Justlettersandnumbers

I made some updates to the page by categorizing the history by century and enhancing the top section with valuable information. Unfortunately, these changes have been reverted by you Carlstakat 14:10, 18 August 2024 (Restored revision 1178104810). The page now lacks important details, such as the fact that the Academy was the first academy of fine arts in the world. Additionally, the structure of the top section remains poorly organized, which detracts from the page's clarity and completeness. IlEssere (talk • contribs)

Your recent edits to the above seem a bit unnecessary and unjustified, so I am probably going to undo them Jane Bowen (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The article European Federation of Animal Science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ORG. There don't appear to be sufficient independent reliable sources to warrant an article for this organisation.

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. gobonobo ^{+ c} 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Template:WPASIA10k has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Asia. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Template:WPAFR10k has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 17:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you intending to comment at these discussions? The reason they were necessary is that you opposed the merge. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 6 § Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Animal breeds by colour indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article China Navigation Company, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Navigation Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am about to create an article(a biography), but i saw that the pages of the title have recently been deleted/removed, the last action was by you, so i just wanted to ask if there is any specific reason behind it(coz many articles that people tried to create about the same person have been removed), is it like they were writing incorrect and unreliable information there? or is it controversial? Just confirming with you so that i can go ahead with creating the page.

This is the page that was deleted by you. 22:34, 14 November 2023 Justlettersandnumbers talk contribs deleted page Manoj Jarange Patil (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace)

or you can just visit this link and see the log https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title=Manoj+Jarange+Patil&create=Create+page AnalyserOP (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for asking, AnalyserOP. Given the embattled history of that page and your relatively brief experience in this project, may I suggest that you work instead on the draft version of the page, which is here? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Alright, if you say. I'm a new contributor still, shouldn't be writing a whole new article. Thanks for the suggestion. AnalyserOP (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I note that you sent this for G11, which was declined. You may wish to influence its fate either way at AfD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Just a quick query that I’m hoping you can help me with…

Back on 2/1/24 you reverted a promo/copyvio edit on the page for Legal & General. The text of that edit is now no longer on the article history (presumably due to the copyvio).

The reverted editor has now declared a COI and has attempted to make a complete rewrite of the lead part of the current article via a request at the talk page (i.e. following the correct process).

I wonder if you could take a look and let me know if the new request bears any similarity to the material that you previously reverted.

Any assistance gratefully received. Axad12 (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note, Axad12! As you've probably seen, I removed a small amount of copyvio from the same source as before, and also commented on the merits of the edit request. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your help here. There has been quite a lot of disruptive promo editing on that page (and also the page of the company's former CEO) over the last 18 months, mostly by redlink SPAs and IP addresses. Hopefully it will now end, as declaring the COI doesn't make it any easier for them to introduce promotional text. They've been directed to WP:PROMO on maybe 10 previous occasions, but maybe this time they will get the message. Thanks again. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just a quick query following on from the above...

You may recall that there was a disclosed paid COI editor trying to make some promo edits to the page for Legal & General.

My understanding was that a disclosed COI meant that changes could only be made via suggestions at article talk pages, however I note that the user recently changed the photo on the article for the company's previous CEO Nigel Wilson (businessman) without discussion. (They have stated in the edit summary that they have permission, but I'm interpreting that as being permission to use the revised photo, not permission to make the edit).

Interested to hear your thoughts here. Axad12 (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Axad12! In the greater scheme of things I don't think adding or changing a photo is too terrible a thing for a COI/paid editor to do. In this case it turned out to be a copyvio, so has been deleted on Commons – you might like to revert to an earlier version of that page with the previous photo. I've tried to give the user a bit more advice/guidance. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for getting back to me. I agree that it was a fairly minor thing. I'm just concerned that every edit that this user makes ends up falling foul of PROMO, COPYVIO or both and ends up being reverted.

The same can be said for the other (apparently linked) accounts which have made identical edits to the same 3 pages going back now over about 18 months (and which in all likelihood have all been the same end user).

If all of that activity had been on a single account there's every chance the user would have been blocked some time ago, but as it is they just continue to waste other users' time. Axad12 (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I hope you are doing well. I edited the page after this deletion banner and I am sure this time it is not advertising. And I wanted to know page is well cited and I have added lots of refrences so, Why you delete the page. Will you please help me regarding it? Humaira28 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I request you to reconsider that. Humaira28 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) User has repeatedly re-created this as a draft and is now using a sock account User:Aira28 to add more versions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

if i stop doing this. Actually I did not know about this. If I work from main account only will it be fine? Aira28 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Its my first time in wikipedia that is why i do not know about accounts. Please tell me if I start working from previous one and never open this one will it be fine? Aira28 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand what you are saying about neutrability. I will resubmit it again in neutral words and as it is my first time on Wikipedia, I did not know about accounts. so, sorry for this. It wont happen again. But please delete it fast so I can submit a neutral one. Aira28 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

And this time was the article fine? Aira28 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Humaira28, yes it will be OK if you continue only to use your Humaira28 account and no other. I have blocked the Aira28 account; I very strongly advise you not to create any other – that will almost certainly ensure that you are permanently unable to edit here.

About your draft, you ask "Will you please help me regarding it?"; I'm sorry, but the answer is no, I have no interest in helping you to promote Ms Focardi (or anything/anyone else) in this project – Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Please be warned that any further promotion on that topic is likely to result in an immediate and permanent withdrawal of your editing privileges. If you are that person, please read this; if you are someone who has been paid to write about her, please read this. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message. I am hardly a beginner, but thank you for your editing for beginners link. I do believe you have made a mistake, but I simply don't care enough to take on a battle I will lose. An editor removed a large amount of material and deleted a page, leaving a note that any of the deleted information could then be incorporated into a main article that was remaining in place. The text you do not like refers to plot lines and character traits. Anything that can only truly be confirmed by actually watching the episodes being described. There are literally THOUSANDS of wikipedia articles with plotlines and character details that are not referenced and nor can they be. They are character descriptions. Plot lines. Unreferenceable. I note you have not deleted the main article pages for the characters in Absolutely Fabulous, none of which are referenced. The edits in question you do object to are sub articles of that same page. You have merely decided to select this one page and this one attempt to reinstate text that existed for many years on wikipedia without concerning anyone. I am sure you are now working hard on every page relating to every movie and every TV series that exists on wikipedia to remove all unreferenced plot lines and character traits. A mammoth task and I wish you well with that undertaking to ensure that the guidelines are followed to the letter in every single article mentioning any fictional character. It could take years. Good luck! MWEditorial (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove my article? What factual error was there? Anponline (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anponline, you can see the reason for the deletion by going here. It was "WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". This project does not tolerate promotion of any kind, so stuff like " ... he carved his path in the sport, leaving an indelible mark on the Indian motocross scene ..." is completely unacceptable. Were you paid to write – or to post – that stuff? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can I publish this article if I omit that specific reference?

I have not received any payment from anyone to write this article. To be a 5-time national champion and then come back 11 years later to be a national champion again is legendary in a sport where physical fitness is as important as motocross. As a motocross enthusiast, I really wish the man had a wiki page. I think you will realize how important this is in a third world country like India where motocross is still in its infancy. He is a living legend. He proved that age is just a number. Anponline (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anponline, the whole page was written in a tone entirely unsuitable for an encyclopaedia – another example: "... the tireless pursuit of excellence, unwavering dedication, and an ever-present desire to push his limits ...". Try again if you wish, but if you write any more content like that you risk indefinite loss of editing privileges in this project. Where did you get that appalling pap from, by the way? Every sentence you write must be (a) neutral in tone and (b) supported by independent reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your feedback. I will try to correct my tone. Anponline (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have declined your G11 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Young Jimmy. It is obvious that the draft was created for the purpose of promotion, but I don't think that the actual content of the page is so blatantly promotional as to justify speedy deletion. The speedy tag was on the article for more than 2 days, which is sufficiently unusual to make me suspect that I was far from being the only administrator who was reluctant to decline the deletion because it's the kind of thing that should be deleted, but unwilling to actually delete it because it doesn't really satisfy any of the speedy criteria. JBW (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note, JBW, good to see you! I'd realised that no-one wanted to actually push the button on this and was planning to remove the tag myself, so you've saved me the trouble! In my view we should be as free to delete pages that actually are advertisements (including all WP:UPE) as we are to delete those which just look like advertisements, but I'm not going to waste time trying to get the G11 criterion changed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree with you on your point about deleting things which are advertisements whether they blatantly look like it or not, but I came to the conclusion many years ago that consensus is solidly against that interpretation. Incidentally, if we applied that criterion then virtually all paid editing would be banned. JBW (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey I noticed you rolled back some of my alternate accounts edits. I came across said citation whilst studying and added it to the articles to help either expand them with new content or to add as a secondary citation to already sourced claims.

I don't have any affiliation with that specific textbook beyond using it in my study.

If adding similar content like that to multiple articles is disallowed under another policy I will refrain from it but I don't see it as being ref spam. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, Traumnovelle, didn't know that was you (what do you need a second account for?). A new user adding the same source to one article after another certainly looked like refspam. No, I don't think there's any other policy or guideline that disallows such additions, but you might perhaps give some consideration to WP:WEIGHT, both as Sacristy and as yourself. Anyway, now I'm going to get back to the Wirehaired Vizsla ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to split my account from my home PC and work/study laptop. Don't wish to get carried away with my watchlist or other notifications and simply add material I come across as I have the chance.

I don't think adding those mentions from the textbook gives undue weight but I can reduce it to more specific articles and content.

May I restore some of the additions? Traumnovelle (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Traumnovelle, you don't need my permission, please do as you wish! But if you'll allow me a suggestion, I'd concentrate on ailments that are unique or particular significant to a specific breed – some of these additions look to my uninformed eye a bit like, say, "German people may suffer from bunions". Are you sure that five-minute guide is the best source? A couple that I've sometimes cited are:

• Ronaldo C. Da Costa, Curtis W. Dewey (2015). Practical Guide to Canine and Feline Neurology, third edition, ebook. Ames, Iowa: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781119062042 and
• Alex Gough, Alison Thomas (2004). Breed Predispositions to Disease in Dogs and Cats. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 9781405107488.

Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll revert just a few specific ones then such as colour dilution alopecia in Yorkshire Terriers.

The book itself is probably not the best source for breed dispositions as it's typically just a one line mention. It'd probably be better to focus on specific sources such as the breed predisposition book or sources that do more than an overview of a condition. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

i observe my page had a delete request by you @Justlettersandnumbersj and was eventually deleted. i would like to inquire the reason for this actoin Coding4kidshub (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

(by talk reader) @Coding4kidshub: Thanks for not reading anything that was posted to your user talk page about this issue. By posting here, I found out about your promotional efforts so I've reported you to WP:UAA. Expect to be soft-blocked in the next couple hours. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

its not a promotional effort and i am just asking for reasons so as to no what was wrong in my post and to avoid such mistake @Justlettersandnumbers @Chris troutman Coding4kidshub (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Coding4kidshub, I deleted the page as WP:G11, unambiguous promotion. It was full of stuff like "... [he] is known for his resilience & dogged work ethics, commitment to community development and humanity" and "... completed numerous business courses online to enhance his entrepreneurial skills". This is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn or something; our content is written in a WP:neutral aseptic tone. Where did you get all that stuff from, by the way? – there was not one reference cited in the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Could you please stop rejecting every edit for my Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.187.197 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

[[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Is it possible to stop rejecting every change to my Wikipedia page? 212.98.101.179 (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

What would it take for you to leave a page alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcangel27 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers, you recently deleted my article from my user page claiming that I am using Wikipedia as a free web-hosting service.But if you would have took the effort to translate a little bit of it, you might have realised that it is a draft for a translation I was making for the actual article "David Goggins" . I was still working on the translation of the article. Kindly remove the ban or whatever it is, as i invested a lot of time in translating the article. You can contact me if you need to talk to me. ThanksAkProto (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, AkProto! My apologies, I didn't notice your edit summary there, as I should have. In general, stuff on this Wikipedia should be in English. I've emailed you the text of the deleted page, on the assumption that it was intended for use on the Telegu (?) Wikipedia rather than here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, Thanks for looking onto it! Appreciate it!! AkProto (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, several of my very old articles have been deleted in a very short timespan. I have done lots of hard work to make these articles. They have stood the test of time for 10 years. Then they have been promoted for speedy deletion, and are gone in seconds. It would be better to mark them as undersourced and give a timely deadline for when they must be improved, e.g. a week. It is unreasonable to require editors to make such improvements within this short amount of time. I think you are misunderstanding Wikipedia's guidelines. The requirements you refer to for notability are sufficient, but not necessary for an article to be notable. Your selective choice of articles that you promote for deletion makes it appear that you are on a crusade against the IPSC. Sauer202 (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sauer202! I've recently deleted IPSC Moldova and some others like it under our speedy deletion criterion A7, "an article about a club, society or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" – there was simply nothing there to indicate why we should even consider having an article on that topic. 'Credible claim of significance' is a much lower threshold than our quite stringent notability requirements for companies and organisations; to be honest, I'm amazed that these pages have survived for so long without one. NB The entire content of IPSC Moldova was "IPSC Moldova is the Moldovan association for practical shooting under the International Practical Shooting Confederation". It had no independent source and no citations.

That said, I'm happy to restore any of these for which you can assure me that that you can provide enough solid independent reliable sources (with extensive in-depth coverage of the organisation itself) to demonstrate notability. It might perhaps be an idea to restore them in draft space, where you could then expand them at leisure, but your call on that. An alternative suggestion: why not create a List of members of the International Practical Shooting Confederation, and merge all those that have little or no claim of significance into that? Let me know? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this is the totally wrong way forward if we are going to encourage to improve articles. It is a cumbersome process involves so many persons on Wikipedia nominating, deleting, requesting, not restoring, justifying, restoring anyway but to draftspace, drafting, reviewing, not good enough despite how many sources, draft again, wait 6 months, and the contributor is not interested in contributing anymore because life. Why is it so hard to give contributors an opportunity, e.g. mark an article as undersourced etc. and give like 7 days to improve it? I am not interested in Draft space, that is the black hole of Wikipedia. What goes in there takes half a year to get out again, if ever, no matter how good the article is. It seems some patrollers or whatever functions they are lose eyesight and go on power trips now and then. Then again they don't last many years here in Wikipedia. I'm not going to bother. Do whatever you want. Sauer202 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, Sauer202, I understand that you think these pages should be left for you to improve. But Gibraltar Pistol Association (which is tagged for speedy deletion as I write) has remained without any citations and with no independent sourcing whatsoever since you created it in 2016.

I've suggested two possible ways of salvaging this content so that you can bring it to the point that it could be included in the encyclopaedia, but here's a third: if you like, and on your request only, I'll restore any of these pages that I've deleted to your user space so that you can develop them there without disturbance. I'm not sure if you're aware that I have not sought out any of these pages – I've just deleted some that had already been tagged for speedy deletion with a valid rationale. And BTW, it isn't only you that gets stuff deleted – look at the first few messages at the top of this page! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your patience. I appreciate your input, and may consider it at a later point. For now I have have objected that a certain person bulk nominates uncontroversial stubs which quickly gets deleted despite objection. This is a bad, bad process and seriously harms the project. Thanks again. Sauer202 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I would argue that a photo of the bull-breeding brothers who run Miura and have for decades, indeed the only one of the brothers with their matador nephew, and more importantly the only one at all of their bull-ring on their ranch in the background, is not tangential in its relevance but central. Best, LG LucyGould (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, LucyGould, the place to argue that would be the talk-page of the article; I might argue against inclusion of the image if I could be bothered. However, more to the point, I put it to you that you placed the image there not for the reasons you mention here, but because it also includes a certain Alexander Fiske-Harrison, to whom you may have some personal or professional connection – you have made no edit in this project that is not connected to him. Please read this page and this one, and then make whatever disclosure is appropriate. Oh, and edit-warring at that page is unlikely to be productive. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand about the page mistake. Sorry, I thought it most suitable to put it to the editor who made the edit so that they would understand rather than making the assumption they follow the page. I have no existing professional or personal connection to Alexander Fiske-Harrison - if that is your worry you might want to look at the credits for three of the other photos on that page, including the one above this - he exists in the world of the bulls in Spain and crops up like any other professional in their industry. LucyGould (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, LucyGould, you've never met him, worked for him, received any payment of any kind from him, yet you happened to take this photograph of him at the Finca Zahariche in Andalucia on 13 May 2010. That's quite a remarkable coincidence, is it not? If you are, expect to be, or ever have been paid by this person or anyone associated with him, disclosure is obligatory under the Terms of Use of this project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you delete my user page and lock it from being created again please, as you did here on 23 April 2023? Someone created a user page for me without me wanting it. Helper201 (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please undelete File talk:Influencegraph.PNG. As far as I can tell it isn't eligible for G8 as the base page exists. There's a version with actual content in the history to revert to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, done, Pppery, undeleted and cleared. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I restored what you had deleted, as the article has been reverted to draft status. Background: the creating editor had converted this from draft to mainspace, draftified by New Pages Patrol, creating editor did it again, and again draftified. Given current draft status, creating editor should be allowed to attempt to add references. In my opinion, Abbas does not meet GNG, and if creating editor goes for mainspace again, deserves AfD. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

David notMD, I don't know why you thought that was a good idea. There was nothing to stop an editor from restoring that content together with the references that support it (if any can be found), and there's no reason to keep content that has none. But as well as restoring a mass of unreferenced material, you also reinserted the stuff I'd removed as a WP:BLP violation (as noted in my edit summary). Our BLP policy applies throughout the project, please take care not to insert content that violates it, even in (an excess of) good faith, as clearly is the case here. And agreed, as a minor local government official, the person is wholly non-notable. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Kavya Kishor, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G5: substantive contributions from other editors. This is the fourth time removing a CSD tag from this page, do not tag it again. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ivanvector! I assume that you've checked the contribs of those editors and confirmed that the principal ones are also blocked sockpuppets, mostly of the same user, though Miladitb is blocked as a sock of another? There are no substantive contributions from good-faith editors, just the usual gnoming/AfC routine etc. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before removing tags from further pages, and perhaps also to restore the G5 tag to this one. And by the way, if you want me not to do something, ask politely ... please. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the work you do in new pages patrol and in fighting spam, and the message (which is a template) isn't meant to suggest that you've done anything wrong, although I do think you should not tag articles for speedy deletion under criteria that have already been declined, as you did here. As an administrator I'm solely responsible for justifying my deletions, and if a page doesn't meet the tagged criterion then I don't delete it. I know of at least one high-profile case of an admin losing their mop because of a pattern of improper speedy deletions, and in that case Arbcom was clear in their ruling that admins are not permitted to delete any page without discussion except as defined by the criteria for speedy deletion (in their words, "[a]dministrators should take care not to speedy delete pages except in the most obvious cases"). When the criterion says "no substantial edits by others", and the page has even one substantial edit by another user, then policy says I must decline. If you think that G5 should be changed to say something like "mostly no edits by others" then you can propose that at WT:CSD, and I'll happily follow that consensus if it develops. In the meantime, I can only delete pages when policy says I can, and this fell short. That's just policy, it's not a reflection on you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ivanvector, thank you for your (habitually) thoughtful reply. I see that my comment here last night reflects some temporary frustration with an unrelated (external) matter, which it should not have, my apologies. [No excuse, but the template needs to learn some manners – I doubt if I'm the only editor who doesn't appreciate being given orders.] To the matter in hand: I too am aware of that de-sysop case and (though not really for that reason) try always to err on the side of caution when reviewing speedy nominations – I believe I'm less inclined than many others to delete under A7 and G12, in particular. But for this criterion I take 'substantial' to mean something like 'actually making a significant change to the article'; in this page there is one such edit by a non-sock editor, immediately reversed as an error, so perhaps your decline is correct. Oh, and socks of the same master are all one editor, right? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well I owe you an apology anyway, I'm usually better at checking but I didn't realize you're also an admin, and probably didn't need my long-winded explanation. You're right: a page qualifies for G5 if it's only edited by socks of the page creator, G5 says it explicitly but it's also documented somewhere in an old Arbcom ruling that accounts behaving similarly can be considered one user for sanction enforcement. WP:MEAT derives from that ruling. There might have been a hiccup with this because the socks in the draft's history are tagged as belonging to two different sockfarms (so technically two users) but I'm into the weeds on those cases now and it looks like they're probably actually one organized spam operation anyway, and possibly related to a third sockfarm. So G5 might be in the cards for this after all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No apology needed, Ivanvector! The precise interpretation of the scope of the speedy criteria clearly varies from one user to another, so it's always useful to hear someone else's take (just in passing: I had chosen not to delete this as G12, as not all text was affected (37.1% on Earwig) – but then was distracted before I saved the decline). It looks as if Girth Summit is also looking into the possible connection between those two cases – see his comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parvej096388. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

See [1]. Your edit summary mentioned "better images," but nothing about the removal of this cited and linked source. What was the reason for its removal? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Justlettersandnumbers Hope you are doing well.

