Jump to content

User talk:Justlettersandnumbers/old2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Justlettersandnumbers

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cheeseladder (talk | contribs) at 11:38, 12 June 2014 (talk back). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User page Talk page Older talk Sandbox Toolbox References Articles created

So overdue

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for always being conscious of and responsible with copyright issues. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that I haven't spammed you with one of these before. I don't remember at what point you transitioned into being one of the people on Wikipedia that I just think of as awesome in this area, but it's been such a long time ago that I would have assumed I had already popped in a picture to express my appreciation. I consider this long overdue. :) Thank you so much for keeping an eye out for this and facilitating the cleanup of so many issues. You help keep our articles "Quality". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm honoured indeed! In fact doubly so, by the star itself (however little deserved), but much more by who it came from. Thank you, Moonriddengirl! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, you might want to peek at the cn tags here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Buttero&diff=584989445&oldid=567467574 If they can't be sourced and that section is tossed, it won't hurt my feelings. Montanabw(talk) 20:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, it won't hurt mine if you make that call. However, it's one of the least debatable statements in that whole mess, and the tags haven't been there for so very long, so my inclination is to let it be for a while longer. Surely somebody, somewhere, on one side of the sea or the other, must have written an authoritative history of the mass emigration from southern Italy to the USA? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has ... it's just likely to be in a genealogy library somewhere. Since most of my ancestry was from Northern Europe, unfortunately I don't have anything dealing with Italian immigration. Might ask the genealogy project? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a thought; I was thinking more of a social history. There's a curious and remarkably well-documented "museum of emigration" at Coreglia Antelminelli; but the principal industry of that small town is the production of religious figurines and funerary monuments (yes, they did a rip-roaring trade with Chicago), and that is the focus of the museum. It's too far north to be connected in any way with the buttero/cavalcante culture. I had another quick search on Google without any joy. I'll try to remember to look for something next time I go to a real, physical, library (which isn't often). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest that I don't have enough interest to look into the matter, but I know that the notion that Italian culture is the source of all that is right and good in America is kind of common, so view the data with some dubiousness, given the strength of the pre-existing Spanish influence there. But if it can be sourced, it would be interesting. Montanabw(talk) 05:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed you

Hopefully you'll find it comprehensible and interesting. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very clear, very informative, and much as I had thought, though I wasn't aware of the history. Thanks for taking the time to write. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked 2 socks, going to SPI to look for sleepers. Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work indeed, and thanks for the wide-ranging clean-up. All that leaves the interesting question of what to do with the remaining mess at Proportion (architecture). My vote would be to wipe it and start again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stub it. I've suggested that on the talk page. I wonder how much more mess there is from Rktect? Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should you be interested

I have long been seeking help reviewing the Spanish sources for Yeguada Militar de Jerez de la Frontera. Someone recently tried to add that the stud is now "closed", and complained to me when I reverted their edit (so what else is new), but the Google translation of the very short Spanish wiki article says "Stud went in 2013 to be an autonomous body under the Ministry of Interior", and that page and some other sites indicate that they may have had a big auction and sold off a lot of the horses - but not all. So I can't tell if they just downsized things a bunch when placing the program under civilian control, or if they closed all the farms, closed just the Jerez facility, or what.

I'd like the en.wiki article to be accurate, but with a complete absence of English articles on the topic, I'm stymied. So any help is welcome.

I did the best I could when I created this article, using google translate from the Spanish wiki page, other research sources in Spanish, and some English-language sources (English source example, one of the better ones, more often I found stuff like this), but my attempts to find a Spanish-speaking reviewer to help me at the time met with a notable lack of interest, and I just let the article sit once the basics were done. I am certain that the article contains inaccuracies, but I did what I could. The biggest issue is that I am sure there are facilities other than at Jerez, but all the English language sources I know of either just say "Yeguada Militar" broadly and provide no details that help, or they specifically discuss the Jerez farm(s) and nothing else.

At any rate, this source MIGHT be discussing the shutdown issue somewhat, but I can't tell for sure: [1], (the google translation] is a useless disaster); and if it isn't on point, perhaps it could lead you to something more definitive?

