User talk:Justlettersandnumbers/2023

---

Note: This talk-page archive covers all of 2023. Older archives are:

• all of 2022
• all of 2021
• all of 2020
• all of 2019
• all of 2018
• most of 2016 and 2017
• about July 2014 until mid-January 2016
• from when I first started editing until about July 2014.

But I often delete stuff from my talk, so none of these pages is necessarily complete.

---

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just noticed your banner on top of the Christine Leunens article and read your comment:" No, this is definitely still required – the page has a long history of obvious WP:UPE, ands needs to be cleaned up/rewritten".

Could you please provide some background information on the following:

1) why are you assuming that I am being paid to edit this page, when I am not?

2) all information I have provided is supported by evidence available for anyone to see on the internet - none of it is hearsay or opinion or commissioned - please point out the information that have led you to make this statement.

3) Christine Leunens is a public figure - if you type her name on the internet, you'll see that there's plenty of news about her.

4) what do you mean with "article needs to be cleaned up, re-written" - please advise. Just naming and shaming isn't helpful.

I am more than happy to follow your guidance, if you're willing to give some. Again, I'm not being paid, not employed either, so not sure where you're coming from but I'm willing to do what needs to be done to get the banner removed.

Thank you JRfougnazal (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, JRfougnazal, but I'm unable to believe you when you say "I am not"; you might like to review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, particularly this section. The evidence I have is private, so I can't discuss it with you. I would have blocked your account for violation of the WP:Terms of Use, but am no longer allowed to do so on the basis of private evidence alone. I've sent it to ArbCom, who no doubt will or will not take action as appropriate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, appreciate your response. I may have done the same if I were you, but would have checked the source of the "private evidence" to ensure it is

a) from a verifiable source,

b) based on facts and not an opinion or hearsay or someone who has a vested interest in discrediting me, and finally

c) in accordance with the level of transparency required in this matter.

I wish you the best. JRfougnazal (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For sending me thanks for this contribution where I did nothing but correct my own mistake. Cyfal (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyfal, we all make mistakes, I more often than many others. It's good to see someone recognise and correct one (or indeed several!), but the thanks was also intended more generally for your work on typos and the lay/lie thing in particular – edits like this one. I don't have the patience for that kind of work, so I'm glad that some others do. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, you said "this is a list of breeds, not cross-breeds with silly made-up names", but Brangus is a portmanteau hybrid of Brahman and Angus. I am not sure how Wangus is different, being a portmanteau hybrid of Wagyu and Angus. Thanks in advance for clearing this up! Enix150 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Enix150. Yes, you're right, and there are indeed dozens of such portmanteau breed names, of which Brangus may be one of the oldest. The difference as I see it is that that is the name of an established breed, recognised and reported as such in the literature, while 'Wangus' is none of those things. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there was some more discussion on the Talk page for the Schloss Fuschl about our disagreement. I would be grateful if you would review the comments. One is by a friend of mine, but I asked him to reply with his honest opinion, even if he felt I was wrong. The other is from a stranger I contacted, whose name I frequently see on pages I also edit. There have been no comments by any other people, that's why I asked them to weigh in. I was also asked to notify you here that I'd like to open an official Wikipedia "Dispute Resolution," so we can get this resolved. It cannot be opened until I inform you here. Best, James Jamesluckard (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Jamesluckard, I'll look at it soon. Notification acknowledged. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in on this, thanks! Jamesluckard (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to keep bothering you, but I would like to respectfully request that we continue our discussion of this article on its talk page. I tried again to open a Dispute Resolution on this article yesterday, and was told by the moderators that I needed to contact you again first and attempt to continue our conversation on the article's talk page. Thank you! Jamesluckard (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to debate the problems where with the initial entry for Triennale di Milano. My proposal is to split the topic into two entries: one reflecting the building (Palazzo dell'Arte, which along with the nearby steel tower, is another example of fascist architecture. The second independent topic is the "Triennial" itself. It is a design exhibit held every recurrently. Its offices are in that Palazzo dell'Arte. That palazzo now has a "permanent" exhibit on prior Triennials. I should be able to find enough reliable information on those two topics, also the latter should headline a category that captures the dozen or so entries about different Triennali. I will try to leave message for those discussing in talk page.

Talk:Triennale di Milano

Rococo1700 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Rococo1700! As far as I can see there's almost nothing on the building in that page, so a new page on that topic seems like an excellent plan. A word of warning, if I may: the Italian page on the building has been heavily edited by socks of a long-term hoax/nuisance editor. I don't know if you were planning to draw on it at all, but please know that not one word written by that person can be taken at face value (my involvement with the Triennale page was part of a massive clean-up effort). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chetak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page R..

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone's looking for me: for family reasons I'll be mostly or completely away from the project for several days from now, no idea for how many. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Taurus cattle and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 2 § Taurus cattle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18 months ago you helped with InilanNahklia (talk · contribs) who was having problems with copyright violation in articles. Fast forward to today and the same editor has done the same thing all over again at Dorset Police. As you have history here, do you want to provide some further guidance (or threat!). Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b.t.w. I tagged the violating revisions in Dorset Police 10mmsocket (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 10mmsocket! I think that was mostly more a matter of close paraphrasing than of outright copyvio (a good part of the apparent overlap was a string of place-names, so not really copyrightable content). As you may have seen, I've a note for the user. Thanks for your vigilance! That page needs some serious clean-up, by the way. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Will take a look. And thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have recently made a change to the Central School of Art and Design Alumni page which I think you created? I added my mother (Dee Harvey) but it was my first time editing a Wiki page and I slightly messed up! The G names are now appended to the F names list (and my mum’s new entry is at the bottom without a link). Sorry! I didn’t want to mess it up any more so thought I would just leave it and let you know… DrJakobi (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DrJakobi! Thanks for letting me know that your first real edits didn't go quite according to plan – that's happened to us all, of course. I've removed your mother's name for now; in general, that list is for alumni who already have a Wikipedia article, or who those who very obviously should have one but don't (such as those with an entry in a major reference work such as Grove Art). You can read about our "entry criteria" for artists here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I agree that it may not stick, but I personally think the article should be honest. Let's see. I personally think it is confusing and problematic if the infobox states it originated in Ireland but the lead says it was bred in England. How 'Irish' the breed is is debateable...

One question though: Do you think infobox should say 'England' or 'United Kingdom' or 'British Isles'? Fitzkarl (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for United Kingdom, I think. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UK? United Kingdom? You just said a week ago to use United Kingdom.Justanother2 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I have written and edited this draft about a New York artist, "David Gonzalez" who is a bit difficult to classify (musician, poet, actor, teacher ....?) I have found references from independent sources of great relevance such as the New York Times, Washington Post and other news. I have seen that you are on the AfC participant list, and you have specialized in music. I ask you the great favor if you can review this article, thank you very much. Together we all make a better Wikipedia Miskito89 (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miskito89, I'm afraid I have no interest in helping you earn a fee for promoting this person in our encyclopaedia. Please make a point of disclosing your paid-editor status whenever discussing this or any other editing you are doing for pay. I've moved a couple of other such pages of yours to draft space, please submit them for review in the usual way. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was fast! I received a notification last night, while traveling, that my draft Notenik article had been tagged for speedy deletion and then, as soon as I had time to sit down and contest it, it was already gone! And this is a draft that had been in work for about two years, and reflected and incorporated improvements made over that period in response to previous objections -- none of which had suggested that the piece was pure spam. Could I please somehow retrieve the latest copy? Also, some explanation of why it is being classified as spam would be appreciated. A previous reviewer had noted that the piece was being drafted by the developer, and not a neutral third party, but stated that this was not against Wikipedia's rules. Since I began work on this article, its subject (the app) has been garnering additional positive attention and reviews from neutral third parties, and I have been dutifully adding these citations to the draft as they appeared. As I pointed out on another Wikipedia page, where I was asking for advice, the text that sounded like advertising was in a section clearly titled "Reception," where I was trying to summarize, with citations, how various neutral third parties had been responding to the app. Should I remove the section titled "Reception" for some reason? If so, could you state the reason? If other parts of the article are not written from a neutral point of view, then could you please point out which of those words are problematic? I am a hard-working independent developer who has developed an open-source app that a lot of other people have found useful, and have gone on the record stating this. Wikipedia has articles on other Mac software, and other note-taking apps, so while I am happy to rework the article in as many ways as I can to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, I am a bit mystified as to why you have seen fit to summarily delete the entire draft. Hhbowie (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hhbowie, you have 53 edits in this project, of which by my count exactly 3 have not been on the topic of Notenik; your username closely resembles the name of one of the authors of that product. It seems pretty certain that you have a financial interest in the topic, but I do not see any paid-editor disclosure on your user-page, nor any disclosure when you posted here (or indeed here or here). Please read and then abide by our policies, most particularly those regarding promotion and paid-contribution disclosure. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC) (PS I didn't delete the draft, merely nominated it for deletion; I see no advantage to the encyclopaedia in restoring it, but won't object if you choose to ask the deleting admin.)[reply]

I am the author of Notenik! I have never tried to hide this. As I mentioned previously, this had been noted by another editor early on, and he had said there was no rule against this, but that editors should be aware of it. I have no financial interest -- as the now-deleted article pointed out, the app is available for free in the Mac App Store, and it is open-source, so it is FOSS (free and open-source). I don't collect any user data, and I don't include any advertising, so there is really no opportunity for me to make any money on it. I develop Notenik for fun, and because it is a way of giving back to the community. So no, I have no financial interest, and I am not paid by anyone. Hhbowie (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Hhbowie – it'd probably have been better to say all that right from the start. It still doesn't mean that you can promote it here, though, I'm afraid. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the article had not been deleted, I could have shown you the comment made by an earlier editor indicating that I was the app's developer -- so I had thought that my role had been stated "right from the start." And as I have made clear, I have no financial interest in the app, so I am not sure how you distinguish "promotion" from a summary of objective information obtained from cited, neutral third parties. Wikipedia already has a page comparing features of note-taking software, and it has articles about other pieces of note-taking software. All I am trying to do is make an appropriate addition to Wikipedia's store of knowledge so that its readers have comprehensive up-to-date information available to them. Hhbowie (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Justlettersandnumbers, I have already placed the "Connected contributor" template at the top of the "IESE Business School" article discussion. I have also carefully read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page.