I created a draft in the public space so that if there is any other editor who want's to work on the subject could improve... I did submit a draft before and it was rejected, and I wanted to be extra careful with the Arcadia School's draft. I was also thinking of getting help from teahouse as well. I do know that the draft had promotional language, all I did there was gathered the information from different sources and structured them. I didn't even cite any of the sources.

I have talked to the person who nominated the Draft, he says that I should ask you for the recovery of the page. Would you please restore the Draft, so I can work on it. I promise you I won't submit it till it is in accordance to the Wikipedia policies.

Also, if their is any advice you can give me in accordance, I will be utterly grateful.

Thank you. Annika59 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Annika59! Your draft was grossly promotional and entirely unsourced, a blatant advertisement, so no, I'm not prepared to restore it. If you wish, I'll email you the text, but you'd do much better to start from scratch: first assemble your independent reliable sources (at least three, with in-depth coverage of the school itself), then write neutral (cold, dispassionate, sterile) descriptive text based on those. However, before you do that, do you not need to make a paid-editor disclosure? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would, if I was paid. If I knew that the content in the draft space was subjected to regular Wikipedia policies, I would not have saved it there. I saved the draft in a hurry, that's all to it. I would start from scratch, not a problem.

By the way, I read my comment, and wanted to clarify something, that the article I submited, which was rejected was a different one. It was April Showers. If you get the time, you can see that I have followed the tone policy to the letter.

I do understand that I have to learn a lot before I am able to contribute in productive way. I really appriciate you taking your time out for responding to my qurry. Thank you so much. Annika59 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The whole article Ralf Schwarzer is copied from https://en.everybodywiki.com/Ralf_Schwarzer, I am unable to tag this page for copyright violation as everybodywiki is blocked on Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Grabup! Thanks for keeping an eye open for copyright problems, we need all the eyes we can get! In this case I think we're OK: if you look the History tab there, you'll see that that wiki copied from us (Draft:Ralf Schwarzer) on 2 February. I can't see whether everybody.wiki respects the requirement to distribute our content under the same Creative Commons licence as used here, but at least the copying is attributed. I've reversed the copy-paste move to main space. Oh, and the easiest way to mention a black-listed link is to omit the https:// – en.everybodywiki.com/Ralf_Schwarzer doesn't ring any alarms. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You recently deleted the article stated above for not being notable enough yet I provided multiple articles which indicate the channel’s claim of significance. (Discopleasant (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC))Reply

Discopleasant, the entire text was "Whatever is a channel created by Brian Atlas that’s currently a podcast and formerly a prank channel. The podcast holds conversations regarding dating advice, and gender roles"; the only reference was to YouTube. There was nothing to indicate why we might want to have a page about it in Wikipedia, no reason to think it might be important or significant. If you want to try to write about it, may I suggest that you first assemble a minimum of three solid independent reliable sources that discuss it in depth (i.e., not just passing mentions or what it says about itself), and then start a draft – at Draft:Whatever (channel), for example. Good luck, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand. Thank you for replying. (Discopleasant (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC))Reply

Hi, I did what you said and the Draft:Whatever (channel) is almost complete… how do I call for the draft to be reviewed to be accepted as an article? (Discopleasant (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC))Reply

Discopleasant, I've added a template to the page to allow you to submit the draft for review (using the blue button at bottom right). There's a large backlog, so you may need to exercise some patience. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much. I appreciate it! (Discopleasant (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC))Reply

Hello, I've found what I believe may be a copyright violation (The user's other, very similar edit involved copying). I do not have access to the source to verify if the content is a copy right violation or not. I'm unsure of what to do in this situation and I know you are familiar with dealing with copyright violations.

Here's the edit/diff in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veterinary_dentistry&diff=prev&oldid=1083867824 Traumnovelle (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swimmer_puppy_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=1043257026 I deleted this due to the source being unreliable but I'm not sure whether this would qualify as a copyvio or not. I got a 97% detection with some AI plagiarism software but a lot of the content is facts, still some non-factual stuff is copied word for word. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subvalvular_aortic_stenosis_(canine)&diff=prev&oldid=932080046

In the third paragraph of treatment is a statement copied from: https://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84891

The article is open access; however, the statement is not properly sourced.

I've removed it due to it being a predatory journal but I'm unsure of this counts as a copyright issue or not. Never mind the edit preceding this one contains a copyvio so it will be revedeled anyhow Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pl lease forgive me if this is not the right way to contact you or if I'm breaking some faux pax but what happened to the Veterinary Dentistry article? It's completely gutted. The only thing remainiare headings. Are you currently working on this? Am I just jumping the gun and you'll put it back together? Can you let me know when you're done with changes? I am upset because I've invested many hours over the course of 6 years in this article and it appears to be poofed info oblivion. n. MarialeegRVT (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most of the things removed were terms and their definitions. How is that copywrite infringement? I created an entire dental charting system and that's gone too. I compiled and built this information from a variety of sources. The version currently left is a couple of poorly written paragraphs with bad punctuation! If there was a copywrite infringement, at least let me address specifically those areas and not revert the entire article. MarialeegRVT (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also cited everything I put in the article? I didn't claim credit for anything. Again sorry if I'm not contacting you correctly or using the right lingo. MarialeegRVT (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

MarialeegRVT, the problem with the content you added was that it contained substantial copy-paste copyright violations from the sources cited, going right back to the first edit you made to the page (text copy-pasted from here). Please see your talk-page for further discussion of your edits and our copyright policy. It is extremely disappointing to have to remove such a large amount of text, but I saw no alternative in the circumstances. Anyone who wishes to rewrite part or all of the page is free to do so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I really don't understand. I actually typed out every sentence, there was no copy paste. My source was my own physical copies of text books and medical publishing.

Also, I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used as a dictionary but I did create lists of items, for instance in the dental cleaning instruments section, I mentioned a curette and next to it included a short definition of what it was and how it was used, just for clarification. How is this copywriting infringement? Does somebody own a definition? I'm not reusing somebody else's thoughts, right? It's just a fact. And the dental cleaning chart with the abbreviations are not even copied from anything, I created that! I understand what you are trying to do and I obviously don't want to cause any trouble but I am very much not understanding why the entire article needs to be deleted. Can you just point out the exact part that is a problem so I can reword it and not dump all of it? MarialeegRVT (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The intro I see I copied from AVMA website, and I now understand is not allowed, but the other parts, like on radiology and all the malocclusions are not lifted from any where. Can you show where they are because the sources I referenced are not even online they are physical, and one is a workbook supplemental for a class at school. And I compiled the lists and charts based off of my personal experience in veterinary dentistry. I mean at least give me a chance to reword the specific passages that concern you. MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That wasn't the only instance of copying/close paraphrasing; if you're in education do you not have to deal with plagiarism and writing things in your own word for assessments?

[2] this edit is a word for word copy of the article it's taken from, grammatical errors included. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That passage is cited though? MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't allow you to copy verbatim what is written. This wouldn't pass in any tertiary level education.

Quotations need to be clearly defined with an actual quotation mark, they cannot be excessive either. Most universities and institutes require no more than 10% of your writing to be direct quotations. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

[3] is this your own words? I'm suspicious because it doesn't match your usual writing style. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, not my own words but I included the citation right after it. Isn't that what I need to do? MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, it isn't. I'm sorry for asking but what level of school are you in? I don't understand how you're presumably doing a tertiary level course without being aware of how plagiarism works. See WP:CV for more information. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I actually didn't even write that example you provided on the cat massage. I was just rewording what someone else had wrote because they had bad grammar. MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That statement can be easily proven false by looking at the edit history where said content doesn't exist [4]. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The added content was the rewording of the existing paragraphs to sound less colloquial and more encyclopedic; no additional information was inserted. Please take a moment to review the revision and you will find that the history corroborates this. Thank you and be well. MarialeegRVT (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

now you are just being nasty and I am genuinely trying to understand. MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can see that you are not interested in helping to educate and support people in the Wikipedia Community made those edits in good faith and thought I was doing it appropriately. Rather than try to help me understand, you imply that I am stupid. MarialeegRVT (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

MarialeegRVT, you are simply being informed that Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously, that such violations must be removed promptly when discovered, and that all editors must comply with copyright policy. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you please advise how to get this page deleted, it is talking about me without authorization Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulla_Bin_Mohamed_Bin_Butti_Al_Hamed?wprov=sfti1#Career Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ahmaddarwish74, thank you for asking. I'm afraid this may not be at all easy. We do have a provision for deletion of articles about people whose notability (public reputation) is negligible or questionable (please see here), but it doesn't look as if that is the case here. If you wish, I will start a deletion discussion, in which you will be welcome to state your reasons for wishing the page to be deleted. It doesn't seem to me very likely that this will succeed, but please let me know if you'd like me start it anyway. Please note also that we don't need your permission or authorisation to have a page about you – if information about a person is published in reliable sources such as major newspapers, we may choose to have a page on that person; our internal policies prevent us from having pages about living people that are without sources, or based only on unreliable sources such as social media. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I want to request deleting the page and information about the person in this page, as he don't want to publish any information about himself. Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, Ahmaddarwish74, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. I noticed your strictly procedural open there. How do you feel about a strictly procedural close at this time? The proponent has been sock blocked. WP:SNOW due to non-sock unanimity? Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion, JFHJr, but I'm going to let someone else close it. And yes, I'd noticed the socking, but chose to let someone else start the ball rolling on that too. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll rewrite the Hanuman Books page. Valueyou (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Valueyou! Please do so at this special page (please follow the link to create it). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, just saw your note. I amended the page itself. Thank you. (talk)

Valueyou, that didn't work – the compromised text was not removed, and the page still contains an unacceptable degree of copying from the source (please see also this page).