To improve the overall article, I do not speak Spanish, but I did find a documentary that looks promising and could be used to improve the overall article: here. If you have the interest in adding sources to the article from the video, see what I did with video sources for Sheila Varian and William Robinson Brown. It's not too hard to do the pinpoint citations, just put in the minute and second on the film where the relevant material begins. Here is another source that appears to discuss the other Yeguada Militar installations across Spain: and this one appears to discuss the facility that handled breeding of farm/draft horses: [http://tododeporte.elcomercio.es/asturias/2013-02-01/yeguada-militar-ibio-1318.html

If this is of no interest to you, no worries, but I'd be glad to know if you are aware of another fluent Spanish speaker who is on en.wiki and on the side of sourcing one's additions who might want to help. Montanabw(talk) 04:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for some reason I saw that edit and revert, and so took a quick look at the Spanish article, which as you say says that the stud will cease to be autonomous, citing this article. Since the change doesn't happen until 1 January it didn't seem to me too urgent to add it to the article here. It doesn't make much sense to me, because as I understood it the Cría Caballar was part of the military, so hardly independent in the first place; but maybe I missed something. Anyway, if the Cría Caballar is gone, that should at least solve the disagreement over who should hold the studbook for the PRE! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gawd, don't even get me started on that drama! LOL! As for Yeguada Militar, all I seek is accuracy and proper formatting, be my guest over there. My primary interest in it is for its history, especially as it relates to the development of the Spanish-bred Arabian (which is a very nice subset of bloodlines in terms of athleticism and trainability) and in the preservation of the Andalusian/PRE. European state studs fascinate me; we have nothing like this in the USA, even our old remount system was mostly private, even in the brief period when there were remount depots. Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unspaced mixed numbers

I have commented and added subthread "Opinions of unspaced mixed numbers" to gather user comments under the topic:

Thank you for posting that topic, during the busy year-end period, to allow more time to gather opinions and perhaps hide the internal space before the next 18-day reformatting of Template:Convert, planned for mid-January. Immediate discussion, in the next 4 weeks, could provide a system-wide solution by early February 2014, for a problem which should never have been slipped into system-wide operation without broader discussion in advance. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And thank you for adding the RfC tag also - I was planning to do the same if anything resembling a discussion developed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know you will watch the discussion, as WP has become a logisitical bureaucracy, now even with Lua {convert} running 18-day reformat to redisplay and relink the fractions among all 554,000 related pages. Previously, the markup-based {convert}, with 3,000 sub-optimized tiny subtemplates, would have directly reformatted the 2,400 fractional conversion articles within a day, but now it will take until late February (2 months from now) to decide the RfC and reformat fractional conversions! I get tired just thinking about it. Welcome to 21st-century typesetting. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The WikiProject Film Award
I, Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) , hereby award Justlettersandnumbers the WikiProject Film Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject Film.
Awarded 12:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm pleased. I'm sorry that the Mereghetti reviews were not more complimentary, but what makes his book so good is that he always says exactly what he thinks. Let me know if you ever need to know what it says about any other Italian film, I have at least two editions. And thanks for quite undeserved star! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cheers

apologies for the unnecessary snarkiness on my part. i will do better in the future! --Lquilter (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, it's all fine with me (but thanks anyway), kind of a storm in a teacup. I went ahead and made a CCI request after discovering what seem to me other more serious copyvios by the same user(s). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your turn

I think it's your turn :) Flat Out let's discuss it 01:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps yours again now? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CCI update

That was over fast. MER-C 09:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Thank you for opening it, and thanks to those who helped close it. Congrats on your new status also (which I had always thought you already had). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother others, cancel facts if you want

Please don't bother me about your paranoic issues on copyright. I never more will bring another contribution to wikipedia. I don't think a single phrase is violation of copyright if sources are cited. Otherwise systems as google news couldn't work. In any case if you are paranoiac don't bother me and do what you want deleting what you desire. Now do you the work. And if you are not willing to reframe something interesting saving the facts cancel them and put them away. Nothing will bother about and wikipedia will be poorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.203.130.116 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Si, hai creato davvero un sacco di lavoro. Ti consiglio di leggere attentamente questa pagina - o, se preferisci leggere in inglese, WP:COPYOTHERS. Buona giornata, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Justlettersandnumbers, just because you're paranoid - it doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled's Moroccan citizenship