I see that I should propose the text after the "request edit" template and if there is conflict in the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Please tell me if this is correct or should I do something else.
From now on I will request the edits in IESE BS Talk.

With all due respect, is it now possible to remove the "undisclosed paid" template from the main IESE BS article?
Thank you very much for your help, between all of us we make a better and more professional wikipedia.Miskito89 (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miskito89, thanks for doing that, and for understanding how you should proceed if you want to continue with paid editing (which I strongly recommend that you don't, by the way). I've taken some time to think about your request to remove the undisclosed-paid template. You seem to have about 24 edits to IESE Business School, of which all but the last three (which I reverted) were apparently WP:UPE; I don't see that your subsequent – and proper – disclosure changes that, so I really don't see any reason to remove it until the article is rewritten in a neutral and encyclopaedic manner. I notice that you've removed ULMA Construction from the disclosure on your talk-page; were those edits not paid editing too? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hi Just... thank you very much for your prompt reply. Yes, I am working on modifying the texts that I will propose as requested edits in the appropriate place. And I will probably change from now on my relationship with Wikipedia. I have had no work relationship or payment or friendship with ULMA Construction, they just asked me if I could help clean up the text and I agreed. With the shock of the other day it was all very fast and I made the mistake.

Thanks again Miskito89 (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete the Xuantong Emperor page so then the Puyi page can be moved to Xuantong Emperor DueKinkajou4384 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DueKinkajou4384 That is a controversial move that is out of process. He shouldn't be referred to as the Xuantong Emperor because he is best known by his common name. Further, he was only the emperor for like two years as a baby, and later served as the emperor of Manchuko under a separate regnal name. He then lived out his days as Puyi, the commoner. If you want the page moved, please follow the directions at WP:RM and open a discussion on the article's talk page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DueKinkajou4384, please do as CaptainEek suggests – start a move discussion if you think it should be moved. For an uncontroversial move, you can request deletion of a redirect that's blocking it by adding a {{Db-move}} template to the redirect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: note the editor responded earlier regarding being a paid editor. isaacl (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious about what you found advertorial about the inertial labs article? Quite a few editors have been working on the page in the short time between when it was published and when you returned it to draft. If you read the notes, I was trying to get exactly that type of help so I am curious why you drafted it when everyone seems to agree it was notable and the one editor took nearly 10k characters out of the article since it was tagged advertorial. This company produces tech that deal with military tech, UAV's, Space, Marine, autonomous vehicles and automation. Virtually anything that uses GPS location . They would meet the scientific criteria for publication.. Before you drafted it I was checking for adjectives and I was thinking of removing the advertorial tag. If you could give me some insight to your actions I would appreciate it so I know how to proceed. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the notice on your talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. For deleting a user page for WP:U1 that was just restored via WP:RFUND.

Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, Awesome Aasim, if I was wrong to do so. But I don't know what page you're talking about, so here's a sardine for failing to link to it. Be well, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know if someone has written the same article before. But it wasn't me who became its first author. If possible, please remove the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IDN_Media. And I ask for directions if there are still revisions, so I can improve even better. Ida Yuliani (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Yuliani, you haven't replied to my question here. There's no reason for Draft:IDN Media to be deleted unless deletion is requested by the user who created that page; you can however request deletion of Draft:IDN MEDIA, which you created – just add a {{db-g7}} template to it – and then edit the older draft. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, hope you are well. Came across some instances of Lierna being referenced in unexpected places. (See Wikidata for Livio, Achille, and Pier Giacomo Castiglioni – the poor follows ought be left in peace, alas.) Not sure if this data is collected by some automated process or manually entered, but some of it seems dubious. Though this might be aligned with your interests. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC) PS: PS: I accidently left this note in your archive. I'll go tidy that up now. Sorry.[reply]

Hi, Cl3phact0, thanks for the note. I see you've been pretty busy, great work!

Yes, I'd say that's our Alec. The workings of Wikidata are pretty much a mystery to me – I see that the two IPs responsible have been briefly blocked as "LTA 208", but don't know what that means there. I also don't know if sockpuppet edits are routinely reverted in that project – Ymblanter, could I trouble you for your advice on that? Those IPs have been all over everywhere, but not in this Wikipedia, fortunately. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad edits are normally being reverted on Wikidata, but not always and often not immediately. If there are some specific IPs whose contribution needs to be reverted I probably can help with this - though it becomes difficult with the old contributions for obvious reasons. Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ymblanter. The IPs in question are 31.190.201.227 and 188.12.182.29. Is there some documentation of LTA 208 in Wikidata? If so, it'd be good to link to it from this page (and perhaps vice versa too?). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been already blocked by @Bovlb:, and I am afraid removing the contribution is non-trivial, as there are clearly some good edits. May be I will just go slowly through the contribution and see what needs to be removed. Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's very good of you, Ymblanter, I didn't mean to make extra work for you (I was thinking of simply reverting the edits as I would do in this project, so I'm glad I asked your advice). Please be warned that nothing, absolutely nothing, that this troublesome editor says can be trusted or taken at face value. I've never understood if that was because of a genuine desire to deceive, or simply an inability to distinguish fact from fiction. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see indeed that in the IP edits vandalism is mixed with perfectly good edits. Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. The "LTA 208" is a reference to d:Special:AbuseFilter/208, which is intended to detect edits by what we have been calling the "Lake Como spammer". See, for example, d:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/All#Lake_Como. Rightly or wrongly, Wikidata doesn't create public pages to document long-term abusers, but the filter number is used to identify recurring issues. Bovlb (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bovlb! I can't see the edit filter (insufficient permissions), but the IP mentioned in that deletion request is unmistakably the LTA user we call Alec Smithson, and was blocked on this wiki by me for that reason. I'm interested in collaborating with Wikidata admins on limiting the damage this user is able to cause, and – if I may – suggest that we at least agree to exchange information whenever another sock surfaces. If you'd be kind enough to email me some details of the edit filter you've set up, I might see if I can get someone to create something similar here (that's not something I know how to do myself). Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to co-operate. Yes, we tend to lock down abuse filters so people can't see them. It's really a clumsy tool and easy to avoid if you know what it's doing.

This particular filter is currently keying off mentions of "Lake Como", although I may extend that soon, and does not prevent edits or block the account. Instead it just prints a message, "Warning: There is a long-term abuser who repeatedly spams Wikidata with items about Lake Como. Their items are always deleted and the user blocked. This action has been automatically identified as potentially related to this blocked editor. If you are not this blocked user and believe this action to be constructive, you may submit it again to confirm it. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: LTA 208 (Lake Como)". This is because we have not yet identified a filter that we are confident will match this abuser without significant risk of false posiitves. Bovlb (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps this good summary written by Voceditenore may be useful to you, Bovlb. This user doesn't show up here very often nowadays, but I'll try to remember to let you know if I come across any more of his block-evading IPs. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping back in to the conversation: I have been trying to learn more about Wikidata and have made a fair number of contributions over the past few months. Some of these are related to the Castiglioni brothers (and, to the best of my ability, are "good" edits). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, additional unsubstantiated claims relating to "Lierna" just appeared in Achille Castiglioni article. Should these be deleted? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cl3phact0, that's him without a shadow of a doubt, thanks for noticing! Blocked, global block requested. Interested to see that he has no edits to Commons – perhaps that's because of Bovlb's filter? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appear that the filter has no effect on their behaviour. They may abandon the flagged action, but otherwise they just keep going.

At d:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lake_Como, we're currently discussing what to do with some older contributions that have now been edited by other editors. It's painful to decide to throw away so many items, especially if they are not uniformly hoaxes. Bovlb (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking admin on the Cwhillubbyy account, that created a BLP for this author, I wonder if you'd take a look at this account that is now spamming for the same author.

• Cwhillubbyy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Craneshore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Quack? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting question, CorbieVreccan! I'm hearing more of a faint squawk than a loud clear quack – both accounts are interested in the same person, but their ways of expressing that interest seem to me quite dissimilar. Am I missing something? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all Craneshore seems to do is spam, so not a lot to go on. Anyway, the spam is so excessive that if they do it again they're blocked on that basis. Just keeping tabs in case you noticed a pattern or if there were other possible socks around. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! – I've left a final warning to that effect. I came across Jonto95 too, interesting given that Stratford published a book on New Forest myths in 2022. Got to get some sleep now ... perhaps an SPI is the way to go here, given that it's not exactly open-and-shut obvious? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar patterns so far in looking at Crane and Jonto. Both are largely SPA's to promote Brice Stratford, similar writing style.

• Jonto99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Like this from Jonto:

• "A version of the story of Arwald survives in the folklore of the nearby New Forest,[cite to Brice Stratford]"[1].

Compare to Crane here:

• "As Geofon, a version of the figure based on the Old English sources is incorporated into Brice Stratford's 2022 Anglo-Saxon Myths: The Struggle for the Seven Kingdoms, where she functions as an earth goddess associated with bodies of water."[2]
• Both accounts mark all edits as minor.

