User talk:JBW/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Semi-protection

Yeah semi-protection to stop IP edits i think would be a good idea for a while. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say thanks for your response to the request for intervention, and in general for the work you're volunteering to do as admin here :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite being given a 48-hour block this morning, they may possibly be still circumventing their block with their non-static IP: Special:Contributions/109.77.136.144. It has the same first number (109) as the recently banned IP, and Geolocate places this IP to the exact same service provider and latitude and longitude as the two banned IPs. These edits however are not contentious, but they may still be the same editor evading their block - even if far quieter. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism continues; how long must we put up with this

This jackass continues the diruptive, offensive editing. Blocked in February. I checked the last 6 entries all disruptive, they probably all are. TIME FOR MORE THAN A 6 MONTHS BLOCK1archie99 (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yiannis Kotsiras deletion

You are listed as deleting his page because of "unambiguous copyright violations". However, the website you attribute the copyright to (discoogle.com) itself credits Kotsiras.gr, the artist's website. You'll find the same biography there, though with fewer errors. (The writing demonstrates idiosyncrasies common to Greeks when they write in English, so it is unlikely it was cribbed from elsewhere.)

If I google a musician's name, such as Bill Frisell, I will find dozens of websites with the same biography. That's because the content came from a P.R. release. I work in publishing and have never heard of anyone copyrighting such a thing.

Obviously, there is no copyright infringement. So can we have the article back, please? This is the second time that I know of that his biography has been deleted and I imagine Kotsiras has better things to do than struggle in English with replacing it constantly.

He is the most famous singer in Greece and we deserve to know about him. I am an inveterate user of Wikipedia and I had to go to the Greek language version to get the information.

Galliv (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the site cited in the deletion log was or was the original source or not: it is sufficient that it shows that the text of the Wikipedia article was copied from somewhere. It is not sufficient that you or I or anyone else has never heard of anyone claiming copyright in such material. We need explicit evidence that the material has been either released into the public domain or made available under a free license consistent with Wikipedia's licensing terms, and we cannot use material on the basis of an unsubstantiated assumption that this has been done, no matter how probable that may seem. (There is no such process as "copyrighting" material. There used to be such a process in the United States, but the United States has now brought its copyright law into line with that of most (if not all) of the rest of the world. A person automatically has copyright in material they create unless they transfer the copyright to someone else or release it into the public domain.) It looks as though you are very likely to be right in saying that the content came from a P.R. release. That very fact makes the content somewhat promotional in character, and unsuitable for use as a Wikipedia article. I have seen far more blatantly promotional articles, but this one was sufficiently promotional to make deletion for that reason likely, even if the copyright issue were not present. The article gave no independent sources, which are necessary to indicate the notability of the subject, and also for verification of its content. You say "Kotsiras has better things to do than struggle in English with replacing it constantly". If, as you are evidently implying, the article was posted by the subject of the article, then that person had an unambiguous conflict of interest, and should not be writing the article. Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged. Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view by third parties. Wikipedia is not a medium for people to publicise P.R. releases about themselves. If he really is as famous as you suggest then no doubt there are plenty of third party reliable sources available, and plenty of independent outsiders who could write an article on the subject, so it is likely that such an article will sooner or later be written. That will be fine, as long as the article is written with due regard to such issues as (1) not being promotional (2) being written from a neutral point of view (3) citing sufficient reliable third party sources to establish notability, and to make verification of the content possible (4) not being copied from any other source unless there is specific verifiable evidence that the source is either public domain or released under a suitable free license. However, there is no question of restoring the deleted article.

One more point. You say that an article about this person has been deleted before. However, the article Yiannis Kotsiras has been deleted only once. Do you have the exact title of the other one? If so I can check it and see whether that one is more suitable for being restored. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Victorian Aborigines deletion

Hi James, I have no doubt that much of the text on religion in this article was a copyright violation, especially based upon this source which I have not previously seen before today. I had contributed to this article, particularly the section on aboriginal languages which I provided with references, and some of the additional reading entries. Deleting the whole article as a copyright violation, has caused my original and legitimate contributions to also be deleted. (Check the article history to see my contributions were legitimate). I am going to create the article again based upon my original contributions - as much as I can piece them together. I know copyright violation is a constant concern, but in this case I think the article should have been edited back to original content rather than wholesale deletion.Takver (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Before deleting an article in this sort of situation I always look back to see if it is reasonably feasible to save any non-copyright content. I'm not sure what you mean by "edited back to original content", but if you mean restoring an earlier version, then that was not possible in this case, as every version of the article consisted mainly or entirely of copyright infringing material, right back to the original version created in November 2007. This means that it was not possible to keep any of the versions. It is important to realise that this is not just a matter of my judgement or opinion: to knowingly retain any version of the article in the publicly accessible editing history would have been illegal. While articles deleted for other reasons can often be retained or restored for further editing and improvement, this is not legally permissible in the case of articles containing copyright infringing material. With literally dozens of editors having contributed to the article over the years, to have picked out the non-copyright infringing bits and restored them with proper attribution would have been an impracticable task. You made eight edits to the article, all but one of which were more or less minor changes, but one of them did add a significant new section. I would happily have given you a copy of that content to reuse, and indeed I can still do that if you like, but I see that you have now recreated the article with a section which is substantially the same as your original version, so there is probably not much point. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me and I can see that there would be problems with all versions of the article. Thanks for offering to recover the section I contributed - I used one of the many wikipedia content copies around the 'net to recover my original contribution and moved material from History of Victoria (which I was also a primary contributor of) to build up this article again, before people started deleting many of the established links to the article. Takver (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Jack & Jill (film) prod

Surely this this was an attempt of a joke? —Mike Allen 04:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, but it may well have been a mistake. I don't remember what the circumstances were. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Actually my wording was terrible, I meant, don't move the page yet. By the way I was going to do this anyway but, I'm sorry for my past actions causing you to block me --ChristianandJericho 11:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Research and innovations in Ayurveda

Sorry about that. I added the Speedy deletion tag, but then wasn't quite sure, since the tag said "recently created". This was pretty unambiguous, though. 86.182.20.107 (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

why have you deleted my companies page ?

Why have you deleted Harrisons (Burley) Ltd, this is my families business. All information is true. explain to me please ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jig92 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already posted to your talk page on this, so to avoid fragmenting discussion I have also responded to this message there. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

:)

Fordo800 (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Skene House Hotelsuites deletion

Dear James,

I am new to Wikipedia, and had created a page on a hotel I know well, as it did not have an entry on wikipedia. The main focus was on the founder, Charles Skene, a local from Aberdeen (Scotland), who set up this hotel thirty years ago. As he is a fairly local person, finding relevant encyclopedic content on him is hard. If I managed to source some news articles on his achievements, and on the hotel itself, and rewrote with a more neutral tone, would the page be accepted? What would be considered other adequate references? It seems very hard to write about a product that does not really have a presence around the web, without it sounding like an advertisement...

