User talk:JBW/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 → Archive 40

Deleted page: List of Library Associations specific to American states

I have been adding links on the page List of Library Associations, which includes an internal link to List of Library Associations specific to American states which didn't exist. The page I created was a continuation of the first list. What should I do differently so that this list isn't deleted. SRHMGSLP (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that articles which consist of nothing but lists are useful at all. However, lists which link to existing Wikipedia articles on notable subjects are widely accepted. Articles which contain nothing but external links are not acceptable, though. I have no idea whether the items on your list are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. If they aren't then I suggest forgetting about it, or if they are you may like to turn it into a list of links to Wikipedia articles. However, that does not mean start creating articles on non-notable subjects just to justify having them on a list: doing that will just lead to a waste of time as the articles are all deleted. I have restored the deleted article for now, so that you can use it as a base to work from if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, my next step will be to locate the Wikipedia articles that relate to these pages, many of which are notable organizations. Though I agree that a page of lists is not notable, I think that sometimes lists can bring together information to help lead users to the notable information. SRHMGSLP (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ****ed up? No, fucked up!. Thank you. HurricaneFan25 | talk 18:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I argued for the lifting of this block I have to say that I thought the block itself was good based on what was known at the time. With hindsight the signs were there but I also didn't realise that parental filters could work in that way so I can't blame you for missing them. My main reason for commenting at ANI was that people were making assumptions that he should have known what the problem was when I thought that was far from clear from the notices he was given. Dpmuk (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind help in protecting BRAVE DESTINY

Thanks for your kind help in protecting BRAVE DESTINYImmunonuclear (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite tried to hide the notability of Brave Destiny by his "heavy editing" and then putting it up for deletion. A very clever operation. Although he may be an excellent editor in some cases, I think I read a strong bias in his editing this by calling me "a sycophant of Terrance Lindall." Also, he says I may be "too close to the subject" to be a reliable editor. But if one knows nothing about the subject how can one write an accurate article? It defeats the point of wikipedia, which overall is a fine thing. Besides, It had a major article in Art & Antiques in 2006. A & A was at the time the world's largest magazine of it's kind with many famous writers. And Brave Destiny is mentioned in many excellent ways all over the internet. Also my google web-site [1]was attacked last night after I mentioned it's existence to surrealists on the talk page of surrealism, which mention was immediately deleted by RepublicanJacobite. This RJ editor is indeed a vandal. Again thanks!Immunonuclear (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IBM product pages

Hi James, The page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Communication_Service_Enablers_(ICSE) - was deleted earlier. I have re-written the ICSE page in Sandbox - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiuser164/sandbox. Could you please check if this is fine for posting on Wikipedia? I based this on other similar pages like IBM WebSphere - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_WebSphere. Do let me know if there are issues. Wikiuser164 (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: the above was posted on my talk page. It's evidently meant for you, so I have copied it across, but I also gave him my answer - see User talk:JohnCD#IBM product pages. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The thing that strikes me at once is doubt as to the notability of the product. I'm sure that to IBM it's important, but is it significant enough to the world at large to justify an article in an encyclopaedia just about that product? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I write a lot of tech things in r/l ... Websphere=notable, zOS=notable, ICSE=? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Even the Websphere article reads like a product catalogue entry, just a list of features, no comment, no non-IBM references. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No kidding. I'll put it on my "to-do-when-I-actually-have-a-free-hour-or-two" list. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Help

Um, James, I just wanted to know, where can you report users who are making attacks on other editors? Abhijay (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You normally start at WP:WQA, or if it's really bad, WP:ANI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

User:LegandofThor2

Hi - I see that you deleted 2011-12 Youth Premier League; the editor has now re-created it with much the same nonsense. Can you delete this again? Thanks. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

99.70.66.43‎‎

Why did you block 99.70.66.43‎‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) immediately after my 3RR warning? There were no edits after the warning. causa sui (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the editor was evading a block, and because the editor has had more than enough warnings on various IP talk pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Where? I've been asking in various places for the history, and mostly what I see is an IP in a content dispute with a registered editor, where both are edit warring, but the IP is getting railroaded because he's a newbie. causa sui (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be right. Unfortunately I have to go offline now, and don't have time to check. Feel free to undo my block if you think that's right. I'll look at it again tomorrow. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Eh. After seeing this, I'm inclined to call it a day as well. causa sui (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot get a valid user name, because RepublicanJacobite keeps getting people to block me. Due to my service provider, I get a new IP address every time I log in, so that is why my IP changes, and I am not socking. RJ continues to UNDO every change I make. He threatens to undo all my edits "til Doomsday." Although I add nothing but facts to the Ordinary People plot page, RJ calls my edits silly. Just above he calls it "crap." When he is chastised by other editors for engaging in an obvious edit war with me, he changes his tune to falsely naive: "oh, sorry. I shouldn't have done that." Of course he shouldn't. He has been warned to stop accusing well-intentioned editors of vandalism, but he still does so continuously. When Drmies (correctly) did not take barring action, he went to JamesBWatson instead to get me barred. It is not vandalism to state that Conrad (Ordinary People) cursed at his parents. It is a simple fact. It's among the most explosive scenes in the film. It is not crap. Just because RJ disagrees is not reason for him to disparrage me to his friends across Wikipedia. He cannot start (and continue) multiple edit wars and then say "aw, shucks, I know I shouldn't have, but go ban the other guy and not me." JamesBWatson has allowed RJ to get away with just that, and it is not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.65.183 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


Again, I cannot get a valid user name, because RepublicanJacobite keeps getting people to block me. So I must use anon for now. Due to my service provider, I get a new IP address every time I log in, so that is why my IP changes, and I am not socking. RJ continues to UNDO every change I make. He threatens to undo all my edits "til Doomsday."

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.70.66.43

He writes: "I do not care what that admin. says...every edit you make from here 'til doomsday will be reverted on sight." As you can see, several admins chastised RJ for his vandalising of my edits, and he simply said, in his own words, that he does not care what the admins say and he will continue to vandalize my work.