Please start your new version of the page at the address I've provided above; you can freely copy over the outline/bare bones of the article (references, infobox, header and footer elements etc) but it is essential that you do not copy any non-free running text, as that will render the rewrite unusable. Please drop me a note here when you're ready for it to be reviewed. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Justlettersandnumbers What do you mean it does not work? What part is now copied? Show me an example please. I rewrote all the text, except the list of issues, and added text of my own from new citations. The comparison page in the link only shows that shared names, facts, and issue numbers are cited from there. I believe that is not copying but rather citing. I think I may be justified in reversing your reversal but I will wait for a short time for an answer from you. Thank you for working with me on this. Valueyou (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Valueyou, the Earwig tool is not capable of distinguishing between proper names (of places, people or books) and running text. So there's no problem with something like "Your Reason and Blake's System", but strings such as "... and New York’s Lower East Side literary and art scene", "... by boat from Madras to New York" or "... pages were sewn together by local ..." are not acceptable – it's clear that this is material copied with minimal alteration from the source.

Since you've chosen to remove the copyright blanking template from the page for a second time, I'd prefer it if you made any further comments you may have at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 April 29 rather than on this page. I strongly advise you not to remove it again. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Justlettersandnumbers Ok, I took care of the grave copyright violations indicated, such as: "the Chelsea Hotel in New York City", "and New York's Lower East Side literary and art", "pages were sewn together by local", "via telephone, fax and mail" and "boat from Madras to New York". The rest indicated were just all proper names. I strongly advise you to use your software more carefully. I've been at this since 2008 and do not enjoy being told what to do. Valueyou (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Justlettersandnumbers, you declined a CSD G5 tag on this page stating that the creator had not been blocked before its creation. I admit this sock farm is a bit of a tangled mess, which will hopefully get a little clearer once the SPI cases are merged. However, CheckUser evidence at ArjunKR92 case indicates that the account that created this page is confirmed to several other accounts, one of which had already been blocked in this case. That sockmaster has had accounts blocked since at least 2022, which is what led me to tag this page for speedy deletion. If you decide to delete it, please consider also deleting File:Dard (album).jpg. Let me know either way! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, TechnoSquirrel69! When I looked, ArjunKR92 was not blocked and not identified as a sock. If there've been changes since then I'll reconsider, of course, but no time right now. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; there's no rush, of course, so feel free to address it when you have the time. ArjunKR92 is not a sockpuppet, and it seems like the case was opened under the wrong username. However, all of the other users brought up in the investigation were confirmed to be sockpuppets of each other, and are now all blocked. Sumer Singh Jaipur had already been blocked at a different investigation that I linked above, which has abuse dating back several years. Like I mentioned, this will probably become easier to parse once the case archives are merged by an SPI clerk. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Staffordshire_Terrier/Archive_2#Addressing_Controversial_Issues_Fairly Would the comments that copypaste large quantities/most of the articles linked count as copyright violations? Thanks Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No time to look in detail now, Traumnovelle, but as a general observation: as long as extracts are clearly identified as quotations and are the subject of discussion I personally would not consider them a problem. Copied content not identified as a quotation should either be so identified or be removed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Justlettersandnumbers :) I came across this page from a closed RfD, and noticed that you'd deleted it under G6 as having been created in error - however, the page's logs make it seem like there may have been an article in the history prior to the redirect to Yoasobi discography. I didn't see the history before the page was deleted, but if it was previously an article, I'd ask if you'd be willing to undelete it; so that the page's history (among other things) can be considered at RfD. (For full disclosure, I previously asked the G6-tagging editor a question regarding this page, who pointed me to yourself as the deleting admin — see User talk:CycloneYoris § Quick question.)

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, A smart kitten, done that – it's at Undead (Yoasobi song). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

A matter of no great importance, but it sort of struck me. I've accepted your G11 nomination of Draft:Innovating Minds: Creative Thinking Process at JKITCDO, but I wonder whether it was worth bothering, since it had only 6 days to get to G13. ??? JBW (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, JBW, thanks for getting rid of that! Yes, good point, if I'd noticed or thought about the creation date I'd probably have left it – but I didn't, of course. In general it's probably preferable for that sort of stuff to be deleted as G11 just in case it ever comes to WP:RFU (not that I believe that anyone would ever restore that particular article, of course). Regards, thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I have scarcely ever dealt with RFU, so I don't tend to think of what might happen there, but I take your point. JBW (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

JBW your point was perhaps minor, this is several degrees of importance lower on the scale. Nevertheless, I like to delete unmistakable spam as such whenever possible. Mostly I think we're not waving but drowning in our response to WP:UPE, but still feel we should do what we can to stem the flood. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is with regards to the Joshua Tomar page. It seems I went about creating the page wrong; I'd figured that I would have time within a day to complete the page before it was deleted for incompletion. In the future, I'll use drafts. I had saved adding the citations until the other aspects of the article were complete, and I'd intended to write a section after that in Talk discussing why I thought the article met criteria that the previous page hadn't. I can only see the rejected draft version, not the initially deleted page, so I'm not sure as to the specifics on that one, but from the discussion of the page deletion, it seemed to not include a comprehensive summary of the subject, which I think makes the person worth having a page. I think that a person who has received industry awards, co-owns an animation studio that has been involved with significant projects in its industry, and who is a prominent member of a popular and long-running gaming channel, while also being involved with many people and projects in the voice acting field would comfortably qualify for a page. This is my first article I've written, so now I know that I should use drafts, but if you agree that it could likely meet criteria for validity, can we revert the deletion on the page and I can finish it up? KEP95 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or release it back into drafts and I can finish it there with more sources and address the deficits in the original version of the page KEP95 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, would it be possible to move back the Pammakaristos Church, which has just been boldly moved to Fethiye Mosque (Istanbul)? I suspect that the common name in English is the former and that this move should be discussed. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Alessandro57, how are you? I've done that, on the basis that such a move is not uncontentious. I'll admit that I don't have a clear grasp of our standard practice in these (rather common) cases, or even know if we have a standard practice – I see that the whole history of Hagia Sophia is at that title, but that the Duomo di Siracusa has separate pages for the church and the underlying Greek temple. Anyway, let's see how this one goes. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you, I'm fine! This is about the fifth time someone has tried to change the name of the article. I would actually be in favor of it, since pammakaristos in the literature almost always refers to parekklesion, while the church--except for a couple of years--has always been a mosque for hundreds of years, so that the Greek name's importance is only historical. I asked you to intervene because these spontaneous moves sooner or later lead to edit warring with them. It is much better to follow the rules here. thanks a lot, Alex2006 (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! What happened with WP:Articles_for_deletion/Scientigo? The log shows you having deleted the article per G6, with a link to the AfD, but the AfD is still open. The AfD briefly appeared as closed, due to a now-banned disruptive troll, but it never actually closed. May I go ahead an undelete to let the AfD be properly closed? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 21:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, OwenX! As I recall, when I deleted the page the deletion discussion looked like this. I took that at face value without checking in greater depth, and that now seems to have been a mistake. I'm travelling for the next five or six days, so – if you'd be so kind – please take whatever action is needed to sort things out/put things straight. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! No worries, I figured that's what happened, but didn't want to step on any toes. It looks like Doczilla already took care of things. Owen× ☎ 20:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

How "promotional" were these edits (which of course I can't see)? It might have been better to point out the username issue, & if necessary adjust the language, keeping the useful additions that were no doubt there. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Johnbod! If you look at Special:Contributions/Pope's Grotto Preservation Trust (and not the red link to mainspace above), you'll see that I reverted three edits to Pope's villa with the rationale "WP:copyright violation, https://popesgrotto.org.uk". The content was copy-pasted from that website, so could not be kept however useful it might have been (which you can of course judge for yourself by reading it on the external site), and is also why you can't see the edits. The user shows some interest in being unblocked, so I'll pursue that avenue. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. It's unrealistic to expect first-edit-users to understand even our major policies, & blocking in such a case seems unusual to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think a user with an institutional username adding promotional content from the institution's own website is pretty much the textbook case for such a block. In this case the content was not as blatantly promotional as some corporate spam, but nor was it neutral or anything like it – see here for a couple of examples if you're curious. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's back in article space, again. Meters (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You moved it to Draft:Lorraine Whittlesey earlier today. Meters (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It appears that the recreation was not intentional [5] Meters (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Meters! Thanks, and yes, it looks that way. Bbb23 took care of it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

an edit on the Hui people page was pretty bad, think you can hide the persons username real quick Gaismagorm (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

nevermind it already has been done Gaismagorm (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Gaismagorm! I didn't see this yesterday evening, glad it was speedily resolved (and yes, pretty bad!). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

no problem, glad everything worked out in the end! Gaismagorm (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Friend,

