This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It looks like you blocked 192.148.117.110. I have reason to believe from edit patterns that all of the following are the same person: 192.148.117.99, 192.148.117.110, 192.148.117.91, 192.148.117.104, 192.148.117.101, and the following are also suspicious: 58.163.175.192, 58.163.175.184, 58.163.175.174. I don't know how/if this can be verified. I left messages at several URL talk pages about the animals needing to be verifiable -- either on the zoo map or the zoo site, or somewhere else, and (judging from edit notes) this seems to have been taken to heart, but without the part about actually identifying the URL. Don Lammers (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
And another: 58.163.175.171 Don Lammers (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
And yet another: 192.148.117.107 Either there are a bunch of people acting just the same, or this person must not have a fixed URL? Don Lammers (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I have also discovered another 7 IP addresses in the same ranges doing the same kind of editing. I had already range blocked the 58.163.175.x range for a while before you posted, and I have now blocked the 192.148.117.x range too. I had not done that before because 192.148.117.110 was the only IP in that range that I knew was involved, but your information enabled me to look in the right place and find more. Almost all of the recent editing from the two ranges concerned has been from this one person, and the very few edits that may not be the same person have been unconstructive, so rangeblocking should not run too great a risk of collateral damage on innocent users. Even so, I am unwilling to block the ranges for a prolonged period, as there can be no guarantee that innocent bystanders won't be hit too. Someone from the same IP ranges, quite possibly the same person, used to do very unhelpful edits on another set of related articles, not to do with zoos, and is only prevented from doing that by semiprotection on the articles involved. However, the number of zoo-related articles affected is rather large, and protecting all of them is not an attractive prospect, as that might well cause even more collateral damage than the range blocks. However, please do feel welcome to let me know of further trouble, and I will do what I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I will keep an eye out. Don Lammers (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Continued personal attacks and incivility by Smilingfrog
Looking through Smilingfrog's contribution history I can find quite a number of things that I can see which some people might not like. However, the comments you link to in the "Knock it off" thread that you mention does not seem objectionable to me. I don't fully agree with Smilingfrog's comment, but it was expressed in a perfectly reasonable and civil way. I also think that you would be ill advised at present to start an ANI thread on this, as you might find yourself shooting yourself in the foot. You refer to "incivil and snide remarks", and you cite WP:Avoid personal remarks, but you might find that boomeranged against you, in light of such remarks you have made as "I'd strongly suggest that you be a good boy, go eat your nasi lemak and stay out of trouble", "this crude toad", and so on. I have not studied the full history of the interactions between the two of you, and so I can't form an overall judgement as to how much or how little justification there may be for your grievance against Smilingfrog. However, while various edits I have seen (such as the diff from June you give) indicate that Smilingfrog has not always been perfectly civil, what I have seen of recent edits, including the two examples you link to and other pages I reached by following links from those, show Smilingfrog as making a better show of being civil than you. It may or may not be that that is a superficial impression, and that anyone with a fuller knowledge of the relevant history would see Smilingfrog's comments as less innocent than they look, but it is largely on the basis of such superficial impressions that discussions at ANI are based. My advice is: (1) Back away. Avoid engaging with this editor with whom you clearly have difficulties in communicating. This may involve stopping editing in the same areas as Smilingfrog, or it may be possible to edit side by side but not respond to or initiate communication with him/her. (2) In future, if you find yourself disagreeing with another editor, try to step back and try to see what your own editing will look like to an outsider. Even if you were justified in feeling annoyed with Smilingfrog (and I make no judgement as to whether you were or not, not having seen the whole history), the things you have written to and about him/her recently make it look as though you are being unreasonable and uncivil. Once you give that impression, you are likely to find it very difficult to get support for your case from others, whether or not the impression is justified.
I suggest that it will be best for you and Smilingfrog to take a voluntary interaction ban, at least for a few months, to let things cool down. I will post a message on Smilingfrog's talk page calling attention to this suggestion. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello James...thanks for the invite. I am glad you took time out to read the links Dave provided above and I am glad that you agree with me that they are not rude. I am also glad you noticed his many insults directed at me. I certainly don't have an axe to grind with Dave. In fact, I don't even recall his name until he started flooding my talkpage with personal attacks against me recently.
I find his sentence above 'if he starts another round on me at the article page of Singapore or anywhere else when I begin revamping it in conjunction with User:Zscout370, I hope you can step in to intervene because I'm not going talk to him and remind him of this interaction ban' to be very ironic, like many things Dave writes, because I have never seeked to interact with him. I have never left him any messages on his talkpage. But he has left me at least two dozen messages on my talkpage, insulting me, threatening me with his made-up 'warnings', so on and so forth. I have cleared my talkpage, and forgotten about the entire episode, but a few months' hiatus, recently, he came back again with more insults and personal 'warnings'.
I wrote the message - 'I see rude people' - on my talkpage, hoping the 'rude people/person' who keep insulting and threatening me on my 'talkpage' would get the hint and stop. The message 'I see rude people' was not addressed to anyone in particular, so no one can certainly claim it was a personal attack against him/her, unless of course, the person has some self-awareness and knows he/she has been terribly rude. I personally notice that Dave seems to hold grudges against a few users and when he does that, his modus operandi is to quote irrelevant things and keep accusing a particular user of things he/she is not guilty hoping it would get him/her blocked or banned. Just like how he has been trying to paint my comments, which hardly even mention him, as 'attacking him'. He would then embark on a mission to constantly threaten users with his 'warnings', and often, insulting them personally with infantile stuff like calling them 'small boy', 'young kid', etc.