If you block me for too many reverts within 24 hours, then I accept that. But as other admins have discussed, you must also block RJ for warring, newbie biting, too many reverts, falsely acsusing someone of vandalism, etc. 64.183.42.60 (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


Still awaiting a clarification from you please. RepublicanJacobite continues an edit war with me, including the above citations where he threatens to undo any and all edits I make forever, and where he blatently says he does not care what other admins tell him. He is blatently stating his willful intention to stalk all my edits forever, which we all know is a policy violation. So I would like to know why you blocked me and not him? Thank you for the clarification. 99.61.49.207 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We are again awaiting explanation. You block one party in an edit war (but not the other party). You were asked why you did this and what validation you have. Instead of offering proof, you say "I have to go offline now, and don't have time to check." 99.93.150.57 (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • That was in response to "mostly what I see is an IP in a content dispute with a registered editor, where both are edit warring, but the IP is getting railroaded because he's a newbie", not to your insistent demands that I answer your questions. The editor who asked that question had decided to drop the matter by the time I came back the next day, so there was no need to answer. However, since you have raised the matter again, the most striking difference between the two was that one editor was stalking the other, following that editor to other articles, and reverting their edits, evidently as a kind of childish revenge attack. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sir, no one demanded that you answer anyone's questions. I was, however, respectfully asking about when you arbitrate an edit war...why do you block one of the guilty parties and not the other? You seemed to have answered that by mentioning stalking and reverting, but you imply that I myself was the only one doing so. If RepublicanJacobite does not like my original edit to A Beautiful Mind, then he has the right to revert it. No problem. But how then did RepublicanJacobite even discover that I also made an edit to Ordinary People? Or Fight Club? The only way to discover that is to stalk all my posts, and you know this as well as I. He clearly followed me around Wikipedia and reverted every single thing I wrote. That is the very definition of stalking. You call this behavior childish, so why not block him instead of only me? In addition, he wrote on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.70.66.43 that he intends to further stalk/revert my work till doomsday. It's one thing to revert every single entry an editor makes, but it's even worse when you use a public forum to threaten to do so forever. 99.93.150.57 (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite has been editing Ordinary People at least since April 2010. I can see no evidence that you did so before October 2011. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I edited it in October, yes. He reverted my edit. He then went through my history and reverted all my other edits to numerous other articles. And he continues to do so to this day. I understand he's edited Ordinary People since 2010. If he wants to revert my edit, that is fine. The point is that he looks up ALL my edits, ALL the time, and instantly reverts anything I've edited. If you think I am making that up, then I again refer everyone to the comment he left me on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.70.66.43 He is admitting in his own words that he will stalk my edits til doomsday. If you do not value the case I make for myself, then please value the case that his own words make against himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.150.57 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite has withdrawn from the dispute. I do not believe he will continue to revert your edits. You might wish to consider reading Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to understand why he was reverting your additions in the first place. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mangoes

Hi, I've replaced the potentially copyvio text in Began Phali. Could you have another look over it?

Cheers,

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Brave Destiiny

Here is what RepublicanJacobite posted: (cur | prev) 01:33, 3 November 2011‎ RepublicanJacobite (talk | contribs)‎ (56,769 bytes) (→Thanks for your kind help in protecting BRAVE DESTINY: ---I'm done, let the bastard do what he likes.) (undo)

Are there are wiki policies against such blatant hostility and use of such language on the site?Immunonuclear (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

He also posted this: I'm done. I have removed the article and the AfD from my watchlist. I no longer care what happens with the article. Let Immunonuclear create all the self-promoting bullshit articles he chooses. If I have learned one thing in the past week, it is that there is no reward for effort. It is not worth it. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 01:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My goodness! He uses words like "BULLSHIT"!!!???? And he edits on this site! He is not an objective cool head. Immunonuclear (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proxy unblock requests

Hello James. I've just unblocked user:Caitsith2's IP address. No complaints, but I've seen you respond to a few unblock requests of this type, which are all appreciated, and I just wanted to share some experience as someone who's probably dealt with a few more. In my experience well over half of proxy unblock requests should be unblocked as the IP never was or is no longer open, half of the remainder are using an open proxy unwittingly and should receive our assistance to edit, while much less than a quarter, no less than that even, are knowingly using an open proxy. It is worth remembering when responding that the majority will have no idea what an open proxy is. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Article: ITMA (Internationale Textilmaschinen Ausstellung)

Hi JamesBWatson, my article was deleted by you sometime in October. I've edited the article and would need your help to review if there's any issue with it. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MPIntl/ITMA_%28Internationale_Textilmaschinen_Ausstellung%29 Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you! MPIntl (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Rick Yu

I am wondering why you chose to vandalize the Malvern Collegiate Institute page by deleting a properly sourced and cited point under the notable alumni section. You referred to repeated vandalism, yet how can you know that this is vandalism, simply if you have not heard of the person referenced. Rick Yu may not be known to you, but he is certainly well known in the neighbourhood Wonderbreadtown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.85.66 (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) If Rick Yu is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, then he cannot be listed as "notable alumni" on the article - pretty basic concept here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Extremely dubious edit

In hindsight, it's an easy call - and you're right, I should've indeffed immediately. At the time, I didn't know whether it was some sort of spam/advertising or what. That's part of why I nailed down the unambiguous final/immediate warning, so that he'd get the boot immediately after failing to get the hint. Mea Culpa. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

teabulla

I believe that teabulla should not be deleted since it is a new word and gets its meaning from its component (tea and bulla )that make teabulla and both of them are protective .Bulla necklace in past that protect chilrden from diseases and as of now tea as a drink that help us to have healthy life and can protect our body.So introducing a new word teabulla as a protective tea or holy tea that make people healthy can be meaningful even though it is the name of a teashop ,coffee shop in manila ,phillipines.MANY people want to know the meaning of this new word and i think you should let the people to know the idea behind making that word so people can connect with that word and feel it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.245.65 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. It's not a place for newly made-up words (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Iadrian yu (banned user: Iaaasi from an other internet connection)

user:Iadrian yu is very often participated in edit warrings and as you can see in the history of his contribs: When he tried to monopolise Wiki articles, he have never cared even about the basic three revert rule too. However, he didn't get any warnings and blocks (Is it Double standard?) --84.0.114.45 (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why there is a big silence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.90.197 (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Everton Dasent's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Everton Dasent (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How to edit.

Okay, I am sorry for causing vandalism as you claim it. But I am sincerely wanted to make a contribution . I wanted to edit the page RMLNLU, as it is the college I am currently studying in. This site. http://www.legallyindia.com/wiki/RMLNLU_Lucknow also talks about the same college and theerfor I just copied the entire page and pasted it on the wiki page and I was accused of vandalism. I have no clue how wiki works but please Incorporate these things on the RMLNLU page and remove the vandalism . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.237.34 (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Enphase Energy deleted