Hello,

Do you really think that the problem with user:MoorNextDoor is related to some poor English skills? Don't you think that it is (more simply) only a POV-pushing/WP:TRUTH case? i.e. a new user trying to impose what he believes on Wiki? Even by interpreting French sentences the way he likes? [2][3][4][5][6]

Regards,Br/>--Omar-toons (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to impose anything and I really don't understand what your problem is with facts that are backed by reliable sources. Since we're not going to ignore them, how about you tell us which French sentences you're referring ? Feel free to come up with a better interpretation if you can, that's what discussions are all about. [7][8]
MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Omar-toons, no, I don't think that. I think we should assume good faith; that is why I wondered if there might be a minor language problem there. Anyway, I don't really see any point in continuing this here as well as on the talk page of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your willingness to try out something new. :) I think you're temperamentally suited for the work (I know from our previous experiences that you are careful and thorough), and I'm very grateful for whatever time you want to give it. Seriously, every little bit helps.

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks talks more about the role. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for clerks offers some advice for doing the work. You are as you always have been very welcome to come by my talk page if you have any questions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MRG! I will take it very slowly for now. Even if you don't see anything happening, that may not necessarily mean that I'm not watching what others do! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Skeaping

hi - just saw the edit for removal of the Lund Humphries book which is fact a catalogue raisonne…. but I see your point about the publisher info. What about incorporation it into the previous heading (resources) - it is THE publication of his work, so a shame for its loss here…? Cant find any independent reviews, but it is produced in association with Henry Moore Institute which has charitable aims. Regards Cazimir (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note! I removed it not because there was any specific objection to the book, but because someone apparently connected to the publisher had spammed similar links across 30 or 40 articles (that's a reputable publisher, you'd think they'd know better). Do please feel completely free to re-add it - perhaps without the weblink to the publisher's blurb page? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Edit: Studley, Inc.

Hi JustLettersandNumbers,

I am contacting you to request an edit for the article Studley, Inc. I've requested edits multiple times with no success and the prolonged lack of content in the article is damaging the brand's image while our competitor CBRE Group for example continues to have a full length article despite being flagged for potentially having a COI author over a year ago.

I've written a few paragraphs in Talk:Studley, Inc. #Request edit on 10 December 2014 that I hope are helpful, but I would be grateful for any content you can add to the article. Please let me know if you or anyone you know anybody can assist, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks so much for your time and patience. RyLaughlin (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ryan, thanks for for your courteous note. I'm sorry that your edit requests have not had a response; nor are you alone in that, I'm afraid. I'll try to look at the page and comment there soon. The tone and content at CBRE Group are in my opinion quite inappropriate to this project; I've listed it at the conflict of interest noticeboard in the hope that someone will look at it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your fairness in editing our competitor and for your willingness to comment on the Studley page. Both are much appreciated. RyLaughlin (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly recommend you read WP:NAVBOX, WP:NAVBOXES and WP:REDNOT before reverting my navbox tidyup any further. If you have any questions, or don't understand how some of it applies, please just ask. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I'd strongly recommend that YOU re-read WP:BRD, your "tidying" is not helpful and is removing tools that have been stable for quite some time. You are not helping. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CCI update

Thanks for helping out with this one, seems like they're finally getting cleared a lot quicker. Wizardman 04:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only did some of the easy ones, and left all the tough ones for you. Anyway, one down. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C 11:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C 11:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes! Another one bites the dust! Thanks for letting me know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your good work on First Presbyterian Day School when all my efforts failed. Theroadislong (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! But I thought you were doing just fine, and in particular had picked up and eliminated the old copyvio. I should be giving you this star! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your patient collaboration on the perfect fifth article. For your amusement, the following: Yesterday evening I got to hear a trio consisting of violin, cello, and guitar, in a small-town library. They were mostly playing traditional Scottish fiddle tunes and similar stuff. To adorn a waltz-time island lullaby, the cellist had a pretty good seagull sound, catching various harmonics on her D string while pulling the left thumb up towards the nut. She made it sound like a call and response among several birds. :) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nice, Just plain Bill! I'll try and remember to look at the fifth talk page again soon; I was surprised at how difficult it is to phrase that clearly. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It happens

