User talk:JBW/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

I am being Ganged

I was editing Zhang Ziyi when 2 users out of no where undo all my edits. 93.62.4.207 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this is a sockpuppet of the blocked User:InkHeart. Ωphois 01:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep on Running

will you please stop keep deleting my edit´s on the topic "Keep on Running"(Jackie Edwards song)and neither keep redirecting it to an irrelevant page on another topic; "Keep on Running" (The Spencer Davis Group song). All I want to do is to put up an article about the song written, recorded and released by above mentioned Jackie Edwards, not an article about the COVER version recorded by SDG, not an article about SDG, not an article about SDG recordings appearing in 80´s movies or anything other than the excact topic as described in the article headline.Your motivation; " dublicating existing article" is sheer nonsense and I will have to delete that article if this prosecution won´t take to an end immediately, this is 6th time around now I´ve had to put up with this sort of arrogant attitude causing meaningless waste of time and energy.15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight714 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 29 July 2010

By all means try to improve the existing article to give more balanced coverage. By all means suggest renaming the article to give it a title which is not restricted to the Spencer Davis Group. However, we do not need two articles on the same song. Also, a word of advice. You will find you more often get co-operation from other editors if you are civil, rather than (for example) accusing others of arrogance. As for "I will have to delete that article", I see that you are not an administrator, so you can't. However, let me know if you want help with moving the article to a more suitable title. I suggest Keep on Running (song). JamesBWatson (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why an article on the topic "Keep on Running" (Jackie Edwards song)wouldn´t stand up to the wikipedia edit criterias regarding that there´s an article already existing about a cover version of the song; "Keep on Running" (The Spencer davis group song) which in it´s headline implies a fraudulent and misleading claim of copyright and creative rights to the work of art by attaching the group name to the song title.Yet I have no problem with the existence of such an article in itself regarding the principle of diversity and notability, but the fact is that if only one article should be allowed (and again I don´t see why..! Two recordings-two Versions -two pieces of art in each their right)-then which would you as a general principle find had acchieved the right more; the original or a cover ? I´ve found numerous examples here on wikipedia on articles of songs being enlisted on the disambiguance pages by their coverage by multiple artists,each of them breaking this codex as you descripe it; only one article per song. A good example could be " Country Boy" (a 1971 song by Tony Colton, Albert Lee and Ray Smith of british band Heads Hands and Feet), an entry that was totally missing untill I wrote an article just to clear up the misleading references to a Ricky Skagg whom did a coverversion in 1985,only to find that some "offended" die-hard fans kept reediting, redirecting and deleting this article because it would make the Ricky Skaggs refernces appear lesser important.The situation now is that someone (presumable the same that deleted my original article)eventually posted another article "Country Boy" (song by Heads Hands and Feet later covered by Ricky Skaggs) and still coexisting alongside two other entries on that Ricky Skagg coverversion, but no article simply titled by the rightfull originators name such as "Country Boy"(Heads Hands and Feet song) without mentioning Ricky Skaggs name - and what do we need the whole Ricky Skagg reference for then ?? Theese cases are completely similar in all aspects, I insist on either a non-tolerance policy as you plete for, or an open diversity-based policy, but in either case we need consequent regulations and not as it is by now a matter of dedicated followers putting up bias tributes disguised as articles and relentlessly keep spamming deletion nominations on material they find uncomfortable to the support of their views.How did this case come to your awareness ? -right! someone nominated it suit for deletion - and they kept doing that, and who and why do you think they did so ?? Alright then, I have no authority to delete anything but I can be provoked into start re-editing and mutate content of existing articles perpetually just like it´s being done to my edits.Will you help taking down any article linking Ricky Skaggs name to the song "Country Boy" and will you help removing The Spencer Davis Group´s name from the article on their recording or will you be supportive to the idea of letting articles covering different versions of same material, as is already the case in likely thousands of cases on wikipedia and from a point of view based on principles of diverity and notability ?? I´d like an answer that shows you´re infact at all occupied with considerations on the whole issue and with a constructive approach on how to deal with theese conspicuous examples of regulation bending in favour of the loudest and more persistant, rather than just pushing buttons mechanically on behalf of delete-nomination spamming trolls. Flight714 (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I should point out that the way Wikipedia works, if when you edit you start a line with one or more spaces it does strange things to the formatting, and both of your recent edits to this page have been illegible until I removed your spaces. Secondly, I usually keep away from most types of articles to do with popular music, precisely because I don't want to have to deal with the kind of impassioned partisan rants that I am now being subjected to. Thirdly, the fact that there are a lot of Wikipedia articles that do totally unhelpful things such as splitting one topic into several articles does not justify doing so again. Have a look at one or both of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:Other stuff exists if you like. In my opinion the best thing to do with this is to have one article about the song which gives the Spencer Davis Group fair coverage, but does not make it the main subject, as it does now, as though it is "their" song, which of course it isn't. I have suggested that you may like to edit the existing article to make it more balanced, and reduce the prominence given to Spencer Davis, and I have offered to help with moving it to a title which does not give prominence to Spencer Davis, if you want that help. That offer still stands, if you wish to take it up. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dele Momodu

A newcomer asked a question about Dele Momodu which you speedy deleted (by restarting the article and asking the question as the body of the article), I moved his question onto his user page here, if you care to answer it. Since I'm not a sysop, I can't see the prior version and thus cannot answer the question directly. This is just a FYI to you, do with it as you like. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have contacted the user on their talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

email has been enabled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olayinkaoyeleye (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

i have enabled the email, kindly send my text, also when you say promoting africa and africans in their grandeur makes an article promotional what then do philantropists do ? Olayinkaoyeleye (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that the fact that the subject of the article is "promoting africa and africans in their grandeur" makes the article promotional. I said that an article full of language like "has publicized the best of Africa by promoting Africa in its glory and Africans in their grandeur" was promotional. Unfortunately at the moment I am unable to get my Wikipedia email to work. I hope the problem will be solved soon. If I haven't emailed you within a couple of days then please contact me again here. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now emailed you a copy of the article as it was immediately before it was deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Damage by son?

my son has donesomething to wikapedia so i cant edit i was at work til 4 this morning as i work for network rail and we had a lot of work please tell me what my son has done and what goes on from here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.2.234 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there are no other edits from this IP address apart from the above message, and you give me no other information, I have no idea. If this is a genuine concern then please give more details. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Opportunity For You

To Whom this May Concern,

I am the representative of a marketing firm in Manhattan. After stumbling upon your Wikipedia profile, I was rather impressed with the amount of effort and dedication you have put toward making edits and contributions to such a plethora of Wikipedia articles. Since you are so knowledgeable about Wikipedia, I was wondering if you would be able to write Wikipedia articles for my company and our clients on a paid consultation basis. If you have any interest in this opportunity, please let me know and I can provide you with my contact information. Thank You.

