences or references; if it's a totally trivial or promotional topic then I'd be much more inclined to redirect or request deletion. As you know, if the situation is complex, or there's doubt as to the best course, you can always pass the buck: blank it and list it at WP:CP, and mark it off as "blanked" in the CCI listing.

The specific case you mention raises another matter, editor retention: there we have someone with expert knowledge, working in an area where very little seems to be done (fruit cultivars), so perhaps our choices should also, within reason, be geared towards educating that person in our methods rather than driving him or her away. That said, my efforts to communicate there have met with no success whatsoever.

By the way, I filled in the Elsevier Google-form again with my name, but forgot to leave you a note to say I had done so. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In reply to your issue about Elsevier, your information went forward in the long list of the initial approvals. Elsevier is working on creating those accounts. They'll e-mail you when they have it lined up; hopefully soon. I will put out an announcement to the other applicants so everyone knows I'm staying on top of this.

I'm also the Visiting Scholar at University of California, Riverside so when I saw Riversid editing articles about citrus I assumed they had some connection to the campus. I've since contacted staff at UCR about this issue as I, too, would rather prevent this sort of thing. The first CCI I observed is $1LENCE D00600D, not an editor we'd want to retain. These things are difficult to cleanup and therefore drag on. It just seems to me a quicker fix ought to be implemented. Thanks for your reply. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustang dab

Withdrew my proposal to close, didn't realize the vote was going toward keeping it as primary, and parenthetical dab is the worst-case scenario here after we got 400 horse breed articles to natural dab. Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In other projects

Could use an English speaker who also knows French here: User:Montanabw/Horse welfare sandbox . I have the French editor of the fr.wiki article pinged too. No agenda yet, not certain if I will even create it, but if there's the energy to translate and get it up, I'm "donating" my user space. (Article will need some work to go into en.wiki). Montanabw^(talk) 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Montanabw, I'm going to pass on that one, the article is too much of an essay for my taste. I'd suggest trying to keep any version of it here strictly to the facts (relevant legislation, associations and the like) without getting bogged down in presenting the issues, always assuming anyone can establish what they might be (I keep my horses out in all weather, without any artificial shelter; is that more or less respectful/ cruel than keeping them in a cage three metres square?). But if you are stuck on a particular phrase, ping me – there's a chance I might be able to help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you there; the rodeo section jumped out at me as problematic as soon as it went up. I'm thinking to have the translation and sourcing in my sandbox and then use it as a template for an en.wiki article. (There's also an animal treatment in rodeo article that I really have issues with but I've sort of allowed it to be a little POV-land to keep the PETA types out of the main rodeo one.) As for horse management, I've long been of the opinion that if human beings go crazy spending 8 hours a day in a 10x10 cubicle, horses in a 12x12 one for 23 of 24 hours aren't going to be in their ideal world, either! As for horses in winter, check your email in a sec!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Craske

I submitted a new article on Margaret Craske to give a complete picture of her life and work. It has full and accurate information on her career and numerous citations of published, verifiable sources. She is an important figure in dance history, as a teacher of many famous dancers and choreographers. She is also of interest as a follower of Meher Baba, the Indian spiritual leader. As a dance historian, I am dismayed by the sketchy fragment that currently appears on Wikipedia. Please consider restoring my article. I think that you have made a serious mistake in deleting it. With all good wishes. Claude Conyers Claudeconyers (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The text you put there completely overwrote the existing article, which, while sketchy though it may have been, represented the collective work of a number of editors, myself among them. That's not how we work here. The talk page of the article would be good place to discuss this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I appreciate your personal interest in Margaret Craske, but I do urge you to reconsider your decision not to accept my article. It contains all the information in the current version, but it puts it in the broader context of a detailed, chronological review of her life and career. In the interest of making Wikipedia a reliable source of dance history, I do hope that you will reconsider. Miss Craske had significant influence on a great many important people in the world of dance. She deserves fuller treatment than what Wikipedia currently provides. -- Claude Conyers Claudeconyers (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for violating Wikipedia policy in recently mounting a new article on Margaret Craske. It was certainly not my intention to do so, or to offend anyone. I merely wanted to give a fuller survey of the life and career of Miss Craske, who is a significant figure in dance history. My article was carefully researched and fully documented. In submitting it, I thought that I was improving the content of Wikipedia. I am sorry to have caused any trouble. -- Claude Conyers Claudeconyers (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Claudeconyers, you didn't violate any policy, but in blanking the whole page just went outside what is our usual practice here. I understand that it's hard to find your feet here at first; one tip that may help is to make small edits rather than very large ones. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

de Kooning

Don't remember it and didn't author it but good work on copyright cleanup efforts. Do what must be done! Good luck. jengod (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Morkie