Pages of edits just like this. The main difference is Jonto formats the ref. Note Jonto stopped editing before Crane began, so I think blocking on spamming is more likely than socking, unless there's another spam SPA like this that overlaps. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And look what else turned up. Yeah, this is clear:

• Dennyala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'll go through the whole thing, but I think I'll have this sorted by the time you're awake again. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CorbieVreccan, have you seen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BriceStratford/Archive (declined twice). TSventon (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Do we know if it's the same Brice Stratford? [edit - Yeah, it's the same person] I'm inclined to just block the spammers for spamming at this point. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, CorbieVreccan, TSventon, nice work! I remember that SPI rather well – mostly as an extremely frustrating expenditure of time and effort for no result. It looks as if I was already fast asleep before I left this page last night – I'd somehow thought this was a different person from the actor who gave us so much trouble back then. CV, did you leave Craneshore unblocked intentionally? He probably won't re-use that account, but I'd have thought that an indef was fully justified; I'll do that unless you disagree? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just hadn't gotten around to it yet. I was partially waiting for all of you to weigh in, but also just got lost in the rabbit hole of all these socks. I say indef and revert the lot of them.

Comparing the edit style of the original guy's account... (BriceStratford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) I think the new ones are him. The pattern of editing lots of pages to just add "English folklore" type cats is universal through all the accounts. I don't buy his story at SPI that all his students and other actors dedicate their time to promoting him, with identical language and editing patterns, or only slight variations to hide identity. Even if that were true, WP:MEAT applies and they can all be treated as his sockdrawer. I'll get to the blockhammer in a bit if you haven't, but feel free to get going on it. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CV! I see you've already got to Craneshore, thank you. I'm not going to take any admin action in relation to the older accounts because – as you saw in the SPI and at User talk:BriceStratford – I've already had extensive interaction with several of them. And no, you're right, the "students" story didn't hold water back then, and it still doesn't today. I'm going to be mostly away for the next few days, but will try to find a moment to update the old SPI. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing an advanced search on the 'pedia for "Brice Stratford"... I've found more. I'm removing spam and cleaning up. It's the same pattern: accounts with only a dozen or two dozen edits, all promotional about Brice or his alleged relatives, all marked as minor edits. The ones alleging ancestry are unsourced or were removed for unreliable sourcing'hoaxing, but SPAs recently returned to put the unsourced content and spam back. I think he should be added to the spam blacklist. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OH, did you see this: Original version of his autobio. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable! No, never seen it – it was deleted about 5 years before my first edit. The version I'm familiar with is the one created by RichElph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I know sweet FA about edit filters, but was thinking that could be a path to explore. Anyway, fantastic work, thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Justlettersandnumbers. Expanding on the conversation above, re: Wikidata side of the Wiki-verse, I've been using a tool called Reasonator, which has been extraordinarily useful for filling-in blanks and missing nuance in some of the WP articles I've been trying to improve. It's an excellent way to make connections between the subjects one is working on and tie details together in an efficient manner. I've found some fascinating details hidden in plain sight (especially in Commons). (Try a search for: "Lierna" – you might find some other odds and sods that aren't where they are meant to be in the 243 items it turns-up.) Seems like a tool that can be put to good use in myriad ways. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cl3phact0, I'm going to give that a try, it looks interesting. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yeah, this was a tough one. I went through 9 pages of sources, and it appears that each section was simply cut and paste from off-wiki sources. But I didn't check the whole page, actually I couldn't, since the earwig report wouldn't give me any more hits. Thanks for making that change. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query, why have you deleted the page on the Governor of Arkansas, 1953-55? Are you planning to reconstruct the article? FieldOfWheat (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FieldOfWheat! I assume you're taking about this article? I deleted the previous version of that as part of this massive copyvio clean-up, after it had been listed for a week here with no viable rewrite proposed. I have no plans to work on rebuilding the page myself, but others are of course free to do so. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You speedily deleted it (quite reasonably) but also there's an AfD open for the same article. Not exactly sure what the right course of action is, just dropping an FYI. --JBL (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JayBeeEll! Actually I know that; I've now left a note there, as I had intended to do last night. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, thanks! (I was thinking of closing it myself, but since people were talking about salting I thought it would be best to leave it for an admin.) Happy editing, --JBL (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

30 is unsupported, but I was talking about Lorenzo's handling of the situation. This was sourced (or intended to be sourced) to The Rough Guide History of Italy which says, "...Lorenzo breaks free [from the attackers] and rallies his supporters. A furious mob dispenses summary justice to the conspirators and their troops." That, in my view, makes it quite clear Lorenzo was encouraging the lynchings, which is what I changed from "Although Lorenzo appealed to the crowd not to exact summary justice..." I presume the "rather poor" source is trecanni.it? Heavy Water (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Heavy Water! The best place to discuss this would be here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it more as a misunderstanding of what I was describing than a content dispute, but if you wish (I obviously know what talk pages are). Heavy Water (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Heavy Water. With 'rather poor source' I was referring to the Rough Guide, which seems to be written for children. Treccani publications are very variable, but include the reference dictionary of the language and the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, which is sort of one of the seven wonders of the world; the article on Lorenzo is by Ingeborg Walter [de]. Reliable or not, I don't see anything in either source to confirm explicitly that Lorenzo encouraged or incited – or indeed tried to limit or discourage – the violence. Nor does Walter's book on Lorenzo say anything of the kind. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I can live with that, now that the unsourced claim of his opposition to the lynchings is removed. Thanks, Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 12:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers,

Sorry about this article, I didn't notice that it had already been tagged for speedy deletion and that you had untagged it. If I had noticed, I wouldn't have tagged it again. I also tagged Diego Perez Obregon which was deleted. The article creator was very upset at the deletion tagging. Hopefully they will respond to your findings at the AFD and we can see if there are sources to verify the person's notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, liz! There's nothing to apologise for, there's no rule (that I know of) against repeated speedy tagging. I'm conservative about A7 nominations and tend to decline them if there's any plausible claim of significance, however minor – as I believe there was in this case. I thought of declining the Diego Perez Obregon nomination too for the same reason, but left it for someone else to look at – with that interesting result. Yes, interested to see where the AfD goes. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have confused redirect page age with target page age[3]. Vir-Nirvan Samvat, whose speedy deletion I requested, was created less than 24 hours ago through an undiscussed move of Vira Nirvana Samvat by a now-blocked user, which has now been reverted. I've now requested CSD again. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri, I don't think I'm confused. Please read WP:R3, "This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created". The page Vir-Nirvan Samvat, which you've again tagged as R3, was created by you with this edit a few hours ago, but the Vir Nirvan Samvat page dates from 2005. As far as I can see, it's not eligible for deletion; it's also a (fairly) plausible redirect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I shouldn't have left redirect behind when reverting the move. Retagged as G3 if that helps. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get insight on the deletion of Wikipedia:Red Sea Brine Pool Microbiology? This page was created by several students that have gone through the Wikipedia training modules, reviewed by two other groups of students that completed the training modules and two Wiki_Ed instructors; the page was deemed to be acceptable, well resourced and a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. I have been a Wiki_ed instructor since 2017 and students in my courses have created at least 20 Wikipedia pages, and edited countless others. The contributions are always evaluated by peers and instructors. Consequently, I was surprised to see a page deleted without explanation. The Red-Sea brine pools are probably the most extreme environment in which life has been found, and of course the life is entirely microbial. The comment "Obviously created in error" seems particularly inappropriate given the obvious effort in creating it. If my understanding of what constitutes a valid Wikipedia contribution is so badly skewed, that a page that I think is a valuable contribution is deemed unacceptable by an administrator, then I need to understand the rationale so I can better guide students in the future. Curt99 03:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, Curt99: with this edit you moved Draft:Red Sea Brine Pool Microbiology to Wikipedia:Red Sea Brine Pool Microbiology, an obvious mistake which you soon corrected. I was clearing up after you, getting rid of the unwanted redirect you'd inadvertently created. The edit summary G6: Obviously created in error is a standard one in such cases. The article is now here.

In the general scheme of things, it's probably best to leave the review and acceptance of drafts to experienced editors in the AfC reviewer group – the educational value to your students is not affected by the namespace that hosts their work, is it? When you moved the page there had been no substantial change since it was moved to draft space by an experienced administrator.

How thoroughly have you checked it for copyright violations? There seems to be at least some taking from this source to be cleaned up. Can I count on you to deal with that? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Justlettersandnumbers for your prompt and helpful response, and I apologize for creating an unintentional redirect. Ultimately, the namespace issue is important as the Wiki_Ed assignment is sold as creating legacy, and as motivation for future students in the course. If it gets shunted to draft, there is a good chance that it will not be edited further, and ultimately deleted. Once the assignment is completed and the the course is over, the odds of a student going back to edit the page is rather low. Given that all the students have to complete the Wiki_Ed training modules, the topic has to be approved, and each page is vetted multiple times, most should be appropriate for mainspace.

What tool do you use to detect potential copyright issues? Students are trained and lectured on the importance of not violating copyright, and there is no way to check everything manually. A tool would be super helpful! Again, thank you! Curt99 19:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Curt99, no apology needed, we all make mistakes and this one was easily fixed. For copyvio I use this tool most of the time; there's also this, but I personally don't find it intuitive and am regrettably inactive there, no finger in that particular dyke. It's based on Ithenticate, which I imagine your own institution will have access to? Or do you have something better?