WestSideNYNY (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am personally 100% behind the Wikipedia policy that it is not used for promotion. There is absolutely no way I would ever edit Wikipedia on behalf of a company or any other organisation. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(No section name)

Added header. dffgd talk·edits

Hi,

I added Twist(software) to the list of test automation tools and I added a link to the Wiki page itself and not to any external page. Why did you remove it?

Thanks! Teresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa.ann.g (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Page Deleted

Hi,

A page I created and hadn't finished (needed a lot of editing) was deleted yesterday on the grounds of advertising. Could you please indicate to me what criteria was followed to delete this yet highly similar pages by other companies and products have absolutely no issue? I don't want to recur to pointing the other companies and products out before the need arises.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadihariri (talk • contribs) 06:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

YouTrack

Hi,

Thank you. Yes, you're 100%, it's probably a new comer question. Yet, it is also a perfectly valid one :). I have no issues whatsoever for something to be deleted if it's wrong or seen as publicity. But I would the decision to be completely impartial and objective. In regard to YouTrack, it is a product that is gaining a lot of interest and JetBrains offers it for free in cooperation with CodeBetter.com and devlicio.us for all OSS Projects, as they do with TeamCity. They also provide free licenses to other OSS projects, Universities and Colleges.

But coming back to the point, I'd like to find out what is wrong with the article so that we can correct it and not make the same mistake again. I very much appreciate your input.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadihariri (talk • contribs) 11:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are, of course, quite right. Even though comparing with other articles is a mistake, it is a natural one. Any intelligent newcomer will of course take articles that already exist as a guide to what is acceptable, and doing so is often useful, but unfortunately it is not a reliable method. To get an indication of what is considered suitable for an article have a look at WP:Notability and WP:RS. Some of the links in the welcome message on your talk page may also be helpful in indicating how to proceed. Unfortunately there are (in my opinion) far too many guidelines and policies, and it is totally unreasonable to expect a new editor to read them all, but those should be some help. If you have any more specific questions about what is needed when you have looked at those please feel welcome to ask me again. I will try either to answer you myself or point you to where you can find relevant information. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

YouTrack

Thanks. I guess my newbie mistake was to also publish the page w/o finishing it entirely. I did however read most of the policies. I'll review them once again and see where I'm making mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadihariri (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A little lenient, isn't it?

This guy was an A7-band promoter and left me an attack message on my user page. Only 24 hours blocked? Really? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the attack: it came after I had checked the user's contributions and while I was preparing the block. I have now increased the block length. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I hope he forgets about WP in a week. If he remembers, somehow I think an indefinite ban is in his future. — Timneu22 · talk 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have also salted the article, which may possibly put him off if he tries to recreate it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if he figures out that you salted the page, "ur a bitch" may end up on this page, too! — Timneu22 · talk 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I will be so upset: I take it so personally when childish vandals are rude to me. I really think it reflects on me, not on them. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

stldesktop.com deletion upon the grounds of "significance"

Hi JamesBWatson, I've left a comment to you concerning the deletion of the stldesktop.com article at my talk page. If you had actually investigated the site you would know that it hosts the best municipal directory for the St. Louis area there is and is therefore VERY significant. I would thank you for wading into the situation, however, your nepotistic/buddy-buddy approach to the Wikipedia contributors responsible for the ungrounded deletion of the page and lack of research into the actual subject in question leaves me wishing that you had not. BryonEvans (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a response on the user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This → this → this → this, with some stuff in-between. :) dffgd talk·edits 02:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I see the vandal was also prevented from even more vandalism by the edit filter. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:74.250.163.167

You may wish to block User talk:74.250.163.167 so it cannot revert you on its talkpage or edit it. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just trying to figure out (after a hotdog break) how come I have that IP on my Watchlist. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:41.234.202.185

Can you block Special:Contributions/41.234.202.185? It's a sock (InkHeart) just undoing edits. oncamera^(t) 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WT:NOT discussion

I was impressed with your common sense comments at Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7#Should secret pages be tolerated based on some assessment of the editor, on his productive edit history and percentage productive edits. and am providing you this notification that a similar discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Straw poll: Should secret pages from productive editors be tolerated? Best, Cunard (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Anon blocking

Hello. Yesterday you blocked Special:Contributions/109.169.0.62 for 72 hours. However, the anon is a sock of the blocked User:InkHeart. She used this anon and Special:Contributions/41.234.202.185 to attack the articles I have recently edited. I would suggest blocking the two indefinitely, as it is merely a proxy. Thanks. Ωphois 06:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

ron ron juice

why was ron ron juice deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockerNR4 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it appeared to do nothing but promote a product. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(presumably) Rameses Casten

First and foremost: IS THAT HOW YOU TREAT FILIPINOS? you must be ashamed. I have been an avid reader of WIKIPEDIA, but I now see the truth: You cannot accept my real facts. Forget it. I'm telling the Filipino people what Wikipedia does to hamper the faith of self-esteem. I do not wish to argue, but it insulted my credibility as the Leader of the Alliance of the People. You insulted me. I would wish my article back, and my honor back. You are trying to be someone, but you dampen the spirits of learners. So, I also wish for a Public Apology. And I will quit being a member of this institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramianus (talk • contribs) 13:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume this refers to the deletion of Rameses Casten. Whether he was a Filipino or not is irrelevant. If you have anything to ask me, please ask civilly, addressing the issue you wish to ask about and not making accusations. If you do so I will try to answer you as best I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

My Apologies. it was just that it was one of the most important sources from my own side. I am truly dishearted with the approach, and I am asking for a full apology. As for the article, we need it back. It seems that the deletion "Insults" the person concerned, and I wish to have it back.

P.s. the document is still undone. judging it will be very nasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramianus (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not say what you want an apology for. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, Just read the article. Notice the ack of infos, it is because i search for more. Ram wants an apology for the deletion (actually, he just got depressed) and as for me, i send my sorrowful news that he is sad with the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramianus (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that "Ram" means Rameses Casten, then if he is so sensitive to unwelcome publicity that the deletion of an article about him leads to depression, then I think it is better for him that there is no article about him. Once an article is there it can be edited by anyone, and I have often seen someone write a promotional article about themselves and then be upset when other people add information that they did not want publicised. As for apologising for the deletion, there is no question of that. The article says its subject is a high school student, and gives no indication of notability, so it was quite right to delete it. You have given no indication of any reason why the deletion should be reversed. If you have a good reason (and "the subject of the article thinks the deletion is insulting" is not one) let me know and I will answer you. Otherwise I suggest you drop the matter, as I intend to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of the reasons is that he had some contributions in the Filipino youth, like as stated in the article. I cannot blame anyone who might not know him, because he is just a common person, not a headliner. But I assure you, that person is authentic, and he did a lot of contributions to everyday lives, including mine. You may research everything (though yes, the internet doesn't know him) in the schools he had attended.