i have cut the text from another article because that text was about the company, this text has been there for a long time with no deletion, since there are thousands of articles about companies i dont see the case for deletion, one can discuss the wikipedia rules, but one thing is for sure whatever they maybe they should be applied to all pages with fairness, therefore based on thousands of precedents i would request that the page would be undeleted. thank you!Labbratt (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the fact that there are thousands of other articles about companies. If you mean that there are thousands of articles which are written as advertisements, then unfortunately you are right. They are deleted when they are brought to administrators' attention, but with well over three million articles on English Wikipedia alone it is not possible for anyone to check them all. You may like to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence of a lot of bad articles is not a reason for keeping other bad articles too. I am not at all sure what you mean by "i have cut the text from another article because that text was about the company, this text has been there for a long time with no deletion". If you mean that you copied the text from another Wikipedia article without attribution, then that would be an infringement of copyright of the author of the content, as Wikipedia's licensing terms require attribution for any reuse, and that would be another reason for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I have now searched, and found that you did indeed copy the material from Solar micro-inverter. Apart from the attribution issue, having two copies of the same material in two different articles is usually unhelpful for a number of reasons, including the difficulty of keeping corrections, updates, etc, coordinated. An article which duplicates part of another article is liable to be deleted under speedy deletion criterion A10 (an article that duplicates an existing topic). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Than you for the reply, careful checking of the matter would have saved u some lines, i didnt duplicate any content, i have cut from one page where it was not appropriate and created a topic related page. since this page was deleted literally seconds after creation, a good guess can be that the question was not it was a bad page, but instead some auto-system that enables willing participants to act instantly (this page was deleted before), this overdrive is probably also the cause for no justification on what made this page invalid. if u are willing to clean up wikipedia we can go over thousands of company pages and compare with this one, but it would be quite a slash, so maybe its more reasonable to have another look to this page and give it a try, on my end i will try to improve it to better fit the rules instead of cutting it by the root i believe its more constructive.Labbratt (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted "literally seconds after creation": to be precise, 28 minutes after creation. Anyway, the fact remains that the article was deleted because it looked like advertising. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

NicePeter

Hello Mr. JamesBWatson! I just noticed that you flagged Nice Peter's page for deletion, and I just want to ask you to Undo it.... I know the page it's not all tha complete yet, but it has like 10 days up and me and a bunch of friends are setting up a nicepeter fan page called www.welovenicepeter.com so we can gather all the nice peter fans. I've already asked some friends to help me improve the page so it's better, around these days they'll come and help me complete it... So please, unflag the page so we can fully complete and correct it... Again, I can't do it by myself because I'm not english speaker as you might notice... But my friends are coming to save the page... Thanks for taking your time with this message. Edit1: I'm sorry, I'm new on Wikipedia, so I didn't know that I was supposed to reply or give a reason for UNDO the PROD... I'm really sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuakoHawk (talk • contribs) 06:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

JuakoHawk (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't have to give a reason for removing the PROD, but it does help to do so, as it lets other people know why you think it is worth keeping. However, Wikipedia is not a place for fan pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright+Promotion

Dear JamesBWatson,

First of all, I would like to mention that I'm new to wikipedia as an editor and I would like to learn more and do it better. On the other hand, I've been a long time user, promoter and donor of Wikipedia.

I would like to learn more from your experience and perspective, since you have deleted a page that I've created.

If you could kindly answer my three questions, you'll be helping me a lot:

My two questions for Copyright (Your regarding note is also quoted below) - Does any simple statement regarding a living person is an issue of copyright? Should I simply change the order or the selection of words from any biography? - I know the owner of the CitizensofCulture page and made him remove his short resume from his page, so since it's not there and it's about someones professional life, can it be an issue for copyright?

I have seen your post to Talk:Eray AKDAG, in which you said "This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the mentioned parts were already deleted from the citizens of culture web page". However, copyright does not lapse because the material in which it subsists is no longer on public display. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My question for Promotion (Your regarding note is also quoted below) - Which areas seem to be promotional to you, I would like to delete the related parts next time. On these information were gathered from a formal bio at an embassy and various formal pages.

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much in advance.

Best Regards,

Erkandagdelen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkandagdelen (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  1. If you basically copy something and change the words a bit then you are on dodgy ground as far as copyright is concerned. Legally, if what you write is essentially copied from someone else's work it is a copyright infringement, even if the wording is not identical. There is no magic formula to say how different the wording has to be to avoid a charge of copyright infringement, but broadly speaking if it is similar enough that a reasonable person comparing the two would think that one version is a modified copy of the other then it is likely to be a copyright infringement.
  2. The fact that a particular text has been removed from public display does not alter the copyright status of that text. Once it has been written, copyright subsists in the text.
  3. I can't really pick out "which areas seem to be promotional", because it was really a matter of the tone and character of the article as a whole, rather than specific parts of it. However, I will quote you one illustrative sentence: "TUSIAD, in conformity with the universal principles of business ethics, supports independent research and policy discussions on important social and economic issues in Turkey and abroad". That is the sort of language that a business or organisation uses in its own material, to impress us with how good it is: it is not the sort of language that third parties use in giving independent objective accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Canned Yams

As i was editing my bio for my account i noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have Canned Yams. After the deletion of Alan McCurdy i have been looking for something to do with my life. Would Canned Yams be qualified for a proper Wikipedia page? For reference i cite Sliced Bread, Canned coffee, and the famous Canned Heat. Thank you,(EaglesX63 (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

personally I wouldn't spend my time writing an article on canned coffee or canned yams, but then my approach is to write articles only when I find a subject which seems to deserve one, rather than looking for subjects to write articles on, so my perspective will be very different from yours. I neither know nor much care about how notable canned yams are: my guess is not very, but you can try writing an article on it if you like, and see if it stays. I can only assume that your reference to "Canned Heat" is a joke of some sort. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

user:Zupfk

Hi, I would like to request some help. You blocked this user [2] with the comment "Block evasion and persistent copyright infringements". Do you remember by any chance which block was he evading? Was he user:Iaaasi under yet another alias or a completely unrelated editor? Hobartimus (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, sorry I didn't respond to this earlier. The block was 11 months ago, and I don't remember the circumstances. However, looking back at the history now, it looks very much to me as though it probably was Iaaasi. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Stubes99 aka 84.2?

Hi James, could you have a look at what's going on at Talk:Black Army of Hungary? I don't know if I'm handling this well at all... Cheers and TIA. - DVdm (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you took care of it. Thanks, cheers and night. - DVdm (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Gailsedotes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User talk:96.48.134.74

In the past you have warned anonymous user from 96.48.134.74 about uploading copyrighted advertising material into WP. Well it happened again. I do not know how to block users but invite you to check out the Volkswagen New Beetle page's history.