Hello Justlettersandnumbers. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Morkie, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's different enough from the original deleted version that I'd prefer it went back to AfD. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc, I expected that when I was able to look at the older version after JustChilling did the hist-merge there. But now that I come to think of it, wasn't that a mistake? The hist-merge is necessary if the same article has been re-created, as is the case at Zuchon (G4 inexplicably declined there by JustChilling). But if the new article is genuinely substantially different, why does the history of the old one need to be attached to it? The work of the previous editors is not present in the text, so doesn't need to be attributed. Or am I missing something? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That "newbie"

Hi JLAN, thanks for your sleuthing about that "new" user who was adding the promotional content to the Dressage article. I smell a sockpuppet and possibly paid editing. I guess we can just stay tuned. Montanabw^(talk) 19:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You may well be right. To me it looks like a new editor who has run head-first into a barrage of warnings for basic mistakes – stuff that a sock would be likely to know to avoid. But that's just my guess; I left her a personal note based on that assumption. And yes, tuned. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible for a new editor to also be a paid editor... but you were right to extend the olive branch. People sometimes don't know. Montanabw^(talk) 00:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Laura J Woods

Hello, I noticed you mentioned me as the one who re-added copyright violations to the Woods article. I seriously beg to differ. I spent quite a bit of time explaining copyvios to the original poster and then attempting to add in sourced material. Could you please enlighten me as to what copyvios I added? I am really confused here. JodyB _talk 21:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is possible you are referring to this diff where I reverted and began to clean up what was there. The end result however was well sourced and gave the foundation for a better article. Please note that I explicitly explained copyvios to the editor. JodyB _talk 22:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've just finished posting an explanation on the talk page there. You restored copyvio content to the article with this edit after I had removed it. Please don't do so again - as you surely know, those who do so repeatedly risk being blocked from editing. I applaud your efforts to help a new editor, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, JodyB, that's the one. As this tool shows, it has not been cleaned up - there is still substantial overlap. And in any case that is not the point: our policy is not that if you add a copyvio you must rephrase it afterwards and add sources; our policy is that you must not add the copyvio. Full stop. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It was rephrased as the diffs show and sources were added. In any case I am done with the page. My goal was to help someone. May I kindly ask that in the future, when we happen to disagree, please assume good faith. Your block threat was really over the top and unnecessary. I can assure you that I am capable of entering a collegial, professional discussion if given half a chance. JodyB _talk 22:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. A reminder is not a threat. Please read WP:AGFC. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning things up

Hello, I understand that you added a copyright violation notice to The New Adventures of Nanoboy. I looked into that site, I found some on the Synopsis and Character info of Oscar/Nanoboy, Issac and CJ as I rewrote it by scratch on the Temp page with some modifications to avoid infringement. Hope this would help as I will explain this info to the patroller of the page. Agentmike41 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Also I managed to update articles for The Mysteries of Alfred Hedgehog and Matt's Monsters on the Temp page of each. Hope this issue gets resolved soon. Agentmike41 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Random thoughts on WP mirror sites

I was realizing that some of the older WP articles will be likely to be flagged as copyvios when they are not because there are so many wikipedia mirrors out there. I was looking at an article I worked on 5-6 years ago and ran that copyvio tool on it and it erupted. But I happen to remember writing the content myself, it was not a copy and paste, rather the opposite. I know that the site supposedly "copied" was actually created after the edits in question. How can we sort out those sorts of things? Montanabw^(talk) 06:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it happens all the time, and it isn't always possible to get to the bottom of it; the Internet Archive doesn't always have definite proof one way or the other. But in most cases, a Wikipedia article evolves in gradual steps; if the text can be seen getting progressively closer to what's on the external site, that tends to be an indication that they got it from us. If it was dropped en bloc into our article and then gradually changed to become less similar to the supposed source, that tends to indicate the opposite. As you know, if a suspected copyvio is shown to have been them copying from us, you can tag the talk page with {{backwardscopy}}. I think Garrano pretty much needs a total rewrite; that IP also added stuff to Asturian pony, later inadvertently carried over to Asturcón, and to Galiceño, Criollo horse and Azteca horse; they're all going to need checking (that's why I listed Garrano at WP:CP rather than just fixing it – as reminder for the others). I might get back to Horsecanter some time, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It never ends, does it? Montanabw^(talk) 20:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You can say that again! But we'll get there ... perhaps! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Strawberry Schoolhouse

Dont worry, I'll take care of it, and I apologize for any confusion. Thank you.--The Old Pueblo (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist please?