As a rule, I don't attack any users, and I focus on the discussions themselves. And I prefer civility over such bickering. I give Dave credit for the good edits he has made, but that is no excuse for his behaviour towards me and few other users. Anyway, yes to the interaction ban, I won't interact with Dave, I have never seeked to interact with him anyway. I wish him all the best in his personal life and on Wikipedia. However, I do hope he stops threatening and insulting other users. Hopefully it is a one-off thing where he has just fallen into a bad mood recently. And you have a good one youself, James. Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Dave, note that this is the only time I have commented about your personal behaviour. A mediator has specifically asked us to work things out and discuss each others' behaviour here, just like on ANI, WP:Avoid personal remarksobviously does not apply when two parties are airing their grievances in front of an mediator. This is not a discussion about topics to do with an article where WP:Avoid personal remarks applies. In fact, your very first sentence (Continued personal attacks and incivility by Smilingfrog) is already a personal remark, so you have the honour of making the first personal remark And of course, many of your other sentences are personal remarks as well, this is unavoidable since it is a mediation discussion. And in fact, you just provided a very good illustration of what I meant by you having a Modus Operandi, which is to is to quote irrelevant things and to keep accusing a particular user of things he/she is not guilty hoping it would get him/her blocked or banned. I will observe the interaction ban from now on, and hopefully, you will as well. And thank you James, for hosting us. Cheers,Smilingfrog (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I just saw your note regarding the page Mohammad Ahmed. I did not create the article even though per the page history, I am showing up as the first author. I merely made some grammatical corrections to the existing article, without changing the format or language in it. I 'd like the discrepancy in the article's history investigated as it is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratahir (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I myself have been wrongly accused of creating an unsuitable article in this sort of situation, so I certainly sympathise with your concern. On that occasion the article was deleted, and then undeleted, but for some reason the restoring administrator restored only some of the article's history, leaving out the earliest versions, so that a version I edited was left as the first remaining version. However, in the present case I can find no record of there having ever been any earlier versions. The same result also occasionally results if someone makes an edit to a page at almost the exact moment when an administrator deletes the page, so that the newly edited version appears to be the first one, but in that situation too there would be a record of earlier versions available to administrators, but there isn't one. The only other possibility I have been able to think of is that earlier versions have been moved to somewhere else, but would be a very odd thing to do, and besides, there would normally be a log entry recording the move, but there is none. Consequently I am a total loss to understand why you should appear to have created the article if, as you say, you didn't. If I manage to work out what has happened then I will let you know, but at present I can't see anything I can do about it. The best I can offer you at the moment is that if the proposed deletion is not contested then the article will be deleted in a few days, and the record of you as its creator will disappear from public view. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Blue Line Media
Hi. Thank you for reviewing the Blue Line Media page. I see that you added the notability tag for Blue Line Media. I created that page. What else would you like to see in order to remove the notability tag? Blue Line Media is one of the largest providers of advertising to gov't and nonprofit agencies across the country, as evidenced by the various examples listed in the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.194.6 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm now unblocked again
There are no blocks registered for my IP or my name, so it is mysterious why it happens. Thanks for your help. Manny may (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Slip and Walrus
Thanks James. HurricaneFan25 16:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Protected page Genting Group
Genting Group page has recently been protected by administrators due to content dispute. However the current protected version contains both vandalism and defamation of living persons. Although these articles are referenced, they are misleading by referencing deliberate factual errors and impropertly cited materials. Examples of this includes use of blogs and tabloid articles as sources. Additionally, the use of correct referencing of other unrelated individuals, particularly relating to the articles on organized crime and links to North Korea is intended to mislead, as the sources itself do not mention the Company or its Chairman but another wholly unrelated figure. Please propertly check the sources as none of them verify or even mention a relationship between the Company or its Chairman to the unrelated controversial figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.105.33 (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? Exactly which statements in the article suffer from the sort of sourcing problems you refer to? Which sources do you regard as unsatisfactory, and why? Why are "tabloid articles" not acceptable sources? Who is the "the unrelated controversial figure" that you refer to? At first I thought you meant Stanley Ho, but you clearly can't, as you say that none of the sources cited "even mention a relationship between the Company or its Chairman to the unrelated controversial figure", which is clearly not the case with respect to Stanley HO, as this article does suggest there is such a link. Which of the sources are blogs? (None of them looks like a blog to me.) I have not been able to tell exactly what you are referring to, and so will be unable to do anything about your concerns until you clarify these matters. In the course of checking the sources I did, however, discover that some promotional or weasel-worded claims are completely unsourced (e.g "It is a leading group..." and "It has been voted Malaysia's leading corporation and one of Asia's best managed multinationals. ") Since you are so concerned about proper sourcing of the article, you will no doubt want me to remove those unsourced claims. There are also substantial bodies of text which are unsourced, such as the whole of the "Group structure" section. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Please refer to article talk page for a further break down. However, just by reading Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources, it becomes clear neither a blog or a tabloid news article qualify as reliable sources. According to Wikipedia: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."
In addition, under "News Organizations" it goes on to say: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
Both Wikipedia terms relate to tabloid articles as the tabloid piece is based on opinion and is not definitive. The tone of the article is also suggestive, but not definitive. For example, the title of the news article itself is a suggestion (Genting, the company likely to run Aqueduct racino, may have troubling mob link) which is common for sensationalist papers. The rest of the article only discusses rumours of a link but not a proven link itself. Secondly, the article can be considered a "claim against institutions, persons, living or dead" - that means that the source is in violation of Wikipedia terms on both counts.
Most of the sources are also sourced from a blog "Florida Clarion" as pointed out by another user on the talk page, or from random unprofessional-looking websites. Again, according to Wikipedia, Self-published sources (online and paper): "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."
As somebody familiar with this organisation and the larger industry itself (I am from the same country as this company, but to clarify, I do not posess a professional or financial interest in it) it is incredibly frustrating that such wild baseless allegations could constantly be reverted, and now remain on the page simply because it has been sourced from essentially one tabloid news article and a blogger, with the remaining sourced articles, largely related to Stanley Ho. To my understanding from Wikipedia, these sources are in clear violation of Wikipedia terms on multiple counts. Please be reminded to refer to the talk page for a breakdown of each controversy if you would like further detail. I hope you understand the points I have been trying to get across. Thanks! 160.83.104.33 (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification. I have looked at the sources carefully. I do not agree with every word you have said, but I can see that your essential points are justified. I have made a fuller response on the article's talk page. Please do feel welcome to contact me again if the problem continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt action! However I would like to advise that in these types of situations, sensationalist content should always be removed first as it is far less damaging, as it can always be reinstated when proven otherwise. Please block User:CinagroErunam if not already done so, for his defamation and vandalism attempts. I appreciate your efforts as an admin which I personally would not be able to handle! Thanks again! 160.83.104.33 (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
An immediate block would not be acceptable, as the user has not been appropriately warned. An immediate "final" warning of an impending block, with no previous attempt to explain one's concerns, is appropriate only in very exceptional circumstances. I have posted a message to the person involved, explaining the need for good sourcing for controversial material regarding living persons, and also mentioning the policy on edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Just letting you know that 68.195.37.107 (talk·contribs), who you recently blocked for six months, is currently requesting an unblock. They're apologizing for any disruption they caused; I assume the apology is legitimate, but I realize that I'm walking into all of this after the fact. For my part, I poked around a bit and found mostly minor tweaks and an unfortunate tendency to ignore messages/warnings from other users -- a habit I'm hoping they'll drop, now that we have their attention. Whatever the case, I imagine your comments on the matter would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
By the time I saw this message the unblock request had already been declined. However, for what it's worth, here are my thoughts on the matter. The user claimed ignorance, not having known about the need to discuss changes. However, the user had received numerous warnings over the period from January 2011 to October 2011. The user had already received a short block for their disruption. The user had received advice on their talk page to look at discussion on the article's talk page, with a link to that discussion. The user had been informed of an administrators' notice board discussion about the matter. Seven times the user had blanked their talk page, indicating that they were aware of the messages. I find the claim of ignorance implausible. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
One more thing.