Best Regards,

Kevv10 (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Another editor (Gurt Posh) tagged the article for deletion as promotional. The article did seem somewhat promotional, so I left that tag in place when I deleted it. However, the main reason for deletion was a lack of indication of significance, which I gave as another reason for deletion. You may like to look at the notability guidelines to see what sort of thing is needed. The ones most relevant in this case are the General notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people, and the guideline on notability of organisations and companies. If you can find reliable sources establishing notability then by all means it will be fine to recreate an article on the subject. However, if the business and the person do not satisfy those guidelines then doing so is likely to be a waste of your time, as it will probably be deleted again. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks! I'll find some notable articles on the hotel and modify it. One of the reasons I feel it should get an entry is they are the first serviced apartment in the UK, as it opened in 1979, and the serviced apartment entry lists another company as the first UK hotel, even though it opened in 1981. Proving Skene House's history would give me mandate to change that entry afterwards. Being the first is enough significance, no? Kevv10 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Residual edits of FrittataOhio

You quite properly rolled back a number of edits of the confirmed sock FrittataOhio. However the version that you rolled back to, in at least two cases, was a version where I had already rolled back to the version previously edited by FrittataOhio in the mistaken belief that FrittataOhio was undoing the work of a vandal rather than creating it. As a non-admin without sight of some of evidence behind the scenes it is nigh on impossible to work out which is now the "correct" version and which contains residual copyvios or vandalism. Could I ask that you take a quick look again especially at Cliff Hite‎ and Bill Beagle‎ - I would hate to think that one of my edits had inadvertently legitimised a vandal's efforts. Many thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You are perfectly right. Unfortunately, picking out the good from the bad among such a history of sockpuppet edits looks like being a hideously difficult task, and I don't have time now to do it. However, I have reverted the two articles you mention to versions that existed for a matter of months without dispute, so I hope they are better than they were. I'll try to find time to have another look sometime soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nanomi

Nanomi is himself a sock of the long-term abuser JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not surprised at all: it looked to me as though there was likely to be an earlier history to this. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick reminder of Saturday's wikimeet

Hi James, this is just a quick reminder about the Manchester wikimeet this Saturday (17th September). Hope you can still make it. Mike Peel (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at X!'s talk page.
Message added 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudu ^~I/O~ 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Funfuntimes20

Something frivolous was written in your block message on this page. Calabe1992 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Return of a problematic editor

Hello JBW. I just wanted to give you a heads up that 64.75.121.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come off the three month block that you gave them and has gone right back to performing the same bogus edits (some of them to the same articles) that caused the block back in June. New warnings have been added to their talk page. If you want us to wait until they have accumulated a few more - and if you would prefer us to report them at AIV - that will be fine. I just wanted you to be able to be on the look out as the more eyes on this kind of editing the better. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked it again, but unfortunately it's likely they will just use another IP address. However, there has been quite a long time with little activity, so it's also possible that the person is beginning to tire of the nonsense. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action on this. You are right about the IP hopping done by this person. I would keep my fingers crossed that they are tiring of this but it is harder to type on my keyboard when I do that :-) so I will just keep an eye out for their nonsense edits and let you know if they return. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Per BMK's suggestion, I have created a subpage listing all the IPs I know for certain this guy to have used through WP:DUCK. It can be found here, and if any of you who have fighting this creep have anything to add to it, that would be appreciated. Since most of his edits are from the 166.137... or the 75.194/213... ranges, it's always discouraging when he pops up in different ranges like the one above. Cheers... Doc talk 04:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

He has returned and is currently making his bogus edits from this IP 75.250.166.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks for the creating the subpage Doc. I will be adding this IP when I am done here, Whatta pest! MarnetteD | Talk 21:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

hi again I don't know if you are still online but he has returned 75.213.151.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I cleanup the edits and then head to AIV if you are enjoying some time off wiki :-) MarnetteD | Talk 19:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Page Protection if you please

This article List of My Little Pony characters is unfortunately heavily spammed and in need of reconstruction. I've tried to maintain the page as best I could, but the user Tama Fan is not a good help and pretty immature. The user is sometimes using the user account and sometimes IP Hopping to make further edits some of them unconstructive. Due to using IP Address and User Account to gang up on User:Blackgaia02 and possible flame baiting, that user blocked twice, via edit wars and there doesn't seem to be orderly editing control on the page. Making it non-accessible to IP-Users would be a good start since no other anonymous IP-Users seem to be editing the page. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. Deltasim (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have looked extensively at the recent editing history of both this article and other related articles. I see editors getting quite passionate about what look to me like trivial differences of opinion. I see more than one editor whose ability to write proper English is, in my view, inadequate for editing English language Wikipedia. I see ownership issues. I do not, however, see anything which would justify page protection under the terms of the protection policy. It does not appear to be true that no other editors have been editing anonymously on this article: in recent days there have been anon editors from three different continents. I am reluctant in those circumstances to protect the article, thus cutting out some legitimate editors. I have, however, blocked Tama Fan and a few IPs that he/she has used for sockpuppetry. If further edits come via IPs that look as though they are from Tama Fan in the next couple of days then please let me know, and I will reconsider whether to semiprotect the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds Reasonable. Deltasim (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