By the way, I noticed a lot of letters. Are they complaints, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramianus (talk • contribs) 12:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of the reasons is that he had some contributions in the Filipino youth, like as stated in the article. I cannot blame anyone who might not know him, because he is just a common person, not a headliner. But I assure you, that person is authentic, and he did a lot of contributions to everyday lives, including mine. You may research everything (though yes, the internet doesn't know him) in the schools he had attended.

By the way, I noticed a lot of letters. Are they complaints, too?

Ramianus (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

James, can you restore the page, or at least send it to me? I'll edit it, because a list of research for Ram has been found on some books.--Ramianus (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Still no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User refuses to discuss

User:Player-23 keeps forcing his additions on the article Lot (Bible), and says that my objections of undue weight amounts to harassment, instead of discussing his changes. Can you tell him that me objecting to his edits is not harassment and that he should discuss the changes? MCSKY (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already expressed my opinion on the article's talk page, and I stand by what I wrote there. At present the article is edit-protected. If edit-warring continues when the protection expires I suppose further action can be taken, including blocking if necessary, but I hope it won't come to that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

my article

why is my article did not accept or approve by wikipedia,here is my article :

Gulf Craft Inc. Gulf Craft is the Middle East’s and Southeast Asia’s largest producer of fibreglass boats and yachts, exporting over 70% of its production to the global market. Founded in the United Arab Emirates in 1982, Gulf Craft today produces vessels ranging from 20 feet runabouts and sport fishing boats up to 135 feet luxury motor yachts distributed over three brands: Majesty Yachts – the flagship line of luxury yachts; Oryx – sporty yachts and cruisers; and Silvercraft –fishing and runabout boats. Gulf Craft’s products reach 50 countries in 4 continents, with an annual production of over 500 boats. The UAE based company also has a manufacturing unit and marine service centre in the Maldives, which is the first Arab investment of its kind in the Asian Marine industry. Gulf Craft has also constructed an ultra-modern facility in Umm Al Quwain dedicated to the production of super yachts. The company is backed by the international quality certification - the ISO 9001:2000 quality standard. It also operates under internationally-set standards including US Coast Guard, CE, RINA (the Italian maritime certification authority), ABS, DNV, LLoyds and Bureau Veritas (the global quality standards organisation) History: Gulf Craft began operations on a small scale in 1982 to produce 15-feet and 19-feet fishing boats to cater to the local market. The company grew into an international manufacturer of top-quality yachts for a global clientele, thus winning customers in the American, Asian as well as European markets. Growth continuous investments in process technology and higher demand have enabled the company to produce bigger vessels as well as continuously increase annual production capacity. Products: - Majesty The Majesty brand – the company’s signature range of super yachts was launched in 2000 with the ‘118 Millennium’ edition. The Majesty yachts series begins with a 44-footer, through a series of size options up to the Majesty 135.

- Oryx

In 2005, the company introduced the Oryx sport cruiser – the sea-borne equivalent of an elite sports car. The Oryx has evolved into a family of high-performance sport yachts and cruisers of different sizes that are exported worldwide.

- Silvercraft The company also produces the Silvercraft series of family and smaller leisure craft, a wide and diverse range of smaller pleasure boats that have been the product range at the origin of Gulf Craft’s fiber glass boatbuilding heritage. This range even extends to ferries and personnel carriers for military applications.

Milestones: Some of company’s key milestones are:

- 10 years of super yacht production in GCC

The company first launched the Majesty 118 Millennium Edition in 2000, and now have delivered a total of 19 super yachts to four continents, each of them built to international classification standards, and to the individual taste and requirements of a discerning clientele. Gulf Craft celebrated its 10th year anniversary of super yacht production in the GCC with the delivery of its second largest vessel to date; the Majesty 125 to her new owner in France in July 2010.

- Collaboration with Icon Yachts

Announced at the Monaco Yacht Show in 2009, Gulf Craft and ICON Yachts BV, have prepared for the transfer of know-how and development of new products to design and manufacture a 53 meter super yacht. Combining Gulf Craft’s 28 years expertise in advanced composite construction methods and ICON Yachts’ proven steel super yacht engineering and construction capability, the companies have collaborated on the construction of a new 53 meter super yacht that will fuse the two manufacturing disciplines. This yacht will incorporate many of the innovations and ideas from ICON’s 62-74 metre series and take the modular construction principles a few steps further. Interestingly, some of the most significant deviations from our traditional production methods find their origin in the processes used in series production of composite yachts. The complete yacht package will be offered in the region for 30 million Euros (Approximately AED 148,946,875). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulfcraftinc (talk • contribs) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You have already been told the reason for the deletion on your talk page. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion or advertising. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DATAVIDEO wiki entry

Can you please explain to me what the difference it between the article that was up on this page and this other one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewTek Why was this datavideo wiki corporation article entry deleted by you sir?

Could you please leave the FACTS of the company? This in fact is a real corporation, compared to those others on the "VISION MIXER" area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_mixer

Scroll all the way down on the vision mixer page and you will see a list of manufactures.

Maybe put a little more attention to everything else in the articles before you delete them since all you wiki nerds seem to be "delete" hungry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.77.194 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Datavideo was deleted because it gave no indication of significance of its subject. Nobody, as far as I know, suggested it was not "a real corporation". Thank you for drawing my attention to NewTek, which also gives no indication of significance of its subject, and will probably be deleted soon. Wikipedia administrators are largely dependent on other editors flagging unsuitable articles, as we cannot check every article ourselves. You may like to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Incidentally, I think you are more likely to find that others co-operate with you if you are civil to them, rather than saying such things as "you wiki nerds". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tim Burton's middle name

Hi JamesBWatson,

maybe you would like to add your opinion at Talk:Tim Burton#William or Walter.

NB: Just for the record:

1. Google hits for "timothy walter burton" -wiki -wikipedia: 11.900
2. Google hits for "timothy william burton" -wiki -wikipedia: 46.300

Nageh (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No speedy

Hi, you declined a G6 speedy for move Miscellaneous_symbols here. I checked earlier that there is no other usage of that title than re Unicode, so I concluded that the short name is unique enough (a concurrent meaning should/could create a new article name, when created). Also, it is a redirect already, which says the same. I cannot see an existing conflicting meaning or usage. Anyway, this was my line of thought. Solved different now, adding "(Unicode block)". After this, I won't contest your declination. btw, could you take a look at a third one waiting, Letterlike symbols? -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no other page with similar title, but it seems to me that it is obvious what "Miscellaneous Symbols Unicode block" refers to, but not obvious that "Miscellaneous Symbols" refers to a Unicode block, so the former seems a much better title. I feel exactly the same about "Letterlike symbols" too. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So I named the target article per WP:DABNAME Letterlike symbols (Unicode block). -DePiep (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

nuclear microscopy vs. nuclear microprobes

Dear JamesBWatson,

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that nuclear microprobes have a lot more applications than only nuclear microscopy, e.g. proton beam writing. The International Conference on Nuclear Microprobe Technology and Applications is a series of conferences organized every two years, just finished in Leipzig, Germany. Proton Beam Writing was one of the main interest of this conference.