Peace, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal for deletion of "Andrea Monti (lawyer)" page

Dear JamesBWatson, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Many (most) of the quoted sources in this page come from Wikipedia Italia where have been found to be compliant with its standards, and the facts cited are - IMHO - of some interest for an English-speaking reader since they represent a "bridge" between Italy and the US. To help me understand your opinion, could you please elaborate your point? I would be really grateful if you could answer the question I've asked in the talk page, after its creation: "Hello All, I understand that, strictly speaking, this page might look as an autobiography, although I tried to be as neutral as possible. If I've failed to meet Wikipedia's standards, could I ask for help to fix what has been written contrary to Wikipedia's rules? Best Regards. Andreamonti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreamonti (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have given my reasons at greater length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Monti (lawyer). However, I will just mention a couple of points that I have not mentioned there, but which relate to your message here.
  1. Our inclusion criteria are to do with a subject's having received a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources, not to do with anyone's judgement as to what is "of some interest".
  2. What other articles exist in Wikipedia is of little relevance. See WP:OTHERSTUFF fir one reason why. In addition, Italian Wikipedia may or may not have different inclusion criteria than English Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Street Art

Hello,

My name is John (Herezjonny2000). I live in Okinawa, Japan and am doing a project for my class called edit Wikipedia to help improve the site in an attempt to create a Wkik that will be able to be used as a college level reference. You deleted the begining of my work. Do I need your permission or something to post on this site, as this is my first time posting here. I am not some kind of bot or advertising software and will be posting the most accurate data I can find on the subject including interviews with japanese street artisit. How can I avoid having my works deleted? I don't want to write an entire paper then have it gone the next day due to an administrator error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herezjonny2000 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your teacher should check school and university projects .. and nothing on Wikipedia will ever be usable as a college-level reference :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi JamesBWatson,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Havengore

In response to a report at WP:ANI, I've removed talk page access from Havengore, who has been refactoring others' comments on his/her talk page while blocked. Since you've been conversing with Havengore since the original block was levied, I'd like to suggest that you restore the talk page access if you believe it warranted, without bothering to ask me. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Restore Capponi Construction Group

I am newer to writing Wikipedia articles and this article discusses a well know construction company in the Miami area. We are also writing about Michael Capponni who is well know and we added this article because the Michael Capponi article stated it was an orphan, so we were looking at adding multiple relevant articles that would be useful. I apologize if it seems like and advertisment and will do so more subjectively, we did not mean to write this like advertisements and actually have more content to add but we were working on the article in detail. We probably published it too quickly so for that we apologize. If you could at least put the article back into draft mode so we can edit this that would be great thanks. Cometcomputing (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Benallanacs

There was an block on the IP from the indeffed (company name) account. I've altered it now. Peridon (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what to do next

James, I don't know what to do with this editor 135.196.5.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See my most recent message on his talk page. Now I have reverted another bad source. Do these anons actually see that they have talk page messages? - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been no edits since you posted that message, so I don't think there is any need to do anything now. However, if the problem comes back please feel welcome to contact me again, and I'll reconsider. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

COI account

Hi. I noticed your postings on User:Shrikantbhalerao101's talk page. Considering the persistent repostings of deleted article and removal of prods and the various warnings given to him, I'd say that a block would be appropriate. --Soman (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think when I posted my warning it was borderline for blocking, and although I preferred to give one more warning, I would not have criticised any administrator who blocked at that point. However, the situation now is that the person has been given a final warning, and has not edited since then, which was two days ago. I don't think any useful purpose would be served by a block now. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of a page from article:Scientific plagiarism in India

This article "Scientific plagiarism in India" comprises of false information about Dr.Gopal Kundu. He is a very well known scientist of Pune,India. Please remove the information about this person. Because it hampers his reputation. You can check "www.nccs.res.in/gck.html" which is a reliable official government body website. The article "Scientific plagiarism in India" refers to unreliable unauthorized sources.I again kindly request you to take off the information about Dr.Gopal Kundu from this article. i.e. delete the page:Gopal Kundu controversy.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is, for example, the Kolkata Telegraph an unreliable source? The web page you link to does not, as far as I can see, mention this issue, so I fail to see its relevance. The article seems to me to give a very balanced coverage, mentioning the accusation, and also mentioning the fact that some people have concluded that the accusation is unjustified. You say that the article contains "false information": which part of the information is false? Is it false that the accusation was made? Is it false that an internal committee of the NCCS advised the authors to take back their paper? Is it false that a committee led by G. Padmanabhan concluded that there was no manipulation in the data? Or what? If you can indicate specifically what statements in the article are false, and provide reasons for believing that they are false, then those statements can be removed. I am perfectly willing to believe that some details of the account lack reliable sources and should be removed, but the essential points made, including that the accusation was made and that there has been disagreement as to whether they are justified, seem to me to be supported by reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's obviously no language barrier (referring to this conversation). This user removed an AfD template. I figured I would report it here instead of AIV. OlYeller21Talktome 12:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

India Education programme

Have you seen the Signpost article? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I hadn't. Thanks very much. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Undisputed Champion

James, could you by chance answer my RPP request on this page - the IP has hopped again. Calabe1992 15:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 15:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 15:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Inspectortr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Not that I can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It was down at the bottom: "Thank you for your understanding. I hope the unblock is not an issue of chances, but an issue of rules, which I shall sincerely obey including the posts on editor's talk pages. Best regards..." Calabe1992 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen it now, thanks. inspectortr posted the "talkback" before actually writing the message on their talk page, and when I first looked it wasn't there yet. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

EPM Live deletion on comparison of project management software and time tracking software

Hi James, I noticed that you deleted my articles in both tools stating there were not enough notable sources but I ensured that I included as many notable sources as several other softwares in the tool as well as the same kind of notable sources. Can you provide guidance as to what I need to do to do it right. I use these tools frequently as well as send many other users to these pages so I'd like to add a few more software tools in the list that deserve to be there. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcrayner (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I normally answer messages on the page where they appear, this time I have replied at User talk:Hcrayner. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing Message

Hello, JamesBWatson! Just to let you know I have listed your name here as you have fought the edits of this long-term vandal admirably. This editor has been very recently active and shifting IPs even more unpredictably. Please feel free to add any appropriate evidence to the report and please add it to your watchlist as well, as this draft will certainly be the basis for a LTA entry in the future. Thank you! Doc talk 04:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Last admin there, so to you.

Hello, I am pointing this out to you so it doesn't get left for too long and because you were the last admin at the "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism" page.
The note is on the talkpage.
Thanks. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no sign of anyone acting like bullies. I see only a couple of editors patiently making attempts to another editor who seems to persistently miss the point of what they are saying. Copied from User talk:24.79.40.48 by anon editor at 24.79.40.48.