James, I can't see what warrents this block. Editing from an IP while logged out is not sockpuppetry. The user was not under a block nor was the user in any discussion that I could see where multiple accounts would give the wrong impression of a consensus. Tama.Fan is currently engaged in an editing dispute with User:Blackgaia02 who has displayed 3RR and ownership issues. Blackgaia02 asked User:Deltasim to help him with this. I feel this is a retaliation block. Based on this block, I'm also questioning whether Deltasim and Blackgaia02 may be the same person. Both have called others "immature" over 'My Little Pony' edits. Although that's all I've got going on that, I'll be keeping an eye out. I'd like to ask you to unblock Tama Fan unless you know some detail I don't.--v/r - TP 13:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I warn you not to even compare me to User:Blackgaia02, that is an outrageous accusation. Examine my editing patterns and judge wisely. Whether you block or report that user is no business of mine. I know an immature user when I see one. I do not believe Tama Fan is a persistent pest like that Blinky Fan, but Tama Fan has got to learn the importance of citing sources, not clutter up articles. Editing from an IP while logged may not be sockpuppetry but using one or more IP Addresses in combination with the user account to gang up on a user shown clearly in Talk:List of My Little Pony characters section "For Blackgaia02" is unacceptable behaviour and a form of spam. If Tama Fan has inded been right the whole time, I'll be sure to professionally apologise. Deltasim (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, "A form of spam"? I think you are mistaken. Please prove ganging up has occured as Tama Fan has used the account and IP claim some sort of consensus.--v/r - TP 17:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody will be able to prove that. All I can say is that I've played my part and I am moving on. This matter either be closed or continued without me. The choice is yours. Deltasim (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• If TParis can give a plausible interpretation of this edit other than an attempt to pretend that someone else is supporting Tama Fan's opinion then I will be most impressed. And I don't understand why this is not a discussion where "multiple accounts would give the wrong impression of a consensus". JamesBWatson (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You've blocked for a 2 week old edit? Blocks arn't supposed to be punative.--v/r - TP 19:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been wrangling this situation for a while alongside TParis, and both Black Gaia and Tama Fan have...competence issues, and I'd be happy to see neither of them editing the article anymore. My feeling about this block is that yes, Tama Fan seems to have used an IP to agree with himself, quite weakly ("yep, you're right!" is hardly much of a good attempt to sway the course of the conversation). However: Has he done it multiple times? Has he done it since that time? Was he made aware of the fact that our policy doesn't allow that? 2 weeks for an old editReading comprehension fail, sry An immediate multi-day block for an editor who wasn't warned seems a bit on the steep side, especially when taken in the context of the block happening because Black Gaia seems to have switched tactics to "reporting TF to other admins" when I told him he was no longer permitted to just revert everything TF did. I'm not questioning James's neutrality on the issue, but I don't like the gamesmanship that went on in James's attention being drawn here in the first place. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that somehow I managed to fail to register that the sockpuppetry was two weeks ago. I am grateful to TParis for pointing out my mistake, and I have unblocked both the account and the IPs. However, the answer to "has he done it multiple times?" is "Yes. I pointed out the most blatant example, but there have been other IP edits which I have no doubt were intended to look as though they came from different users". And the answer to "Was he made aware of the fact that our policy doesn't allow that?" is "Pretending to be more than one person in an attempt to mislead other editors is dishonest. There is no way that anyone can do it and not know that it is dishonest, whether they know that there is a written policy against it or not. It is perfectly common practice to block for sockpuppetry without warning." As for the suggestion of gamesmanship, I think I won't comment on that. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify - I don't think you were part of the gamesmanship. I think there was gamesmanship that led to other editors deciding to ask you to act, and my complaint there is not that I think you did anything untoward in blocking, just that the block felt a little bit like innocent fruit of a poisonous tree because of the manner in which people drew your attention to Tama Fan. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to apologise for making you the man the middle. I was under the impression I was doing the right thing, but you've convinced that neither debating user is better than the other. I hope TParis is prepared for apologise for the accusation made earlier. You can count on me to keep out of this debate ever afterwards. Take care and happy editing. Deltasim (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to accuse you of socking. I would ask that you do quit calling folks immature for differing in their editing style though. Thanks James for reverting. I'm sorry if I came off rude. Thanks Fluffernutter for working things out.--v/r - TP 00:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

All right, what's next. Shutting down my account?

How am i supossed to "put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking" when there is no link to the official username change page?!?!?! Wikipedia, you are so annoying!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipis209.195.82.87 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to Wikipedia:Changing username, and on that page there are full instructions, including links to the pages where requests can be submitted. The one you want is at a link labelled "Simple", near the bottom of the page. (Incidentally, I wouldn't have objected to your existing username, but since some people evidently do object, I strongly recommend changing it to avoid being reblocked.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you god! Boy I Was being kinda clumsy at that time. LOL. Now my links is ready for the change here: Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#Ipis209.195.82.87_.E2.86.92_fairlyoddparents1234 FOPFan300 21:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Duei33

You clearly have more patience than me by giving Duei33 a welcome message rather than a block, but I can understand why you did it. I didn't go searching for the copyvio but it does look certain that that is what he/she was doing. Perhaps you could keep an eye on the article and take action if the user ignores your good advice - either that or I will re-report at WP:AIV. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Capacity Global

Hi James, Just wondered what it specifically was about the Capacity Global page you deleted that you classed as 'advertising'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerpetal07 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you honestly did not see it as promotional then I can only assume that one or both of the following applies: (1) you are so closely involved in the organisation that you cannot stand back from it and see how it looks from the objective perspective of an outsider, (2) you work in marketing or advertising, and are so used to marketing speak that you have become desensitised to it. The whole article from start to finish did nothing other than to tell us what a good job "Capacity Global" is doing, and continually told us what Capacity Global's own claims about itself are. Nowhere was there anything that looked like an impartial outsider's view. If you were sincerely unaware of that then it seems certain that you have a close involvement with it, and in that case Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage you from writing about it. If the organisation satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards then probably an independent third party observer will sooner or later write an article about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Different direction :-)

I EC'd with you on E55chargers ... my decline was about to say: "As you have continuously been told that this username cannot be used on Wikipedia, and that spam is not permitted, your continued use of the unblock process while not actually changing your username is considered to be abuse of the unblock process. As such, I am declining this unblock and will be locking your talkpage to prevent further abuse" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I was in two minds about this, and actually got as far as posting a decline, but reconsidered before clicking "Save page". After some thought I decided to unblock on a WP:ROPE basis, with what I hope was a clear indication that it was conditional on both no promotional editing and a change of username. Well, we'll see how it turns out. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully your rope didn't come with soap LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reply re: IP 219.79.214.46. I do understand your initial comment about good faith edits. As I was using Igloo it doesn't give the option of being more specific about warnings. I will bear this in mind in future. Vrenator (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have little experience of Igloo, but I rather think the same applies to Igloo as to Huggle: you need to remember it is a tool with limited functionality, and be prepared to step out of that tool and edit manually when the tool doesn't have exactly the right functionality. When I use Huggle I always have a browser open ready to use for manual editing when necessary. It slows me down, but that is a price that has to be paid. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User:SamiraJ

He is Agressive Romanian user (He is reincarnation banned User Iaaasi, as he said via e-mail. Iaaasi has a new internet provider), who had chauvinist mentality. He don't interested the wiki rules, like the 3 revert rule. He also deleted well referenced statements. See Banat of Temeswar ‎, and the Gesta Hungarorum articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.203 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 23 September 2011

Thanks. Clearly the same person. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User page deletion

Umm...I think User:Hazara-Birar wants to retrieve their user page. See the talk page of the user. Mar4d (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral with Acts

Hi James, my edits were presenting the truth neutrally about the Acts of the Apostles. Previously the remarks were very bias against Acts. I spent lots of hard work to improve the article with sources and you took it all away. Please show some respect for other people's work. God bless you. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that your principal, if not only, purpose in editing Wikipedia is to impose your own religious interpretations on articles, but please don't presume to impose your religious views on me. Please reserve your "God bless you" for people who you know accept the assumptions built into such a remark. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your change to many days of hard work that I spent improving Acts, and making it neutral with all sides presented, or I plan to take this to the appropriate authority (yes I know you are an Administrator). WalkerThrough (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Improving" is an opinion. I don't know what you mean by "the appropriate authority", but Wikipedia substantially works on a peer system: if an editor disagrees with another editor's changes then they have the right to revert them. If an editor keeps on reverting back to their own preferred version then that is a different matter, known as "edit warring", which can lead to being blocked from editing, but a single revert is not subject to any sanctions, unless there are specific reasons, such as that it is vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I am helping present the truth in Wikipedia, which is in line with the Words of Jesus, who is the Truth, and Savior of the world. I can present that neutrally according to the rules of Wikipedia. There is no imposing to it. I am doing it with neutral language. I am not POV pushing in the article. I am presenting the other side neutrally. Please revert your edit to all my changes in Acts. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