Hey i've read the instructions on the arbitration committee page and i can't really understand how to request arbitration to them so, can you give me some simple instructions on how to alert them to try get approval of creating a new account?Trent1994 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I have never had any cause to contact the arbitration committee, but searching through the page about the Arb Com I found the email address arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. I suggest emailing to that address. If you wish to, you can also email me and tell me of your new account, if and when you get one. If you should ever experience any controversy, having the administrator who unblocked this account aware of the situation might possibly be helpful, as informally contacting me for help might be quicker and easier than getting the ArbCom involved. I would treat such information in confidence, but there is absolutely no need for you to do it if you don't want to. However, whether you do so or not, I do think it advisable to inform ArbCom if you intend to make a new account. Good luck with your future editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Allowed or not?
Is this kind of stuff allowed here on wikipedia?[1]68.75.20.30 (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it seems most inappropriate to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Tarkett
Hello James,
I had asked back in September for your editing help on the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BBPMB/Tarkett. You were very busy at the time and I was wondering whether you would be able to look at it now and over the next few days or so? Kind regards, BBPMB (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at [[User talk:BBPMB (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)|User talk:BBPMB (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)]]. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
For your prompt work looking at my request to be unblocked. I was mistakenly blocked and you were very prompt. Thx. Piratejosh85 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
ViCTERS
Looks like they went in and recreated ViCTERS (complete with the copyvio speedy notice still attached) less than five minutes after you deleted it. FYI. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Whups - never mind... :) MikeWazowski (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Please review these blocks
There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.
I have removed the protection. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment on rangeblock
Aaah, that's what I get for doing that so late that it didn't occur to me that there was a rangeblock in place. Well, it seems that it was handled all the same. Thanks for letting me know. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you a nice person, but I would like to know the reason of why you have removed just the name of Tinchy Stryder and no other names on the Template:Roc Nation just under reason of "Reverting edits by block-evading sockpuppeteer" when In fact I have been unblocked since 16 September 2011, and all the edits I have made to the Template:Roc Nation since the end of my ban have all been in good faith and correction of information and also of other WPA edits I have made from the knowledge I have on a specific WPA, have been made after my 1 month ban from the 16 August 2011 to 16 Sep 2011. So I just don't understand what you mean by "block-evading sockpuppeteer" and when Tinchy Stryder's name was on the template way before I had made any edits to the template, and all I persume is that the reason why Tinchy Stryder's name was on the template in the first place was that he is a key member of Roc Nation due to him being co-owner of Roc Nation UK-based subsidiary Takeover Roc Nation record label and entertainment company, the same goes to Stargate (production team) who are the co-owners of the Roc Nation US-based StarRoc record label and publishing company. I would be grateful if you can give an explanation and if bias reverting of WPA edits, which is what this looks like in my oppinion is allowed by Wikipedia as I'm pretty sure it is not. I would like to think this is not a biased issue as I'm sure your a nice person JamesBWatson. Thank you. MarkMysoe (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I was reverting edits by an anonymous editor using IP address 31.96.21.253 on 20 August 2011. I don't now remember what persuaded me that the edit had been made by someone evading a block, but if it was by you then you were evading a one month block which started on 16 August 2011, and if it wasn't by you then whether you were blocked or not is irrelevant, as is whether all your editing has been in good faith. (Incidentally, I have no idea what WPA is.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Jagjit Singh
Thanks for blocking the user User talk:Husnain22 for the troubles he caused in Jagjit Singh. However, i am also fighting another user User talk:Simon5761 who keeps reverting my edits & also doesnt discuss them. I have started a conversation with him on his talk page. But in vain! Can you please help in this matter? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick question to make sure that I am doing this right....I am a bit of a newbie. Using the premise that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is completely non-bias... how would I list a fact and cite it correctly? I know this is probably a very basic questions for you, but I think I need a little guidance.
For example, I am trying to make sure that I have non-bias/informative information on the George Washington Academy (GWA) wiki page. I think I mentioned something about being a fully accredited school - with a citation to the accreditation association page that proves and list the actual accreditation. I want to make sure that I don't fall into any "out of bounce" areas. I think that, for example, the GWA wiki site is weak and want to make sure that non-bias information is listed and trusted.
Thanks for any help/advise you might have. I am looking forward to many more contributions...
Hi JamesBWatson - I note that you recently granted IP block exemption to an account that continually triggered autoblocks. Now, I realise some odd things were going on during the software upgrade, but I'd like to encourage you in the future, even under such circumstances, to consider discussing IPBE with a checkuser before granting it. As it turns out, the person behind the account is essentially banned for repeated abusive socking. Thanks. Risker (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a note
In the future, should you chance to unblock Mattisse, it might be prudent to check with ArbCom-- this one was obvious from the get-go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of Daily life in Ancient india
Sir,you've deleted the page which I recently edited.I want to know the reason for your deletion,sir.please reply quickly...Rsamahamed(talk)16:06,17 october 2011(IST)
It seemed unlikely to me that the redirect would be useful. However, if you disagree you may recreate it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think userpages have to be encyclopediac. I've removed the csd tag, as such. If you have a problem with it, take it to MfD. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 10:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course user pages don't have to be encyclopaedic. However, any pages on Wikipedia have to not be promotional, which this one unambiguously is. The CSD reason given was "because it only promotes an entity, person or product", not "because it is not encyclopaedic". The main reason I tagged it, rather than simply deleting it, was to give the user a warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the Sarah Whitehead article met CSD under G3 at all, I know the background to the story and there are bountiful references available on Google. The article came up on my WP:HG filters, and my contestation of the speedy tag (within minutes of the article being tagged) mysteriously vanished into the ether. Would you consider undeletion to allow the authoring editor to properly reference the article? -ALLOCKE|talk 15:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand your message on WP:AIV and agree. Can you suggest a better template to use (I do all the rollbacks by 'hand' - I don't use a bot)?