You have a working familiarity with the doggone M/mustang issue, and now we have this article in need of watchlisting: Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. See talk page drama and edit history. The editor raised one legitimate issue and I fixed that bit. But I am concerned that this new editor is making massive and irrelevant edits to the piece, some without proper attribution. It's a GA-class article, one where Dana boomer led the push (and she doesn't edit any more because she's just sick of all the drama) Might also want to watch new edits for copyvio issues. Don't quite know why it's mustang season around here, but it is. Montanabw^(talk) 07:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a topic that's a long way below my threshold of interest. I see that there's been some lively activity there. If you want a suggestion, which you probably don't, I'd say that agreeing on the reliability or otherwise of the various sources would be a good first step, and that WP:RS/N would be a good place to take any disagreement over that (checking the number of Scholar cites for the various authors or works might also help). I don't immediately see any cause for copyright concern in the recent edits; an older version of the page shows a fairly alarming degree of overlap with http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0977.pdf. Personally, I'd be more concerned about COI, though I'm not 100% sure about that. I've been lucky in the lottery for access to various databases, so if you're looking for an academic article there's always a chance I could help – feel free to ask! Oh, and good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I think on that article we are seeing the return of a rather notorious sockpuppet that made my life a living hell for about a month in 2009 and then popped up a couple more times later (ItsLassieTime was the original sockmaster, the CCI is still not cleared!). This was one of Dana's GAs, and I'll take a closer look at it. One thing to note is that works of the US Government by an employee of the government are in the public domain, though of course citation is still needed. But the duplicative material is mostly legislative and legalese that generally has to be phrased verbatim lest its meaning change. Thanks for the flag, though. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Montanabw, that makes it plagiarism not copyvio. I think you're on the wrong track with the sock idea; consider WP:REALNAME instead ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

On a totally different note, I recreated the formerly deleted Kalmyk horse today, maybe peek at that and feel free to improve it as you see fit. Also recreated American Indian Horse, though to do so pained me considerably as it sure looks like a "send us a picture of your horse and we'll register it" sort of operation, for all they claim to be a "breed." But given that there are few sources and they all repeat each other, maybe do a run-through to see if you can further eliminate any close paraphrasing; i did my damnedest, but it may not have been enough. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Are the COI and "puffery" comments permanent or may they be undone?

I may have taken the wrong approach to getting your attention to the article on Thomas M. Humphrey, but I just clicked "undo" on your latest revision. In the long run, the article has been dramatically improved by your insistence at the removal of many of my COI additions, which I now realize did not fit the guidelines for an article on a living person. However, some of the current content, e.g. the small paragraph about his thanking his former professors, now appears inconsequential and should probably be removed. The long quote from Humphrey from one of his own books was an attempt to illustrate influences on his study and writing in the field of history of economic thought. Now that the quote has been removed, the short summarizing paragraph is superfluous and adds no additional information for encyclopedic content.

Similarly, the COI charge for the newspaper editor Lewis Craig Humphrey, my husband's grandfather, seems unwarranted, since he died in 1927. I never met him. I was born in 1936 but have access to a great deal of professional ancestral research, family records, and saved images which I hope to place in the public domain with Wikimedia.

Thank you for your ongoing assistance Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Mitzi.humphrey! Comments in the edit history are permanent (unless there's some really serious reason for hiding them); clean-up tags on the article are not – they are usually removed once the clean-up is done and has stayed done for a while. In the case of Thomas M. Humphrey, that is far from being the case. At the risk of boring you further: it is definitely inappropriate for you to edit your husband's article directly; please use the talk page to suggest or request changes to it. Experience (both yours personally and that of the project in general) has shown that it is extremely difficult for people to edit neutrally on topics that are close to them. As for Lewis Craig Humphrey, I don't believe I have ever edited there. The COI tag was placed by an experienced and fair-minded editor, so I suggest taking the same advice in relation to that article; indeed, I strongly suggest that you adopt the same strategy towards all articles about members of your husband's family. Even if you never met them, it seems to be difficult for you to judge whether or not they should be included here. Why exactly do we want an article about William Richardson Belknap? He had a hardware shop, married, had some children and held some parties, died and was buried. That may be interesting to you because he was an ancestor of your husband, but it is not, I'm afraid, in the least interesting to the rest of us. If you are in any doubt about this, I suggest asking either at the Teahouse or at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I'm afraid this is not what you wanted to hear. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am disappointed in not being able to make Thomas M. Humphrey a better, more neutral, article without eliminating important facts such as the Earhart Foundation grant. I don't understand why you would refer to William Richardson Belknap's presidency of Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company as having "a hardware shop."Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Was one of your reference additions yesterday to William Richardson Belknap the reference to The Philatelic Society? Do you know if those envelope images are in the public domain? I have a similar, but different, envelope image from one for sale on Etsy, and I have thought of uploading the image to William Richardson Belknap, since it appears to have been addressed by him. Would it be simpler to upload the one on the Philatelic link? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