There is an International Committee of the conference series, which has decided that we need a wikipedia entry for this field of research. So, I would like to ask you to leave this page, do not delete is, it makes sense scientifically.

Thank you.

Irajta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irajta (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Satisfied customer

Just thought I'd let you know: [1]. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, how nice to see such a constructive and adult level of discussion among Wikipedia editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Blinded by Faith wiki

Hello,

This is most likely a typical newbie question but here it goes:

I had began a wiki page on the band Blinded by Faith and it was sadly deleted on me while still being in the works... I can't spend more than an hour or so a day on it therefore, now that it is deleted, is it possible to retrieve it?

As well, instead of having it posted without it being final/completed and marked for deletion, have it in some form of "working on it for now - don't delete this page please!" mode?

Thank you, -Sk8a Joe (talk)

I have restored the article to User:Sk8ajoe/Blinded by Faith. This is a temporary measure to allow you to work on it until it is ready to be restored as an article, and not a long-term way of avoiding deletion. Nothing I have seen suggests that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if it doesn't then it will not be suitable as an article no matter how much it is rewritten. The most relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. You should also have a look at the guideline on reliable sources. Feel welcome to ask again here if you have any more questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben Rector Page Deletion

I'm curious as to why this page was deleted. I believe that he is a notable artist who has charted on itunes pop charts and billboard, toured with big time names like Five for Fighting, is the #8 selling artist on TuneCore right now, and has been featured on TV shows. He is #8 out of 200,000 artists on TuneCore. I'd appreciate any insight. Thanks!

--Jordancn (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I admit the article was not unambiguously about someone of no significance, but it did not make it totally clear that he was significant, and the references given were either to blogs or to pages which give him only brief mentions. However, since you have questioned the deletion, and since there is some suggestion of significance, I will restore the article. If you want to prevent it from being deleted again try to give a few reliable sources to indicate that he satisfies any of the relevant notability guidelines ( Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (people)). Feel welcome to contact me here again with any further questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Ali Wilson entry?

Why did you delete the Ali Wilson entry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Wilson

Who asks you to play god? Such an ignorant editor...

The page has been up for quite a few years. Yes, in hope that someone would finally edit it and add more information.

But why on earth would you go ahead and delete what little was there?

You bored? Power hungry?

If I were the artist, I would sue you.

You did not have a valid reason for deleting the article.

The reason you gave shows you know little or nothing about Trance Music and its culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.36.9 (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You may or may not be interested to look at the sections User talk:JamesBWatson#Deleted Blinded by Faith wiki and Ben Rector Page Deletion above to see how I respond to editors who make civil queries about deletions I have made. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bibliolis Books

Hi James I'm just wondering why you deleted an article I was working on for you guys? The article was a few sentences long but I was, as I often do, writing the article when I have a chance to do so - contributing to Wikipedia isn't, unfortunately, the main highlight of my day so I need to fit this around other jobs.

I understand you following an editorial policy, that makes a lot of sense, but you need to wait for an article to be written first, to get to a point of critical mass, usually beyond a few sentences, and then make an editorial decision on that; if you need to edit or delete at that point then by all means do so, no ones going to blame you or hold it against you. What you've done is delete the beginnings of an article that amounted to no more than a couple of sentences.

Ive had this problem before - for example an article on Warwick Fairfax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick_Fairfax (by all means check the history page). The article was posted for speedy deletion by somebody who had never heard of Fairfax, yet the briefest and most cursory look on Google, and even a little general knowledge, would have revealed that Fairfax was a substantial figure in some major financial scandals in Australia in the 1980s and was part of a very high profile family that had been publishing for more than a century. Fortunately, a wiser head prevailed and the article was reinstated, only to be added to and built upon by a number of contributors since.

I'd also like to bring to your attention that at the time of the speedy deletion notice for that article, it too, was only a few sentences long.

I thought that the point of Wikipedia was to have the general public make contributions, and then these build up slowly over time to make more complete and more detailed as more and more contributors add to them. This doesn't seem to be the policy any longer, why has it changed? Why are you locking contributors out?

Looking forward to your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.140.133.57 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, for future reference, it helps to indicate what article you are talking about. After a couple of minutes searching I decided that you must be referring to Bibliolis Books. At the time of deletion there were no references at all, and the text of the article consisted of two sentences, neither of which gave any indication that the company was in any way significant. I fully understand your point about it taking time to write an article, and the first version does not necessarily have to be complete. However, if the subject of the article is significant then it should be possible for even the very first version to contain a sentence suggesting that it is significant. If you do not know of anything that you can say to indicate significance then you do not know that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, and you should not be writing an article on the subject until you do know that. My suggestion is that you collect the information you need off wiki, and post it as an article only when you are ready to include an indication of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD outcome

Hi, excuse me I chose you at random as you are online. This AFD outcome Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lex_Coleman was affected by multiple sock puppets, could you userfy it for me so I can have a look at it, with a regard to merging or recreation? Off2riorob (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also thought that it may be more correct to ask the closer of the AFD User talk:Lankiveil so I have also asked the same request from him, as even though it was over a year ago he may still have some memories of the close. Off2riorob (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You are probably right. However, by the time you posted your second message I had already written the following. I would be interested to know who were the sockpuppets and what is the evidence that that is what they were. I have looked at the AfD, the deleted article, and links given in the AfD. My provisional conclusion is that the article was probably full of inaccuracy, and I doubt that there is anything worth recovering. However, I have userfied it at User:Off2riorob/Lex Coleman for you to examine. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw your move, I have got it. You may well be correct, there is an ongoing issue and a death claim at the other Coleman and claims that it is or could be this person if it is a real person...all very confusing and I am really looking to find all the details to see if I can work out exactly who is dead or not as the case maybe. I presently have no intention of adding any of it the the main space..many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the code that strikes through blocked users, I have added it and it is great so that when you look at the AFD any blocked users get a struck line through them, and the socks are clearly visible - four of then are blocked from that AFD. There is a section commenting on the Lester Coleman talkpage. I have found it a very useful monobook addition. If you want to add it, I will dig the exact code out for you. Off2riorob (talk)

importScriptURI('http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 August 2010

Wow! That is really useful, and I had no idea it existed. Thanks a lot. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Off2riorob (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

117.254.75.49

See 117.254.75.49 (talk · contribs)'s talk page, blatant copyvio over multiple articles, thanks for reverting. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ik Kudi Punjab Di

hello thank you Accept Request i want create this now i add information not copy write it punjabi movie detail only  : —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manpreetsinghfdk (talk • contribs) 12:27, 4 August 2010

I have removed the copy of the proposed article from here: it does not belong in a talk page.

1. You give no sources or verifiable evidence. We cannot have an article on the basis of "rumors".
2. The article you have suggested promotes a personal point of view, with such comments as "we hope this movie also gives us some message and breaks all previous records". Wikipedia articles are not for promoting an opinion, and need to be written from a neutral point of view.
3. I have searched for information about the film and found mostly promotional sites and non-reliable sources (e.g. Facebook).
4. The text you gave appears to be a copyright infringement of http://vibedesi.com/forum/movies-discussion/1528-ik-kudi-punjab-di-amrinder-gill-new-2010-movie.html.
5. The text was incoherent, and not in comprehensible English.