Also, when someone inputs a) non-English content or b) unintelligible English into articles what's the best template(s) to use to advise/warn? Thanks in anticipation. Denisarona (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you missed my request because another editor added a different message (below) in the same section. Denisarona (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Got your message on my talk page, but I may have a problem with my computer/server because there's nothing here!! Denisarona (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I had the change all ready, and forgot to click "Save". Meanwhile I wrote to your talk page in a different browser tab. I saw your message, but was busy dealing with other matters, and intended to come back to it, but then forgot to. Thanks for reminding me. {{Uw-lang}} is directly relevant to the case in point, and {{Uw-english}} relates to non-English content, but I don't off hand remember ever seeing one relating to incomprehensible English. However, remember that you don't have to use templated messages. I quite often write individual messages if there isn't an appropriate ready-made one: it takes longer, but can be more useful at times. Another thing I very often do is subst a templated message into a sandbox, and then edit the resulting message to fit the particular case. That can often get most of the advantages of a templated message, while making it more relevant. Just to illustrate what I mean, I have posted {{subst:Uw-english}} in the Wikipedia sandbox here, and modified it here. It would then be easy to copy the resulting message to a user page. It took me less than a minute to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the two templates Uw-lang and Uw-english. I like your amended template for incomprehensible English, but being basically computer illiterate, I haven;t a clue how to copy from the sandbox. Denisarona (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Must sign off now - will check here again tomorrow. Again, thanks for all your help. Denisarona (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how much you do know, and how much you need help with, so here is a description which I hope covers everything. If you already know half of what I am about to say, well, no harm done in repeating it. If, on the other hand, I still manage to miss out anything you need to know, please ask for clarification. I am assuming that you are using software that uses what are now fairly universal conventions, such as "Control C" for copy. Once you have written the version you want to copy, you just click on "Edit", exactly as if you wanted to make another edit to the page, but instead you find the bit you've already edited and want to copy. Select the bit you want with the mouse. (Hold down the shift key while dragging the mouse.) Then copy the text. (Hold down the "Ctrl" key and press and release "C".) Move to the page you want to copy it to, go into editing, and paste the copied test. ("Ctrl" + "V".) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Many thanks for all your help. I opened the sandbox as you suggested and managed to copy the templates to it. My mistake yesterday was in trying to copy the 'final version' of the template instead of the 'edit' version. Again, thanks a million. Denisarona (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
i'm the same person who edited Esta.technologies the reason i changed the username is because of your request saying that it is a wikepedia violation and the username looks like an advertising
A beer for you!
For your help & patience. Denisarona (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Jillian Bell article deleted?
...not quite sure how I got to this point or what this will accomplish, but I'm disappointed to see Ms. Bell's information removed from wikipedia. She's an interesting character and one we're bound to see more of in the future so I, for one, was really expecting at least some info on her here. Was there something wrong with the info established?
The article Jillian Bell was proposed for deletion by the user who uses the username Chzz. The reason that Chzz gave was that the article did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, and that it did not seem to be possible to find suitable reliable sources to establish such notability. I too have searched and failed to find evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The relevant requirements are described in the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people. The guideline on reliable sources is also relevant. The article contained only three sentences, which told us almost nothing significant about Jillian Bell except that she is a writer of speculative fiction, fantasy, poetry, fiction and non-fiction. It did not even tell the title of anything she has written. It would be possible to undelete the article, but, unless you can produce sources to show that she satisfies the guidelines which I have mentioned, it is virtually certain that it would be deleted again very soon. I understand your disappointment, but "She's an interesting character" isn't a reason for keeping an article: many very interesting people are not significant or notable enough to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. Also, saying that she is someone "we're bound to see more of in the future" is not a reason for keeping the article: Wikipedia does not have articles on subjects that someone speculates will become notable in the future: we need evidence that she is already notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Please don't Delete Vozax Article, however you may change the text yourself.And the article is signinficance becuse Vozax is Pakistan's first email. --Saudahmed97 (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I never intended to delete it, nor suggested that it should be deleted. All I did was point out to you that you should not have removed the speedy deletion tag (placed by someone else) from the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Crowe Clark Whitehill Page
James,
I previously sent you a message regarding the Crowe Clark Whitehill page.
Unfortunately, you did not respond, please could you come back to me regarding this page ASAP – original message is below:
Hi James,
The Crowe Clark Whitehill pages seem to have reverted to the old format; however the last updated version gave facts on the organisation and avoided any advertising or marketing language.
I have gone through other accountancy Wikipedia pages and all seem to have a similar format to the last updated version.
Please could this be replaced with the last updated version - should anymore editing be required I would be more than happy to make the amendments to the latest updated version.
However, I must stress the current Wikipedia page is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghattaura (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghattaura (talk • contribs)
First of all, sorry I didn't answer your previous query. Most probably what happened was that I was busy when I saw it, and intended to come back to it, but it then became lost among other messages, and I forgot about it. I have looked back at the article, and I accept that it was not outright spam, so perhaps use of that word was a mistake. However, it did look to me more like promotional material from a business than like an encyclopaedia article. For example, a list of locations of the firm's offices would be useful in attracting prospective clients, but I don't see that it helps the general reader to understand what the company is. We were also told that the business "operates within five strategic sector groups", which reads to me much more like marketing speak than like detached reporting. The article was tagged by AKMask as being written like an advertisement, and on the whole I was inclined to agree, so I reverted to an earlier version which did not strike me that way. However, that is just my view (and AKMask's), and any Wikipedia editor has a right to disagree. You say that the current version is"incorrect", by which I suppose you mean that there are factual inaccuracies. If so then please correct those inaccuracies, but I suggest being careful not to make your editing look promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Crowe Clark Whitehill
James,
Thanks for responding to my questions.
With regards, to the office locations, a number of accountancy pages have indicated there locations on their Wikipedia pages.
Also, this could this be a fact as we are stating a fact about the firm's locations? It’s hard to see that this could be an advertisement.
Also, as a firm we operate within these stategic sector groups, again a fact and which has been used by other accountancy firms on their Wikipedia pages.
I appreciate you clarifying the points; however the previous updated version is factually correct and one I will revert back to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking out, I didn't check first, but the article should really be tagged CSD-A7 as it really isn't remarkable.... Petiatil »Talk 14:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't have wasted my time setting up an AfD for this useless article if I had thought it qualified for A7, but unfortunately it doesn't, as it is not about a person, an animal, an organization, or web content. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, I noticed the duration of your wikipedia account. 5+ years, I'm going 6+ and it's amazing how much it's grown... Petiatil »Talk 14:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for AfD-ing this. I'm not logged in at present in an attempt to persuade myself to get on with a lot of Real Life pressing needs, but I keep stub-sorting and then getting led off into controversies like this one! 85.211.13.188 (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, in that case, to have encouraged you. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, from my experience, if you go for long periods without contributing anything -- wikipedia will still be there with open arms when you come back.... Heck, I've had rollback for a few years and I fire up huggle every now and again and do some rollback'n... It's kinda a hobby. If i try to explain to one of my friends "what i do on wikipedia" - it's hard. Petiatil »Talk 14:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Do note i have been known to go 6+ months without an edit. Petiatil »Talk 14:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I wish I could do that. Unfortunately I'm far too deeply hooked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, you're "preachin' to the choir.." - haha, cheers Petiatil »Talk 14:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Check this out..