More specifically, their initial tactic of deleting the topic heading, deleting the chart, and then deleting the entire topic and comments... what sort of incivility does that fall under I am wondering? And to be clearer, I'm talking about before it even became a discussion they started deleting. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? Are you saying that it is unacceptable for one editor to see something wrong in an article and remove it, and another then to see something else wrong and remove it? If so, why? If not, then what do you mean? Why is this a "tactic"? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You missed it because you assumed incorrectly that I was talking about the article, I mean the deletion of the topic heading, chart, and the beginnings of a discussion on the talkpage only, that's what I am calling uncivil. Almost bullying. So I mean the talkpage "tactic." 24.79.40.48 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of a page from article:Scientific plagiarism in India

Hello,

The page "Gopal Kundu Controvesy" of article "Scientific plagiarism in India" contains invalid information about him and the controversy, He is a former scientist who has registered patents and works at National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune, India. The page also refers to unofficial invalid sources. I request you to check official website of NCCS,Pune,India which is a Indian government body. the URL is www.nccs.res.in/gck.html. Please consider this request because it affects his reputation.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what I can add to what I have already said about this. Exactly what information is "invalid"? If you can specify then it will be possible to look at the evidence, and consider whether to remove the "invalid" information. However, it is clear that the essential outline of the controversy is supported by reliable sources. You say that the article refers to "unofficial invalid sources". I am not sure what you mean by "unofficial". If you mean that we should only accept government sources, or that we should only accept sources that are approved by the subject of the article, then you seriously misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia. Our criterion for acceptance of a source is reliability, not "officialness". If we were to restrict ourselves to officially approved sources then we would impose a considerable bias. I have previously asked you why you do not regard the Kolkata Telegraph as a reliable source, but you have not answered. You repeatedly refer to www.nccs.res.in/gck.html but, as I have pointed out before, that appears to be completely irrelevant, since, as far as I can see, it makes no mention at all of the controversy. If it mentioned the controversy but said things about it that were inconsistent with the account given in the article, then there would certainly be a case for adding mention of that site's version to what is already there. However, since it does not make any mention of the controversy, I frankly fail to see the relevance. A further point is that the page you refer to is on the web site of an organisation that Gopal Kundu works for, so that it is unlikely to be an impartial or unbiased source. You say "Please consider this request because it affects his reputation", and that seems to be the crux of the matter. Your editing has been solely concerned with promoting his (your?) reputation. Wikipedia does not exist in order to host encomiums. The page at www.nccs.res.in/gck.html to which you refer is clearly written by or on behalf of Gopal Kundu, in order to show him in the light in which he and his employers wish to show him. You do not seem to have fully grasped the point that Wikipedia has a very different function, namely to present an independent, third party account, including both positive and negative aspects. If you thought, when you first wrote an article on Gopal Kundu, that Wikipedia was a free web host which would host a promotional article on behalf of him (you?), and that you could control the content of the article so that it would show only those aspects that you wished to publicise, then unfortunately you misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia.
I have spent some time trying to clarify this, since you do not seem to have grasped the point of my earlier attempts. I hope I have succeeded. In a nutshell, the points are: simply saying that there is "invalid" content, without explaining what content is "invalid" and why, is not helpful; simply saying that sources are "unofficial" does not invalidate them; Wikipedia does not exist to promulgate an "official" or "approved" version of a subject, but covers all sides, positive negative and neutral. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You overdid it there mate =) ResMar 00:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Media deletion dropdown

When I try to delete File:ChinaGamesCauldron011.jpg, I see a reasons dropdown list which includes all the F.. reasons. When I deleted File:Xianlimphoto.jpg, I did not see the F.. reasons. What is the difference - possibly that the latter was a description page with no image? And can the latter case be fixed since F2 applies specifically to this case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is, as you suggest, because the one was a description page with no image, the image itself being on commons. As for your second question, I guess you mean fixing the fact that the F reasons don't appear. I don't know how mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions determines which reasons to display. It might be easy enough to figure it out by looking at the code, or a better approach might be to ask at mw:Help talk:Extension:ParserFunctions. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback from SRHMGSLP

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at SRHMGSLP's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
See. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


Talkback from Kobaash

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Kobaash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

sorry, could see no way of creating new edit.23:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Jorgenev block

James, with respect to your block of Jorgenev, which I am presuming were for edits to the The Daily Dot article; if you look at the sources in the article, it's incontrovertible that the speedy deletion tags were groundless, and while creators are generally discouraged from removing tags, he did invoke IAR in doing what was clearly the best thing for the encyclopaedia. I respectfully ask you to re-examine the case. Regards, Skomorokh 12:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would probably not have blocked for this incident alone, but the editor's history of doing the same thing on other articles puts the matter in a different light. Also, was it "clearly the best thing for the encyclopaedia"? Why was it clearly better than explaining the reasons on the talk page? Nevertheless, I have decided on reflection that a much shorter block is sufficient. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that the IAR rationale loses its lustre on repeat incidences. Not to excuse the editing, but where speedy deletion is concerned, an article is liable to be vanished in seconds, and speaking from experience, spending time expanding it to show – what the creator feels they know to be true – that it is worthy is a lot more compelling than having to get into a discussion that might go unnoticed by a patrolling admin over what seems like a clear misunderstanding. I do appreciate your reconsideration of the block, and hopefully this will be sufficient to deter future problems with the editor's contributions. Cheers, Skomorokh 12:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

name changes

Hi James. Username stuff is not my domain, but I notice that user:Arjunmangol has moved his user page and talk page to User:Écrivain, which means effectively, that any one clicking on that new name anywhere gets a 'user doesn't exist' response. I'm not sure this is the way user names should be changed - I was under the impression that it had to be here and effected by a crat so that all the software tweaks accompany the change. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly not acceptable, as it creates a user page and user talk page for a nonexistent user account, which could cause various problems. I will give the user a message about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done and pages moved back, pending username change. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
*Sigh* Username change requested. Écrivain (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi James Thank You--Havengore (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem with article: Scientific plagiarism in India

Hi James!! I understood what you mean sorry for delayed response, please refer following URLs, which clearly says, Dr.Gopal Kundu came out clean from this plagiarism issue and he is not guilty. The URLs are, http://www.pharmainfo.net/vedikag/blog/plagiarism-revealed-case-study http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070306/asp/frontpage/story_7476120.asp http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2007/09/kundu-controversy-research-ethics-and.html http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/04/stories/2007090455330900.htm http://www.indianexpress.com/news/maligned-scientist-gets-clean-chit-from-panel/33608/ http://94.228.39.23/en/science-communication/opinions/we-must-restore-scientific-integrity-in-indian-res.html http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/09/hoodbhoys-letter-to-nature-on-pakistans.html http://www.scidev.www-staging.pixl8-hosting.co.uk/en/science-and-innovation-policy/intellectual-property/opinions/we-must-restore-scientific-integrity-in-indian-res.html

This comprises of newspaper URLs from Telegraph India, Indian express, The Hindu, hope this is enough to clarify that Dr Gopal Kundu was accused but, he came out clean. Since, it was a malicious email sent by his student and he is not guilty. So, by invalid I mean he is not guilty, and he was never barred from doing anything later and this article is using references from sources which says he was accused but the verdict by committee is in favour of Dr Gopal Kundu. So, I again request you to delete this page " Gopal Kundu cntroversy" from article "Scientific plagiarism in India". And the URL www.nccs.res.in/gck.html which I earlier referred to is from the same organization NCCS which is mentioned here in all the references. It's a goverement body and they still allow him to work there.