I should think that is enough to indicate that the proposed article is not remotely suitable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson#My time on Wikipedia

You can just put {{clear}} underneath (or beside) the userbox, instead of putting a bunch of extra lines. dffgd talk·edits 13:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew there was a better way of doing it, but didn't remember what it was, and never got round to taking the trouble to find out. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Crookstill etc.

Thanks for the help. Author left a note on my talk page and on Talk:Brad (British Rates and Data)--but perhaps you saw that one already. Much appreciated, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

/* Oquos Technology */

Hey James, can you please suggest how i can add this page, I am not promoting any product, I recently saw this Technology at a conference and felt like it deserved to be on Wikipedia. The technology is quite innovative it absorbs up to an ounce of liquid and always stays dry, This Technology can be used to help not only incontinence, but one day it may be used in other industries and therefore having it on Wikipedia is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philtercom (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have articles about subjects because they "deserve" to be here, but because they satisfy our notability guidelines. It is clear from what you have written above that you wish to have the article because you think it is a good product and wish to show that fact to people. This is what "promoting" means. Finally, we do not have articles on subjects because one day they may be significant: see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a product, it is a new Technology. I am "teaching" people about Oquos and how it absorbs moisture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philtercom (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Product, technology, person, company, club, book, band, religion, philosophy, it doesn't matter. Wikipedia does not exist to "teach" people about anything new that someone wants to be more widely known about. That is called "promotion". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Radio boys and the short wave mystery

Hi. You PRODded this, and I deleted it; but then I saw that the author had protested on the talk page and suggested a merge to the radio station article. So, mutterring under my breath, I brought it back, but told him it could still go to AfD and I thought it had very little chance of surviving that; so, I said, your plan for a merge sounds the best way to save something, why don't you do that by adding a brief para about it to the radio station article, and then save us trouble by tagging this one {{db-author}}? I'll keep an eye and see what happens. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback re: "Just Northwestern"

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

Rocky Mountain Wildcat (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wondering Brit

Hi James,

Ok, I've spent a while reading up on everything and I think I understand. As such, feel free to delete my input because after a few hours on this, I simply can no longer be bothered. I'm sure in time someone will eventually write and effective article on who or what The Wondering Brit is or is about, but today it isn't me. I think it's right that you screen these things, I too have come across many an eyebrow raising articles over the years and I certainly don't want anything I may write to be looked upon in the same light, I don't think it does, but then it hardly looks like a normal wiki post.

regards

Chris (Chris258258 (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC))

Replied on Chris258258's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

deletion of page

Why are you saying that the page has no indication of why it meets the criteria for being here? It clearly indicates that it is in the category of Zen Buddhist monks and the content is about a Zen Buddhist monk.Zenmonkgenryu (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Being a Buddhist monk is not enough to establish notability. Have a look at WP:Notability, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to contribute here as there is a whole section for bios of Buddhist monks. Why is it that the page I created, which is exactly the same in terms of content, is not appropriate and all the others are?Zenmonkgenryu (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Have you looked at the guidelines I have linked above?
2. Look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did and it is exactly the same as all the bios in the same category. I also placed the hangon tag as requested. Did you even read the page? Come to that, have you read any of the pages in the same category?Zenmonkgenryu (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Since you say you have read WP:OTHERSTUFF I don't understand how you can still say "it is exactly the same as all the bios in the same category". This article gave no evidence of notability. Other articles are irrelevant.
2. Placing a hangon tag calls attention to the fact that you think there are good reasons for not deleting. However, unless you actually provide such good reasons the mere fact of having placed a tag does not prevent deletion.
3. Yes I read it.
4. No I haven't read the others. They are irrelevant (as you know, since you say you have read WP:OTHERSTUFF). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

G T Tilak

I would like to know why G T Tilak page was deleted? --WkBuzz (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Ganesh T. Tilak, the reason was given on your talk page by Timneu22. Have you read that message? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Iron Mask (band) Deletion

Well, I'll try to clarify what I wanted to say. Sorry for my English, I'm from Belarus - this is not english-speaking country. This article is my first post. I just wanted to say, that band "Iron Mask" is the project, that is more popular and more commercially successful as another Dushan Petrossi's project "Magic Kingdom". In Wikipedia I've found an article about Magic Kingdom. So I thought, that if THERE IS an article about this project, there should be an article about the project, that is more popular - "Iron Mask". Their latest album "Shadow of the red baron" is highly appreciated by many well-known rock magazines - for example, Burrn! Dushan is considered to be the guitar hero #1 in Belgium, so I thought, that there should be an article about his band "Iron Mask". I've already posted information of the album "Shadow of the red baron" in Wikipedia, in article "Red Baron in popular culture", and there were no problems with this post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 19:32, 18 July 2010

Jaysen Stevens

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysenstevens (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 July 2010

Talkback

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MCSKY (talk • contribs) 08:31, 26 July 2010

Talkback

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MCSKY (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 July 2010

Re: LGBT rights in america 'opposition'.

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 82.111.134.82's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.134.82 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 July 2010

Talkback from 210.87.17.162

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 210.87.17.162's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.17.162 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 August 2010

The Lion of Punjab

The Lion of Punjab is a Punjabi film by Diljit Dosanjh. Shooting of the movie “The Lion of Punjab” has been completed. By this movie The Dancing Machine, Diljit Dosanjh will be making his debut as as an actor. This is the debut punjabi movie of famous Bollywood director Guddu Dhanoa. He Said “I always wanted to make one, contribute towards the Punjabi cinema and my homeland. Starring: Diljit Dosanjh, Divya Dutta, Pooja Tandon, Gurpreet Ghuggi, Deep Dhillon, Vivek Shauq, Vindu Dara Singh, Bhotu Shah, Yaad Grewal, Rupinder Kaur, Malkit Meet.[Ajmer Kainth]]Parandeep Kainth Director – Guddu Dhanoa Produced By – Balvir Tanda (Norway) and Shikha Tanda (Norway) Action Director – Ram Shetty Music Director – Anand Raj Anand Cinematography – Raju K G Story – Santosh Dhanoa (Guddu Dhanoa’s Wife) Screenplay – Sanyanshu Gupta Dialogs – Guddu Dhanoa

tell this article not copyright why showing here external link http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/The_Lion_of_Punjab

[1], Official website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manpreetsinghfdk (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that. At the time when that message was posted my only connection with The Lion of Punjab was that I had reverted editing which removed maintenance templates and links without any explanation. (Since receiving the message I have looked back at the article and removed a link to a forum.) Nothing I have done relating to the article has had anything at all to do with copyright. I do not understand why you have given me a link to a Wikipedia mirror showing a copy of the article. Nor do I understand why you have given me a list of other facts about the film. Would you like to clarify? JamesBWatson (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Owler69, no recent vandalism?