I saw your revert of my edits on Jacob George Strutt, with the little explanation in the summary: "Please don't mess around with the reference format". I'm sorry, but I was not aware that I was "messing around". I tried to gradually enhance the quality of the references, by using citation templates, instead of straight written references. I planned to change all the references (and add some others, on which I'm still working). So please allow me to finish that. It will not go really fast. I don't have much time for this at the moment. But I planned to do one ref a day. If you do not agree on this, please don't revert my edits, but try to let me know why your way of referring is superior to mine. Many greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dick Bos! No, please don't do that – please see WP:CITEVAR. It's not a matter of which system is superior (opinions vary on that!), but of which is the established system in use in the page. In that particular page (which as it happens I created), it is the system that I personally prefer – list-defined references, without cite templates. Not that it makes any difference in this case, but my reasons are: (1) refs are not in the article text; (2) they are easy to read; (3) they don't attract endless gnome edits (someone changes one letter of a template parameter and people go round and 'fix' four million or whatever instances of the template, with consequent watchlist clutter). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You partially blocked User:TimelapseTwo on May 12. Based on the editing patterns of User:RegularTine, I suspect this is the same person evading that block. I made the connection when I saw the edit made to TimelapseTwo's user page. I thought I'd bring it to your attention to see if you agree. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars! Yes, that looks to me pretty likely – both accounts doing little but create unnecessary redirects from song titles. I think WP:SPI is the way to go here; if you feel like getting that started please go ahead, if not I'll try to do something tomorrow (want to try to make at least one content-related edit before I go to bed). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for confirming. I'll try to start an SPI within the next day. Looks like they edited as User:Regulartrongdd for a couple months at the beginning of the year, too. Cheers. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You just deleted the article music genre simply because it was apparently created by a blocked user. This is very disruptive as this is an important page that needs to exist. It would be like deleting the page United States because it was created by a blocked user. I honestly thought it was a glitch at first. Velociraptor888 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Velociraptor888, it probably was glitch – of the human kind. I'm undeleting it as I write, will then see what happened and how. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Song has been deleted as well, I'd check to see if there were any other pages. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You’re welcome. Velociraptor888 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've now understood how I managed to make those two particularly stupid mistakes, and am confident I won't be doing that again. Thanks, Velociraptor888, ULPS, for your very moderate comments. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem, thanks for fixing them :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I just undeleted Song, which you deleted under G5. I'm guessing you meant to delete a different page? I was alerted because I saw a redlink in Template:infobox song. If you meant to do it for a reason I've missed, please let me know. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, definitely a mistake on my part, Vanamonde93, thanks for restoring it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Sato arata, the user who you recently NOTHERE blocked, has made uncivil comments on the talk page and claimed to be a sockpuppet of User:Kamen rider saber. Is it a good idea to yank TPA and/or send the account to SPI? QwertyForest (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, QwertyForest, I've done that – somewhat reluctantly, as it seems to be what the user wants, who knows why? As for the childish insults, I think we're all grown up, but I'm sure that if someone else wants to redact them they'll do so. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to undelete the above article? The user changed their mind on wanting it deleted; instead we agreed to have it redirected instead (see here). Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've done that, BeanieFan11, as you've probably seen. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Justlettersandnumbers. Wiki listed you as the admin who deleted the BearPeak Technology Group page. May I retrieve that deleted material from you?

I understand that the article was deleted due to 'unambiguous advertising,' which I have contested. Despite my COI with the company, my intent was to provide truthful, neutral information. I spoke with Jdcomix, the admin who tagged the article, and asked for advice on how to rewrite the article to be more encyclopedic. Jdcomix explained that the article had a lot of primary sources from the organization. I would be happy to replace those citations with stronger sources in a new draft.

If you also have any words of wisdom as to how I could rewrite the article, I would appreciate your insight! Thank you. LHoak7800 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

LHoak7800, I fear you may have misunderstood what this encyclopaedia is: it aims to have articles on topics that are of some lasting significance at a world level, basing them on what is reported in solid independent reliable sources. I won't pretend that I think we always succeed in that aim, but in one area at least (companies and organisations) we have some fairly stringent requirements for inclusion and for the supporting sources – please see WP:NCORP. Your draft did not include one such source, and was also unacceptably promotional (e.g., "This streak of success inspired Eckhardt to create his own startup ..."). If you can list four or five high-quality sources (national newspapers, papers in academic journals, books published by reputable publishers and so on) with in-depth discussion specifically of the business itself (not the owner, the nearby mountains or any other trivia) then please list them on your talk-page and draw my attention using {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}. I'll then consider whether to email you the deleted text. Without those sources, restoring the content would just be a waste of everybody's time, including yours. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Understood @Justlettersandnumbers. There currently are not four high-quality sources available with that level of in-depth discussion, so I retract my request. Thank you for your time and explanation. LHoak7800 (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I note your involvement, in conjunction with User:ADroughtOfVowels and User:HandThatFeeds, in the closing of[6].
I have mixed feelings about this.

1. I have spent the last week delivering different family members to two different sets of hospital appointments, both of which have involved a lot of driving and associated overnight stays in a hotel for me. Hence I have had little time to fully address the situation regarding Obsidian Soul (OS). This is unfortunate, as the problems here will not go away.

2. I am steadily learning more about their misuse of sources and POV pushing. POV pushing is not so easy to prove. It is easier to demonstrate citing sources that do not support the text that has just been added. The catch is that you have to read all of the cited source to demonstrate that the source does not support article content. It takes a long time (much more than the time it took OS to edit the article – you must have seen the speed of some of their editing.) This is more fully explained where I have sought the advice of an admin[7] (especially the last bit).

3. There is quite a lot of erroneous material in articles edited by OS. Some of this is not innocuous. See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 78#Is this a Wikipedia error now appearing as an RS? where an error due to references with failed verifications in Austronesian peoples has now ended up in a peer-reviewed academic paper. (Agreed the paper authors should have checked...) But if we are here to build a better encyclopaedia, I don't see how tracking down some of these errors is not a good idea. I have only a limited amount of enthusiasm for checking for these misrepresentation of sources, but it seems no-one else is going to do it.

4. Your thought about "both editors stepping away from the articles for a while" does not really seem to solve the problem. OS has disappeared from Wikipedia before, after they got a 1 week ban[8]. As soon as they came back, as you can see from some of the diffs they provide, they started wholesale a wholesale reversion exercise of the editing I had done in "their" articles. If I were to leave off working on these problems, I would have to read myself back into the subject – to an extent, doing the job twice.

Sorry to have droned on about this, but I felt I had to go into print somewhere in Wikipedia, and the item at ANI is now closed. Once I have drawn breath (in a few days, probably), I will start working through finding and fixing some of the failed verifications. But please let me know any thoughts that you have on the matter. This is not an easy job if you are working in a vacuum. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, ThoughtIdRetired! It was actually HandThatFeeds who closed that discussion, not I. Anyway, I apologise if my suggestions were not helpful (I saw your discussion with Valereee, looked at the ANI thread, and felt – rightly or wrongly – that I had some advice to offer). I can understand you being reluctant to agree to step away from those pages, but sometimes when you're in an impasse, that's the best or only way out; that's anyway moot now. Yes, we all know that the opera isn't over when the prima donna flounces offstage in huff, but it is often the end of an act and thus the beginning of an interval. Perhaps you'll permit me to repeat my suggestion of taking dubious sources to WP:RSN for discussion – if there's consensus there that a source is not good, you can then cite that thread when removing the bad source and any content associated with it (as you probably already know, of course). I'm sorry I can't help in any way with the articles themselves, just no clue about any of that. But do let me know if there's any more discord or disruption. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I have just added HandThatFeeds above, so they will presumably see. I am working on the WP:RSN post now. The bigger issue is the body of work that is unsupported by the cited references – I am still trying estimate how much work that is and discover if any other editors would give a hand. If OS is really gone (even if just for now), then it is probably better to get this all sorted and documented on the appropriate talk pages, without having to fight a running battle at the same time. It might also attract other editors back to the problem articles, which would be helpful.

And to be clear, any comments, suggestions or criticism is extremely welcome. Anyway, back to RSN. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Just bringing it to you since you blocked the sock for violating username policy already. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Vanderwaalforces! Kinu has already dealt with that (ty, Kinu!), thanks for reporting it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I mean, looks like the master account is yet to be… Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yep, just mentioned that at the SPI. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up, not sure how your comment ended up at the top of the page [9], but I removed it. Home Lander (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Home Lander! – yet another misclick for certain. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just in case anyone's looking for me: I'm going to be mostly or completely away from the project for the next couple of weeks and so am unlikely to respond promptly to messages left here. Back at the end of the month, more or less. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Safe travels! DanCherek (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Justlettersandnumbers Sir, just wanted to ask. You have moved Draft:Vinay Maloo 2, But the number "2" is added to the title. I am bit confused there. Should i develop the same draft. And in case if it goes live after going through the process. Will the number "2" will be there in title"? - ```` Herodyswaroop (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Herodyswaroop! I moved it to that title because there's already much more complete draft at Draft:Vinay Maloo. I suggest you work on that instead, but it's your choice. If either draft is accepted, the correct title for the article will be chosen at that time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Justlettersandnumbers Okie sir. Thank you. Herodyswaroop (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Egyptian art movements has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Gjs238 (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the deletion. Anyway I suggest blocking them from recreating their talk page, (although I'm not sure if it is possibile) Giovanni Paolucci (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Giovanni Paolucci! Yes, it is possible to prevent a user from editing his/her own talk-page, and I did so there ... after a while! Thanks your efforts to contain the damage, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Mazandarani mythology, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Kowal2701! Really my only contribution there was to remove a bit of copyvio, and then a non-reliable source. Thank you for asking, but I don't think I'd be useful addition to such a task-force; I wish you every success with it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, no worries Kowal2701 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The goal of Wikipedia is to provide access to objective information, and anyone in the world can improve it. It is a wonderful project. However, instead of enhancing it, you are freezing it, essentially deleting it: people who can improve, deepen, and refine the article do not have access to it. You do this, of course, politely “with white gloves.” What you are doing is wrong. Because this article can be edited by anyone, including you, by finding appropriate sources to verify the content. I am disappointed with your actions because most of the sources are objective. Of course, I used sources from the Silesian School of Iconography because they publish a lot of facts. I referred to YouTube and Facebook because they are very dynamic, lively communities that discuss and update issues, discussions, and controversies in which this School participates. You suggest that I am not objective. Yes, I participated in workshops at this school over 10 years ago and recently, because they also conduct workshops in English, but I cannot write that I belong to its staff, because they would laugh at me. But I believe that icon painting and the schools that teach it are great. And the world should know about it. Did you know that this organization has been operating for 25 years?!