When I first started editing Wikipedia several years ago, I too thought that Wikipedia was about The Truth, and when I found other editors saying that this was not so I thought it was absurd. However, over the course of time I came to realise why Wikipedia does not accept "but it's the truth" as a criterion for inclusion. There are numerous problems with the truth, perhaps the most important one being that people disagree about what is the truth. I have no reason to doubt that you sincerely believe that Jesus is "the truth and savior of the world". However, you can scarcely be unaware that many people in the world don't believe that that is the truth. Indeed, the people who hold that view (who call themselves "christians") are a minority of the world's population. Therefore putting that into an article as though it were objective fact is presenting a point of view. You may or may not find it interesting to read Wikipedia:The Truth.JamesBWatson (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added Jetstreamer (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blindly reverting again...

• Hello James, it seems that what we've spoken to User:Fleetham the last time isn't drilling through, as he's just blindly reverted a neutral version by a well meaning IP editor without even taking a minute or two in order to read/look at it or provide a valid basis in the edit summary for his blind revert. Everytime he does that, he's hurting the project, big time. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You can see my response here. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Narayani Sena

Hi! The page Narayani Sena was deleted by you. I see the reason you mentioned was copyright infringement & have also given the site's name. Can i have the page back so that i can keep it in my user space, edit it & then release it back to Wikipedia. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me to make available material which breaches copyright would be illegal. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that! Umm.... why wasnt any notice of deletion given? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean advance warning that it was going to be deleted, or informing the creator of the article when it had been deleted? As far as the former is concerned, it is not necessary to give a warning if the article is quite clearly a copyright infringement. As far as the latter is concerned, normally I do inform authors of articles, but in this case it is an indefinitely blocked user who has a history of being informed of deletion of copyright infringing content, and I have discovered several more examples. I mentioned that, but didn't see it as necessary to individually mention each one to an editor who is blocked anyway. However, you are welcome to do so if you wish. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left you a message on my discussion page, since you deleted our article: Keller2012 (talk)

As a candidate for President in 2012, I should be able to have a page just as any other candidate has. Even this candidate has one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Schriner. Ron Paul's page is FILLED with stuff about himself, his career in politics, etc. Just because I don't have a 30 year run in politics should not keep me from having a reference page for people (and there have been some) searching for my information in Wikipedia. I have had several complaints from people unable to find me in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keller2012 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

SeaTwirl

I contested your PROD at SeaTwirl and sent the article to AfD because the article has been deleted via a PROD before. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Crowe Clark Whitehill

Hi James,

The Crowe Clark Whitehill pages seem to have reverted to the old format; however the last updated version gave facts on the organisation and avoided any advertising or marketing language.

I have gone through other accountancy Wikipedia pages and all seem to have a similar format to the last updated version.

Please could this be replaced with the last updated version - should anymore editing be required I would be more than happy to make the amendments to the latest updated version.

However, I must stress the current Wikipedia page is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghattaura (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ISUOG (International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology)

Dear James,

Our charity would like to create a page, but the first attempt has been blocked. Can you please advise on the best way for us to create a page?

Many thanks,

Michael

msemmence@isuog.org or info@isuog.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.13.143.98 (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The first and foremost rule is that due to conflict of interest you should never be creating an article about yoruself or an organization you represent. This usually leads to a promotional tone, and some issues surrounding notability. When someone unrelated to the organization writes it, they will need to ensure they have valid third party reliable sources that support every statement (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

cancer drug information deleted & discriminative page deletion

Hi James,

I have just sacrificed my valuable time to go through Wikipedia guidelines and market research companies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_marketing_research_firms examples however have been deleted. I used the example information from other companies that has been approved and improved it. Please reconsider the page deletion. If you still wish to dele it please give reason why the list of companies given above has been approved instantly. Also, the osteosarcoma drug information comes form valuable sources that could help people dying if this bone cancer, Please reconsider as well.

Regards MagdaFrankowska — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagdaFrankowska (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably this refers to the deletion of Leapfrog Research. The deletion was for the reason described on your talk page by Vrenator. In addition, there is a clear impression that you are using Wikipedia as a medium for advertising, which, as has been explained to you, is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. As for the other articles you mention, I have never seen them and know nothing about them. I could check them and see whether any or all of them should be deleted, but I have a finite amount of time available and cannot check everything I might like too. You may find WP:OTHERSTUFF informative. It is written in the context of unsuitable reasons commonly given in deletion discussions, but the same principal applies here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

46.60.252.64/26

Hello. FYI I've unblocked 46.60.252.64/26 [1]. I will leave the IPBE in your hands. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Khalil Gibran School Rabat

Hi James i hope that i have satisfied the copyright tag issue with the KGS school logo. You flagged the page citing the sources. I am interested the development of international education in Morocco and it is very useful if schools that offer such programs can be known to the wider world.

In my experience many families have found places in international schools around the world for their children based on factual information from Wikipedia archives.

I will of course accept any guidance that can offer in order to satisfy the requirements.

Many Thanks

Russell aka scylaxus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scylaxus (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Belatedly answered on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Adib Khaled - again

Hi James, can you please have a look at this edit by Adib Khaled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), immediately after their block expired? I have reverted already and gave another 4th level, but I don't think it will do much good. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually see what the problem is with this edit. Can you explain? JamesBWatson (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for clarifying my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulsing light foundation - that's exactly what I meant. Yunshui (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm unsure if I'm doing this correctly, but you took the time to reply to my almost failed article, 'Pulsing light foundation', so thank you for taking the time to explain, when I first did the article it got deleted, as I guess it was because I hadn't spelt things out properly, but I never got to see what I did wrong, so when I re-did the article I had left in some of the original mistakes, this was because someone who used to do some stuff on wikipedia told me that it's best to leave some mistakes in as someone else will tidy it up over time; my understanding of creating an article is that someone starts it, then other editors / administrators add more into it, as the topic becomes more well known, I did make a couple of spelling mistakes but I didn't realise until later on, it is hard to read through a wikipedia article when you have all the html codes in it (if that is the correct way of saying it), when you edit it you have to write in all the refrences and stuff. . I did read all the wikipedia notes and guide lines.

The main mistake that I appeared to make was that I didn't have any web links to my refrences, this is because it says on wikipedia guide lines that your references don't have to come from the web (online). This must not be true? As I am explaining myself, the other two smaller mistakes that I did wrong was to copy and past the article in bits. I did try to post the original article up on this other thing on wikipedia when people give you useful advice before your article goes live? (if that makes sense), but for some reason wikipedia wouldn't do it, so I just saved the page. In the wikipedia guidelines it advices you to look at other pages that are similar and learn from them, so I copied and pasted a couple of things, again I just wrongly assumed that someone else would correct it, someone who is more knowledgable on wikipedia, like the 503 thing, I thought that you had to put that down as it was in other similar pages, but again apparently not? Before I forget, to fully explain the second small mistake, I misspelt two of the references, so they are not in fact the correct publications, this is due to me copy and pasteing and spell check, correcting things wrongly!