As for the marketing of your course(s), that's not something that concerns us, we don't do promotion here. Many of these education assignments put a massive load of extra work on volunteer editors, with (usually) never a word of thanks from the educators and institutions that have been exploiting our project for their own ends. It might perhaps be sort of good manners to at least abide by our policies and practices while you're here, and I suggest that letting AfC reviewers do what they're selected and authorised to do (review drafts) would be a good first step in that direction. The Red Sea brine page is fairly comprehensively unencyclopaedic in tone, and possibly also in scope. Who do you think is going to clean that up now? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Justlettersandnumbers - I certainly thank you and your colleagues. My goals in setting up these assignments are simply to improve content, emerge students in a worthwhile endeavour and create more Wikipedians. Thanks for the copyright tool suggestions. I try to go back and clean up pages over time, and there is also a pretty active group of Wikipedians that help with both microbiological and marine content. I really like the way that the science side of Wikipedia is evolving to be the first stop for many to find info on a topic. Thanks for your work in making Wikipedia such a great source of reliable information Curt99 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was fast! I received a notification that my draft Boaz Raviv article had been deleted and then, as soon as I had time to sit down i discovered, it was already gone! And i had no backup. This is a draft that i have been in work for about 5 weeks, and reflected improvements made over that period in response comments and advise i got from the mentors. Could I please somehow retrieve the latest copy? i would like to restart and rewrite the article correctly. thank you. D Danaland (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danaland, I assume you're talking about this page about "an experienced executive of global businesses in the technology industry who held senior positions in multinational companies" – and who also happens to be your husband? Yet you failed to disclose your conflict of interest when you posted here? The page was promotional, was tagged for deletion as such, and I agreed with the tagger and deleted it. I'm not going to restore an advertisement; I might have considered restoring the bare bones of the page, the structure and references, but the first reference I checked (this) is (a) a press-release and (b) does not mention him at all. May I politely suggest that you find something more fruitful to do with your time? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this student's article, Widow's succession in the United States, is rife with copyright violations, but I do not believe they are enough to CSD. That being said, I do not know how to add it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, since the information was copied from numerous sources. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Onel5969! – blanked and listed. For the future: the syntax is just {{subst:copyvio| [urls separated by spaces] }}. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll remember that. I tried url1= | url2= ... etc. And that didn't work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted the creator after they performed an improper move of the page to userspace and blanked the copyvio template. Was I doing the right thing by reverting? Sorry, just making sure it was all right and proper restoring the page to its previous state. The Night Watch (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, The Night Watch, those were appropriate responses. I've left the user a warning for the copyvio template removal. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. You recently deleted Draft:Rahul choudhary, and now you're the lucky (or unlucky?) recipient of my enquiry regarding suspicions about this editor.

If you look at the userpage of Abdulmozidofficial4, you will notice that it's an identical copy of User:Mustafejrumon/sandbox. That editor, plus others, were already the subject of a SPI case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elfin rules/Archive, from Jan-Feb of 2020. You yourself commented on the case on 15 February 2020. I find it hard to believe that this newest account copying the obscure sandbox of another user, already under scrutiny in the past, is just coincidence. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, Drm310! I recognised the copying of my userspace pages as something I'd seen before, but didn't recall where – it's happened several times, but the combination of that with the other material does indeed look socky. Or perhaps there's a copy of it somewhere on the internet, an example of how not to create a userpage? I'm away today, but will probably add something to the SPI when I get back – unless you happen to have done so before that. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, you seem to have protected the disambiguation page related to the same. Now, this particular user has moved page Dutta to Datta (surname) without any discussion or consensus. Would request you to take appropriate action. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miskito89 (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While not a copyvio, is there a policy about a wall of copied text like this, which is outside of a copyvio? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Onel5969! That's always a tricky one for me; my personal tendency is to err on the side of caution. Relevant guidance/policy includes WP:NOFULLTEXT and WP:DERIVATIVE. In this case the speech itself is surely in the public domain, but equally surely was not delivered in English; so unless the translation is also demonstrably PD (and properly attributed) then we can't host it. Since it seems to have been copied from this blog, that doesn't seem too likely. I think it should be removed; would you like to do that, or would you prefer that I do? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mess. I'll clean it up - thanks as always. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Coluld you please explain why did you restored the version prior to my edit?

Mr. jandali has released an Album today, and I updated his artilce (I also updated the Arabic vesrion & it looks fine for me). Michel Bakni (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Michel Bakni: as I said (perhaps not clearly enough?) in my edit summary here, you did not cite any reliable source for any part of the content that you added. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, out of the past crawls this. Any chance you might be able to help reverse this seemingly unnecessary deletion? I'm stumped. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cl3phact0, are we talking about the "cool factor" portrait, with the goggles? Commons will have to do what Commons has to do, but there's not going to be any difficulty uploading that as fair use here. I'll look further tomorrow, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cool factor" indeed – that's the photo in question. I thought that this had been resolved donkey's years ago and was deeply disappointed to see poor Livio, er, de-faced (again). It seems random and bizarre that this would resurface now, and yes, I would greatly appreciate any help you can give resolving the matter (I think I spent most my spare faith last go 'round). Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I'm not sure how to interpret the response on Commons. It strikes me as odd in extremis (and a bit off-putting) that an article which was scrupulously vetted and approved for DYK in January is facing ex post facto re-evaluation of the main image in May. That said, a preponderance of the time I've put in on the Commons side or the wiki-verse has resulted in similar (off-putting) perplexity. Can we use the photo from it:wp here on en:wp citing "fair use" or not (even if it is apparently not up to noblesse oblique standards the Common-folk)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Cl3phact0! I can understand the reasoning of the Commons admin – the photo is clearly not just a casual snapshot, so it could be argued that it has "creative" status (and I think that actually you and I agree that it does). In this project our copyright policy (for text) is more restrictive than most national law, and I can't blame Commons for taking a similarly cautious stance. Anyway, please see this, which I've added to the page. I noticed one thing, though: we have his date of death as 1971, but sources such as Treccani and VIAF seem to agree that he died in 1979. Was that a slip of the pen? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Egregious and embrassing embarrassing typo! DoD was entered correctly in various other places (short description, wikidata, etc.) but not the lead or infobox. Forrest through the trees. Thank you for spotting that. (Oh, the cool photo looks lovely too! Hope it sticks – third time lucky, right?) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: No need to look further (1911–1979). It's right there in the photograph of the marble plaque on the street named in commemoration of the three Castiglioni brothers (the one I, ehem, uploaded to Commons myself).

PPS: I fixed 3 iterations of the "typo". Feel free to affix training-wheels to my pen.

It would help me to see what I did there, because I have forgotten how I had it organized, it was more than copy paste, it was organizational, and also changes to the original text, and some new text. Would it be possible to email me a copy of the article prior to the hiding? Plain text or wikisource is fine. Then I can redo it. -- GreenC 21:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GreenC! I intended to leave you a note about this at the time, but fear that it may have slipped my mind? Yes, there were some other edits, but the main problem was that you'd pasted in most of this page (I assume for reference while writing your own text?). I have to get some sleep now, will look further tomorrow. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm sure you are right it violated copyvio, I want to redo, it would help to see my "original" since I had moved a lot of material around how I had it organized and what text was modified. It will help make redoing easier. -- GreenC 23:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, GreenC, sent. Please use with care! Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onel5969: I'm in the process of expanding it with better sources! Onel5969, I think you know that, because you are a regular on User talk:Justlettersandnumbers talk page where this article is being discussed. The timing of this AfD, a mere hours after I requested an old copyvio copy for reworking, is quite the coincidence. Are you that anxious to delete the article you can't give me a little time to work on it before nominating for deletion? Now the article in its current form will attract deletion votes, and I don't have time to work to improve it. Sigh. -- GreenC 14:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings GreenC. I find your lack of AGF troubling. While I do frequent this talkpage, it is almost always in connection with a copyvio question I have left here. I do not follow each and every discussion here. Regarding timing, I do the bulk of my NPP in 3 swaths: old articles; articles which are 1 week old, and then a follow up on those same articles, the ones not already dealt with, a week later. I had prodded it on 4/23, which was contested. When I revisited it on 4/30, it then had a copyvio, which was revdeled, rather than being G12'd. I looked at it again on 5/7, and decided to leave it for another week to see if any more work would be done it. Which brings us to today, when it again came up in my queue. Hence the AfD, since it had already been deprodded, and was still in poor condition. Apologies to Justlettersandnumbers for leaving such a lengthy message on their talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting in the AfD and I'm not making any changes to the article. Good luck with your edits on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, @Justlettersandnumbers. Just wanted to reach out to ask that you please restore/undelete Draft:Isaac Gang. While I understand the concerns raised, the action is inconsistent with the last reviewer's comments. When I was a newbie in this space, I made the mistake of submitting the article myself, but I realized it wasn't encouraged if allowed at all so, I transfer the task to a third party that is currently on verge of radically changing the original contents for resubmission based on last reviewer's recommendation. The deletion cannot come at the wrong time, and I hope that it is reversed. Please let me know if you need additional details. IsaacGang (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, IsaacGang, but I'm not going to restore that. Wikipedia does not tolerate WP:PROMOTION, and the page was excessively promotional (as often happens when someone tries to write an autobiography). The draft has been declined three times; the best advice you received there was "autobiographical articles are not encouraged and may not always be a good idea". Hiring a paid editor (if that's what you mean by "third party"?) is a really bad idea. If you'll allow me to offer some advice: before you hand over any money, ask how he/she plans to establish notability under WP:NPROF for a professor with an h-index of 1 on Scholar and not even listed on Scopus. I wish you every success in your career. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, @Justlettersandnumbers. I understand where you are coming from and I appreciate you. Though the assumption that I will be paying someone to rewrite the page is wrong, I want to acknowledge and appreciate your unsolicited advice. But if you don't mind, is there a way you can get me the contents of the page - I don't have these saved, so as to have these on file? If you are able to do this, even without having to undelete the page, it will greatly be appreciated. Thanks, @Justlettersandnumbers. IsaacGang (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, IsaacGang, I've made an exception and done that. Please don't repost that content here, it'd almost certainly be deleted again. Please understand that prolonged or repeated promotion of a topic can be seen as disruptive, and lead to editing restrictions. Take care, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. @Justlettersandnumbers. I received the contents, and I appreciate you making the exception. And to be clear, I have zero interest in promoting myself. You can rest assured you will not see anything about me here. Keep up the good work. IsaacGang (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the issue was with American Motor League, but is there any possibility of recovering it (preferably with history and talk) so I can have the chance to address the problems? Fabrickator (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fabrickator! As you can see here, that page was deleted as part of this massive copyright clean-up, after it had been listed here for a week with no viable rewrite proposed. We don't restore copyvios, but I can give you the bare bones of the page (the refs, categories etc, without any running text) if that's of any use – by email, on your talk page, in a sandbox that you specify, your choice. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide this at User:Fabrickator/reference_notes#American Motor League (or in a new section on that page if you prefer). Fabrickator (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second request for available content from "American Motor League". Fabrickator (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now done, Fabrickator. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers.