Note that most of the sources I found are from the press, from the Internet, and are objective, and you are blocking my article?! How many independent sources (quantitatively) do I have to cite to convince people like you, who have the power? I am currently on vacation with my children and have to endure such unpleasant situations!

Why don't you allow others, or yourself through your own efforts, to improve this article, but instead delete it, putting it in the sandbox?! You don't like its “Catholicism”? Yes, I am Catholic, so what? Don’t Catholics have the right to their own iconography schools that you have to delete this?

Where can I appeal? Because I disagree with your actions. You already blocked one of my articles. I can agree with that one as I can find more citations. But here it is unfair!

I am just waiting for you to delete my next articles. Shall I send you the links?! Help me expand this article rather than delete it!!! Answer me humanely! I know there is a person behind your complicated username! What should I do? I started writing this article 11 years ago, and now you are blocking it?! Because what? You don’t like the citations? Look at the poor drafts that exist on Wikipedia! Regardless of whether you are a Buddhist, atheist, Islamist, or you hate the Church, this is objectively important to many people! Like the dewfall (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Like the dewfall, I'm afraid you may have embarked on an impossible undertaking – to create Wikipedia pages for a non-notable organisation and people associated with it. Anyway, the page is not deleted or 'blocked', just moved to a safe area where it does not immediately have to meet the requirements for inclusion in this encyclopaedia (please see here for those). You can work on it there, and submit it for independent review by an experienced editor when you think it is ready. Or you can move it back to mainspace yourself, of course, though I don't advise doing so – you've already been warned that it was not ready for mainspace and was likely to be deleted if it stayed there. As for pages such as this, which is certainly not ready for mainspace, would you prefer them to be moved to draft space, or to be nominated for deletion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Listen, Justlettersandnumbers, I don’t have time to respond right now because I’m traveling and need to take care of my kids. I’m furious with you, but on the other hand, thank you for not completely deleting my work and moving it to drafts instead. Paradoxically, I’m learning a lot because of you. I don’t have time to deal with this now, but be patient: I will get back to it because, as you can imagine, I mostly disagree with you. But please don’t delete my work. I will present my arguments, so be patient, OK? I don’t like you! Of course, I’m not only referring to the article about the Silesian School of Iconography but also the others. I have ideas for new ones, but I know you’ll probably reject them too. I don’t know how to deal with people like you. Like the dewfall (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I see an article I created was deleted by yourself under request by Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ.}

Can you please confirm that all data is now deleted from any other location or back up (there was a note on the page that after deleted that the info was not completely lost so wondering if it is some where)

If it is not fully gone, is it possible to fully delete it from all locations and/or back ups as I cannot see any sign of it in my account or sandbox Thanks

Note I got below Hello, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Mickey Joe Trophy for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article. Eoin James (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Eoin James, I can confirm that both versions of the page have been deleted, and also an associated talk-page. Please read about references and notability before trying to create any other page. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you,

Apologies for follow up as I am just learning but there is no way to undelete using Special:undelete(I understand this is a restricted process but want to confirm All data is 100% gone for this article and is not saved/moved anywhere else

Thanks 109.77.35.39 (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was not logged in, above follow up was from me.

Thanks

Eoin James Eoin James (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Eoin James, I can undelete that content, but I can't see any reason to do so – it is not even remotely suitable for inclusion in this encyclopaedia, and building an encyclopaedia is the only thing we're doing here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, yes understand, I am not asking for it to be undeleted, I am asking for any copy of it, to be fully deleted so undelete is not an option. Can that be done? Understand that you do not want to have it part of Wikipedia and I now understand and agree so want all versions of it gone, including where here the deleted version goes. Hope that makes sense. Eoin James (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, Eoin James, administrators can undelete deleted content; but, as above, no-one is going to undelete that stuff. Please move on! thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

understood, I’m not asking for it to be undeleted, I agree with you there… you seem to be getting frustrated and aggressive, I’m simply asking if any additional deletion can happen, more permanent deletion. If you don’t have the answer that’s fine I’m just asking. Eoin James (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Eoin James (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Best regards and thank you for your valuable time. I am writing to ask you a question. Four years ago a biography was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (3rd nomination)) for lack of references, in a discussion in which I participated, but I was not aware of existing references, and I believe that circumstances have changed. I began to investigate, and I was amazed at the number of scholars who have praised Gertoux's work, and as a hobby I began to add them to John Gee's talk page. I was encouraged to make a draft here: Draft:Gerard Gertoux, and wanted to ask if it is possible to restore it, already with some improvements made. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, may I suggest that you submit your draft for review in the usual way? I have exactly zero interest in the topic and will not be participating in any discussion of it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I respect your opinion. I wrote to you because by the required procedure, I had to write to the person who deleted the article after the AfD discussion. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Um, you deleted the page which I had sent to AfD, so what do I say to close the AfD? Unless you want to close the AfD. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done that, Govvy, thanks for the reminder! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please can you do likewise with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persikad 1999 (2nd nomination)? GiantSnowman 11:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also done, GiantSnowman! Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Much obliged! GiantSnowman 11:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per c:COM:COA heraldic blazon is exempt from copyright. It is not possible to substitute substantively different wording in these situations without losing accuracy. We have many thousands of pages with coats of arms which quote blazon texts directly from heraldic authorities, including a whole page for British universities alone. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Robin S. Taylor, that page is on Wikimedia Commons, a repository of images. I have much respect for the expert handling of image copyrights on that platform, but am not even slightly convinced by the statements in that page about text. Has there been any discussion of this topic in this project? If you can point to informed consensus that blazon descriptions are considered copyright-free here I will of course undelete and restore that revision. I'm concerned that there may be more or even many such descriptions here, perhaps added based on a mistaken understanding of our copyright policy. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

With respect to your revert here. There are 2 Belgians on the list: Belgian (Recovering) and Brabant (Study). The former refers to American Belgian Draft and the latter to Belgian Draught. Take a closer look. Then fix it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I fixed your mistake since you wouldn't do it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You had better stop WP:HOUNDING me.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Grorp, please be careful not to make baseless accusations. You might like to note that I've been editing horse-related articles for more than thirteen years, and have many hundreds of them on my watchlist. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Grorp, I think on reflection that I was wrong to reply as I did to this, my apologies. You've made a serious accusation, so would you kindly either substantiate it or withdraw it? If you opt for the former, this might be an appropriate venue. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

however long you edit does not empower you to play omnipotent. I am extremely new to editing because I believe in the spirit of Wikipedia and free information. I don't know what the issue is between you and this user, but you have single handedly caused me and others to stop trying by deleting and reverting what we added (facts) instead of editing and rewording, or helping the article. seemed biased. a tip for you would be to remember Wikipedia is what is because of everyone involved and not just one person who like to remind others of their many years of editing as some form of grand right. some people care about just keeping information clear about the areas in their interest. use it, don't use. this comment comes in bad typography and punctuation as written on a mobile device. MarlonZA (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

MarlonZA, I've replied at Talk:Nigerian Dwarf. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Justlettersandnumbers: Why do you insist on dismantling article citation formatting from perfectly good CS1 citations into "flat" citations (no template, no parameters, just text) such as you did in this edit in article Polish Half-bred? There was no reason for doing it in this case as this article already was started with consistent and exclusive CS1 formatting, so unilaterally changing it violates WP:CITEVAR.

This is a repeating issue with your edits. Please explain why you are doing it (or just stop the behavior). Surely you know how to read CS1 and use it by now, so why spend the effort to deconstruct a CS1 into a similar-looking flat citation (especially those fiddly {{Cite journal}} ones)?

I am not referring to your changing the {{Harvtxt}} to {{R}} (which is a better method, in my opinion). I am referring to you taking {{Cite web}} and changing it to a "<ref>[http://xxx.com/yyy.html title]</ref>" style.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

See also Talk:Poitevin horse § CITEVAR violation.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that she is on the borderline, so I did what AFC is meant to do, accepted the draft since I believe it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. We will see what we will see. Thank you for giving it your attention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No complaint from me, Timtrent. On the whole I'm in favour of having articles on academics wherever possible, but obviously we can't have them all (or perhaps we can? – we seem to have a page for anyone who's ever kicked, hit or thrown a ball). And no, I don't think she really gets across the bar. I may or may not do anything about that – and no reflection on your judgement if I do! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If she arrives somewhere for deletion I shall remain neutral as I almost always do with one of my acceptances. I tend to try hard to accept borderline drafts. Others shy away from them. Wikipedia improves when they are accepted and again if they are deleted, which is our usual paradox.

I also detest the "Foo kicked a ball in the ten seconds he was on the field" articles. Maybe we will get those solved when it is far too late, like the schools! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it wasn't a group, it's a proposed micronation not a spam or vandalism. :( Please revert it back. You can also search it on Google. कङञWikiMail 12:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I undeleted it because it was a disruptive IP close. Not sure whether you were in the process of closing and had deleted first, or it was a deletion based on the closed XFD. Feel free to revert me if needed. Star Mississippi 15:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Same on Becky Paul-Enenche. I had !voted in that one but don't think it's an issue as this is pure disruption and if I were Involved I'd have left it deleted :D Star Mississippi 15:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Thanks, Star Mississippi! No, I wasn't closing it, I was fooled by the fake username (which now that I think about it I've already seen in the last few days). I'll leave it for someone else to close. Many thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

and yes, I was just about to go back to the other one too! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any time. I can't remember which LTA this is, so just blocking for DE.