You know. Stuff. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying thanks

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for the work you've been doing at WP:CP. It is, unfortunately, frequently a thankless job, but it's been noticed and appreciated. There are very few people who are willing to put any time into that at all, and it's such crucial work, and I am so grateful for the time you've been able to give it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moonriddengirl! I'm afraid I've been of very little use recently, for various real-life reasons visiting Wikipedia only briefly and infrequently. However, I've been quite pleasantly surprised at the number of "thank you"s a copyright clean-up can generate. As for "stuff", yes it does happen; but (much) more often to some than to others! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Antonio_Pio_Saracino

Talk:Antonio_Pio_Saracino - I guess I should be happy someone noticed the copyright tag, but it would be even better if you perhaps looked at the page's content. Thanks. Zanglazor (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Zanglazor, I did indeed look at the page content. It was unambiguously promotional, copied from the website of the subject, and almost certainly contributed by someone closely connected to that subject. You might perhaps like to read these guidelines. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: GT Advanced Technologies

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of GT Advanced Technologies, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I've compared it with the link given, and I can't find any chunks of text which have been copied directly so it doesn't look like a copyvio to me. Happy to reasses if you disagree. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Olaf Davis, I'm actually quite familiar with the speedy criteria, and G12 in particular. This isn't a new page, it's already been deleted twice. Please take a look at this and [9]. I agree that the second is not a word-for-word copy, but it nevertheless shows up a lot of copied stuff and close paraphrasing. Or perhaps either you or Jimfbleak would be kind enough to compare the recreated article with the one he deleted on 19 February? Otherwise I can go ahead and list it at WP:CP. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The version I deleted on 13 Feb is very similar, although not quite identical, to that SD-declined by Olaf Davis. Three admins have looked at this now, and reached two different conclusions, two deleting and one declining. Much as I dislike referring anything to WP:CP, unless Olaf is swayed by your Dup Detector links, I don't think there is any alternative. Its content is predictably selective (products and awards, not employee numbers, profits or turnover) but not actually spammy (and I've just had my wrist slapped for deleting on the basis of selective content) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jimfbleak. To be honest, I probably wouldn't have speedied it this time around if it hadn't seemed so similar to my recollection of the previous version. I don't there's any doubt it was created by copying the hitchhikersgui.de page; I've no idea whether that page can be regarded as copyright or not (deleted copyvio content copied from us, no free licence, a right muddle). We'll see what Olaf decides. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First off, sorry if the template message I left seemed patronising or, on the new pages point, inaccurate. I use a tool for processing CSDs which I installed about a billion years ago and didn't even remember what the messages it left looked like.
On the duplication reports (which I couldn't access earlier due to a down server, or I would've reviewed): in the second of the two links you give, the duplicates are all pretty short phrases which don't, to me, seem like copyvios - I'm not really sure how one would paraphrase "directional solidification system dss multicrystalline and monocast casting furnaces". Regarding the first link you posted, I confess I'm totally confused. The duplication detector claims to have found numerous matches of whole paragraphs, but none of them appear as far as I can see to exist in the cached version of the mirror which the tool claims it's making the comparison to. Can either of you explain what's going on? Am I missing something? Also, since the site in question appears to be a Wikipedia mirror anyway, even if they were identical it surely wouldn't make our article a copyvio of theirs. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Olaf, and np! It would be so good if the Duplication detector worked all the time. Frankly, I'm confused too; the hitchhikers page is indeed a mirror; it's mirroring content which we have previously determined to be a copyvio and have thus deleted; it doesn't carry a copyleft notice that I can see. I've really no idea what the copyright status of that page is, but I'm in no doubt that the current version of our article was copied from it. I've now listed the article at WP:CP and hope that a better brain than mine will come to bear on it there. There is to my mind a quite unacceptable level of copying/ close-paraphrasing from the investorwand page which in any case needs to be sorted out. As for how to paraphrase the phrase you quote, an editor who was here to improve Wikipedia rather than clock up points for a class assignment would probably know what those things are (as I do not), and have no trouble describing them in other words. Regards, and thanks to you both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good call on sending it to CP I think - I'm also not entirely sure how to deal with it really. I guess I've made some extra work for you and some lucky other person by declining the CSD. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, speedy would have been quicker, yes. But not I believe quite 100% justified in this case. So I think all-in-all you made the right call. Thanks! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and fixed it by writing a stub summarizing the content. A lot of that content was promotional anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 01:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks for that, CorporateM! I've now nominated it for deletion; like so many of the articles created by this school project, it is non-notable by our standards. I hope you didn't spend much time on it! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Paradise