Thanks Shrikant101 116.75.2.98 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have had a quick look at the sources you have cited, and it does look as though you may be right. I have removed the section form the article for now, and when I get time (probably in two days) I will check the sources more thoroughly. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made a fuller response at Talk:Scientific plagiarism in India#Gopal Kundu. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Reappearance of George Dance

I noticed the reappearance of George Dance here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Another opinion required

Hi James. As an uninvolved admin with a keen sense of judgement, if you have a moment please consider reviewing this situation. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the user has not made any troublesome edits since this undertaking to be "more selective", I would leave it for now, with the option of reconsidering if the trouble continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The need to clarify something

Coming back to edit under a new username isn't exactly disallowed, but it tends to raise questions as to why it is being done, and whether the intentions are honourable or not, especially if the person in question has not made it clear that it is the same person. Editing with the purpose of pushing a point of view (whether civilly or not) and giving undue weight are of course unacceptable, whether the user has changed username or not. If using a new user account is done to hide the nature of what is being done, or to avoid possible sanctions that the first account has been warned for, or for other dishonest purposes, then that would certainly be unacceptable. I have had a quick glance at Fantasy666's contributions to Singapore, but I'm afraid I have little time available now, and there is far too much there for me to be able to check through it all and see whether there are legitimate grounds to object to the edits. Unfortunately civil point of view pushing can be difficult to get action on, because if you try to raise the matter with others, say for example at an administrator's noticeboard, it can look to someone without experience of the editor involved like perfectly acceptable editing. Unfortunately such noticeboards attract a lot of comments from people who look only superficially, and come to conclusions without having looked into the matter thoroughly. (That is, in fact, a large part of the reason why I usually avoid such boards.) That doesn't mean that you shouldn't raise such an issue there, but it does mean that you will have little chance of success unless you present a really thorough case, making it quite clear that there really is a problem. If you think there are good reasons to believe an editor is using a second account with dishonest purposes then you could start a sockpuppet investigation. However, for action to be taken you do need to show that there are good reasons for suspecting that the use of multiple accounts was done for unacceptable purposes. If you like, you can assemble a few diffs to show me what you think the problem is, and I'll have a look and see what I make of them. However, I will not have a chance to look at them at all for a few days, and even after that I make no promise to take any active part: only to look at them. If you do choose to do that then please make it a few diffs, as I don't wish to spend a huge amount of time searching through them. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks for clarifying the facts for me. Maybe it'd be better if I get another editor to comment on this, as we both share the same opinion that they are the same person and that the edits are similar enough to warrant our closer scrutiny. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking of opening an investigation. Same problem with overlinking, same style (noticeably having the same preference for a tiny two line paragraph at the end of foreign relations, splitting of every language in the language section, listcruft of channels in Singapore for example), similar soapiness ("Singapore is a very diverse and young country"). I haven't diffed yet, as I can't be bothered to trawl through the huge number of edits that are there. They've managed to singlehandedly increase the article size by about 25% (by adding 25kb of stuff), and I can't deny being tempted to just roll back to a pre-Fantasy version. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I tried to trawl through Smilingfrogs horribly bad edit summaries (like Fantasy, they somehow always remove the automatic section name in the edit summary and just have a boilerplate "added ..." if anything, although the first person "I" Smilingfrog had a lot of has been largely cut down), found a couple of things. Fantasy separating Tamil, Smiling separating Tamil (not the best example probably, but it's there). This is better, same making-the-government-nicer, Fantasy edits to Media, Smiling edit to Media. Note the removal of mention of freedom of the press. Here's Smiling doing it again, and also note the addition of the Starhub etc., which you can see in Fantasy's media edit. Similarity in point of "Starhub Cable Vision (SCV) also offers cable television with channels from all around the world" and "Starhub TV, and one IPTV operator, mio TV. They offer hundreds of international channels for viewing" there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The two surprises are blocked, for the moment I blocked Sock Uno for a week pending a second opinion on how loud the quacking is. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Enphase Energy deleted

can you tell me exactly which looked like advertising (of course comparing to other company's wikipage)?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labbratt (talk • contribs) 04:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The whole tone of the article was promotional. It was written in the manner and style of a page intended to impress us with how exciting the subject is, rather than in the detached, objective tone of an encyclopaedia article. I can quote particular sentences, but it's not really a question of specific details, but rather a question of the overall tone of the whole thing. As for comparisons with articles about other companies, I could give a whole string of examples that are not written in promotional terms. I could also, if were willing to spend time searching, find many others which are written in equally promotional terms, but that would be totally irrelevant: you may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you are not already acquainted with it. However, since you ask, I will give you one comparison with one other article about a company. The article IBM starts "International Business Machines Corporation or IBM is an American multinational technology and consulting corporation headquartered in Armonk, New York, United States. IBM manufactures and sells computer hardware and software, and it offers infrastructure, hosting and consulting services in areas ranging from mainframe computers to nanotechnology." That is plain prosaic factual reporting. The article you have asked about begins "In the aftermath of the 2001 Telecoms crash, Martin Fornage of Cerent Corporation was looking for new projects. When he saw the low performance of the string inverter for the solar array on his ranch, he found the project he was looking for." That is not plain prosaic factual reporting, but rather an attempt to instil us with a sense of dynamism, perhaps even excitement, about someone embarking on a striking undertaking. Trying to make us think that a subject is exciting and great is promotion of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

EU Propaganda‎

Hi, many thanks for the deletion of EU Propaganda. Would you consider also closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EU Propaganda‎ which was running. I started the AfD but was not aware of the previous AfD on the same article at a different title. Many thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fleetham is back at it again