I have obtained a couple of comparatively recent versions of this article, and run them against a plagiarism checker, which issued what I would characterize as FPs, resulting from the fact that portions of this article have been reposted in various places. There are some cases where this article includes some extended quotes from cited sources (like a list of members of the AML), which could account for Earwig to mistakenly consider this to constitute a COPYVIO.

I haven't run Earwig because I don't know how to do that without first posting the content on WP, but I would also observe that it would seem rather pointless to rewrite this article just because Earwig reports an FP.

Fabrickator, the article wasn't deleted because of any overlap shown up by Earwig, but presumptively as part of this massive copyright clean-up. Once a CCI is opened, any running-text content by the subject editor is removed or deleted unless it can be verified as not being a copvio. Dozens if not hundreds of articles by this particular author have been deleted for this reason; some have been rewritten, many have not. I'm sorry that the material I recovered for you from this one wasn't more helpful. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, we have a bad actor, who was determined to have caused some COPYVIOs, so any articles to which that bad actor has made substantial changes is a presumptive COPYVIO. Now we might have been able (during the 7-day period) to look at what changes the bad actor had made to determine if there was an actual COPYVIO, and if not, then exclude it from this deletion, but too late to do that now. Of course, if the history were made available, we could look at just the edits by the bad actor, but since we're precluded from determining what changes were made by the bad actor, we have to consider the entire article as suspect. Am I getting the general idea? Fabrickator (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more or less, Fabrickator – any text added by the subject editor is removed or deleted unless it can be securely verified to not be a copyvio; while a page is listed at WP:CP, any editor in good standing is welcome to propose a rewrite, which will only be rejected if it too contains copyvios. As you can see here, this particular page was created by that editor and, at the time it was listed, about 91% of the content was by him (you reverted some poor changes and improved a couple of refs, but made no other change to the text). This editor has contributed over a thousand articles to the total CCI backlog (there's also this and this) – which last time I looked was hovering around the 80,000 mark. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know you deleted it which is fine, but how exactly do I get that material and source back so I can improve it and add references so the speedy deletion tag no longer exists. A little confused as to how to get that back. Thank you! Calverson0204 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calverson0204, as you can see here, I deleted that page as WP:G11, unambiguous promotion – it was one of the most blatantly promotional pages I've seen in a quite a while, and I've seen a lot. I'm not prepared to restore a blatant advertisement; if you want to try again you'd do much better to start from scratch. Not to blow my own trumpet, but you might look at this or this for (brief) examples of encyclopaedic biographical writing. It seems likely that you have some connection to Alverson; if so, you are expected to disclose it – please see WP:COI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's my first page lol I know it's bad. It was going to be a birthday gift for my mom but like it got deleted and now I can't even show her even if it is a draft. Is there a way to at least like look at again and save it just to show that I tried orr is that gone for good. It don't actually gotta be posted/published or anything. Hoping there's a way to resolve this! Calverson0204 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not actually an ogre, even if I'm green and ugly; if you guarantee that you will not attempt to post even one word of that text anywhere in Wikipedia, I'll email it to you. You can show it to her by pasting it into your sandbox and clicking 'Show preview' at the foot of that page – but please, don't click 'Publish changes', OK? And wish her a happy birthday from me too! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOUUU!!!! I guarantee and promise that a single world will not be put onto Wikipedia. Calverson0204 (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Calverson0204, please use as agreed! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello wikipedian https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rokna_newss&action=view This user who created promoting page named : Mahrou Ahmadi

Changed discussion deletion history of wiki named Mahrou Ahmadi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mahrou_Ahmadi

Please take action thanks 57.129.5.34 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with them. Could you get rid of this as well? Thanks! 47.227.95.73 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, IP! Meters beat me to it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I noticed you deleted mentioned article as per G5 criteria and I totally agree that you did right thing per the rule.

But even though the creator was banned, the article was legitimate and quite good too. I believe that such article shouldn't be removed just because of it's creator . So it would be very nice and righteous if you restore the article or at least provide me with another solution. Diptadg17 (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Diptadg17, that's a reasonable request. Unfortunately this was a very poor article that I'm reluctant to restore to mainspace. If you agree, I'd prefer to email you the content, with the polite recommendation that you rewrite most of the text before adding it back to the encyclopaedia. Would that be acceptable? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I can work out it. Thank you for understanding. Please let me know how can I give you my email address.

However, the same thing happened with two other articles: Kuhelika (2023 film) and Made in Chittagong. So, I would appreciate if you send me the contents of these two articles as well. Regards. Diptadg17 (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diptadg17, you don't need to give me your email address, I'll use the Email this user link; I won't see your address when I do so. I'll send the Binge one now, but will look at the other two later if I may. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your co-operation.

Apart from the previously mentioned two articles, please send me the contents of List of Binge original programming article too. This time, I won't recreate it. I will merge it with Binge (Bangladeshi streaming service). Diptadg17 (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I would kindly like to discuss why the article HeavenMayFade was deleted. The reason given was "'A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."

The page about A7 says:

"When assessing an article for such a claim (the first way described above), you should search for a statement within the article that attributes noteworthiness to the subject... The existence of such a statement of noteworthiness/importance/significance within the article would generally ensure that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied. Such a claim of noteworthiness need not be supported by any reference; the fact that such a claim exists and has been made deems that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied."

I stated the noteworthiness of HeavenMayFade in the "Impact" section of the article, which, according to the above, should mean A7 generally should not have been applied. Right? I described my reasoning in the talk page too which was also deleted without comment.

Please help me understand what was wrong with how I claimed noteworthiness for HeavenMayFade? Can I do anything differently? Thank you.

Sapols (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sapols! I'm sorry, I scoured your text for any credible claim of significance and could not find one. The claim that, because one member of it later played in a notable band, the earlier one is notable too doesn't really hold water for me and I discounted it. Nor does making a recording in a notable studio (if it is/was notable?) confer notability. I try to err on the side of caution when reviewing A7 nominations, and aim always to stay firmly within policy; the relevant policy is here – the page you quoted is an essay, and has no actual weight.

What you can do: you can take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review (no need to notify me or anything); you can identify a good number of solid independent reliable sources (i.e., not Spotify, Apple Music, SoundCloud, ReverbNation or Facebook) and try to write a page based only on what they actually say (and be sure to do that in WP:Draft space if you do); or you can accept that your group is not notable by the standards of Wikipedia and will not have an article here. Good luck, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wikipedian a promotional article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra_Rafee Created by : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moeinianm

as you see this user all drafts and article seems promotional and alot of them deleted . Please take action.Thanks 141.11.249.59 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see this article deleted 7 times in persian wikipedia :

https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%98%D9%87:%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7/delete&page=%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7_%D8%B1%D9%81%DB%8C%D8%B9 141.11.249.59 (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as a council member of the Australian Lowline Association how do I go about getting the Wikipedia page updated. We had a discussion about the matter at our meeting, we would like outdated information removed and updated. DanielleIrvin (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DanielleIrvin, thanks for asking! Three steps:

• disclose any paid interest you have in the topic (if you receive any kind of emolument from the council?); I'll document the conflict of interest you've disclosed here
• identify solid independent reliable sources that support the facts you think should be added or changed (articles in peer-reviewed academic journals are best for this sort of thing, but high-quality printed sources such as Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding may also be good)
• make an edit request on the talk-page of the article (i.e., here) detailing the changes that you think should be made and the sources that support them (please note that short requests are much more likely to receive a response); you can add a {{request edit}} template to attract attention if you like.

There's usually a fairly long wait time for these requests, but I'll keep an eye on that page and try to respond in a reasonable time. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for taking the time to reply. Positions on council are voluntary we dont receive any payment or kickbacks. Would an updated breed standard on the Australian Lowline website suffice? DanielleIrvin (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DanielleIrvin, the article already relies rather too much on the breed standard (and I think that's my fault). If the breed standard has changed then that fact could be added to the page; I'll try to look at it soon. The talk-page of the article is the best place for questions, as other people interested in the topic may see them too. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit summary to this edit you said that you were declining a G11 speedy deletion nomination, but in fact you didn't, evidently by mistake. I have now declined it, but I just thought I would let you know, so that you can watch out for similar mistakes. JBW (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JBW, I saw (and thanked you). It's a mistake I make quite frequently, usually because write the decline reason but then forget to actually delete the db tag, but this time it was because I misread the preceding diff – the user didn't add the tag, just moved it. Anyway, thanks again – I just wish all mistakes were so easily fixed! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Ciro di Pers/Temp while clearing Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. I didn't payuch attention the article was on the talk page and contained errors, so I moved it to the article and only then realised the weird name and looked into the history. I'm unsure what to do with it, maybe A10 but I thought I'd ask you as you appear to have dealt with the original article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}! I think that's a mistake we've all made at least once – and I managed to make another while deleting it as WP:G6, error! I've no idea why our recommended address for copyvio rewrites is Talk:Foo/Temp, but it is, and that creates some misunderstandings from time to time. I haven't looked at this one in detail yet, but it's good (and relatively rare) that someone has taken the time to propose a rewrite – the topic is surely notable, perhaps even interesting. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

I've just received a notification about the deletion for the DeadAnt Media page. Could you let me know what errors were on the page for this step. The page is for a company I'm currently working for and this was to be created for Wikipedia. Also, how do I get that material or source back so I can improve it to avoid the deletion tag. AyeshaRT (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AyeshaRT, as you can see by going to that page, I deleted it as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Please understand that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. As you are an employee of the company, it was also undisclosed paid editing in violation of our Terms of Use. You should make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure (here) before making any other edit. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AB Liner Incorporated, which you softblocked as a promotional username, is a Bertrand101 sock - another account with a similar name (AB Liner Incorp) was found in a SPI late in June, and it's a pretty obvious quacker. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LilianaUwU – I'd have seen that for myself if I'd just looked at the history of, say, this. Thanks for reporting it at WP:SPI, where I see it is – unsurprisingly – confirmed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Justlettersandnumbers, there are some open text tickets all related the the issue recently discussed. If you have a minute, can you please handle them? Thank you! --Krd 10:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the reminder, Krd! I'm going to need to start a noticeboard discussion about those, I think, and that's going to need a period when I can give it my concentrated attention. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am writing with respect to the deletion of the sandbox page I have been working on.