You declined to block this user, but he had vandalism this week, created an inappropriate page, and all his other edits have been vandalism. If an account vandalizes, waits a month, vandalizes again, and so on, are we just to allow this behavior? That seems to be the case here. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism was almost all restricted to one session on 2 August 2010. There has been no vandalism since then. There has been no vandalism since the last warning. The editor has said that they have given up vandalism and will be constructive from now on. Certainly I have known vandals to say that and then continue to vandalise, but under the circumstances I see no reason not to give them a chance: if and when vandalism re-starts it will be a different matter. If we say to someone "please stop vandalising, or you may be blocked", and then after another four days in which there has been no more vandalism to suddenly block them seems to me an odd procedure, unless there are special reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking back at his contributions, almost everything was vandalism. He says he wanted to vandalize and now he won't, but that's a real rarity. — Timneu22 · talk 19:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD on List of Hijos De Rebelde's characters

Prod was removed by an IP, just thought I'd let you know. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Posting to this page

== About edit war ==

The user undo my edits and insist removing images in Lot (Bible) and Sodom and Gomorrah again and again. I think this is WP:harass. Maybe that user want to edit war however I don't like this. Can you please block that user as you talked from above? Thanks. --Player23 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no question at present of my blocking one party to this edit war and not the other. I have responded at User talk:Player-23#Request for intervention on edit warring, and also posted an almost identical message at User talk:MCSKY#Request for intervention on edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for assistance for block that user not only because of the edit war, and more is harassment. Someone using a new account to target a user in certain field is simply harassment. I just want to quit the edit war and I think that if not stop that user more harassment maybe come to me. Whatever thanks your comment.--Player23 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That user harass me again! In Sodom and Gomorrah arcticle. Just a few days after he revert my edits again. PLEASE BAN THAT USER FOR NO MORE HARASSMENT TOWARDS TO ME.--Player23 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That user insist in edit war. After the edit war a few days he is watching my contributions. I hate to being targeted by that user. Another user doing in same way in Chinese wiki, similar behaviour. It may be his puppets.--Player23 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Please add any more comments on this topic to this section, rather than starting a new section with the same title each time you comment.
2. You repeatedly say that the other editor is harassing you, but I see no evidence of it. Do you think that reverting your edits is in itself harassment? If so then I have to disagree: it looks to me like a sincere disagreement about the content of the article.
3. You say that you "just want to quit the edit war". Then why not just stop? It really is easy: you just have to stop doing it.
4. I am a little disappointed that neither of you responded to my last attempt to help, but much more importantly I see that considerable progress has been made towards producing a compromise version, with both of you participating. In this situation for you to keep calling for a ban on MCSKY does not seem constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit war is colded after a few days, so I think there is no edit war again and making consensus of other wikipedians (the page view stat is high). However that user watch it and just revert my edits. This is targeted revert. Furthermore, it is only revert by him, no any other wikipians doing this. If you or other wikipedians revert the images, it is another issue.--Player23 (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not respond to the request because I don't know if agreeing to it would mean I can not edit the articles anymore.

player23, I reverted your edit because the image is terrible for the page Sodom and Gomorrah. The city of Sodom itself can barely be seen in the background, and the main subject is Lot and his daughters. The article is already illustrated by sufficient images, which all clearly depict the city of Sodom. Simply inserting irrelevant images makes the article harder to navigate and read, and it creates a disconnect between the images and the text it illustrates.

It is not a targeted revert towards you, and I have no accounts in other encyclopedias. MCSKY (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all - I'm out of this before I get caught in the crossfire. Strong suggestion to all involved that you take JamesBWatson's initial advice - there are 3,372,853 other articles to edit! Friendly regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

GRADUATE PHARMACY APTITUDE TEST

Sir as you have deleted an article written by me with the same title,i want to ensure you that this new article written by me does not match with the previous article body that had been claimed to be copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarbjeet30 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is a copyright infringement or not, if it is anything like the first version it is totally unsuitable as an encyclopaedia article for several reasons. You even said on the article's talk page that your purpose in posting it was "in order to get students knowledge about the newly updated syllabus for the new examination of GPAT the article", in other words you were attempting to use Wikipedia as a web host for other purposes than writing an encyclopaedia, which is against Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

since there is the page of GATE(graduate aptitude test for engineering)it is the new exam .so it is a encyclopedic topic as it is the new thing,and be there in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarbjeet30 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be intended to mean that there is a Wikipedia article on "Graduate aptitude test for engineering" and there therefore should be one on "Graduate pharmacy aptitude test". If that is so, then there are two points:

1. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.
2. There may be significant differences between the two cases, meaning that there is more notability for one than for the other, or simply that the one article is better written than the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Jes homosexual supporter.

So now it's "controversial" to be gay? Or to support the gay community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.12.185 (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it certainly is controversial to be gay: otherwise there would be no need "to support the gay community". It is much less less controversial now than it once was. However, the essential point about the edits to which you are no doubt referring is that you did not cite any sources to support your statement. It is true that one of the templated messages on your talk page also mentioned the desirability of discussing "potentially controversial edits", but this was a minor aside, really. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Jes age

Then could you at least update her age for me. Here's the source, she's 40: http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?utm_source=123people&utm_campaign=pubrec&utm_content=name&fn=jessica&ln=brieden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.12.185 (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Shadowjams#JamesBWatson

I would appreciate a response from you regarding your recent comment. Shadowjams (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry... actually it's all kind of funny in that I misunderstood you misunderstanding me. I'm sorry for not seeing through your jest. Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

James, you ought to know that any attempt at humour must be preceded by a Request for process in order to be compliant. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do love process. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Rv on Self-determination

Hi,

I just thought I would notify you of why I had reverted what an IP user has added, which I reverted. The user added "Currently a massive local insurgency is on the ascendant in Kashmir targeting Indian rule in the Kashmiri parts under the control of India.Pakistan has cited the Human rights violations in Kashmir,including genocide and rape of Kashmiri Muslim civilians, at the hands of the Indian Army, and the continued presence of Indian soldiers in Kashmir as reasons for not withdrawing its troops."

This is naked and blatant POV as you understand. The user has not even provided a source for a Pakistani government allegation of this demeneour. The same accusations have been placed on Pakistani soldiers on the other side of the LOC. Also, I am not Indian nor Pakistani, unlike this IP user who is from Rawalpindi. I am sure that you understand it is completely wrong for Wikipedia to harbour these views, though. Wikipedia shouldn't become a mouthpiece for Zaid Hamid or a mirror of rupeenews.com.

Many Thanks.

--92.8.124.45 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re user below:

This is in response to the user below:

a)IP address is registered in Rawalpindi

b)I don't see a correlation between a wrong location and neutrality

c)where was a reference removed?

d)all references added were added to prove the point: Both sides have committed violations.