This comment someone just left... its kind of funny - diffPetiatil »Talk 14:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
this diff is a better illustration of the comment... oops Petiatil »Talk 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a persistent vandal/troll. The post to your page was pure trolling. The best thing to do with this person is remove their comments and make no response, per WP:DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
Thanks for cleaning up after me (sorta) and being a fellow tenured wikipedian or as you put it... a "Grognard Extraordinaire" -- Thanks... Petiatil »Talk 14:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Chansep2009
Chansep2009 has blanked his talk page again,[2] despite previous warnings with reference to WP:BLANKING.[3] I've reverted but expect to see it happen again. I'm more than a little suspicious that Chansep2009 is actually the same person as User:Ashleyleggat404 and the appearance of User:TheGoldenHunter7 only solidifies my suspicions. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I thought that Chansep2009 looked like a sockpuppet, rather than a new user, but I did not know what earlier account to link it to. Following your prompting, I have checked the evidence, and I am in no doubt at all about Ashleyleggat404/Chansep2009, so I have changed Chansep2009's block to indefinite, and revoked talk page access (which I was planning to do anyway if the user blanked the page once more). I have also started a sockpuppet investigation to ask a checkuser to look at TheGoldenHunter7. Your help has been invaluable. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page. Message added 20:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for helping with my autoblock issue today! Andrew Kurish (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Zoo Articles
No one asked you to protect those zoo articles. Zoo articles are NOT to be protected. Could you please expand the protection? A month is TOO LONG so make it a week. We IP's don't like to wait that long. At least you didn't do it to Melbourne Zoo, Taronga Zoo, Wellington Zoo, Whipsnade Zoo, and London Zoo. Please expand the protection. I'm not being rude. 58.7.128.239 (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
We IP's a very sorry for what we've done. We've only been adding in animals. Why have you become attached to those articles. Do not Revert any edits of mine. Say you will exapnd the protection of the zoo articles to a week. Month TOO LONG. 58.7.128.239 (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
CloudSafe
James, there are thousands of reasons why anyone on WikiPedia could delete the CloudSafe page. And there are thousand of reasons why it could be left in my users pace or promoted into main space. Frankly speaking I give up on all this WikiPedia discussions. I spent weeks to justify the entry and we had a lot more coverage than half of the other rightfully listed online storage companies on WikiPedia. So if you or others think it is necessary to delete the page then go ahead. I am not willing to spend another countless hours repeating the same arguments, just to have the next deletion request. I thought there would be more equality and democracy here on WikiPedia but I guess it's the opposite by now. Probably it would have been better to copy what a lot of startups here in Europe did: Contacting Jimmy Wales to get them a reputable entry by a "neutral" respected WikiPedia contributor. Don't quote me :) Roberto Roberto valerio (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham...
Why did you protect this article? It was four days since the last edit when you came and did this for no apparent reason. BollyJeff||talk 12:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a long-term pattern of disruptive editing on this and other articles, with the disruption restarting after earlier protection has expired, and new sockpuppet accounts being brought into use when others are blocked. Recently the disruption had been taking place on this and another article. If the recent editing problem had been an isolated incident then I wouldn't even have considered protecting the article on the basis of edits which, as you rightly point out, were a few days ago. However, it was not an isolated incident, and when a problem has been continuing over a time period of not a lot less than a year, a gap of a few days is not really very significant. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, are you talking about the "child actor" additions? BollyJeff||talk 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Mashagkeka (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Please be nice and kind and explain me why you want to delete my page,what is not correct and good with page?All is true and facts,Micky Noise deserve to be inside,because he is one of the most famous producer of trance music!He is known all around the world,he has so many albums and famous songs! Thank you! Greetings!
If he is that famous then it should be easy to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources to show that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, no such evidence is cited in the article, and my (admittedly brief) searches have failed to produce any. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Catapilla
You say, typically harshly, that you can see no reason for the existence of the Catapilla article. If you don't know that Vertigo is a major label and can't read that the band had albums on it which completely satisfies notability, then I respectfully suggest this is not the kind of article you should be reviewing or in a hurry to churlishly delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxp3456 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"In a hurry to churlishly delete"? I started a discussion on whether the article should be deleted, to give other people a chance to express their opinions. As an administrator I could have simply deleted it, but I didn't. I could see no evidence of notability, but I am perfectly willing to believe that others may be able to show notability: that is the purpose of a discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As an administrator I could have simply deleted it, but I didn't.
That would have been, at the very least, a bit impolite, don't you think? After another administrator had declined the CSD-A7? CatfishJim and the soapdish 18:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what I was trying to convey was that if I had been "in a hurry to churlishly delete" the article I could have done so. I was not suggesting that there was any chance I might have done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
All I know is that I'm relatively new here and have never encountered a site full of such smartarsery, cleverdickishness and unfriendliness. It seems to be the default setting. Whatever - I'll delete my account and you can all get on with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxp3456 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, you are certainly right in thinking that there is too much unfriendliness on Wikipedia. There are unfortunately far too many people here who, when they find someone doing something they disagree with, accuse them of things like "smartarsery" and "cleverdickishness". Fortunately, though, they are a minority, and most Wikipedians try to resolve things by civil discussion, and prefer to politely explain why they disagree with someone else, rather than indulging in that kind of childish name calling. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I have now withdrawn the deletion nomination, having been persuaded by the other participants in the discussion I initiated. I leave you to judge whether that is the action of someone "In a hurry to churlishly delete" the article, or of someone who thought the subject might not justify an article, and started a discussion in order to decide one way or the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The article gave no indication of significance of the company. The article went to considerable efforts to show that the company had connections with significant people and organisations, but that does not make the company itself important. Every one of the references in the article either didn't mention the company at all, or was a page on the website of the company itself, or someone connected to it, or a website that anyone can submit content to (namely linkedin or YouTube). The existence of other articles which you think are no better is of little if any relevance: they may be more justifiable for reasons you haven't noticed, or they may be no better at all, and just as deserving of deletion. There are well over three million articles on English Wikipedia, and among them there are, unfortunately, many which shouldn't be there. I notice that one of the articles you mentioned has been tagged by an editor who thinks it may not meet the notability guidelines, in which case it should certainly be deleted, and maybe it will be. However, whether it is deleted or not does not affect whether another article should be deleted: each article must be judged on its own merits. It is perfectly natural for someone new to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, but unfortunately it is not a reliable guide. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I feel the lack of dispute resolution is extremely unfair, that the page is just deleted without anyway of defending or altering the article to make it compliant with the Wiki Guidelines. To re-submit the entry I see that I have to seek your permission, which I feel is grossly unfair given that viability of the entry is more than likely pragmatic depending upon your knowledge of the subject. If I was to add better referencing and prove the significance of the organisation would the page be allowed to be active? SimonState (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to try and rectify the problems. SimonState (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I also feel it was unfair to delete this while we was in the middle of editing it. You can't judge conflict of interest and relevance of an unfinished article. We wanted to put up the basic facts so that anyone coming across the article who felt they could expand with reliant information could add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSMLibrary (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't see any message for me there. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I can now. I was fooled by the fact that the message appeared there 8 minutes after this talkback message appeared here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Teabulla
Hi James - you just beat me to it! However, have you noticed that user pages and talk pages have started being indexed by Google? I though this wasn't supposed to happen. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about talk pages, but user pages have been Google-indexed certainly for years, and as far as I know always. I think they shouldn't be, but they are. That's why it can be useful to put {{NOINDEX}} in a user page, to stop indexing by Google and similar search sites. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just tried Google searches for various quotes from various talk pages. I got no hits for talk pages on Wikipedia, but quite a lot of them for mirrored copies of the talk pages on other sites. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Assistance needed!