YGM

You've got mail. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's food for thought, Diannaa! Thinking ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Black horses

FYI, I acknowledge that the Black (horse) article needs updating. Back when Countercanter was here and working on all the coat color genetics articles, we missed that one, which is ironic, as I got interested in the whole genetics issue in part due to owning a black horse for a while (I also owned a kind-of-rescue-horse who turned out to be affected with cerebellar abiotrophy, which what really got me interested). The coat color testing stuff is just fascinating. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it only needs minor changes - it already says (from memory) that even expert horse people can't reliably tell the difference. I accept all the stuff about legal descriptions and so on (in presumably a tiny number of countries, in the strict context of a contract of sale), fair enough. All that's missing is a clear statement that not all black horses are genetically "true" black, so that, at a purely practical level, "black" can link there without the necessity of a DNA test for a handful of animals on a mountain-top in Nagorno-Karabakh or wherever. In WP terms, if the source says it's black and the source is reliable, we should – within reason – accept that; but we can't assume that they have scientifically confirmed that it is (or is not) genetically black unless the source says so. The differences and fine details and all that should be explained in the article on the colour; so it does need to be an article on a colour, not just on a specific gene.

Thanks for the photo of your neddies; I laughed – mine get a lot more hay than that when there's snow on the ground (but they don't have the shed to go to). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to get a grin, mine are such easy keepers that they are perpetually porky... my dad used to put out multiple bales of straw for bedding and protection of the cattle in the winter when I was a kid, I hear you about keeping the hayburners burning their hay for warmth! Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As for black horses, we can discuss wording there if you want to post at talk. "Looks like" versus "is" does have a philosophical element to it. I agree we can't DNA test every horse, but in truth, experts who see a horse over the course of several seasons CAN say what color it most likely is. (We probably need a RS for the definition of "horse coat color," LOL!) When a horse changes color during its life, it obviously isn't whatever people thought it was as a baby; the way the Thoroughbred people say "gray or roan" for all their grays (true roan does not exist in Thoroughbreds) is just pandering to people's ignorance...a young gray horse isn't a roan and will never be a roan. (Just like a bottle blonde isn't a blonde, no matter what the picture on the box says... heh). Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, will be offline due to cataract surgery for a couple days, hoping for the best! Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for the great work on Terry Reagan Allvord Theroadislong (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! As so very often, I came to an article that was a mess, and found that you had already started sorting it out. Thank you for all you do! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Ratn9ne that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In particular, "dicks". The heading has been revised. If you think Ratn9ne has a COI problem, then just ask. If you have some evidence to show COI, then post it. Also, you might use the {{Connected contributor}} template. But please be prepared to say why you think there is a connection.Thanks.'' – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ermm, Srich32977, please get your facts straight! I assume you are talking about this edit by Ratn9ne at 21:17 on 27 February 2015 with the edit summary "lol". As you can see, that edit was made by Ratn9ne, not by me. I'm considering starting an SPI there, by the way; but perhaps you are right, and I should take it to WP:COIN first. There's no doubt in my mind about the COI, and not much about the socking. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right. I saw your signature and I did not look at the history. I apologize and my comment is stricken. – S. Rich (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Spot reply

If you check the links I listed in regards to the Spot fish on the Spot Fish & Spot Croaker articles you will see the original editor only copied information from those sources and spliced it into what the Smithsonian already created, Also conveniently misnamed the species. Cheatspace (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Artists Union

Thanks for your contribution to the Wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Contributions by Headhitter

Thanks for identifying that the rewritten Barbara Borts article had been wrongly located. Somehow having an article, even in draft, on a Talk page seems counter-intuitive. You might wish to know that I've also rewritten Southlands College, Roehampton: could you please take a look? I can work on rewriting Isabella Plantation next if that would be helpful. Incidentally, all has gone quiet on the OTRS raised for Rebecca Hollweg; it would be good to know please what the problem was with the email correspondence I submitted about it. Headhitter (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

HazelAB (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That was pretty quick, HazelAB. Thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)