User talk:Justlettersandnumbers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy Kalends of January[edit]

Roma, denario di caio fonteina, 114 ac ca., con giano bifronte.jpg Happy New Year!
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christine Leunens article - your banner "blatant undisclosed paid editing"[edit]

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

Could you please provide some background information on the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry, JRfougnazal, but I'm unable to believe you when you say "I am not"; you might like to review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, particularly this section. The evidence I have is private, so I can't discuss it with you. I would have blocked your account for violation of the WP:Terms of Use, but am no longer allowed to do so on the basis of private evidence alone. I've sent it to ArbCom, who no doubt will or will not take action as appropriate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, appreciate your response. I may have done the same if I were you, but would have checked the source of the "private evidence" to ensure it is
a) from a verifiable source,
b) based on facts and not an opinion or hearsay or someone who has a vested interest in discrediting me, and finally
c) in accordance with the level of transparency required in this matter.
I wish you the best. JRfougnazal (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For sending me thanks for this contribution where I did nothing but correct my own mistake. Cyfal (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cyfal, we all make mistakes, I more often than many others. It's good to see someone recognise and correct one (or indeed several!), but the thanks was also intended more generally for your work on typos and the lay/lie thing in particular – edits like this one. I don't have the patience for that kind of work, so I'm glad that some others do. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Schloss Fuschl[edit]

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

OK, Jamesluckard, I'll look at it soon. Notification acknowledged. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checking in on this, thanks! Jamesluckard (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

simple proposal for the Triennale of Milan, I hope[edit]

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

Talk:Triennale di Milano

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 24[edit]

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

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


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

"Taurus cattle" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

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

Revisiting an old issue[edit]

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

b.t.w. I tagged the violating revisions in Dorset Police 10mmsocket (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, 10mmsocket! I think that was mostly more a matter of close paraphrasing than of outright copyvio (a good part of the apparent overlap was a string of place-names, so not really copyrightable content). As you may have seen, I've a note for the user. Thanks for your vigilance! That page needs some serious clean-up, by the way. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted. Will take a look. And thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to Central School of Art and Design Alumni page[edit]

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

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

Irish Wolfhound[edit]

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

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

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


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

David Gonzalez draft[edit]

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

Notenik Draft[edit]

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