Hello, you recently blocked Jschauhan. I need this page to be edited and this line of code in the page: SHORTDESCRIPTION: to be filled in with a period so the notice does not appear on the backlog. If you could help me accomplish this, or help me find someone who can do this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Touch Of Light (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Good day. I noticed you gave User:Speedfish a 24 hour block a few days back and apparently he/she did not learn their lesson. The user is still censoring material and trying to hide the behavior with less nefarious edits. I've given the user his/her final warning. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
One more quick note - the user has also removed a large number of warnings from his/her page. I'm cloudy on policy there so I haven't taken any action. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Cole Real Estate Investments
Hello JamesBWatson,
I was writing in regards to the Cole Real Estate Investments page that you flagged for speedy deletion. I suppose I didn't see the tone as being overly promotional or advertising in nature. It would have been appreciated if constructive criticism or suggested changes were offered before resorting to a speedy deletion. I have found comparable pages that appear to exhibit the same information, but have not been removed.
If you could please explain your reasoning behind the flag, or perhaps suggest alternatives that would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you, MissHezah — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissHezah (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The article was actually flagged for speedy deletion by ThatPeskyCommoner, and I agreed. The article was substantially promotional in tone. In addition, the references given did not appear to establish notability. There was the company's own web site, a page on a PR site, other pages which appeared to be largely promotional, at least one "reference" did not even mention the company. If, as seems likely, you work in marketing, it is probable that you are so used to promotional language that you have become desensitised to it, and are unaware of it, in which case you may have difficulty in writing a neutral article about a business. If you were working for the business in writing the article then you have a conflict of interest, and should not be writing an article on that subject at all. Whether you were working for them or not, though, you may be well advised to look at WP:FAQ/Organizations before writing any more articles on businesses. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You deleted my article
Hi
Could you please explain why you deleted my article about my autobiography ?
Is this question a joke? You know full well that it was a copy of an article about someone else with the name changed, and as such a complete lie. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate the undoes and protection but..
In the process of that you undid one of my edits [4] with the edit summary of undoing the block evading user. No worries--Crossmr (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Shortly after my restoring of the "Legend" shown in a Quotation Box at top of the article "Luchow's", described as a "Promotional quote of little encyclopedic value", today at 4:57, there were two excisions from my sandbox of the file: "File:FileBookjacket, Luchow's Cookbook.jpg" in close succession, by a bot, DASHBOT, which gave time-of-use info at variance with the other entries in History but in the correct order. No similar excision was performed in the actual article "Luchow's" where the file is also in use.
I am wondering if this removal of the file "File:FileBookjacket, Luchow's Cookbook.jpg" is a malicious action. BruceWHain (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
If an image file is not public domain or licensed for free use, it may under limited circumstances be usable under a claim of "fair use" under United States copyright law. However, this entitlement to fair use does not extend to use in userspace pages, but only to use in articles. Therefore DASHBot searches for fair use files in userspace articles and removes them, but it does not do the same in articles. I understand why it would look odd to you, but there is nothing malicious about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Peter Grant Tennis Academy
Hi James,
My name is Peter and Im the owner of the PGTA (www.tennisacademy.co.nz) - we are a non for profit organisation that teach kids the game of tennis for free. My academy is starting to become very popular in New Zealand, already 220 likes on FB, and 5 kids enrolled. Do I warrant an article? Its a pretty special cause - I think :) What do you feel? I think you may have deleted my page (tbh, I didnt really focus on content that much). Hope you are well. Cheers Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergrants1 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Peter, first - you cannot be the one to write an article about your organization, as per WP:COI. Second, Wikipedia requires notability based on verifiability by third party reliable sources. We have non-profits with millions of dollars of budget and thousands of members that do not qualify for articles. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Peter. I can fully understand your feeling that your academy is a good cause, and deserves publicity. However, Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of articles are based not on how worthy a cause the article is about, but rather on how much coverage the subject has received in reliable sources elsewhere. I suggest having a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which is very useful, and covers a range of questions related to writing articles about organisations. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause is also relevant, though it is not an official guideline or policy, but just some editors' attempt to offer a general description of the situation. If you do want to read the official guidelines, a couple that are relevant are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of organisations and companies. However, there are, in my opinion, far too many of these guidelines and policies, and you may prefer to have a quick glance to see what sort of thing they say, rather than trying to study them all in depth. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Duffbeerforme proposed the article for deletion on the grounds that there was no real claim to notability, and that the band lacked coverage in independent reliable sources. That proposal was not challenged, so after a week the article was deleted. For what it is worth to you, it seems to me that the article could, in fact, have been speedily deleted without giving time for objections, as an article about a band that made no serious claim of importance or significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is just a quick note to say that I have declined your proposed deletion of Dragon beard noodles. Please take it to AfD if you disagree with my rationale. Thank you. wctaiwan (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. The article has been drastically improved. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Change for Balance
This is a team of young men who have been friends of my family for many years. They did the video work for the 2011 UCI Energy Invitational as well as other projects that you can see on my web page mechanical design101. Their documentary on horse slaughter was recently recognized with a top three place in the Classy Awards for non-profits. Johnmichal123456 asked me how to set up a Wikipedia page and I showed him. If their work is not appropriate for Wikipedia, then simply tell them. Prof McCarthy (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
IATAC
Why did you deleted the article I posted on IATAC? You said it was unambiguously promotion of a company, but in reality all this is was an overview of what IATAC is. IATAC does not do business with people, it just works with major government agencies. This was in no way trying to gain business, or a promotional article, this was an informative article trying to inform users about what it is that IATAC does. There is an article on DACs as well which is virtually the same thing. Please tell me exactly why you (and your bots) deleted this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKopf (talk • contribs) 11:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have never understood why so many people think that "promotion" can only mean "promotion of a commercial business for the purposes of increasing trade". The article was written in heavily promotional terms, using such terms as "excellence", telling us that it "provides the specialized knowledge needed to develop network defenses rapidly and cost-effectively", telling us what its "mission" is (i.e. telling us in its own terms what it claims to do). Nothing about the article looked remotely like a dispassionate, objective account by an impartial observer. I have no idea why you think I used bots in the deletion process: I have, in fact, never operated a bot on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
So if I take out those types of terms...you will accept this article? Please just let me know how to go about getting this article accepted. I want to play by Wiki rules and feel that IATAC definitely warrants an article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKopf (talk • contribs) 11:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If, as seems likely, you are closely involved with the organisation, then you may find it difficult or impossible to write about it from an objective point of view. Even people who sincerely intend to write impartially sometimes find it difficult to stand back from a subject they are involved in far enough to see how their writing will look to an outsider. That is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages us from editing on subjects to which we have close connections. However, I suggest you should look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which gives some advice on writing this sort of article, and also contains links to other pages which may be helpful. (However, don't try to read all of every guideline and policy: there are far too many of them, and they will merely confuse you. Try to pick out what is most relevant to your case.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I re-created the IATAC article...it is pending review now correct? Thanks for your input I think and hope I played by the rules this time. JKopf (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank You!