Anyway, sorry I have gone on so much, I just wanted to explain myself. Wikipedia is full of faceless people, this experience has put me off wikipedia, you and one or two others have acted professionally, you obviously understand that wikipedia is confusing to start off with, but a couple of others have been slightly rude, there is nothing wrong with being direct, but to assume is wrong. I work as a researcher for a legal firm, we do rely on the internet but only a bit, we have to do our research the old fashioned way; if I can't find something on the internet I don't assume that it isn't true, likewise if I do find something on the internet I still don't assume that it is fact and / or correct; it seems to me that some people on wikipedia, like a lot of people in life, want to be and feel 'important', and they think they're 'know it alls', but in actual fact they're just like anybody else, ordinary, and they know very little, they just rely on the internet for their information, and if they can't find it on the internet then they truly beleive that it cannot be true! The internet is only as reliable as the person who put it up, plus the information can have mistakes in it, we all make mistakes in life.

Maybe if you have time you could advise me, do I also ask wikipedia to delete my own article, then wait a few months until I know that at least one or two references are online, and then try to add the page again? Or is that bad idea, should I (as the original creator of the page), keep my request to have the page kept up, but try to improve it and if it stays up, then add the info as it gets on line? The one big mistake that people have made (these are the ones wanting it deleted), is the fact the from my references, none of them would come under the title of the 'Pulsing light foundation', as the stories in the publications are human / real life stories, the articles (ie References) are about the people who have been helped by the pulsing light foundation, not the foundation, but the foundation is mentioned in the features. Thank you again, don't worry if you don't have time to advise, but if you do, is it possible that you could do it in my talk page, as I assume that I will or might lose the link to your contact; if there is anything I can do to help you out on wikipedia please do let me know, thanks also for your time.Trdk4 (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a lot there, and I hope you will forgive me if, for lack of time, I restrict myself to answering just a few points. It is not necessary for references to be online (though it does help others to check them if they are). The point was that the sort of references that you gave would be expected to have copies in the online archives of the relevant publications, and the fact that they don't led to suspicion that the references didn't exist. In my opinion to jump from that suspicion to "this is a clear hoax" was making far too big assumption, but I can see why someone might be inclined to be suspicious. As far as searching for these sources is concerned, I don't think that it is relevant that the Pulsing Light Foundation is not their primary subject, as any mention of that in the articles would show up in searches. I had no difficulty, for example, in finding an article containing the word "pulsing" in the Catholic Herald, and I am sure the same would have been so for articles containing the expression "Pulsing Light Foundation" if any existed, even if it were only mentioned in passing in an article about something else. Similar remarks apply to the other references. Unlike the editor who wrote "this is a clear hoax", I am willing to believe that you wrote the article in good faith, but on the face of things it does look as though the references are invalid. In addition to this, leaving aside the references you gave, if the organisation has received the kind of attention and coverage necessary to show notability by Wikipedia's standards, it is highly implausible that there would not be some mentions somewhere in reliable sources that could be found online, but there are none. I have searched, and have found no mentions (not even passing mentions) of this organisation in any reliable source anywhere. (Twitter, blogspot, blogger, and Wikipedia are not reliable sources.) It is quite clear to me that the organisation does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

You ask for advice on the way forward. Naturally what I say is just my opinion, and it is up to you to decide whether to accept my advice, but for what it's worth here it is. I don't think there is any reasonable chance of the article surviving the current deletion discussion. You can try to improve the article in the hope of saving it, but my judgement is that you would be wasting your time, as it would be deleted anyway. You have indicated that you are willing to consider accepting deletion of the article. Doing so would save a little time, but would almost certainly not make any difference to the eventual outcome. I don't see any strong reason for doing so or not doing so, but If you choose to follow that route, let me know, and I will delete it. If and when the organisation is established as notable in Wikipedia's terms, then it will be perfectly OK to recreate the article. However, you should be aware that, once it has been through a deletion discussion and deleted, recreating it without better evidence of notability is likely to lead to it being speedily deleted, without needing to be put through another deletion discussion. I strongly suggest looking at the notability guidelines, if you have not already done so, to see what sort of thing is needed. In my opinion Wikipedia has far too many guidelines and policies, making it a nightmare for a new user to know what is what, but the most important ones in this case are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of organizations and companies. You may also like to look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which is not an official guideline, but gives some experienced editors' advice on some relevant issues. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Hey just want to say sorry about my name change. I just saw that I had the option to and decided to try something new. I now know I did wrong and will make sure not to do so again. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again thank you

Thank you so very much for taking the time, everything that you say makes perfect sense, I believe that it is best to delete the article for now, you are right by saying that it needs more publicity, also thank you for taking the time to reply and I feel that you have tried to help find a way of keeping the page/ article and I really do apreciate it; one of the other problems is that the foundations name has recently changed, so that is also a problem, but I couldn't mention that as no publication mentions it; anyway, no doubt there will be more publicity soon and if I add the page in again, I will make sure that you can see some of the references online, if I'm able to I will let you know, so you can see that the info was correct. Thank you also for understanding, you've been very professional and fair to myself and other people, who jumped to conclusions. I don't know if I'll return to wikipedia again, but if I do, it'll down to you, as you have been fair and professional, and not forgetting friendly; to help you also, I am aware that some publications have archieves from previously published materials, but from my own work, I know that they are not always reliable, but saying that some are very reliable, the best one that I have found, from my own research work is the Times newspaper. Anyway I assume that you're aware of this but thank you again, I would be grateful if you could delete my article, and I won't take it personally, I'll just make sure that, if I come back, I'll do a better job. This has actually been a good learning experience, so thank you for that; I also believe that it could damage the foundation, if the page is up there and certain people are making comments about the foundation, I really wouldn't want that to happen.

I don't know anything about you, but I hope that your good work on wikipedia continues, and I wish you all the best for the future. Thank you.Trdk4 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Khalil Gibran School

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

Answered on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Khalil Gibran School

Many thanks for your prompt reply and I appreciate your helpful comments. User:scylaxus —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC).

Glad to have been able to help. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Caputo

Hello JamesBWatson. I responded to your comment. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your honest attitude. You know, I'm not Queen of Sheba and I make mistakes quite often. I don't have any "patent for truth". There's always a possibility to notify me about my mistakes, but I prefer communication in a factual and — say — 'impersonal' way. I respect honest efforts of all editors working on this project and I wish to collaborate in a friendly atmosphere, even if I disagree with someone. Thank you for your apology. Best regards. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ivan Rodin why deleted page ?