1. I have not attempted to write a Wikipedia page before discovering the sandbox function.
2. My understanding of a sandbox page is that it exists for the purpose of practicing the creation of a page.
3. I have been practicing various aspects of page creation via this page and have been doing so for many months.
4. Will you please reconsider your decision to remove this practice page with the understanding that prior to my submission of any page, I will carefully review the draft to make sure that such a page strictly follows the guidelines for submission?

Thank you for considering my request and for your contribution and dedication to helping maintain the credibility of Wikipedia.

In summary, I am asking for your permission to continue practicing the creation of a Wikipedia page prior to my submission of any page on any subject or topic.

Sincerely,

Skate History Skate history (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Justlettersand numbers: This is Skate History again and please forgive me for using the reply function to make an addition to my post a few minutes ago. I am not familiar with any other method for adding info to the post.

Here is the additional comment I wish to make: I created the Sandbox page after carefully reading and studying the following page describing the Sandbox opportunity to experiment with Wiki Syntax and VisualEditor: Wikipedia:About the sandbox

I have not attempted to submit the experimental article, nor would I submit an experimental article until I am certain that I am not wasting anyone's time by submitting an article for consideration which likely violates and Wikipedia article guidelines.

Thanks once again. Skate history (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skate history, I've emailed you the text of your sandbox – clearly you've put a lot of work into it. But please understand that this project does not tolerate promotional editing, in user space as elsewhere. Also, if you have some connection to this person please make a point of disclosing it on your user page. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the return of the source of the practice Article. I am grateful for your advice and other comments on the direction and tone of any Article that I may choose to submit. Thanks again. Skate history (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of undoing edits that are actually helpful, like this. Just because it is done by a particular banned/blocked user, it doesn't automatically mean it is vandalism. Three of your recent reverts - and I haven't even checked the rest - were undoing actually useful edits. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattdaviesfsic! Please see WP:BANREVERT and/or WP:DENY. Of course you're completely free to restore (and take responsibility for) any of those edits that you think was good. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Justlettersandnumbers, I saw your comment on Draft:Ponni M. Concessao regarding the article representing a man. That was an error made by me. I added the "He" on the lede section by mistake before tagging CSD. Hope it didn't affect the outcome Jeraxmoira (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Jeraxmoira! I don't think it made or makes any great difference, and is very easily fixed – if only all our mistakes were so minor! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete Best Served Cold. The AfC draft that you deleted to make way for the acceptance of has since been declined by another reviewer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. You performed a recent revert to the Dairy cattle article. The problem is that we are both citing WP:MOSSIS. Sister project templates that produce a box—specifically Template:Commons category, are not appropriate for § References with list sufficiently long to produce multiple columns (thus resulting in undesirable white space on the right). There is nothing in WP:MOSSIS that says § External links should not be populated if the only entry is the inline variant, Template:Commons category-inline; it only discourages the box variant. "Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates." My edit using the inline-type is not invalid according to WP:MOSSIS. Let's work together on this; we could place the inline variant in the last section below the references without creating a § External links. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC) (edited 00:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, CJDOS, thanks for the message. However unimportant this is, it's pretty much of a mess, I think – see the discussion here. If nothing else, it's clear that the guidance we have can be read in more than one way. For the dairy cattle article, compromise is good, I'll do as you suggest. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We had the grandchildren up to the "farm" last month... which occasioned me spending a week recovering from two toddlers, a six-year-old, and an infant in the house. And out in the yard. And wanting to ride the retired ponies. And finding ways to bother the goats... but it was great to have them. The housecats, however, were NOT amused. Have a good summer! Ealdgyth (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mine are actually a delight, a little older than that (8 and 11). But summer's the only time they spend any really extended time here (a couple of months), so I try to make the most of that. Summer's not my best time usually – I don't like intense heat. It was blistering a couple of weeks ago (pushing 40), now it's unseasonably cool (30 by day, down to about 14 at night), so yes, I'm having a good summer! You too, I hope? Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your edits on this article. how can we get it published? dall wilson 19:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallwilson (talk • contribs)

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Thank you for all that you do regarding defending Wikipedia from spammers. I've become familiar with your username on my watchlist after tagging G11s, which I believe you are one of the main deleters of. Keep up the good work! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Schminnte, and thank you for keeping on top of those poor edits/page creations! Honestly I don't think I'm a "main" deleter – there are plenty of admins much more active and more capable in that area than I am. Oh, and I think we're all going to need to be much more active and more vigilant as the avalanche of promotional editing steadily gathers momentum. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so humble! Your help is greatly appreciated. I agree we will need to stay alert: the effects of large language models are already showing on the new pages screen. I guess we will have to wait and see how that turns out. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was rm resulting unsourced WP:derivative work – copyvio needs to be removed. not reshuffled, but nothing in the body was removed. Was that an "instruction" to other editors, or just missed? Thanks Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now done, Hyphenation Expert, thanks for the reminder! (oh, and I'd forgotten to do the revdeletion. too). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Also though, the Page Creation edit summary had the copyvio text Hyphenation Expert (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that, now done too – well spotted! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I'll be the first to admit I'm not a copyvio expert, but I was under the impression that if the earliest revision of an article had considerable copyvio issues (which was true here), outright deletion was preferable to revision deletion. As it happens I came upon the page from CAT:RD1, and didn't find revisions I could preserve: hence the tag. Do you believe the tag is not appropriate in such circumstances? Or was this an exception because some rewrites happened after the tag was placed? Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vanamonde93, how are you? – I did notice that it was you who'd tagged the page for speedy deletion, perhaps I should have dropped you a courtesy note. My understanding of WP:G12 is that we should really only apply it when "there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving", and it didn't seem to me that that was the case here. In a page where infringing material has been fully removed I would always decline a G12, but would of course revdelete the history – but that isn't this situation. Yes, here the copyvio is foundational so there is indeed no 'good' revision to revert to, but not all text is affected (by the source that you've identified, at least) and I think WP:CP is the right place for it – either someone will come up with a viable rewrite or it'll be cleaned, checked and revdeleted as appropriate. I see that the talk-page of the article creator has a number of copyright warnings, which I may look at in more detail tomorrow. For now, regards and good night, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking back, and no worries. That makes sense to me; my concern is only that with WP:CP so backlogged, we're leaving a rather obvious copyvio undeleted for possibly months. As such I'd be inclined to delete the page and toss the problem back to the creator, who could rewrite it from scratch; but I can see the benefits to your approach, and certainly don't want to contest it. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I listed it, I'll try to remember to either clean it or delete it myself once the statutory week is up – if a viable rewrite isn't proposed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the admin who removed the speedy delete tag on the Area Scatter article. My analysis of the alleged copyright violation claim showed that this isn't a copyright issue. For the most part the article uses facts attributed to the cited sources, which isn't a copyright issue. While there are a few phrases used in the article that also exist within the original sources, a minor rewrite and use of quoted material can fix this. Am I missing something else? Look forward to your feedback.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk-page. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highly suggest a reconsideration of the G4 delete as the age differed from earlier version. Page you requested that has been deleted was Brandon Lorenzo. WikiHuman2021 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 08:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deletion was correct, WikiHuman2021 – there were some minor differences from the previously-deleted version, but none that substantially addressed the reasons for deletion put forward here. I'm curious: why are you so very interested in this apparently obscure person (you've made over 150 edits relating to him)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your CSD tag without investigating sufficiently. Had I done so, I’d have seen:

• The user has a history of recreating the article. This wasn’t his first time
• You’re an experienced editor, not a BITE-y patroller.

