User talk:Justlettersandnumbers/old5

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

please check the rewrite temp page of Ou Ning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ou_Ning/Temp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanyuan (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice

On 3 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Ospedale degli Incurabili in Venice, where Johann Adolph Hasse was maestro di cappella, was founded as a hospice for sufferers from syphilis and other incurable diseases of the time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Despacito lyrics vandal

For what it's worth, 99.112.22.186 did it again at Paper bag - [1]. Home Lander (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

This has to be the fifth or sixth copyvio-revdel you've taken care of for me in recent months. Cheers! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cymru.lass, that's perfect timing, just drained the last few drops of my Franziskaner. Anyway, happy to help, keep them coming! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Subodh Kerkar

Hi, I've created a fresh version of the article at this temp page. This version is free of copyvios. Also this particular revision is a clean revision of the page, free of copyvios. Do look into it at the earliest as he is an important personality here. Thanks. SerTanmay (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Martin Speake

Why was his article deleted? He a quite famous Jazz musician. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Govvy! If you follow the red link above, you'll see that I deleted it as "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.gsmd.ac.uk/music/staff/teaching_staff/department/12-department-of-jazz-studies/574-martin-speake/, https://www.martinspeake.com, http://www.woodwinds.daddario.com/woodwindsArtistDetails.Page?ActiveID=2022&ArtistId=46324". It was a few hours old and had no significant contribution from any editor other than the creator, nor did it have any independent sources. It consisted entirely of his own promotional materials and could also have been deleted as G11. Do you want me to restore the skeleton of the page so that you can write a proper article about him? Do you have the sources to do that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I should work on the page, probably a conflict of interest... Don't know, I had it on my watchlist because I know the guy. Was just a bit upset it got deleted. Govvy (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough (and yes, probably a good call). So how's this: if you can come up with five or six solid independent RS that clearly show notability and actually say something about him, I'll run up a quick stub (and I do mean quick!) if that's of any interest. Let me know? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, have you not done WP:BEFORE? He has played at Pizzaexpress live one of the top jazz venues in London, EFG Jazz festival and even had an review in the Guardian. Govvy (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, seriously, no, since this has nothing to do with AfD, which is what WP:BEFORE links and relates to. Anyway, I'll take your reply as a "no" – unless, that is, you'd like to point to several more independent sources with enough in-depth coverage to base a brief stub on? As it happens, I've played a few gigs myself, some of them in very notable venues, several of them – to my great and wholly undeserved good fortune – with very well-known musicians; that doesn't make me notable or anything like it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I know, can be hard in music, I've got a fair few CDs created by friends, now they are either accountants, lawyers, in computing, but excellent at music. I just thought Martin deserved a bit of an article, I had a bit of a go and a tidy on that draft. Govvy (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sydney College of Advanced Education

I don't really understand why you rejected this speedy deletion - the entire article is a cut and paste copyright violation from a user who didn't understand copyright that hadn't been substantively edited at all in those ten years. I really want to rewrite it and I've got the sources to do it sitting in my browser but I don't want to do it until the copyright issue is dealt with. I could have rewritten it today but now I guess I'm having to wait for another couple of weeks? Very helpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, The Drover's Wife, I should have explained that more clearly. WP:G12 says specifically: "For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems". I see no indication that the claim of public domain is valid, but there is one.

You can either rewrite the article on this temporary page, or – slightly out of process – simply create the new version above the copyvio template, leaving it in place for now. Either way, I'll tidy things up as soon as you're ready. For another time: you are completely free to remove copyright-violating content yourself; you can then ask for the infringing revisions to be hidden by adding a {{copyvio-revdel}} request. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I just had a go at using the temporary page, but ProveIt, the tool I use to reference, doesn't seem to work in that namespace, so it's just getting a bit hard. Might have to wait until after it's all sorted after all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

So I admit to having been frustrated by this in the past, albeit for different reasons than The Drover's Wife. JLAN, it feels like your actions while patrolling G12 are qualitatively different than general community norms; it's certainly not unreasonable but it is different. It's different even, from what I can tell, of how you acted prior to your RfA (where you indicated you would deal requests in ways that support the use of the COPYVIO template in equivocal cases, such as "where free-content edits overlie the infringement"). I would ask you to consider getting some sort of community support, if only through a discussion at a place like WP:CSD, for this alternative method of dealing with G12 tags on notable topics where the removal of copyrighted material would leave the page without content worth saving. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Page cleaned, The Drover's Wife, all yours. Barkeep49, could you be a bit clearer? What do you think is the "normal" response to a G12 nomination where there is a foundational copyvio, a ten-year page history and a dubious claim of permission? I'm open to advice if I'm doing something wrong, but I'd first need to understand what that something is. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Legend. Thanks very much! The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Prajakta Kale

Hello, Thanks for the soft approach and notification about Prajakta Kale's page, Like you advised I have created a Temp page and this rewritten version is void of copyright problem, I hope you look into this for me and restore the page. Thanks once again for helping out.Epaomo (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of the the public domain

I see you are new and no doubt young. Please investigate what is and is not in the public domain before removing my work on the articles I created. If content is produced by a government agency in the US, it is automatically in the public domain. There is no copyright on government work. I will ask you to revert the hyperactive vandalism you did to the articles I created by removing them even though there is no copyright inifringement. I wonder how many other articles you have vandalised through your lack of knowledge of the law on copyright?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ives_-_Henry_murders

I believe you also proudly but erroneously "clean up" nonexistent copyright issues on the article about Colorado Center for the Blind ...and what else? Please correct your mistakes. In the future consider your age and level of experience compared to others before wrecklessly hurting the free sharing of knowledge in your efforts to show off your imagined expertise. I see by other comments you have taken it upon yourself to "police" copyright infringements even though you are untrained and unknowledgeable about the issue. May I kindly suggest you find a way to contribute based on your knowledge and not your psychological need to exert power by miscorrecting the work of experts?

Leidseplein (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, young no doubt! And yes, I do always try to edit "wrecklessly" – I so hate filling in those insurance claims! On a more serious note, would you like to answer the question I asked you: are there other articles where you have copied material from copyrighted sources into Wikipedia? If you think I've removed public-domain content from something you've written, please say what and from where. If you think the Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture is PD, please read this page, which will disabuse you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

If the educated and experienced did not have to constantly correct the young and inexperienced, Wikipedia would reach a billion more people everyday. It does not matter what a website CLAIMS it matters what the actual copyright law IS. I can write on my website that my work is copyrighted, but this does not make it true. Please gain some humility appropriate for your age and study the law of copyrights which will disabuse you of any notion that you somehow have knowledge enough to vandalise the work of those with much more experience and more education than you. Try writing an article and contributing instead of using Wikipedia to address your psychiatric issues. Will you kindly revert your vandalism? On a more serious note, would you like to answer the question I asked you: are there other articles where you have vandalised the work of others baded on your lack of knowledge and teenage level of education?Leidseplein (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)