  1. Master: Fleetham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (NOTE: BLOCKED thrice for edit-warring and once for socking.)
  2. Sock: Vitorreid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (NOTE: Newly created account, after Fleetham's block expiration.)
What's the evidence of sockpuppetry? At a quick look I can see no connection, except that Vitorreid restored one deleted edit of Fleetham's, which could easily be another person who agrees with it. Is there more evidence that I've missed? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Like stalking my edits? This came soon after the creation of the new account and my recent changes to them articles (especially after I correct his nonsense on the APEC article), same pattern of one-liner non-descriptive edit summary as Fleetham. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Now you have pointed me in the right direction I can see it clearly. Sock indef blocked, master blocked for 3 months. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. Jasonterrycombs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Rootingbeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Samoanqueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Manroefese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • FYI, new socks/trolls detected... still cherry-picking on my edits on those article pages in her/his contribution history. Seriously, do you think we should open up another SPI for this nonsense of his to catch them sleepers? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • SPI results are in. Fleetham is not connected to this batch of socks, but they (the socks) are connected to each other. I concur with the CU that Fleetham should be unblocked, but I'll leave the final judgement to you JBW. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Wow! Really interesting CU results... actually, I was having second thoughts about Fleetham at first but due to that few overlapping article edits, I was lead on to believe that Fleetham might be behind all this. Good catch, BR! Way to go! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Sometimes geese can quack, it seems! Of course, this means we need to keep an eye out for this new rock-em sock-em chap now... - The Bushranger One ping only 10:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry.. I just want to write new development/invention article which someone (in public) may need it? I didn't know if it not suitable for wikipedia. Is wiki have another site to do such this thing? Sorry for inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.224.10 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Hassanhn5's talk page.
Message added 16:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent action

Your block of this user came to my attention since I am watching his talk page. Your action seems appropriate, and the only question in my mind is whether it should be indefinite. The guy is a specialist in an area we would like to improve, he seems to have some knowledge and can write article prose, but his POV is overwhelming and he can't negotiate. What is there that we can work with? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor's perspective is purely "promote my point of view and attack anyone who gets in the way of doing so." I think that they are heading for an indef block sooner or later, and I would not oppose anyone who went ahead with one now, even though I chose to give another chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV issue

See AIV. Sdruva's report was not intentionally generated - for some reason Huggle decided to report instead of warn. Apologies if any other bad reports come up. Calabe1992 20:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Huggle does sometimes do strange things for no evident reason. Thanks for explaining. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV

There's a backlog at AIV. Clear it up by blocking some vandals.--1966batfan (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting edits from history

Hi JamesBWatson. I am Mar4d and this is my alternate account. Recently, I edited the article Pakistanis in Afghanistan and accidently made an edit from my IP address, while being logged out. I was wondering, is there anyway to permanently remove that IP from appearing in the history? The problem is, I have been engaged in a content dispute with another editor, User:NorthernPashtun (talk), who happens to be a famous POV-pushing warrior and sockmaster of heaps of accounts and has a habit of stalking and knowing too much about people who edit Wikipedia with which he has disputes with. He can just go to the page history and see my unlogged edit. For privacy reasons and to maintain anonymity, I would not like to disclose my current location, which has unfortunately become possible through my IP edit. Is there any possible way that you can help me? Thanks, Drspaz (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I happened to see your request to JamesB and I used revdel so that your IP is not visible in the history. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Drspaz (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ian Streeter

JamesB, did you mean to *accept* his request for unblock? The text of your answer suggests you are not granting it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks for correcting it for me. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about sockpuppetry

Thanks for fielding my unblock request last month. Can I ask a question?

While I've edited only from this account since getting unblocked, a few of those edits have been to pages that I edited anonymously while blocked. I read WP:SOCK which sort of says this is bad, but didn't really say how to handle it in a situation like mine. Is there a guideline somewhere about whether and how to declare when I've edited the same article as both an account and an IP?

Many of the articles I've edited have been largely ignored except by me and my IPs and by SPAs in the employ of the article's subject. Still, should anyone else show up, it is not my intent to "create an illusion of support" for my versions by misleading them about the number of others who have recently edited that page (at least on my side of it, the SPAs never declare their relationship to their employer or to each other). Kilopi (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there's a guideline that addresses this: I certainly can't think of one off hand. It's really up to you. If there are any cases where you have edited both from your account and anonymously in ways that might be perceived as misleading then I suggest putting a note on the talk page of the relevant article. To cover cases which don't seem to be potentially controversial, but you want to avoid any risk of accusations, you could put a note on your user page, saying where you have edited anonymously, if you like. I do understand what you mean about the SPAs' relationship to their employer and to each other. There are editors who get blocked because of fairly minor infractions of policies, and others who, unfortunately, happily get away with editing away in flagrant violation at least of the spirit and often of the letter of policies and guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll stick a note on the respective talkpages claiming some IP edits to Nextpage and Red Letter Days where I basically reverted to myself. I found a few other cases too, but doubt anyone will care about those. Either my edits were too minor to upset anyone, or were separated by several other editors independent from both me and whoever's stuff I reverted. Kilopi (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Solar power

Hi JB, we get a lot of IP vandalism on this article. I think it is mainly school kids who get assignments on this topic. Would you consider semi-protection please? Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help with that. Happy editing! Johnfos (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandals on List of People from El Paso, Texas

Would it be possible to block this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.178.6.103 who is likely the same person as you blocked earlier today? Thank you.Ratemonth (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian Streeter

Judging by your words, I presume you meant to switch to a Decline template at User talk:Ian Streeter? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. See section User talk:Ian Streeter above. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

Thank you so much for unblocking me. Euclidthegreek (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

notability

hi,

thanks for editing "my" article. I wish, though, that you had brought something !! You spend valuable time on wikipedia, lets make it bigger instead of smaller !

I am not in the States, so I do not have much experience with your mainstream media. What would make the film notable? I think it is a hit, considering the amount of illegal downloads and this: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=torrent+Thrive-+What+on+Earth+will+it+take%3F&meta#q=Thrive-+What+on+Earth+will+it+take%3F&hl=en&tbm=vid&source=lnt&tbs=dur:l&sa=X&ei=KvbJTu7NGsiA-wb1vu0z&ved=0CAwQpwUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=53b0ad50e0b5def1&biw=1916&bih=1051

But how could that be brought into the article?

Would you really like to delete it and wait a few years, as with Zeitgeist, the Movie ?

I really need help with this.

--Xiutwel-0003 (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a much used and much valued website, because most of its content is of reasonably good quality. It would be much less valuable if it were open to just anything. Maintaining the quality of Wikipedia's content is at least as important as increasing the quantity. If you want to know what sort of thing is required to establish notability for the subject of a Wikipedia article then I suggest reading the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Article

Hello, you told me that you were considering deleting a page I wrote and I was wondering what exactly else I could add so the article doesn't get deleted? Thanks. LoneWolf1992 (talk) 16:33, 21 November, 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

Contrary to my usual practice, I have answered at LoneWolf1992's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and I will look over it. You're right it has been a bit confusing especially since I want to be helpful but am not sure what is okay and what's not. Thanks again. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Page Faris Basharahil

Hi there. the page is not yet complete. there will be some changes. In Singapore, there was an Creative Apprentice something like donald trump ones. Faris was awarded the sole mentorship of Benson Puah who is CEO of the Esplanade, Chairman of New York Performing Arts as well as current National Arts Council CEO. There will be future additions or people linked to the page. Please advice on direct areas that the page can be improved on rather than delete it completely as you may know im not a 5 year use of wiki just like you are. please assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahanthony (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:2012 American television series endings