Hello! Why was deleted page Ivan Rodin without AfD discussions ? He is currently plays in fully professional league Russian Second Division. (WildCherry06 06:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC))

I deleted it as a recreation of an article which had been deleted as a result of an AfD. However, from what you say it may be that the reasons for deletion no longer apply, so I have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Khalil Gibran School Rabat

Hi James have added the link to international schools page for this school under Rabat. Is this OK with you. Many Thanks (Scylaxus (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)) User:scylaxus]]

Newbies vs Oldies vs Admins

• Thanks for your kind words here but apparently, somebody is none too happy with me for god-knows-whatever-the-feck-reasons. See the continued harassment on my talk page, and my conversation else where: User talk:Akjar13‎#STOP YOUR SPAM & User talk:FT2#Biting?. Cheers and best, I'm going to grab a cold one and take 8 off. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Tfd: Facepalm

• See WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Template:Facepalm
• Facepalm ... Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Some people really do seem to get unnecessarily worked up about things. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Fightback!

I'm going to err on the side of caution and say that Bloomsbury Fightback!, and article you tagged under A7, just barely has a credible claim of importance, particularly regarding the claim that they ended up getting their spoof message picked up by national magazines. That being said, in its current state, I'd certainly !vote to delete at an AfD under notability grounds, so I definitely would support you opening an AfD on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Playmen (songwritter , producer)

hello ... Sorry if i m wastin some of your time ... My name Is pavlos manolis ... And i am new here on wiki ... My co-partner named Lefteris Xenakis and i ... Have created the playmen which is a Brandname officialy approved by the greek goverment and through this brandname we made our music known to the most people ... We sold our music under the playmen brandname on itunes ... On beatport etc ... We have launched lately our new single track feature TPain ... And we have 60,000 fans on our facebook page ... Which is a big number for Greece ... We recently tried to create a page on wiki ... About the playmen brand... (Which is full approved by greek law and goverment) ... But i just saw you deleted this ... Please tell us the right way to do it ... If you found something wrong ... And help us if you can to join wiki) Thank You in Advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlos.manolis (talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You should not be creating an article about yourselves, as Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral, third party point of view, and you have a conflict of interest in writing about yourselves. Also, the deleted article appeared to be written as promotion: WIkipedia is not a medium for advertising or promotion. If you satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines then probably someone else will write an independent article about you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We did not created the article ourselves ... Our music company ... Did it .... It was familiar to other articles talkin about songwritters singers djs etc ... Should we do another new effort in your opinion ... If you agree with that please tell me which was the part that we should change .. In order to be proper :) Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlos.manolis (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ConverseBank

Dear James

My article was deleted, because my Account name represented an organization, wchich is not permitted. With this new account I want to create the same article, isn't it possible?

Thanks to answer. Arpine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpine Chatyan (talk • contribs) 11:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The reasons for deletion of the article Conversebank had nothing to do with the username. They were because (1) the article did not make it clear that the business is significant or important enough to justify having an article about it in an encyclopaedia, and (2) because teh article appeared to be unambiguous advertising or promotion. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotionof anything. No matter what username you use, you should probably not be creating an article about a subject for which you have a conflict of interest, and no article, no matter who it is written by, should be promotional in character. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible Socks?

Hi. I just stumbled upon this. These two accounts Poem1984 and Poemlover1984 seem to be of the same user. — Abhishek  ^Talk 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear they are the same person, but I see no evidence that the accounts are being abused in any way. However, I have asked for clarification on the user talk pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Ferris wheels

Thanks for undoing the Talk:List of Ferris wheels revert. Please could you do something with my talk page? Cheers. 2.26.128.213 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 2.26.128.213 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Flying Dutchman (disambiguation)

Please review this revert - thanks. 2.26.128.213 (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

NB: Thoroughbred SHOULD be capitalised! It's a breed. 2.26.128.213 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that the manual of style prefers US to USA, though I can't imagine why, so I have restored that. However, I can't see any reason for capitalising "thoroughbred": it isn't a proper noun. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See Thoroughbred. 2.26.128.213 (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've already looked there, and you are right. Apologies. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt fixes, much appreciated. 2.26.128.213 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up Film Noir.

Not much to say but thanks for cleaning up film noir, i was shocked to see what i saw.. (vandalism) 5:56, 2 October, 2011 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.215.20 (talk)

Review

Hi James, sorry to bug you but I'd like to rquest a review of some behaviour towards me wrt WP:TPG & WP:CIVIL at User talk:Lvivske. First by User:Lothar von Richthofen [2] but also by Volunteer Marek at that page[3][4][5] and at AE[6]. Please feel free to comment on my actions and rverse me if you deem fit. Let me know also if you'd prefer not to and I'll ask someone else--Cailil ^talk 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is lovely too[7] but in fairness Marek did redact it[8]--Cailil ^talk 13:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at it, and preparing a response. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I did not redact that statement, simply moved it to the appropriate portion of the request. I have no intention of redacting it either as there's nothing wrong with it. Please don't mistake criticism, especially when warranted, for "attacks". You can go around criticizing me if you want, I don't mind. Volunteer Marek  17:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

edward morland lewis

Hello I am trying ( my best) to get simple information about this lovely artist onto Wiki. I will follow your rules but , lose work every time I break them. any help would be appreciated

cheers Metalinisvyras (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey

With regard to the Talk That Talk article, thanks for seeing my point of view. I was getting annoyed that no one was listening to me and not paying attention to what has been going on with regard to the incubated article over the past week. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone created the article again and I have Afd'd it, could you delete it please, as you are aware if the situation. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 09:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The new version is just a redirect, not an article, so it will do no harm to leave it in place until the other article is ready. If you disagree, the place to go is RfD, as AfD is for articles, not redirects. However, I don't think there would be any realistic chance of a deletion at RfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

AcademicBusinessResearch

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

Dear JamesBWatson,

Thank you for your message. I am still learning about the workings of Wikipedia, so I apologise if I am not responding on the correct page.

I just want to confirm that I am an individual user, and have certainly not joined Wikipedia on behalf of any organization: my username simply reflects my interest in academic business research. This identifier is not an attempt at advertising - I cannot see how such a broad name could possibly promote any organization.

As a teacher of Business and Management, I have a good knowledge on this subject, and would like to be able to continue contributing to articles in this field. I would prefer to keep my existing username which is both easy for me to remember, and outlines my area of interest. I am sure you understand that, as a teacher, I would not like to use any more identifiable names on this site.

Is there anything that I need to do to prove that I am an individual contributer?

Warm regards

AcademicBusinessResearch — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcademicBusinessResearch (talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 October 2011‎

Answered duplicate message at User talk:AcademicBusinessResearch . JamesBWatson (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Double Denim Records

Hello,

I wish to create a page for Double Denim Records.

Would that be o.k?