Thanks. --92.8.124.45 (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

concerning the statement above

This is in response to the user above,concerning my edits to the self-determination page:

a)I'm not computing from Rawalpindi.I'm computing from Lahore;

b)As the user above stated a false location I have doubts about his/her neutrality;

c)IF the same accusation has been placed on the soldiers on the left side then BOTH should be mentioned with proper reference instead of one being deleted and having the whole matter of mass genocide and rape shoved under the carpet.It is a consequence of the self-determination movement and therefore must be mentioned;and

d)Balwaristan.net is a politically oriented site promoting ethnic nationalism and such politically motivated sites don't really deserve wiki reference.Correct me if I'm wrong here but I do believe accusations placed by worldwide human rights organizations surpass,in weightage,accusations placed by ethno-political sites.Therefore,I will place fairly neutral references to substantiate my claim and the user above should do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.219.118 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarence C Hulley

Hi, I wanted to alert you that I have removed the BLP-prod tag from the above article. The article claims that he died in 1981, which would not make it a BLP. I apologize if this is an incorrect action. Quasihuman (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. I really should learn to read more carefully. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry for the mistake. New to the site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerjohn23 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:82.45.192.123

I have seen that you blocked for 48 hours the user User:82.45.192.123 on August 4. Unfortunately, she/he made today silly modifications to the entries Rory Williams and River Song (Doctor Who). What should I do ? Hektor (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Clearly a repeat offender, so I've blocked them for one week. Favonian (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

:o

yer hey um that is my teacher that im editing with true information so why cant i edit it without getting told off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peopleofaustralia (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"A new, fresh sensational group" is an opinion, not a fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

then what would i write then ? because she does do a singing group at my school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peopleofaustralia (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

if you can find verifiable information about it in reliable sources, and if the information is significant enough to be worth inclusion in an encyclopaedia article, then there should be no problem with adding it. However, "I know it's true because it happens in my school" is not a reliable source, and "it must be significant because it's interesting to me and others in my school" is not a justification for inclusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Md Saiful Alam

The article bearing a meaningful concept by the word Md Saiful Alam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiful 9999 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This must be a reference to the deletion of Md Saiful Alam. Have a look at WP:Notability and WP:BIO, and you will see that being a "meaningful concept" is not a valid reason for a Wikipedia article. It is also clear from your user page that you are Md Saiful Alam, so that the article was self-promotion. Have a look at WP:SOAP to see Wikipedia's policy on promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will not try to write on the topic Md Saiful Alam

Dear Sir, Thanks for your opinion. Sure, next time I will not try to write on the topic Md. Saiful Alam

Sincerely, saiful_9999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiful 9999 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Imperial China

Hi, this article was reverted again by Coconut91. I already reverted three times so I am reluctant to revert the edit again. My edit is clearly backed by the source "Pratt, Keith L.; Rutt, Richard; Hoare, James (1999). Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary. Routledge. p. 482. ISBN 0700704639.". I am suspecting the Coconut91 (talk · contribs) and 74.72.15.7 (talk · contribs) are Sockpuppet. I would appreciate you to take an appropriate measure to prevent this vandalism. Thanks. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your neutral action. However I am a bit concerned about 74.72.15.7 (talk · contribs). The same vandalism is occurring on Tribute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please keep paying attention to the article. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I supplemented and slightly modified the inline citation at List of tributaries of Imperial China which was restored by you here.

The actual copy of the initially cited must have Pratt listed as first author; but OCLC lists Hoare as first author. I used the version which was online verifiable. Under the circumstances, I wondered if there might be a need for me to explain this?

I do not have a copy of this book, but I was able to verify the accuracy of the citation using Google in a non-obvious way:

• re: Goryo (173 tribute missions)

using "173 tribute missions" as search topic in Google books yields several "hits", including this one — http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=173+tribute+missions&btnG=Search+Books

• re: Baekje (45 tribute missions)

using "45 tribute missions" ... yields ... — http://books.google.com/books?id=e7pyBEWioLsC&pg=PA482&dq=45+tribute+missions&hl=en&ei=_4ViTLTYBYS8lQeF_7jTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA

• re: Unified Silla (63 tribute missions in 8th century)

using "63 tribute missions in 8th century" ... yields ... — http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=63+tribute+missions+in+8th+century&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I hope this mitigates a "problem" which was never really a problem. --Tenmei (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

..

Why dont you alow me to edit article on "Islam music". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin.mah (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Accident?

[2]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Errm, yes. Clicked on the wrong link. What makes me feel silly though is that I did it twice. Oh, well... JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I had to take a look, and not only did you do it twice, you misspelled a word in both of them. The same word. The same misspelling! ☺ Who were you actually trying to block? dffgd talk·edits 14:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stubes99, and when I finally got it right I got the spelling right too. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! :) Jmlk17 18:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

CHROMuLAN deletion

Please, can you reply to my questions in already deleted CHROMuLAN discussion page. I have put copy on my talk page as well. I agree, that CHROMuLAN is not so major achievement but it contributed and made cheaper or possible more significant researches and I think that at CHROMuLAN at least deserves mentioning on Wikipedia and deletion without providing description or moving to some temporary place to discuss the facts looks to me like impolite.

If the main problem is that I am personally connected to the project then I can try to ask some users to write unbiased article. But it is not optimal probably as well. So at least starting article myself seems to me as more clean solution. I have found on Internet some CHROMuLAN review from some totally unrelated Japenese professor some years ago as well but I do not have it on hand now. There are more references to it in Czech language and many in reseach articles in the lists of used equipment.

Thanks for any non robotic reply in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppisa (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Added reply to your comment on my talk page. Ppisa (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

tb

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

- Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:AceBornSoul

This page appears to be a clone of your talk page, thought you may be interested in it, and the user who created it. WuhWuzDat 19:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this you? On the suspicion it is not, I've gone ahead and shut down the account as an impersonator, but if it is, just unblock it and revert me. - Vianello (Talk) 19:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How fascinating. I wonder why they would want to do that. Both my talk page and my user page were cloned. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate to assume bad faith so readily, but if it wasn't you or someone you know, I literally cannot imagine any non-malicious reason. - Vianello (Talk) 21:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't either. However, since these two clonings were the only edits from this account before it was blocked, there is no other clue. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Blinded by Faith Feedback

Hi JamesBWatson,

I was wondering if it would be possible to obtain some feedback from you on the article I am currently working on? It would be much appreciated! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sk8ajoe/Blinded_by_Faith)

Thanks, -Sk8ajoe (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

Well, the first impression is that you have certainly made a more impressive show of assembling sources than was so in the original version of the article. however, examination of those sources suggests that many of them give only brief mention of Blinded by Faith, and others do not, on the face of it, appear to be independent of the subject. One minor point is that Wikipedia style is to use the form of a name most commonly recognised in English, and, while "Québec" certainly is used in English, "Quebec" is more usual. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Silent Note

Can you help the article Silent Note that it wont get deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid from theblock (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the editor who posted this request is blocked, and this talk page section will have been archived well before the block expires, I have answered at User talk:Kid from theblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Desktop Scientific

Hi There,

I see you deleted my article on desktop scientific,

I re-wrote the article making it non commercial, can you please give me a few suggestion about how to improve my article and what you mean by guidelines 11 as you stated in my message.