Hi James - Thanks for the input! I assume you were referring to my sandbox and the information on Doe v. Ciolli.
The information that I copied was partly from Wikipedia and partly from a government document "Order Denying AK47's Motion to Dismiss". Correct me if I am wrong, but I think those are both OK to copy from. The reason I had them copied was just so I could look over them and write the article when I got around to it. Let me know if you still think this is an issue! Indigojin (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
IEP clean up
Hi. If you are working on IEP clean up, for easy checking and follow up of students and their articles, please see:
If you are not working on this clean up, please pass this message along to anyone you know who is. Thanks, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
College students
I don't think the Indian college student you just blocked is abusing multiple accounts. If you look at Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Computer Organization and Advanced Microprocessing (and its talk page) you will see that multiple university students are working on projects which include contributing to WIkipedia articles. Unfortunately a number of them clearly don't understand the rules and are uploading both images and text with no apparent understand of the consequences to Wikipedia of copyright infringing content. In this specific case there are three students working on the same topic - printers. All three have violated copyright and all three seem to be trying to add info to Printer (computing) to beat a deadline today. If these were regular editors rather than students they would have been blocked a long time ago. I think the WIkipedia:India Education Program is out of control and needs a fundamental re-think to stop the multiple abuses by its poorly-instructed and badly disciplined students. What do you think? --Biker Biker (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say. However, I am convinced that the user was abusing multiple accounts. In addition to the editing history, this edit indicates that a new account was created to replace one that had been blocked. I agree 100% that the WIkipedia:India Education Program is out of control. In fact I think all of these university/school outreach programmes, while created with the best of intentions, were a great mistake. At the best they result in a lot of students creating content because they have to do so for their course, rather than because they have something useful to create, which tends to result in a lot of bad content creation. At the worst they do much worse than that. One of the many problems is that a large proportion of the students in these programmes have no interest at all in communicating with other Wikipedians, and little if any tendency to take on board advice, warnings, etc. I think many of the problems are an unavoidable consequence of the fact that the position they are in leads them to see the goal of editing as satisfying the requirements for their course, rather than as improving the encyclopaedia. That different perspective is bound to result in a different approach, in many ways. If you were in the position of having to get a lot of editing done by a deadline for your course, an irritation like some Wikipedian telling you that what you are doing is against Wikipedia's policies, or that you can't copy material you find elsewhere, would very likely seem like an unnecessary impediment to the task, and one that you might well feel like ignoring. A lot of the problems we have on Wikipedia are due to people having a different view of what the purpose of editing is than "improve the encyclopaedia", such as "use Wikipedia to get more publicity for my business", "have fun by messing things up", "have my very own web page", "make sure that my view of THE TRUTH about a particular topic prevails", etc etc, and introducing a new set of editors with yet another aim other than "improve the encyclopaedia" has turned out to be unhelpful. As for what can be done about all this, I'm not sure. Perhaps raising the issue at some noticeboard, such as the village pump? Any ideas? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just found this, which confirms beyond all doubt that it was a sockpuppet account to evade a block. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Good stuff to digest. Thanks. I'll look into the village pump idea. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to say that the main and ongoing discussion about the issues arising specifically from the India Education Program has been taking place on Wikipedia talk:India Education Program. That program was initiated and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. There is also a discussion at meta:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation - India Programs/Education Program where you can make your concerns known. It might be better not to diffuse the discussion to the Village Pump, unless the goal there is to discuss the general issue of using Wikipedia for assessed asignments. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Speedfish
Good day,
I'm sorry to bother you with this again, but our old friend is at it again with less than 24 hours of freedom to his credit. See here:
I didn't even bother with a formal warning this time, but did leave him a note. I'll leave it up to you, but perhaps we could wait and see if the note finally does it, though I'm kind of tired of following his edits.
Up to you, and by the way, thank you for the clarification re: removing warnings from one's page. I thought it was something like that, but thank you for clearing it up. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again James... it seems the user is either trying to make genuine contributions to wiki and compusively censors, or is an outright vandal willing to make a bunch of edits to hide his censoring edits. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Bodhi Global Page
Hi James,
This is third time, I observed that Wiki has deleted ‘Bodhi Global’ page, which was posted by our team. We are legal service provider (LPO) company based out of India and NY. Can I know the reason for the deletion and accordingly I will communicate to my internal team here. I don't think we have posted any objectionable material on Wiki. We are following all the copyright rules and regulations which is suggested by Wiki over the article publications.
Please advise.
Girish Mandlik
General Manager - IT
Bodhi Global Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.
www.bodhiglobal.com | girish.mandlik@bodhiglobal.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girishontop (talk • contribs) 05:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
You say that the page has been deleted three times. I see that Bodhi global was deleted on 21st October, and Bodhi Global on 1st November. If you can tell me the title of the other version I will look at that one, but here are some comments based on looking at those two, together with your remarks above.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral, independent point of view. Any one working for a business will not be looking at it from an outside, independent point of view. Consequently Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages us from writing articles about subjects in which we have a close personal involvement, such as businesses we work for or own. Even people who genuinely intend to write objectively and neutrally often find it difficult or impossible to stand back far enough from a subject they are closely involved in, so as to see it from the perspective of an outsider.