Thanks

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theorangedot (talk • contribs) 15:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend looking at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) first, to check whether it satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. Also, if you have a connection to the business then you have a conflict of interest, and should not be creating an article about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Huggle

Hello, I'm trying to use Huggle and it sort of works, but for every revision I try to view it says "failed to retrieve diff". It is also not always warning users when I click the "revert and warn" button, as you will see by looking through my contributions. It only started to do these things today. Do you have any advice for me? (I'm using the 2.1.17 version)Metricopolus (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am using Huggle 2.1.17 without trouble. If that doesn't work come back here if you like, and I'll see if I can think of anything else, but I can't promise anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strange, looks like I'm not the only one having this kind of difficulty today, I'm having trouble with the gadgets: Twinkle and Citation expander~! Without them, I can't even welcome anyone... everything has to be done manually! Facepalm ... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, but since you posted that comment I have checked and found that Twinkle isn't available for me at all: the Twinkle links are just not there. However, I must say that I am SHOCKED and OFFENDED that you have dared to use that EVIL {{Facepalm}} template. Really, it is just too much. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, you really overdid it this time so don't blame for what I'm about to do... Facepalm ~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. When I answered the original post to this section I was having no trouble with Huggle, but recently I have several times got a "The requested page or revision cannot be found" message, and have been forced to do stuff manually. Clearly something is going on. Facepalm ...oops, didn't mean to do that! JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm ... must be a server side problem then. Oops we did it again~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, that was exactly what I meant about huggle but it was hard to explain. Yesterday twinkle was not available for some weird reason, but today it is! Metricopolus (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm having the exact same huggle problems as yesterday. I can still edit, but it's so annoying with the messages popping up, and the "failed to retrieve diff" signs at the bottom of the browser. Metricopolus (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As a result of the "The requested page or revision cannot be found" messages, some vandals are not warned when they should be. Today I'm going to use twinkle, instead. JamesBWatson and Dave, are you experiencing any problems now? Metricopolus (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not that I know of since twinkle is working again but huggle and citations expander are still out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been using both Twinkle and Huggle without any problems (yet). JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking on the huggle talk page, I see that some other users are having the same problems. It also appears to me that the server is down and that maintenance is taking place. Metricopolus (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There have been several other problems over the last couple of days which seem to me to suggest server problems. For example, to my knowledge at least three users have made unblock requests because of one autoblock which should have expired months ago. Autoblocks normally last only 24 hours, I believe, but this one seems to have been reactivated by the servers for some reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Huggle is not as bad as it was before; I can now use it without too much difficulty. The only problem I'm encountering with huggle is the "unknown error, failed to retrieve diff" notices at the bottom of the browser, that appear for every revision I try to view. And it appears as if I'm editing from a normal internet wikipedia page (I can see my username, my preferences, my contributions etc. at the top of the browser). Metricopolus (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's odd, because I'm not getting any problems at all. Are you using the latest version? 2.1.18, which came out recently, is, I believe, the latest. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly very odd. I was using 2.1.17. Now I'll download 2.1.18. It's been a very interesting editing day for me, alternating between twinkle and huggle. Metricopolus (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• The worst thing is not these two but... the outage of CITATION EXPANDER... every citation has to be input manually~!! I can't take it anymore~!!! Facepalm ... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your word for that, but I've never used it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Go to the top of your page, click on "my preferences" and check on the "Gadget" tab. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'll have a look at it some time, but I don't think I'll spend the time on it now. Facepalm JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've just received two "failed to retrieve diff" messages from Huggle, after all. What is more, one of them was for a page I hadn't even tried to access. Strange. Facepalm JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what it did to be on 2.1.17. I tried 2.1.18 for about a minute and it worked fine. Then I had to go somewhere, which is the reason for this late reply. Metricopolus (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Enomatic

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arseguet (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arseguet (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arseguet (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

whale migration deletion

hello this is the creator of the article"whale migration" feel free to edit my article I do not have much experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowoneul (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Britton

You beat me to it :-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

... for reverting the abuse on my talkpage. Yunshui (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yunshui has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

OECD Development Centre

Please undelete this entry. You claim copyright infringement, but the links are freely and publicly available texts that are made available from the OECD and the OECD Development Centre. No copyrighted text has been copied and pasted, only links to freely available documentation and information.OECD Development Centre (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please see response in my Talk, OECD Development Centre (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on that page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at For7thGen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see my request for speedy un-deletion, on my own Talk page. For7thGen (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on that page too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at For7thGen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks a great amount. Please help me find the deleted article, explained on my Talk page. For7thGen (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Telemedicine in Tanzania

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

Replied at User talk:Narathc. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Social Majors

Hello James,

You deleted my Social Majors article for "promotions" reasons. I read the guidelines for placing articles on Wikipedia and I don't see where I crossed the line.

My intention is to inform viewers of social majors when they type it into Google. I'm not looking to promote on wikipedia because Social Majors only provides information and for independent labels around the globe.

Let me know your thoughts.

Enjoy your weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueternal (talk • contribs) 04:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

An article containing such prose as, for example, "Our objective is to provide independent labels and artist with the tools and resources to develop and distribute their Intellectual Property around the globe" is promotional in tone. It is the sort of thing which is written in a business's marketing materials, not the sort of thing one expects to read in an article in an encyclopaedia. If you honestly didn't see it that way then I can only assume that you are so closely involved in the business that you are unable to stand back from it and see how your writing will look from the more distant perspective of an uninvolved outsider. (This is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage us from editing articles on subjects in which we have a close personal involvement.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Quest of the Sparrows deletion

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

The book has a reference from outside source and has been nominated as Rank 22 in best South Asian Fiction: http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/48.Best_South_Asian_Fiction

Syravi (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)syravi

Yes. Someone has set up a website on which people can put forward books, and "vote" for them. At present 93 books have been nominated, and 411 votes have been cast, making an average of a little over four votes per book. This book has received 9 votes. That tells us that there are 9 people who like the book (assuming all the votes are from different people). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Relativity: too much credit on Einstein

Hello "James", You have changed my editing about relativity to its previous state, because it was controversial. Please, instead of undoing my editing without a thought about it, check science history first. You are a mathematician, so I think it is easy for you to do that. I know it sounds arrogant, but I have noticed, even among scientists, that few of them really know their history, and just follow the main stream of popular thinking telling that Einstein is the inventor of the relativity. Don't misundertand me: I have a great respect for you on Wikipedia, but I think it is necessary to use words such as "one must keep in mind that Einstein did not invented relativity...". Why that? Simply because almost everybody in the world think it is him; of course, it is not him. One should make the effort to really check at History, and thoroughly: it is not an easy matter. The origins of that was the legendary modesty of Henri Poincaré, and the fact that the american journalists, mainly them, created a "hero" after he left his country to America because of Hitler. And, last but not least, the Sages in Sweden did not give the Nobel Price for the relativity to Einstein because they knew who really did the job: Lorentz and especially Poincaré (who invented the term "Principle of relativity" and the basics of it; look for the Meeting at Saint Louis, Missouri, in 1904; and was the first to establish the formula E=mc²). Of course, Einstein was a good scientist and gave the relativity its mature state, so he is the one who improved it, made it "final" (with huge help of Mathematicians, and especially his best and brilliant friend, Marcel Grossmann : Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitätstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation, Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik, 62:225, 1914). Therefore, I think it is legitimate, because of this huge, global misinformation, to not forget at least Henri Poincaré and make him justice by putting his name in the forefront, instead of constantly citing Einstein. And, as final words, Einstein has never been considered as a "genius" by his peers (mainly due to his "low" aptitudes in mathematics), unlike Henri Poincaré... Thank you for having read this. Tremere2 (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Stéphane Bonard, best regards

Why did Barry_(software) get deleted?

Actively maintained software, I went to update the page I created some time back (my first one) to reflect the https://github.com/tobygray/barry fork, and see my work is gone. You say the software is not remarkable and deleted my contributions, but Wikipedia's got plenty of pages for less remarkable software - eg. grip - which is unmaintained since 2005, but Barry gets deleted for being unremarkable? As for lack of coverage, here's a few links from the first page of a web search: thelinuxexperiment.com, berryreview.com, ostatic.com, ubuntugeek.com, etc. I don't think having you delete all reference to this software on Wikipedia is helpful to anyone.

Boltronics (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that it was not remarkable, it was RadioFan who proposed the deletion and wrote that as a reason. My involvement was the purely administrative task of deleting the article when the proposal had remained uncontested for a week. Since you have now contested it (even though nearly a year later) I have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and restoration. Much appreciated. Boltronics (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hooray

The protection for the Blinky Bill episodes will expire in a cople of days. It better not be protected again. Now unprotect thoseredirectbpages so that I can merge each season to their own article. Things were peacful before Deltasim moved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.178 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey i just wanna say thanks for the unblock, really appreciate it i promise i won't make the same mistakes again, if i can ill try to alert the committee like you said to see if i can get approval to create a new account, i promise from that moment on it'll be the only account ill ever use, ill probably won't be the best editor on wikipedia, but ill certainly do my best to maintain a good standard and approach things in a peaceful manner by the rules and standards we have here.Trent1994 (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Our annoying Moomin problem

Looks like the nationalism-driven editors are starting a new brace of edits at these articles. I just reverted a couple of non-NPOV (this time pro-Finnish) edits at Tove Jansson and Moomin again today. I also reverted an edit you'd made before, but I thought better of it and self-reverted for the time being. I trust you since I've seen you fight against the nationalism garbage before and I don't think you have any agenda in this issue. I wonder, though, whether there are any policies that cover this particular point. I've been going through the guideline pages at WP:BOOKS and they come close to providing direct guidance, but they don't seem to cover exactly what we need. My thoughts are that it's obvious that the article should be given the English translation and then the further translation in the lede should be in the language in which the book was originally written. I can see an argument for also including the language of the country in which the book was first published but I don't think it would be appropriate to include any other languages. I was thinking of posing the question to WP:BOOKS, but I thought I'd contact you first. Do you know of any policy that describes which translations should appear inline in the lede? -Thibbs (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. I will try too look into this more thoroughly in a few days when I have more time, but here are a few thoughts. My own preference, as you know, is for not giving any priority to Finnish over other languages that the books have been translated into, but I don't have a strong objection to including Finnish. Like you, I can see a case for including Finnish. When I first came across this sort of thing on Moomin related articles a few years ago I thought strongly that including Finnish was wrong, but I have gradually come round to thinking that it is a trivial point in proportion to all the other stuff to deal with on Wikipedia, and I no longer really care that much. Despite the fact that my most recent revert of this was just a couple of weeks ago, I no longer feel it is worth spending effort on. If you want to restore the mention of Finnish I won't revert it again. However, that is not the only thing: as you know, the Finnish nationalist editing has started up in several fronts, after some years of relative quiet. This kind of editing is clearly just wrong. It clearly needed reverting, and if we start getting that sort of thing regularly it will be a significant problem, perhaps requiring semi-protection. I hope it won't come to that. (Interestingly, the IP address geolocates to England.) I really don't have any strong feeling one way or the other on this sort of thing. I agree with you that "Swedish-Finn" is a recognised term for Swedish speaking Finnish citizens, and the edit summary is to some extent nonsense, as nobody has suggested that it refers to people who have dual citizenship, just as nobody, so far as I know, thinks an "Irish American" is someone with dual nationality. However, there may be a case for explicitly saying "Swedish-speaking Finnish", as that makes the meaning clearer to people who don't know what "Swedish-Finn" means. (I have no doubt whatsoever that the motivation is not such clarification, but rather a nationalistic wish to suppress anything that suggests that Swedish-Finns are a separate ethnic group. However, whether such edits should be allowed to stand should be judged on their merits, not on the motivation of the editor.) I really don't feel strongly enough either way about that to bother to revert either version to the other. I remember FisherQueen once saying in connection with disruptive editing by Irish nationalists "nationalists make my head hurt", and I agree. Whether it be Irish nationalists, British nationalists, Finnish nationalists, Greek nationalists, Chinese nationalists, or whatever else, nationalist editors are a complete waste of our time. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll continue to look through the relevant guidelines myself as well. If we can find anything useful then it might be a good idea to add a {{Consensus}} template to the talk page that we can refer to when these problems arise again. In the meanwhile, I agree with your statement that "whether such edits should be allowed to stand should be judged on their merits, not on the motivation of the editor." This is important to keep in mind as POV-pushing campaigns do have a way of wearing a person down. Thanks for the good advice. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Playmen redux

Regarding your earlier interaction with another editor concerning the article about the DJ duo Playmen (see thread above): Yet another editor or group of editors (or perhaps the same one using other user names) has repeatedly tried to usurp the article Playmen, which is about an Italian Playboy magazine knockoff. I've reverted three times to the original article and left messages on the editors' Talk pages, but the attempted hijacking continues. I'm not sure how to proceed if this continues--I'm not even sure what the correct warning is for this situation, as there is no template for "stop taking over an article on one topic and making it an article about a different topic." Content removal? Recreating a deleted article (Playmen (DJs , Producers))? Any advice on how to handle this situation going forward? (Watching here, so replying here is fine.)--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor who has been most active in this, and given warnings of possible blocks to the other one, and to the two IPs which have been most involved. If the problem continues they can be blocked. If that happens and other IPs take over it may be necessary to semi-protect the article, but I would prefer to avoid that if possible. Let's hope that a block of one of the accounts will convey the message and they will stop. As for what "the correct warning" is, where there is no template that says just what you want, it's a matter of writing your own warning. Sometimes I copy an existing templated warning and edit it to suit the occasion, but more often I just write one of my own. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As I'm sure you saw on the Talk pages of the users involved, I did write my own warnings the first time around. But I wasn't sure, if things went further, what would satisfy an admin working on AIV requests that proper warnings had been issued. In any case, thank you for your reply and your intervention. I'll continue to keep an eye on the situation.--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)