Yikes! Just give me a warning first! I thought I wrote it different enough from the source. :S Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is listed at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2014-03-05; I'm assuming that MadmanBot left a template on it to say that? Unless of course it wasn't you that created the previous version of it (which of course I don't have any way of knowing), in which case I apologise, but would anyway ask you to take a touch more care to write in your own words. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NBCC

Hi, could you please take a moment to read the talk page of Norwegian-British Chamber of Commerce, with its OTRS notice, and then consider adding back in the correctly sourced material that I had added to the article? I do not see how blanking basic facts sourced to old copies of The Times and other sources benefits Wikipedia.

The OTRS release means that you have blanked a valid article with no copyright justification. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-reverted. The article has been a blatant copyvio since November 2006. I suppose the OTRS release makes that sort of OK; I wonder what Moonriddengirl would think about that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By all means ask MRG, we have worked together in the past, she may have a view on the OTRS ticket and I am happy to invite feedback. This is the second time an editor has missed the talk page OTRS ticket. If there is a better way of flagging to editors that they ought to check the talk page I would be open to suggestions. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, since they created it themselves. Otherwise, we'd need to use an attribution template on the face of the article. Those are sometimes helpful, anyway. With a history that recently complex, overlooking an OTRS note is understandable, and the face tag can help avoid confusion. That said, I generally check the talk page anyway in case there's an OTRS tag or a link to a license on the site itself. :) Fæ, the issue here is that the article was listed at WP:SCV, which is why it was being investigated. Unfortunately, that's easily overlooked in the history as well, or you could have marked that it was handled there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look into it. --Fæ (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)OK, thanks, MRG! Does the old history need to be hidden? What I was going to say to Fae: Well, I was just wondering exactly the same myself. Something like {{CC-notice}} for OTRS releases might help to avoid other misunderstandings, but I don't know of any such thing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably okay - I worry about that kind of thing more when the newer content looks inferior to the older. In this case, the old content was, er, not so good. :) All content added by Anno1906 is included in the release, as I read it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion requests

Thanks for your revdel requests.As soon as I see your username in the history of a page I'm tempted to not even check for the copyvios and just delete whatever you have requested because your reports are always accurate. I see you already have a Copyright Cleanup Barnstar on this page so I'll just leave a message instead of another. Your work on keeping WP copyvio free is much appreciated. James086Talk 19:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And thank you for dealing with so many of those revdeletion requests, you seem to be one of the few that do that. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Parabola Films

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. Have I dealt with the copyright problems in this draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anne! No, in a word, I think not. It's not the shortage of references that I saw as the problem, but the fact that the text was copied directly from the company's website. Since that goes right back to the first version of the draft, there's no clean version to revert back to; the best thing is probably to let it be deleted, and then wait until someone (you, perhaps?) is interested enough in the company to write a proper article. As far as I can see, the creator of the draft has anyway lost interest in it. Sorry if that isn't the answer you wanted, do please feel free to ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems if you have doubts. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers, I had rewritten all of the text in the paragraph in my own words. I have never seen the company web site, so I doubt that I could have accidentally invented text that was just like it. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, of course not. I'm sorry if I made a mistake there (can't check now); my recollection is that it was unfortunately still too close. I'm sure that Jimfbleak would restore the content to you if wanted him to. You do great stuff at AfC. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Rules removed

Hello, You've removed some sections of the article Angelo Rules. I don't understand what's the issue about the information I put on this page. They are neutral informations such as the list of episodes or description of characters and it's not a promotional content at all. My source is indeed the official website of the series but as I sent recently an email to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' to allow the uses of this copyrighted content without rewriting it with other words, I would like to ask you to delete your removal. Thank you, Constance Lassort (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constance Lassort (talk • contribs) 09:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you once again delete the sections I've just added on the article? I've put some references for each sections to prove the neutral point of view of these information. I really don't get your problem. I've done exactly the same for the French page, and I've just added external sources as well. As this series is a notable series, broadcasted all over the world, why can't I put information about it on Wikipedia? Moreover, I had some emails exchange with Wikimedia official permissions to freely use the content of the official website to fill the article. Thanks for your reply in talk to me? --Constance Lassort (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plankton Invasion speed deletion