My apologies. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, A. B.. I did actually consider moving it to draft or a sandbox, but felt on balance that that was not likely to be productive. Do you think the speedy tag should now be restored? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, i am sorry, im not familiar using this wikipedia, my only intention is to try to publish our church information so that we can continue push thru the devotion of the Five Wounds of Jesus in our diocese. I really dont know what is speedy tag, etc. but i register to help provide info to some topics i know which i can contribute. Its that now, i have given the chance in my current role in the church to get all important details and historical notes in our church which is now i deemed important to propagate this special devotion of faith and love to the five holy wounds of Jesus. Fred Luciano (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Justlettersandnumbers, I'm ambivalent and will support whatever you do. Sort of distracted off Wikipedia today. Sorry about that.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez, I just tried to leave Fred a note with some advice on his talk page. It looks like we have a BITE situation unfolding with contradictory BITE-y comments and more speedy tags. I don’t care so much about the content at this point as just being kind to newcomers.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recognise anyone? See Special:Contributions/Danceartproject 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please give me a hint, Timtrent – so far I haven't heard the ringing of any bells, or indeed any quacking from the pond. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could. I saw an editing gap from then until a couple of days ago, when there was a flurry of now deleted edits. But I have no memory of what they were. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello this article created by same person with another name and change title just 25days after deletion by discussion to bypass wikipedia rules : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra_Rafee_Nia The article deleted via discussion : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mitra_Rafee Moaijf92 (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers,

I'm not going to undo your block but this editor disclosed multiple times, in edit summaries and on the User talk page, that they had a COI and worked at UCLA where the article subject is employed. So, I don't think that there was any attempt to hide a relationship they had with the article subject that they were writing about. There was clearly some misunderstanding about our guidelines on copyright violation but they did disclose the nature of their position and what they were trying to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz, thanks for the note! Indeed she did (though actually I only saw one mention of working for the university); however she never mentioned that she had a clear paid interest in the subject, as neatly demonstrated by her ability to edit his self-written bio page. Even so I probably would not have blocked the account if it hadn't been for the WP:IDHT relating to copyright. Both our paid-editing and copyright policies are rooted in the TOU, as COI is not. That said, if any admin (including you, of course!) wants to unblock the account, he/she should go ahead and do so without further reference to me – as of course I'd have done myself if she'd chosen to make a reasonable unblock request showing understanding of the problems with her edits and determination not to repeat those. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers:, hello, this is the author account of a page that I requested a speedy deletion by author for: Arachno Creek. Would it be possible to preserve or retain the talk page for this article for the purposes of transparency? To my understanding, the US Board on Geographic Names is still looking into sources of the name for possible recognition. It’s possible the only source is myself and a former co-editor of this account and I want to ensure that no information is away from their access if it turns out the Wikipedia article is the only source of the name. Thanks! - Navarre0107 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Navarre0107! I'll admit at once that I'm not fully familiar with the various reasons for which the talk-page of a deleted page might be preserved – I've done it, on request, in the past for articles which had gone through GA review, and then been deleted as copyright violations. I'm not seeing any strong reason here – I'm confident that the USGS (a careful and bureaucratic organisation with which I happen to have several years of direct working experience) will (a) not use Wikipedia as its only source and (b) know how to use the Wayback Machine to look at old versions of deleted pages if it really wants to. But you're welcome to ask here if you like, I think that's permissible (G7 doesn't seem to be either specifically allowed or disallowed there). Please note that you most definitely should not have a "co-editor" with access to your account – another editor requires another account. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've been aware of the issue with co-editors. This was for a time 5 or 6 years ago when we were still in high school and not aware of the issue. It has since been corrected. I already notified BGN to the issue, but I definitely would be interested in preserving for transparency sake. Thank you for your assistance!

Hoping you have a nice day,

Navarre0107 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Navarre0107 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits on Secret Cinema. That's one of the Brice Stratford sockfarm articles. So is Fabien Riggall (the founder), and the same recent person is IP-hopping and doing the same sort of weird stuff on that article. Could you put that article on your watchlist as well? They are edit-warring to keep their material in.

BTW, due to the resignation of CorbieVreccan (following the recent RFAR), we no longer have her to help with the sockfarm. It's just you, me, and Girth Summit. Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologise, Softlavender, I've been slow to reply here (and have also taken a little time to look at this). So far, what I'm seeing at those two articles is a lot of closely similar SPAs (read socks), but not much overlap with the BS BS. Can you give me some pointers to the connection(s)?

I'm sad that CV felt obliged to leave, but can't blame her in the circumstances. It took eight years to get some action on the BS sock farm, and that we did was entirely thanks to her – thanks, Corbie! You too (Softlavender) have done a load of work to keep this mess within limits, thank you! If you're interested in starting a concerted clean-up effort I'm up for it, but can't promise to put a lot of time into it. When I had more energy and was cleaning up this mess, I started with a list of articles in my sandbox, and worked through them over a year or so; perhaps we could set up something along those lines for this too, starting with low-hanging fruit such as this nonsense and working up? It's more complicated because of all the socks, but not impossible, I think? Anyway, thanks and regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I gave that IP/24 an unpaid vacation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I like the look of your LTA page there. Back in April/May, Corbie and I were emailing each other about strategy and the scope of the problem. After the SPI closed she then started an email thread with her, me, and GirthSummit, with the intention to add you as well. I felt a bit overwhelmed by the sheer scope and decided at the time to simply post "connected contributors" on the talkpages of the worst-hit articles.

My sense right now is that following the mass blockings and gutting of his personal wiki article post-SPI, the sockmaster knows that we are clearly onto his BS and his schemes, and has largely stopped the nonsense. Like you, I myself do not have the time right now to do a large-scale cleanup or LTA report of the other affected articles.

Anyway, to answer your question, Brice Stratford (sockmaster) was professionally involved with Secret Cinema, and (with a largely separate collection of socks) created a separate walled garden of articles which includes: Secret Cinema, Fabien Riggall, Future Cinema, Future Shorts. (This walled garden may actually be UPE.) Here are some on-wiki (usertalk and COIN) communications about this walled garden and the Brice Straford connection that were noted in 2015: [4], [5] (Secret Cinema mentioned), [6] (Secret Cinema mentioned several times).

All of that said, the IP that you blocked just now was engaging in serial vandalism rather than promotionalism, so it was a different issue. Softlavender (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luiysia (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, you recently deleted an article I had submitted for Dr. Suhas Kshirsagar on (insert date), that was rejected, but I was planning to edit and resubmit. I understand there were a lot of third party references missing and I'm new to this, so just learning. Would you restore the article, so I can try again?

Thank you,

Dreamlark Dreamlark (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamlark, your submission of that page for review was declined because it read like an advertisement; I deleted it as WP:G11, unambiguous promotion. I consider it to be wholly unsuitable for inclusion in this encyclopaedia, and so am not prepared to restore it. If you're sure that this person is notable by our standards, I suggest that you write a few short neutral sentences about him, every word of which is supported by strong independent reliable sources. The best place for that would be here. Oh, and if you have some connection to him, please disclose it before you do anything else. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, Thank you for your feedback. It is really helpful. I will try to implement your suggestions.

To answer your question, I don't have any association with him. When I heard about Suhas, and what he has accomplished in the field of Ayurveda, I was very inspired and felt his story would be helpful and inspiring for others. There are of course peers of his, such as Deepak and Dr. Lad Vasant, but I havent fund anyone who has contributed to so many organizations and teachers in the field- so I wanted to write about it.

If you could restore the article, I would appreciate it. I did not save my initial submission, and would like to use some of the content and references for the rewrite. Thanks again! Dreamlark (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You might want to upgrade the block of this user because I think they are an LTA, WP:LTA/FUERDAI Thanks, Seawolf35 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Seawolf35. I'm not familiar with that sock farm, and a quick glance doesn't show me any strong similarity. If you see those similarities then it might be best to mention them here. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and talk-page access now removed, Seawolf35. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, may I know why you delete the link to Principality of Salerno in the article Salerno? Thank you Golfodisalerno (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golfodisalerno, please see the edit summary I left – or go straight to MOS:OL. You might like to read WP:EASTER too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for opening my eyes to AKC. I didn’t know they were that bad. I will now no longer use them as a source. Smilus32 (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I please have the Stratford Lyon article, which was deleted for being created by a sock, back as a user sandbox/subpage? Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SilverTiger12, sent by email. Please treat it with all the scepticism it deserves – it's a tiny part of a years-long sock/meat LTA history of promotion of one Brice Stratford. The unfortunate departure of CorbieVreccan (see §Socks above) has rather reduced my interest in cleaning up all that, but I'd be happier if that particular page did not return to haunt us. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Justlettersandnumbers. I don't understand how WP:LINKBACK affects the removal of {{Horse topics}} from Spanish-Norman horse and Baise horse or (more to the point) how its removal improves navigation in those articles. All the best, Miniapolis 00:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Miniapolis, how are you? I removed that template from those two articles (and a good number of others) because they were not included in it – according to our guidance, "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional". Of course we don't always have to stick religiously to that, but that particular template had a very large number of erroneous transclusions. Certainly doing so didn't improve navigation, but it barely reduced it either, as the linked topics were only remotely connected to the subject of those pages. I've now added the Spanish Norman to the List of North American horse breeds and to {{Horse breeds of Canada and the United States}}, which for some reason I'd failed to do earlier (aha, I see why – it wasn't in Category:Horse breeds originating in the United States, now remedied). Would you be happy for the page to be moved to that title (Spanish Norman), btw? – we don't actually need the disambiguating 'horse', and the unhyphenated breed name seems to predominate in the sources.