I wasn't aware that the category was in a CFD, if that was the case I wouldn't have re-created it. I re-created it to accompany Category:2012 American television series debuts. But I don't see why the category was deleted again (especially now that we are in November), considering 2012 is almost upon us. Perhaps it should go live again closer to the new year. QuasyBoy 22:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello JBW/Archive 34! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Okeyes (WMF) (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 October 2011

Speedy deletion of S&P Syndicate

Hi. You recently deleted S&P Syndicate under CSD A7. However, I believe claims of importance could be inferred from the (stub) article's description of the company as a country-wide restaurant chain which is publicly traded on the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Please consider undeleting. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't regard that as being much of a claim of significance, but I accept that it clearly indicates it is much more than just some back yard business, so I will restore the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
S&P is a huge organisation here in Thailand and abroad. Certainly notable, just needs digging around for sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

SSU

You might be interested in User talk:72.11.253.203. Then again, you might not... Peridon (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very interested. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at DavinciRed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your note. I'm not skilled with wikipedia editing, but yes, this organization is legitimate and professional, as far as I know.Gaspsiagore (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Hello James, Apparently I am being pestered by one user. When I had reverted someone's edit [[3]] because it was not formal, he replied on my talk page and said "ROLLBACK SHOULD ONLY REVERT VANDALISM", and that "YOU ARE ABUSING YOUR POSITION AS ROLLBACK" Is it really that much of a big deal? Please reply about this, because this is coming from a user who I had reported for violating the 3RR rule, and who may possibly be violating WP:PA. Abhijay Let's talk 07:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The message Gunmetal Angel gave you about this said "Rollback is only supposed to be used for vandalism". Quoting it all in capitals gave me the impression that the user was "shouting" at you, being rather aggressive, which turns out was not the case. The guideline on rollback lists a number of suitable uses of rollback, of which vandalism is one, so it is not quite right to say that rollback should be used only for vandalism, though I have very frequently seen that stated as a fact: it seems to be commonly believed to be so. However, having listed a small number of acceptable uses of rollback, that guideline then goes on to say "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning." (My emphasis.) It is clear that in this case you were indeed using rollback to revert a good faith change which you disagreed with, so the user was right to point out that you were misusing rollback. Writing you a perfectly civil message to inform you that the person in question thought you were misusing rollback was not "pestering" you. Even if the user had been mistaken in thinking you were misusing rollback, it would still have been just a good faith mistake, not pestering you. I also see no sign of any personal attack. Politely informing you that someone thinks you have made a mistake, and that doing so could lead to loss of rollback rights, is not an attack. Perhaps the most important thing to come out of this is that you need to remember that rollback is for limited purposes only, and that it should not be used for reverting good-faith changes which you disagree with. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I hate to be THAT guy, Abhijay, but you really should see WP:HOUND. I don't believe it has anything to do with you reporting him for the 3RR rule, or whatever else you did. I've noticed that since you have reported him, you've frequently showed up either on his talk page, or some random page that he edits, to me it seems more like you're the one pestering him, and attempting to provoke him into doing SOMETHING that will let you report him.
That's not the point I'm trying to make though, all I'm suggesting is that you move on and just leave him alone. If he does something to violate wikipedias policy, he'll get caught. You don't have to watch every little edit he makes, and comment on every edit summary he makes that you don't agree with. You leave him alone, and He'll more than likely leave you alone, it's as simple as that. -Jer Hit me up 11:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate your statement Jer, I know what it feels like to be in dispute with another editor because i've felt it today at this very day. Let's just put this dispute resolution to bed for now. I agree, that the things I've said to him, and he's said to me are both equally unfriendly, and that we were both on eggshells when such things broke out. I want to re-assure that i lost my cool when he mentioned something about my rights, and that is totally understandable - When you get angry, you tend to say things you don't usually mean to say. And James, I'm rather sorry as well. Abhijay Let's talk 11:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

PoolWerx and John O'Brien (PoolWerx) Deletion Quey

Hi James,

I am a new user of Wikipedia and have recently created the pages PoolWerx and John O'Brien (PoolWerx), both of which have now been deleted. I had a better look through the advertising guidelines and have seen that the tone of both of the articles were biased. Both the articles has significant outside linking, however they used words such as 'successful' and 'impressive' in areas that made the articles bias.

From my new found understanding of how to post on Wikipedia, is there any way to re-post about these topics with a more factual content base? If you could inform me about the best way of going about re-posting it would be great to ensure we can expand the wikipedia knowledge base.

Regards, Shannon O'Brien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonob90 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Shannonob90. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Loyalists

I agree with the redir (obviously) but why delete the previous content? AFAIK page histories are not routinely deleted when pages are redirected, and I don't recall any copyvio or blpvio stuff that would warrant deletion. → ROUX ₪ 23:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to feel that in a case like this there is no advantage in keeping the history, and all too often sooner or later someone reverts to an old version, contrary to consensus at the deletion discussion, so it may as well be deleted. However, you are right, it is not standard practice, and since you have questioned the deletion I have restored the history. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Monarto Zoo

A new account, CuriousWikian590 (talk · contribs), is reinserting info you had deleted, supposedly from a "block-evading editor". I think they're back. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please give opinion

Please give your opinion on regarding merging some articles at Talk:VIT University.--Alokprasad84 (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I see you blocked Gotfish33. I was going to go through the proper channels to get him blocked for vandalism as that person has been warned before. But now I won't have to. Thanks! Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Gofish33, presumably. No such account as Gotfish33. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sergiu Muth

I'd like to request that you restore this article. Although created by a blocked user, it was written well enough, and it now meets WP:NSPORT as Mr. Muth has appeared twice in Liga I. See 1 for confirmation. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The question "if an article was created by a blocked user is considered to be, apart from that, a perfectly good article, should it be saved from deletion?" has been discussed at some length, and consensus was that it should not. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sayanim

I don't understand why the Sayanim article has been deleted in its English version but is still there in German and French.

Presumably Wikipedia editors believe that the Germans and French are sophisticated enough to read an article on this topic without turning into ranting antisemites, but Americans/Brits are less intelligent.

Daft decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.217 (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about the articles on German and French Wikipedia that you refer to, in fact I have never even looked at them. There are all sorts of possible reasons why they have not been deleted, if, as you imply, that is the case. For example, maybe they are better articles than the English one was. Maybe German and French Wikipedia have more liberal deletion policies than English Wikipedia. Maybe nobody has yet noticed them and nominated them for deletion, but someone soon will. I also took no part in the deletion discussion on English Wikipedia, and have no opinion on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW/Archive_34&oldid=1186976017"