You've asked for the speed deletion of the article Plankton Invasion. I don't understand what's the issue about the information I put on this page. They are neutral informations such as the scenario, list of episodes or description of characters and it's not a promotional content at all. My source is indeed the official website of the series but as I sent recently an email to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' to allow the uses of this copyrighted content without rewriting it with other words, I would like to ask you to delete your removal. Thank you, Constance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constance Lassort (talk • contribs) 09:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Constance Lassort, you were advised of the copyright problem on 9 October last year, so "recently" may have been a little late to send that email. It is in any case very unlikely that the promotional materials of a film company would be suitable content for Wikipedia. As far as I recall, the Plankton Invasion page was entirely promotional in tone, and copied directly from your press release. I can't see it or restore it to you, but you can ask Jimfbleak, the admin who deleted it, to do so (he will see that I have written this). If, as it appears, you work for the company, you have what we call a conflict of interest with regard to this page and others such as Angelo Rules and TeamTO; please take the time to read that guideline carefully, particularly where it says: "you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral", and the section on European fair trading law. You are of course always welcome to suggest improvements on the talk pages of those articles. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you guess, I'm working indeed for the company TeamTO which produce Angelo Rules and Plankton Invasion and as I'm working here since a few months, I wasn't aware of the copyright problem advise before. I still don't understand why you call this content a promotional one as it's only a synopsis of the series (and I'm not allowed to re-write it because it has been validated by its author himself and the producer) and the list of episodes (which I can't obviously change the titles) or such things. Why these information are allowed for the Article Space Goofs, or any others series or companies such as Xilam, and not mine? I don't want to convince you, I really don't understand your point of view. Maybe Jimfbleak will be able to reply to this conflict, by restoring at least some sections of these pages or answering to my concerns. Thank you again for your time Justlettersandnumbers --Constance Lassort (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this discussion, and I'll reply in due course. I'll respond at User talk:Constance Lassort unless Justlettersandnumbers indicates a wish to keep the thread here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright hero award
Specifically inspired by your helping with the really old issue, but just general appreciation for the time you have been giving copyright cleanup. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the first to benefit from my finding this awesome image when trying to find a generic superhero to award you - it's obviously a copyright placeholder where non-free images don't exist, but how appropriate is this? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Moonriddengirl! Of course, I don't look quite like that in real life ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Feel free to replace with your own picture if you choose. Just make sure you have a cape. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, no cape! - see The Incredibles for my reasons... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. In the alternative, I suppose we could settle for very visible branding - either a massive logo on your chest or some kind of helmet. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Legacy" section

Hi! About this edit - it's common to list/write about monuments, parks, schools, etc. named after famous people. There is a list of places named after Cesar Chavez, for instance. I'm sure there are many places in Mexico named after Rivera so we could have a list like we have for Chavez. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible to me, as long as they have real significance and it doesn't become just a list of trivia. There are, for example, a lot of streets named after Martin Luther King in France. It would not be helpful to list those in the article about him. Nor in my opinion would it be useful to start listing schools named after Rivera. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least the secondary schools are notable. Perhaps List of places named after Cesar Chavez can be a model WhisperToMe (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would make sense. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Edit to Education Theory

Hi. You recently made this edit [10] to Education theory. You gave the following edit summary: "Reverted to revision 559194811 by Aeternus: Presumptively restore last apparently clean version before additions of possibly copyright-violating material (see talk); some subsequent edits may need to be redone". Whilst I fully agree with your stated aim of reducing copyright violations, the way you have attempted to do this here is not within our community customs and guidelines. A commonly-followed approach is "Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit."