One thing I learned last night is that there are several more countries which should probably have a {{Horse breeds of Foo}} navbox (where Foo is either a country or a broader region such as Central Asia). Poland, Hungary and particularly China seem to be the most urgent. My knowledge of Chinese horses fits comfortably onto a postage-stamp – is that something you might be interested in helping with? It would handily connect Baise horse to other articles on similar topics. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply, and I'm fine with the move to Spanish Norman; unfortunately, though, my knowledge of Chinese horse breeds is about the same as yours. I joined WikiProject Equine when I first started editing here, saw those two breeds on its requested-articles list, and have a couple of book sources around the house. Hope you're doing well. All the best, Miniapolis 14:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually created Maurice Edington (with three references) in mainspace and left a message on (as far as I can tell) the draft creator's *one* unblocked account with instructions to leave on the talk page any suggestions. I'm not quite sure his relation to UDC, but I'm just getting vibes a *huge* COI. I'm not worried about notability for the article (he clears WP:NACADEMIC easily, I think). Would appreciate additional eyes on the mainspace article for awhile though.Naraht (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Naraht, I'd say you're unlikely to be wrong about the COI, but am still undecided whether it's WP:UPE or an autobiography (or one of each?). I've added your version of the page to my watchlist. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is definitely WP:UPE. I've left him/her a warning. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the point in the contributions. I wonder if they gave enough information on one of the blocked accounts to dox themselves.Naraht (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, we've reached 5 full non-interim presidents of UDC with articles (plus one interim). I made a template.Naraht (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt see the award when I read the article but I should have. I try to thank editors for fixing my mistakes [7] so thank you Softlem (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's nice of you to come here to say that, Softlemonades. I think that minor oversight was very understandable – this was a well-known company (my parents' first record changer was a Hacker, our only record was Let's Twist Again), so I'd expected to find claims of significance immediately, but in fact it took some searching. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone's looking for me: I'll be mostly or completely away from the project for the rest of this week, probably until Sunday at least. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Unit One (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youi deleted an article by the name "Luyten e" and I am planning to re-create it. Is that okay with you? It's the same with the article corresponding to planet "d". This is not a bot. Jtadesse (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me, Jtadesse, thanks for asking. Are you sure they're notable? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I did a Google search and found many sources related to the system, and also found sources from the article about the star. Jtadesse (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the external links are the problem with my edit. Thanks for your contribution Justlettersandnumbers (talk) I would like another shot at this. That was a first shot I was thinking the links would help with References but I see that it went to a commercial web site. That is a no go. Thanks Dhenry1979 (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, Dhenry1979, I deleted it because of the grossly promotional tone of the text (stuff like "... founded in 2009 by our founder, Laszlo Klementis with the drive to create a precision rifle cassis at a abortable price. With that passion he created the first MDT chasse ..."), the inline weblinks to its webpage and to LinkedIn, and your obvious undisclosed paid connection to the company. This last you should remedy before making any other edit – I'll leave some instructions on your talk-page. Please be aware that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on the Laminitis article, you could remove references from those two sources if they weren't reliable, but the revert just removed other reliable citations as well such as actual peer reviewed studies. UMStellify (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Rotmans) is created by paid editor, please find the evidence below:

Editor: https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01bfb4d3cfe85e7304

EVIDENCE: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0154185af1ca527006

EVIDENCE: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01e2b4d69b8d40b85b

Please run checkuser, Obvious gaming of autoconfirmed to post spam like Simon Gillett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simon_Gillett), Simon Gillett user's page was locked as sock puppet on 26 November 2023. Now, this user is using older sleepers that were previously stale. I'm sure there are more out there.But checkuser should help as they might have created a lot of sleeper accounts to game in future. 39.48.13.144 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) You should post this to WP:COIN. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, these are also suspected sock puppets. Where should I post to run check user? 39.48.13.144 (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 21:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 39.48.13.144 (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not debating the edit, just the edit summary — England is not a country, just a part of one. Of course, England is a country — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GhostInTheMachine, I was born there, but I don't have an English passport. Do you know anyone who does? Mine's issued by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so that's the country I'm from (unfortunately!). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too am English and a British citizen with a UK passport. The United Kingdom contains the country of England, as well as the countries of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was my page deleted because there's nothing on the internet about opinion based sexual orientations? Once it pops up, could I re-make the page with sources? MaskNinja (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) @MaskNinja: Please read WP:FIRSTARTICLE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that means that our articles are not explorations of original thought but summaries of what reliable sources say. Sources don't have to be online but they need to be verifiable which also includes books and newspapers. We realize that typing your ideas into our wiki is easy but we're not a free website for you to use. Maybe you should try getting your own blog or website. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this on my talk page right? MaskNinja (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's for messages! Use your sandbox to develop a draft. Again, with no published sources about crexuality there would be nothing for you to write, as everything we publish has to be based upon sources. I suggest that you take your crexuality ideas to some other website. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasuruan United F.C. I have every right to redirect Pasuruan United F.C. to Pasuruan, per Sport section on the article. Govvy (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the speedy that was requested, was completely incorrect for a redirect, so I don't know what happened, on my talk page, Significa liberdade posted a speedy for a page recreation, the page wasn't recreated as is, a redirect is a completely new page, :/ So I don't get the speedy nomination. Govvy (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hmm, yes, Govvy, you do. It seems that The Pict's turned that redirect into a G4-worthy stub. My apologies, now restored (one revision only). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Govvy! When the page was tagged for CSD, it was not a redirect. The article was previously brought to AfD, where it was decided that the article should be deleted, not that it should redirect. As such, it is appropriate for the new article to be deleted. If you take issue with the outcome of the deletion discuss, please contact the closing administrator. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significa liberdade I had no idea the redirect was removed and the old article restored if that is the case, I didn't see that at all in the article hist, etc. Shouldn't The Pict's be more responsible? I've seen people banned for doing that. :/ Govvy (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Significa liberdade, I think it's acceptable to create a plausible redirect after a page has been deleted; the redirect (as long as it stays that way!) is not remotely similar to the deleted page, so is not a challenge to the deletion discussion (as the page was when you tagged it for deletion). Let me know if you think I'm wrong. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers: I'm not quite versed on the guidelines. However, if I had come across the redirect only, I would not have CSD'ed it for the reason you provided. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, thanks for the restoring the redirect, cheers, Govvy (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers,

I saw you just left this editor a warning message about paid editing but I was wondering if they should get a username block. After all, the KKK is a racist hate group even though their editing hasn't shown any signs of this. Just wondering what you think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz, good to see you! Yes, I did think of that, but could see no plausible connection between that organisation and this undistinguished Romanian businessman – in whom the editor has shown a very determined interest, both here and on Commons! If he/she posts any more promotional content about that person I'll probably indef as a spam-only account. But if the focus turns to burning crosses and silly pointy white hoods then I'll reconsider that other possibility too, of course – if you don't get there first! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is it time for a spam only block? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh. Never mind -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Deepfriedokra, it was time, I think – I'd probably have been doing it now if Widr hadn't got there first. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends and colleagues, fellow-editors and page-watchers, I wish you all happiness and peace at Christmas and in the coming year, which I can only hope will be less awful than this one with its wars, lies and failed harvests. I'll probably be mostly away from Wikipedia for the next ten days or so at least. Be good ... and if you can't be good, be careful! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Way to out all of us {{tps}} folks:) Best to you and your friends, family, and co-conspirators. DMacks (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers, The move to draft by @Caseeart is highly impropriate as their justification are misleading. The justification they give is "WP:BLP WP:ATTACK. Deleted multiple times. No explanation why restored." The deletion history shows that it was undeleted by an @Liz on 26 June 2023, this can only have occurred as a result of a undeletion request yes? The second justification given by Caseeart is WP:ATTACK, per that article "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced" (my empathise). Clearly the article as it exists in its current state is well sourced having 16 citations to WP:RS. I've stated to Caseart on their talk page that if they thinks it was recreated inappropriately he should take it to AFD, which they ignored. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath, as you've probably seen, I've commented briefly at ANI. But just in case it isn't clear from what I wrote there: my move-protection of the mainspace title was intended to limit any further move-warring, regardless of what title the page 'should' be at – which I didn't even begin to try to determine. It wasn't any sort of endorsement of the draftification. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understood already that you would have only been acting to limit disruption. I thought it best to explain the situation. Cheers, TarnishedPath^talk 21:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I@Justlettersandnumbers

the article still has serious BLP problems. I don’t understand why it was moved to the main space. CaseeArt ^Talk 01:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caseeart it was moved to mainspace because I submitted it to AfC for review and it passed the review process. I'd suggest the ideas you have about the previous reasons it was deleted by AfD still holding and it being an WP:ATTACK page are erroneous. The AfC reviewer would have considered notability and BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 01:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm not @သုခဘုံ, the person who made the original article, but I believe you recently deleted Hmawbi District from a speedy delete for duplicating Hmawbi Township. The district was newly created in 2022 and encompasses both Hmawbi Township and Htantabin Township- and is a distinct subject and administrative division. Asking to see what the article content looked like to build off it and re-create the article with proper sourcing. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 01:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted it, EmeraldRange – I was already slightly uncertain about the deletion, but found no mention of the district in our other pages on administrative districts in the area so went ahead. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Justlettersandnumbers! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 02:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an AfC reviewer, I reviewed Draft:Avi Yemini and determined that it meets the criteria to be published in mainspace, due to

1. Likely to be kept at AfD
2. No copyvio/cp issues
3. Claims in article verified in cited sources

Please unprotect the article space name so that the AfC request can be accepted. (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, that, Buidhe – let's see how this plays out. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe

Does any article with sources pass AFC even if it is written like a negative rant against a living person?

I have BLP concerns of the article being a “laundry list” on the subject, concerns of poorly sourced name calling in the article, concerns that the article uses very selective negative sources, and that users who openly called the subject a “serial pest” remove sourced neutral information. CaseeArt ^Talk 07:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caseeart the article did not meet the criteria for draftification because it wasn't a recent creation. If you are draftifying against policy as a page mover, that right can be revoked.

If you are concerned about BLP issues, please take the appropriate actions, such as speedy deletion tag, AfD, BLPN, or fixing the article yourself. Draftification is not suitable because BLP violations are not allowed in draft space, either. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caseeart, an unmistakably "negative rant against a living person" is not allowed anywhere in the project, full stop. I don't see here that any other editor feels that this article fits that description. If you're still concerned about this aspect of the page, please start a discussion at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; if you still feel that we should not have the page at all, then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is the next step. Otherwise you are of course free to edit and improve the page. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Will need to choose which venue to go.

Although my experience shows that when it comes to conservative people- the BLP issues are less enforced.

PS Admin Black Kite DID say:

“but it does sort of read like a laundry list of negative issues”. CaseeArt ^Talk 15:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cattle breeds by colour has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red cattle has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.