Bodhi Global was deleted as being a copyright infringement. From what you say it seems that the article was created by someone working for the company, in which case of course the company presumably has copyright in the material and is free to distribute it. However, that does not invalidate the deletion on copyright grounds. Since anyone can create a Wikipedia account and claim to be anyone, we cannot take the unsupported word of a Wikipedia editor as evidence of copyright. If you like I can give you links to pages which give instructions on how to provide the Wikimedia foundation with copyright permission for your material. However, in my experience it is almost never worth while doing so, as what usually happens is that once the copyright issue has been resolved, the material is deleted again for other reasons, usually because it seems promotional. In this case, the article was by no means blatant spam, but it was certainly promotional in tone, to a significant extent being concerned with impressing us with how good the company is. That is almost always the case with material copied from a company's web site into a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, and any content which seems to exist principally to promote or publicise anything is likely to be removed. One more point about giving copyright permission. Wikipedia licenses its content for free use by anyone under very broad licensing terms. If you were to give permission for your material to be published on Wikipedia you would have to give permission for it to be reused by anyone in the world for almost any purpose.
Before Bodhi Global was actually deleted, much of it had already been removed on the grounds that some of it was a copyright infringement, and the rest was promotional, unsourced, etc. It was subsequently tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds of being promotional. I actually deleted the remaining article because it lacked any real claim of significance, rather than as promotion, but it had only reached that state because the rest was unsuitable as an article, and its early versions were certainly promotional enough to justify deletion.
There is, unfortunately, a rather extensive set of Wikipedia guidelines and policies (too many, in my opinion). However, I suggest looking at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which gives a reasonably straightforward account of most of the significant issues involved in writing articles of this sort. If you want to look further, there are the guideline on notability of organisations and companies, the general notability guideline, and the guideline on reliable sources may be useful. However, I remind you of the conflict of interest issue: you should probably not be writing an article on this subject at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Ra.One
Hey i saw u have protected Ra.One but only till 4 November, what does that mean? I had asked for indefinite period protection. You can see the amount of vandalism's within a (not even) single day. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
When you posted this message, I was checking the editing history of the article to see whether it needed longer protection. I had quickly put a short term protection in place to stop the current vandalism while I checked it out. At that time I had not seen your request for page protection. I have now semiprotected it indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Got it. I see what I wasn't grasping previously now. Thanks for the information! - Vianello (Talk) 15:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
U4Ria Page
Hi James, you have recently deleted the Wikipedia page on U4Riashop. I have spend hours in creating this page as it was my first time creating a page for a company which I think it deserves to be featured on Wikipedia. U4Ria has been around in the sex toy industries for more than 10 years. And I had seek permission of using the company's materials to support my writing here in Wikipedia. Please allow me to recover the work I have feature for U4Ria hours ago. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chengkingxiang (talk • contribs) 10:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The article was blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising or promotion of any sort. If that were the only problem I might be willing to restore a copy of the material, not as an article, but as a userspace page, for you to work on. However, that is not the only problem. There is also the copyright issue. I cannot restore material that appears to infringe copyright: to do so would be illegal. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Please advise which part of the article is violating as advertising sort. I am writing a biography about the company. The infringement on the copyright was an misunderstanding. The similar written article appearing from another site is originally from me too. An email was send to Wikipedia to verify on the copyright issue. Please let me know what else I need to do to recover the article? I'm lost as I'm totally new here. Chengkingxiang (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
"Which part of the article is violating as advertising sort"? is that a joke? The whole article from start to finish was an advertisement, full of such language as "trail blazing", "broke new ground in the retail scene", "There is no request too difficult or troublesome", etc etc. If you really honestly can write a whole page of that kind of stuff and not think it is advertising then you are so out of touch with what you are doing that it is unlikely you will ever be able to write an objective, detached, article, as required for Wikipedia. I am somewhat surprised at the difference in standard of English that you used in writing the article from that which you have used in writing here. Since you are writing on behalf of the company, you have a conflict of interest, and shouldn't be writing an article on the subject: Wikipedia articles need to be written from a detached, third party standpoint. I have searched, and found nothing at all to suggest that this business is notable enough to be the subject of an article in an encyclopaedia. Even if you were to rewrite the article so that it was not remotely promotional, it would probably be deleted for lack of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Your comments are valuable to me, especially when writing an article for the first time on Wikipedia. I am also planning to write articles for other adult toy shops in Singapore. The reason I have chosen this topic because I cannot find a related topic on this from Wikipedia. Adult Toy shop in Singapore was extremely rare from the beginning and now more shops like these are opening in Singapore. And I think it will be a good chance to express my writing about these shops in Wikipedia. My apology that my context seems an advertisement to you. Perhaps I should support my writing with a more notable information. The reason I have chosen U4Riashop to start with my first writing because the company has been around for more than 10 years in Singapore as compare to some of the Adult Toy shops. I believe I can obtain more information from this company to support my writing. Most of the supporting information were scattered around online. I believe other writers from Wikipedia may be able to assist in getting the article done. I know that U4Riashop was featured in popular magazines in Singapore. I will be contacting the company again to obtain hard copy of supporting information. I also know that the company is a core distributor for Adult Toy in Singapore, the company may be able to obtain relevant information from these companies in supporting my writing for them. I will make sure that nothing is infringed in the copyrights when these materials are used. I hope you can see that hard work was involved in writing my first piece of article in Wikipedia. Here are some supporting information in hoping to recover my first piece of article:
MediaCorp TV - the company was featured by a popular TV channel in Singapore under the section of News And Current Affairs Series number 13: A healthy lifestyle shop in Orchard Road selling a comprehensive array of sex products has been pulling in the crowds. Sound bite of B K Chua, Business Development Manager of U4Ria. (00:16:58)
Eros Coaching - a sexologist recommending the company.
CozyCot - an online women's lifestyle featuring about the company.
I did not backup a copy of the article which was deleted on Wikipedia. Please allow me to recover the article so that I can make it right. Your great help is deeply appreciated! Chengkingxiang (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org. I suggest emailing to that address. If you wish to, you can also email me and tell me of your new account, if and when you get one. If you should ever experience any controversy, having the administrator who unblocked this account aware of the situation might possibly be helpful, as informally contacting me for help might be quicker and easier than getting the ArbCom involved. I would treat such information in confidence, but there is absolutely no need for you to do it if you don't want to. However, whether you do so or not, I do think it advisable to inform ArbCom if you intend to make a new account. Good luck with your future editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Done JamesBWatson (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