I strongly feel that you have been deeply unwise to revert in the way you did: you have not merely reverted to an immediately preceding version of the article, but to the 40th preceding - a version of the article written ten months ago! You have cavalierly disregarded a large number of bona fide edits to the article since then, and have added insult to injury by remarking that "some subsequent edits may need to be redone". This is not even slightly helpful. Whilst I am aware of the current investigation into work by Stmullin it would have been far more helpful to re-write that editor's contributions, rather than simply throw away a large number of good faith edits. The situation is made worse by the fact that you have done all of this "presumptively": if you don't have good evidence of a clear copyright violation, to simply wipe out ten months of work by other people than the suspect editor is excessive. Finally, your remark that "some subsequent edits may need to be redone" is an inadequate performance of your duties: you should have worked out which ones these were, and redone them yourself, rather than leave a mess for other people to tidy up. My overall point is this: an extreme revert like this is not an acceptable way to deal with the problem you are trying to solve; you would have been better to re-write with care, rather than indulge in a slapdash revert to a much older version. Please "revert your reversion" and perform a re-write of the appropriate bits of the article. Thank you.

RomanSpa (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this accolade. I particularly enjoyed the bit about the "inadequate perfomance of [my] duties". As far as I can see, you have made exactly one edit to Education theory, in which you changed the word "than" to "from". I have redone that edit for you, though you could perfectly well have done it yourself. If there are other significant edits that also need to be redone as a result of the rollback, please either go ahead and make the changes, or list them on the article talk page. Of the 40 edits you mention, 20 were by the editor in question; several are vandalism, reverts of the same, bot edits; what did I miss?
That said, I welcome review of my edits here. If I've been over-hasty or over-zealous in this case, or failed in some way to follow the cleanup instructions here, I hope that more experienced copyright cleanup editors will feel perfectly free to tell me so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed my point, which is that it would be far better to delete the parts of the article that you felt were violating copyright, rather than reverting to a version of the article from ten months ago. Reverting to such an old article without cleaning up afterwards is not helpful, and it is not acceptable to blithely wave your hands and hope that someone else will redo lost work. You are certainly engaged in good and important work, but this doesn't exempt you from our general guidelines on reversion. RomanSpa (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The essay you link to is not a guideline. It contains a notice at the top clarifying that it is not policy or guideline. It is Wikipedia policy that no editor has any duty to make any edits per WP:NOTREQUIRED. It is also Wikipedia policy to remove material that is strongly suspected of being a copyright violation per WP:DCV. ParacusForward (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for tidying up this article. I am still getting used to how this works and the guide lines you sent will help. Is there a place I can send proposed edits for correction before posting them so as not to inadvertently violate these policies? GJS Greg Sheppard (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Greg Sheppard: - the best place is on the article talk space - i.e. its "flip side" - so it'd be Talk:Sheppard (band) (and Talk:Geronimo (song) for that matter). Generally anyone who's edited the article will see an alert come up on their watchlist and then can discuss and determine what/how to add. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Greg Sheppard! As you saw, Casliber actually did almost all the work, and is much more deserving of this star. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
You've done a boldly remarkable job at Los Angeles College of Music. You did a lot of reading and bold cutting. It was a puffed up piece of peacockery before! I saw the work in progress and I guess you started right when I discovered it by way of a vandalism report. I had done some stuff back then, but I was motivated to polish it up today out of a desire to reciprocate the effort you'd put into it. I absolutely couldn't find any archival copy of the two dead links anywhere though. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, Smuckola, and for your attention there too. No, I couldn't find those articles; Highbeam has the Pasadena-Star, but doesn't seem to have that page (I didn't go through every article from that month to check, of course). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think sometimes we just have to let it go, huh? ;) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 16:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey

Hello. I think I've been very clear about the reasons for my reversion of this edit and I certainly have no trouble understanding the sources. The OED has never claimed that its own earliest citation is "the earliest recorded" use of a word. That would be an impossibly ambitious claim because it would require the editors to have read every word of English on record. Another source has an earlier citation and does actually make that claim and as such there is no contradiction at all between the sources, nor can there be any logical doubt that the earliest recorded use is not 1785. I've tried to explain this as clearly as I can. On the subject of your other reversion, "ass" has been largely superseded by "donkey"; it has certainly not been "replaced". "Ass" is still in use in a biblical context ("the ox and the ass"); it was also in common use as an insult in British English until very recently, and is still heard occasionally. Finally, it is still used fairly often simply as an alternative for "donkey" --Lo2u (T • C) 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and although "arse" and "ass" may have become homophones in most (but not all) dialects of English in North America they are not homophones in most of the rest of the English speaking world. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that JLAN here has a strong language ability and is a go-to source on what is copacetic in "the rest of the English speaking world," I'd say if he's chopping that bit, it needs to stay chopped. My own view is that your edits exceeded what can be verified in the sources cited, so if you want to find more sources and discuss at the article's talk page, go for it. But don't edit-war on the article itself. Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You offer nothing relevant here and I'm not going to go on repeating myself, except to say an initial edit followed by a reversion several days after you ignored by talk page comment is not edit warring. --Lo2u (T • C) 05:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who came over here with your complaints, to which JLAN has so far chosen not to respond. So I'm not going to hijack JLAN's talkpage any further, I have commented at the talk page of the article. Montanabw(talk) 17:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Montanabw! I'm not really clear why this was brought here at all, given that a discussion was already under way at Talk:Donkey; I suggest continuing it, such as it is, at that page. However, I will take this opportunity to say that I have no particular expertise in etymology, and wouldn't really want it to be thought that I do. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your clarification of the editors to Tendon and Epitenon, it is always reasurring WP's content is regarded as high enough quality to be considered for publication.

In the future, WP:CP is the correct forum for bringing these concerns up, right? Can this be done via Twinkle? --LT910001 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes. You can add {{copypaste}} and {{close paraphrasing}} tags with Twinkle, as you did at Tendon, but to be honest I'm not sure how much attention that will attract. If you manually blank the suspect content and list at WP:CP it will definitely get looked at, though, as that board is over-loaded, not necessarily immediately. By the way, if you are satisfied that there are no other problems, you could probably go ahead and remove those tags from Tendon now. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hello. I'm sorry for the tone of my previous post at Talk:Donkey, which was not really aimed at you at all. I don't think you are "intent" on anything and I don't think you are being "obtuse", though I do think that word applies to attempts, not by you, to close down the argument after a source was actually mentioned ("drop the stick", "end of discussion here..."). --Lo2u (T • C) 10:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, I didn't take any of that personally; but thanks anyway. I'm sure that this will all work out, though, as I've already said, I'm not convinced that it is very important. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua (the band)

Hi,

I was just on their article and I clicked on the group's official website and I have noticed that the first 4 paragraphs are a word by word copy of the information found on the band's website. At first it looks like it's a copyright violation, but it seems more like what's on their site is actually copied from Wiki, considering it actually contains exactly the same numbers that Wiki used for the verification of the information. This should be looked into as well. Norum 10:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Norum! That can happen too. I'll take a look at it and see if I can work it out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) Norum 13:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR

Thanks for your note on my talk page regarding my recent changes to Mondovì. You are quite right about the hyphenation of north-western, per MOS:COMPASS. I stand corrected, and I will be more careful about this in the future.

On the other hand, MOS:CONVERSIONS says, "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, follow the 'primary' quantity with a conversion in parentheses: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long." I noted some time ago that almost all of the articles about Italian population centers lacked conversions from metric (the primary unit) to imperial, and I've recently been adding the conversions. When you reverted my edit to north-western, you also reverted my unit conversion in the first sentence of the lead. I can't be sure whether that was intentional or not. If you have no objection, I will restore the phrase to read "about 80 kilometres (50 mi) from Turin". My best. Finetooth (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; that was a careless press of the button on my part, sorry about that. Please do as you suggest. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Podolica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Maquis and Lombard
Mfantsipim School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fante
Nutopia (production company) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to National Geographic
Romagnola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lombard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Goat breeds of Italy

Template:Goat breeds of Italy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

That's a TfD by the same person doing all the page moves. FWIW, note this. Montanabw(talk) 03:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I know which editor it is – the same whose pointless and misguided crusade against the bird project has resulted in the departure of truly valuable expert editors such as Sabine's Sunbird (note capitalisation!). You'd have thought that crusader would have learnt to sign a talk-page post by now. Anyway, be prepared for the same pointless and misguided crusade against current consensus at all animal breed articles; this stuff is just a warm-up. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Cornford

Which passage from this website do you think I have copy-violated.Cheeseladder (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justlettersandnumbers/old2&oldid=612621668"