I really wish there were a way to semi the upcoming due for closure AfDs, it's their usual target. Star Mississippi 16:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You said take it to the talk but don't respond in the view history comment or participate in the talk to defend your deletion or change your mind on it? Greenlion88 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The article List of horse breeds in DAD-IS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not independently notable. Even IF the DAD-IS project is notable, this article requires verifiable evidence and doesn't qualify through inherited notability. Replicating information from a single online database (a primary source) is a mirror. There are no secondary independent reliable sources discussing this dataset.

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.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Twinkle appears to have barfed and skipped leaving your block notice on User talk:Women who influence. Cabayi (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thanks, Cabayi! Not sure what happened there, but operator error is the most likely explanation – as usual! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, appreciate your help here. I came across the Unimatic in new pages feed while reviewing articles to help for the September 2024 NPP backlog drive (it's my first go at it). I find that the page is written in a promotional way and the topic also doesn't appear to be notable, to me, and at least 7 of the article citations are to sites selling the watch. Feels like this page meets WP:G11, but I know there can be nuances. So thought I'd check before just tagging the page in case you would have other recommendations. Thank you! Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Eucalyptusmint, thanks for asking! I'm no oracle, but you've obviously thought about that article, and I think your assessment is fair and reasonable; I'd go ahead and act on it. There's always going to be some uncertainty – not everyone, neither nominators nor reviewing admins, reads "unambiguous promotion" in exactly the same way – but that shouldn't deter you from reasoned good-faith tagging. Other page creations by the same editor might perhaps need some scrutiny too. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

sounds good and makes sense, thanks for the clarity. :) Eucalyptusmint (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It probably would have been better an admin decide whether or not to delete that. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, a couple of weeks ago you G5'd NoCamels; can you tell me which account created that page? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Levivich, how are you? The creator of that page was O.maximov. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Levivich (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Justlettersandnumbers you are flat out lying or can’t see very well.. Youngjimmymusic88 (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/tiffany-and-co-asap-ferg-brand-ambassador Youngjimmymusic88 (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notable people class of 2006 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_School_of_Art_and_Design Youngjimmymusic88 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, Where do i will find Draft or the page. 77.77.218.180 (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies; I appear to have speedy deleted this as an A7 shortly after you declined a nomination. The history of the article seems to be long and involved. I'll undelete it but I'd like you to look at it again too. Deb (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Deb, how are you? I sometimes worry that I'm over-cautious with A7 nominations, but I think my decline of that one was OK, so thanks for the undelete. I'd have liked to delete it, it's not a page we should have – UPE from before that was unacceptable, low-grade press-release sourcing, one of the (tens of?) thousands of similar pages we should have the courage and the means to remove. AfD? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, it went there once and was deleted as a result, but of course lots of other hands have been at it since. Deb (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't care for the "nanny part" either, but it is ubiquitous so I added clarity. Atsme 💬 📧 17:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Atsme, I'm not sure why you might think it advisable to edit-war at that page, particularly in light of its appalling history, culminating the permanent loss of a highly-valued editor. I invite you to re-read WP:BRD and then self-revert and – if you so wish – start a talk-page discussion in the ordinary way. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I used to edit under that username. CometVolcano (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is really annoying that whatever I do that upsets your "preferred way" of seeing things, or messes with one of "your" articles, you revert me—with no regard for norms across Wikipedia, newer standards, or attempts to expand the encyclopedia. Then I have to prove to you the value of my viewpoint on an edit (a useless exercise) or overwhelm you with other editors who agree with my point (a waste of editor resources). Your long-term WP:OWNERSHIP of many articles is frustrating and disruptive, to say the least. Be forewarned, because if you keep this up I'll finally get pissed off enough to stop my work on the encyclopedia and spend the time to put together an ANI filing over your incessant ownership behavior. (And yes, I've been collecting diffs of this behavior for months.) And lest you complain I have no diffs to support this recent complaint, here are just a few of your recent "I don't like it" reversions: [10] [11] [12]   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why you have been adding {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} to several articles, such as you did recently at Estonian Native [13].   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

And German Riding Pony [14]. And numerous other articles you've inserted this into.

Your March 2023 complaints about Citation bot [15] [16] [17] seem to have been taken care of—based on my test of using Citation bot on Estonian Native after removing the bot-denying code. Rather than denying Citation bot from touching any and all citations in an article, you should use the standard method of suppressing Citation bot on each specific citation you think will be at odds with CB. The writeup is at User:Citation bot § Stopping the bot from editing. For example, in order to deny CB from, say, the CABI/Porter citation in Estonian Native, you should code it this way:

<ref name=cabi>{{Cite book <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |first1=Valerie |last1=Porter |first2=Lawrence |last2=Alderson |first3=Stephen J.G. |last3=Hall |first4=D. Phillip |last4=Sponenberg |year=2016 |url=https://books.google.it/books?id=2UEJDAAAQBAJ&hl=en&pg=PA464 |page=464 |title=Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding |edition=Sixth |publisher=[[CAB International|CABI]] |isbn=9781780647944}}</ref>

Which results in this.^[1] It remains unclear why you insist on linking to the Italian version of google books instead of the English version as both versions are visible to the reader (at least to me), but no matter. The problem with blocking Citation bot from operating on an entire article is that it is detrimental to the ongoing maintenance of such articles by hindering bot corrections of deadlinks by adding archived links.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

PLEASE delete newpage vandalism full of insults created by global LTA by Special:Contributions/103.6.198.192 no other substantial edits at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by CopperViopper (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@CopperViopper: You've already add a speedy deletion template. I know viewing a page full of vandalistic insults can, in fact, be distressing, and being patient might be difficult...but you're going to need to be patient. There's no need to go to the talk page of multiple admins requesting deletion. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism history is pain, so I expect speedy template be fulfilled, not thwarted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CopperViopper (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@CopperViopper: I don't understand, because the speedy deletion template is still there. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This admin deleted other test pages more quickly, while this one too deserves even quicker deletion as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CopperViopper (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@CopperViopper: Yeah, sometimes that happens, but the fact is, we're all volunteers, and sometimes things like this get put on the back burner. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You removed the deletion request on Adjustment personality disoder redirect. I added it after I found the term added to Template:Personality_disorders_sidebar. Someone thought it was a personality disorder. "Adjustment disorder" is a real diagnosis but it never belonged to personality disorders by any psychiatric classification system. Such a name is misleading to the user. An exact search (with "s) can confirm there isn't a single use of the term on Google or Google Scholar. 89.132.72.63 (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! This is not my field, please excuse my ignorance. I based my decline on the results of this Gbooks search; some, but I think not all, of those results are false positives. I believe there's enough doubt about whether the term is ever used (correctly or not) that speedy deletion is not a good option. May I suggest WP:RFD instead? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I added it to WP:RFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.72.63 (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, since you're the only user who wanted to participate in the discussion, can I delete the sentence? JacktheBrown (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You don't need my permission, JacktheBrown! If you think there's been enough time for others to chime in on the discussion you should feel free to go ahead (probably best to mention the talk-page thread in your edit summary). And if not, perhaps wait a couple more days? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Last month you blocked Ismailgazi97. They were trying to create an article for Iacnews (at various locations, it seems). Today at the Teahouse a new user Samiul2.0 is asking about how to create that article, and saying they've tried "many times" (not under their current user account, they haven't).

Both users also made the same edit to Tania Brishty, trying to change a citation to point to the IAC News website. It's possible that the user name is an additional clue, the new name might mean 'version 2 of Ismail'?

Are you happy to deal with this per  , or would you rather I take it to SPI?

Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good catch, DoubleGrazing! No room for doubt there based on the first edit, but see this too. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ha! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've added this infobox to the Mediterranean diet page; in your opinion, is it complete or is something missing? JacktheBrown (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks OK to me, JacktheBrown, but that's not an infobox I've ever deployed (that I recall). In general, if you've made a change you aren't 100% sure about, the article talk-page is a good place to ask for comment. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. I saw your revert, but I also saw that you have invested a lot of work on that specific page, so I thought a more detailed explanation for my edit might was warranted. Please see the article talk page. Regards, from a balmy Johannesburg. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hiya! This is Ryan 'Fritz' Holznagel, and I've just gotten a few messages from online services alerting me that a Wikipedia entry in my name was just rejected (and offering to help me get approved for a fee, naturally). That led me to look here. I see that 1) someone did submit an entry about me, and 2) the entry was declined because it takes material from my website, at https://www.fritzify.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=115.

I see the issue and appreciate the care for source material. But in fact, I did create that page on my website a few years ago with the express purpose of allowing someone to use the material, including the background info, citations and text, if they wished. (Since I knew it wasn't appropriate to create a Wikipedia entry about myself.)

To make that point clear, I just now added a note to that page expressly granting anyone permission to copy, distribute, or modify the text as they wish in other places.

Not sure if this is helpful or will matter to Wikipedia's guidelines. Just trying to clear the way for whoever has submitted the entry. Thanks! Bonwah (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bonwah (talk page watcher) First of all, no one legitimate will ever approach you to write about you, the companies you own/work for, your friends or family, etc. for pay. This is, unfortunately, a scam.