Please assist as I am new to this

Thanks Kyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleAraujo (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The first thing that strikes me about the article is that there are no sources cited for any of the information there. This means not only that the information is not verifiable, but also that there is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. I strongly recommend reading the general notability guideline (follow the blue link from the last sentence), and also the guideline on reliable sources. Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations is probably also worth looking at, and perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is a link in the article under the heading "References", but, although the linked page contains the expression "Desktop Scientific", it is not at all clear to me that it relates to the company which is the subject of the article. I have also made my own searches for evidence of notability of the company. This is not easy, as the words "Desktop" and "Scientific" can occur together in other contexts, but I have tried various combinations of search terms in attempts to limit coverage to the company in question (for example "South Africa" "Desktop Scientific" "Scientific Software" etc). I have failed to find anything even remotely suggesting notability. I also find it striking that you do not appear to see the article as promotional, despite the inclusion of language such as "Desktop Scientific’s vision is to empower ...". If you sincerely cannot see the promotional character of language such as this, then I can only assume that you have such a close connection with the company that you cannot stand back and see it from an objective perspective. If this is the case then you probably should not be writing a Wikipedia article on this subject, as you will not be able to do so from a neutral point of view. This is the essential point behind Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. You ask for clarification of the general criteria for speedy deletion, item 11. If you have not read that guideline (linked from the original message on your talk page, and again in the last sentence here) then I suggest you do so. The section "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" of the policy on "What Wikipedia is not" gives more detail. However, I should say that at present the lack of any evidence that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines is, in my assessment, more significant than the promotional character of the article, which is fairly mild and could easily be edited out. On the other hand no amount of editing or rewriting of an article will make a non-notable subject notable. If, as seems likely from what I have been able to find, the company does not satisfy our notability criteria, then you will probably be better off dropping the matter rather than wasting further time on it, only to see the article deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your message...

I have removed the vision section, you see I am new, so I dont understand how this works, I have compared my article to various other companies in the same industry which are listed in wikipedia, such as (barlow world limited) and IBM which is a joint partner of ours.

That's why there's litte written in the article, because EVERYTHING is deemed as promotional?

Ok, so I need cited/references?

If I get the South African Government, The The SACCI Business Confidence Index and all of the South African Universities to post press releases articles about our reputation will that be good enough? comment added by KyleAraujo (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 August 2010

I would think that asking other organisations to post press releases about your reputation would be a first class example of what would not be independent coverage, and what would be promotional in intention. Have you read the guidelines I have pointed you to? In particular, have you read the guideline on conflict of interest? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation

Wondering if you could undo the above deletion pls? It has already been refused a speedy on a previous occasion (I'd meant to rv that one last time I logged in.) Thanx. Misarxist (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have looked back at the deleted article, and it still looks to me unambiguously intended to promote the organisation. Is there any reason for undeleting it? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on it then. Reasons? it's obviously notable, a speedy had already been refused. Just remembered google cache & yes it's not quite what I remembered. I'll work on it, but from scratch. Sorry didn't think of that 1st.Misarxist (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the userfy, fwif :) Misarxist (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

By the time I got the last message but one I had already moved it to User:Misarxist/Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation for you to work on. You can work on it there or I can delete it again for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported.
Message added 14:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-Tadija^speaks 14:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Tadija^speaks 14:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Levlanepr (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)user levlanepr

Talkback again

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

I created the page for "Scott Tattar" using some of the help you've given. As a living person's bio, does this justify Wikipedia's terms?

Levlanepr (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time now to check it thoroughly, but at a glance it looks better than it was before. By the way, the idea of a "talkback" template is that you put it on my talk page to call my attention to a message on your talk page. You don't need a "talkback" here if the message is here. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Novachi page

Why did you delete Novachi page? It is encyclopedia content with useful information for the general public. The Novachi project is a public service project. I am a new contributor to wikipedia. Let me know how the page should be writen to meet the standards here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsn26 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As you probably know, the article has been deleted twice. Both times the deletion log gives the reason as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". If you honestly can't see that the article was written in a promotional manner then my guess is that you are closely involved in the subject of the article, so that you are not able to stand back and see the article from an objective perspective. As long as it is written as though its purpose is to tell people how good Novachi is, and how useful they will find it, it is likely to be deleted as promotional. It follows that a first step towards writing an article which may not be deleted is to write it from a neutral point of view. However, even if this is done there is the question of whether it will satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Wikipedia requires that a subject has had a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources independent of that subject for it to qualify for an article. You can read more details at Wikipedia:Notability, and other pages linked from there. I have searched and found no coverage at all of Novachi Education System apart from Wikipedia and Novachi's own web site. This strongly encourages me to believe that it does not satisfy the notability guidelines. If this is the case then the answer to "how the page should be written to meet the standards here" will be that it can't. No amount of better writing will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. Unfortunately many people think that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can write about anything on Wikipedia", and very many people come here in the hope of using Wikipedia to publicise their project/company/band/charity/club/etc etc, and waste alot of time, only to end in frustration. It may seem unfriendly to say "don't try to write an article on your pet subject", but in fact if the subject does not satisfy our notability criteria then it is in fact far more friendly than encouraging an inexperienced editor to put time and effort into a project which is doomed to failure. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism report on User:Bandit666

I recently reported User:Bandit666 at WP:AIV. I'm not sure if you were responding to my report with this edit, but if you were, could you please take another look?

This isn't about a content dispute. According to Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, "discussion page vandalism" is what this user is engaged in. The clear vandalism comes from repeatedly vandalizing the Talk:Damone (band) page ([3] [4] [5] [6]). Note that if you scroll down, my attempts at discussing the article itself were being removed by this user, whose edits mirror the IP blocked for vandalizing with the same edits.

I tried to engage Bandit666 in dialogue at Talk:Damone_(band)#Release_date_of_Roll_the_Dice and Talk:Damone_(band)#Band_members.27_names, only to see those sections repeatedly blanked. My final attempt came at User_talk:Bandit666#You_have_to_respond_for_dialogue_to_take_place. The only response is the same edits to the articles along with vandalizing the talk page again here. I can't go to dispute resolution if the user won't reply and erases my attempts to fix the article. Thanks for your time. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My "content dispute" referred to a report on 121.218.79.162 . I did not even see your report on Bandit666. In fact I doubt that anyone did,a s it was removed immediately by a bot. There is a bug which results in new reports sometimes being removed by this bot if the bot is (correctly) removing another report at just the moment when a new report is filed. Unfortunately I am having to go off line in a minute, but I will have a quick look at your report, and restore it if I don't have time to deal with it, so another admin can see it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It turned out to be such an obvious case of vandalism that it only took a couple of minutes. Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)