Second of all, Wikipedia doesn't ever accept copyrighted material, even if there's a "for Wikipedia only" loophole attached (though we do, rarely, take advantage of fair use). Almost all of Wikipedia is under public domain or a partial, free culture compatible copyright license. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thanks for deleting Draft:Khivit Dessert and blocking Xander du Plessis just now. This whole "Dijnabië" thing seems to be quite an elaborate hoax. When I googled it, one of the few hits I got was a 'language learning website' (can't link to it, as it's on a blacklisted domain). There I discovered that the Dijnevärs' (that's the demonym, apparently) esteemed generalissimo is Supreme Leader Jandré du Preez. At that point I thought the author of that draft, Xander du Plessis, was an alternate spelling of Jandré du Preez. Which may still be the case, but just before you deleted the draft, the real Jandré du Preez showed up to edit it. They've not done anything blockable (that I'm aware of), and I'm not asking you to block them pre-emptively, just thought you might want to be aware. Then again, you're probably a step ahead of me anyway, because a couple of weeks ago you deleted the Supreme Leader's user page User:Jandré du Preez...

Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, DoubleGrazing! Yes, I had noticed that possible coincidence, but thought I'd see if the Jandré account edits again before looking into any other action. I find all these micronation-type hoaxes extremely tiresome, not sure exactly why. Thanks for coping with this one – and for everything else you do, too! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I saw you deleted my article content under false accusation tag and deletion. I've been followed the guide from Wikipedia and carefully created it. I want you to put it back on my page as the content doesn't contain harmful or dangerous information. I am expecting if you able to delete it and you also able to put it back. I taking hours to just follows the guides sets by Wikipedia and make it and you just simply deleted on false accusation and tag. if this Wikipedia wasn't 'FREE CONTENT' why everyone has FREE access to it? Doesn't make sense. I may be can create the same content and new but the time i spend to create and you delete it gone waste. lease put it back my content and if you saying such "We unable to to put it back the content" it so unfair and nuts.. tell me 1000 reason and rules and law on why it has to be deleted on false accusation. I just dont understand. Akira Denji (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Akira Denji (talk page watcher) They deleted your user page because that was an improper use of a user page. I nominated it for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers was simply doing their administrative job by agreeing woth the nomination and executing the deletion. Had they disagreed they would not have done so.

If English is not your first language may I suggest politely that you edit your own language version of Wikipedia? We require a very good level of the English language to edit here.

I am assuming your aggression is a lack of fluency with English. If I am not correct please accept my apologies 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry for your confusion. If i unable to understand English i won't be writing here. It's rude to assume i don't understand ENGLISH base on your assumption of my confusion. There's a different between 'DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE ' and 'CONFUSION'. It is RUDE to assume people do not understand ENGLISH just base on assumption and "THINK". I was born into mixed family where i speak 3 language and additional 2 on education. This is discriminating, racist and false accusation can it be put under violation? or they do have special treatment for editor like you? If you don't have something that sourceful and helpful to reply please stop replying on my comment. I am going through the rules and guideline again to check where did i missed and mistake.

and false accusation can it be put under violation? or they do have special treatment for editor like you? If you don't have something that sorceful and helpful to reply please stop replying on my comment. I am going through the rules and guideline aagain to check where did i missed and mistake. Akira Denji (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Akira Denji All of your interactions with other editors on Wikipedia and the live chat help (where you chatted with me) have been coming across as aggressive and rude.

Please - take a time to breathe, take time to calm down. It's just Wikipedia, this isn't life or death and blood doesn't need to be pumping.

Your work was in your sandbox this entire time and wasn't deleted. Only your userpage was (correctly) deleted. Please, do contribute to the project and read some of the guidance I left you on your user talk page.

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Let me know if you have any questions on your user talk page or my talk page. Qcne (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

All i ask is how to block the editor and try get back my content. It may happen on my confusion and mistake. I did not across being rude. I think WIKIPEDIA need a good customer service training. I am checking the link and everything now. Akira Denji (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

We're all volunteers, remember. Every editor is just a random person like you. Your content wasn't deleted, do have a read of the comments left on your user talk page and in the decline notice on the sandbox. Qcne (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The editor has now been warned for making legal threats. "This is discriminating, racist and false accusation can it be put under violation?" is a turn of phrase customarily interpreted as warranting that warning 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Akira Denji You already have multiple warnings on your user talk page. I anticipate that you will achieve removal of your own editing privileges very soon. Your behaviour is rude and aggressive. Wikipedia is a community. It welcomes collegial editors. Those who choose not to fit in find very soon how unwelcome they are.

A place you might choose to report all of us whom you disagree with is WP:ANI. If you do this, do it with care and with full reference to policies here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes i do realize of that multiple warning that false accuse on me. Like you say this page is "community" but not user friendly and " privileges amongst you editors.

I keep mentioning that i have been go through the guidelines and everything AGAIN. If unnecessary violation to be put on me again then the whole world can see how it is. I am doing my best to understand this funny rules. Anyway thank you for your "kindness" and "helps" :D Akira Denji (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's everyone move this discussion off this Administrator's user talk page - please do reply on your own talk page @Akira Denji if you had further questions about the sandbox draft. Qcne (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I kindly ask you some feedback about deleting the page about Protesilaos Stavrou and the work done there without any minimal discussion. Protesilaos in just few years he has collected several awards (https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-awards-winners-announced-securepairs-protesilaos-stavrou-paul-eggert see also https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/working-together-for-free-software-our-interview-with-protesilaos-stavrou) and (https://opensource.googleblog.com/2023/05/google-open-source-peer-bonus-program-announces-first-group-of-winners-2023.html) due to his contributions to open-source software. He is at this moment one of the main of programmers for Emacs. Due to this work he has been even interviewed several times, for example, at the Brown University. This is the central reason to have a webpage, but additional he has several online interviews as well as work in online journals about his previous work in politics governance in the European Union (https://revistatreball.cat/europes-economic-governance-context-and-reform-prospects/). Other online journals also published his work (https://www.thepostil.com/the-real-bread-paradigm/) or (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/european-integration-leftism-and-nation-state/) and (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/parergon-about-german-power/) and (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/eu-federalism-and-german-question/). He has also a platform online with about 1 million of views and several online books. Maybe it is reasonable to delete this entry and you are right, but I kindly ask you a bit of feedback. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

AyubuZimbale, the page Protesilaos Stavrou had no independent references and contained no credible claim of significance that I was able to see. It thus had no chance whatsoever of survival in article space. If you want to try again I suggest you do so in a sandbox in your user space, strictly limiting what you write to what is reported in solid independent reliable sources. But do please read this advice first. Good luck, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

(As you can see in the information that I provided above, there is a long list of independent sources of information in which I was working when you deleted the page before any chance of complete it). I am not the person Protesilaos Stavrou, honestly, I don't understand why you are referring to an advice about an autobiography which is totally non-sense. If this is the reason for the deletion you are totally wrong. I have gave you here a long list of independent sources: Free software foundation award, Google official awards, 5 publications in online journals, Several public interviews, his online work is cited in several books of politics and sociology for example "Britain and the Crisis of the European Union", "Landscapes of Land, Europe the Crisis and the Internet", "The Digital Transformation of the Public Sphere". You deleted the page when I was trying to add all this information. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

AyubuZimbale, if you look at the page Protesilaos Stavrou you will see the reason I gave for the deletion. But to save you the trouble, it was "A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Being an autobiography is not in itself a valid reason for speedy deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the information, now I understand. I want to clarify that this was not an autobiography (as you remarked that I should read about autobiography entries which is totally non-sense). Just as feedback for this decision. Has for example this entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_the_Escapist more importance and significance? Or this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominik_Horvath ? Probably the list can be very long. Anyway thank you for the suggestion about a sandbox, I did not know about this feature. I will try next time, but it is not clear to me if a new entry about the same person will be deleted again because it is considered that this person has no significance. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello JLAN, could you revdel this [18] edit as a BLP violation? I have no idea whom this person is but being included as a prominent member of a Neo-Nazi criminal gang is about as serious as a BLP vio as there can be. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Traumnovelle (talk page watcher) That's enough of a gray area between rev-deletion and oversight that I would've gone ahead and emailed User:Oversight over that, both delegating the decision to them and avoiding the Streisand effect. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I dream of horses, Traumnovelle: yes, it's best to err on the side of caution when faced with potentially oversightable edits. I've now emailed oversight, as perhaps I should have done earlier. Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not that familiar with oversight, thanks to both of you ofr this. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please explain why the International Rally of Otago page was deleted (G11 & G12). I am one of the organiser of the event and was tasked to create the page for the rally. Please explain this as it took a lot of work and its annoying that its all gone. MrMikkelsen (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) (Non-administrator comment) @MrMikkelsen While I can't view the deleted article, I do know "G11" and "G12" are speedy deletion criteria for unambiguous advertising and unambiguous copyright violation. Basically, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so what you would write on social media or a personal website is not what you'd write here. You have to rewrite the article with a clinical, neutrally formal (or "boring") tonality.

Also, you should indicate that you have a conflict of interest on your userpage, located at User:MrMikkelsen. You have an interest in write with a positive tonality. Like I said previously, Wikipedia has an interest in writing neutrally. Even experienced editors would struggle to write neutrally about an event they've organized.

You could go through the tutorials and suggested edits at Special:Homepage instead, but I find that people who come in wanting to create articles right off the bat simply can't be talked out of it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your feedback! very helpful. Will take it onboard. MrMikkelsen (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, MrMikkelsen! I deleted Draft:International Rally of Otago because (a) it was substantially copied from here and (b) it was grossly promotional in tone (e.g., "This event has grown in leaps and bounds since its inception in 1997, to the point where it is the leading event of its type ... "). Neither copyright violation nor promotion is tolerated in this encyclopaedia.

If you are an unpaid volunteer for the rally please read this; if you receive, have received or expect to receive any payment or reward from the organisation you must make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure. In either case you should should refrain from directly editing any affected article (which I assume includes all those that you have edited so far?), limiting yourself to making edit requests on the relative talk-pages, and ensuring that you disclose your relationship to the subject each and every time you do so (and listing the independent reliable sources that support your proposed changes, of course). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of horse breeds in DAD-IS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horse breeds in DAD-IS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

can I add Faraar (TV series) as draft or not ? because I am not one of StayCalmOnTress's sockpuppets account and I am veratan of wiki since 2010 by --Sunuraju (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply