User talk:JBW/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

User:AKS.9955

Hi. I noticed the frivolous report about me at the Administrator intervention against vandalism page made against me by AKS.9955. Can you advise what further can be done about this? The pages in question are clearly promotional, with content that might appear in a leaflet advertising the course requirements rather than an encyclopedia article. The editor's reply to your response at the 'vandalism' page indicates that he simply refuses to hear the comments of myself, the third opinion respondent, and you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• User:Jeffro77, Following;

1. Firstly you have to explain why and on what basis were you accusing me of WP:COI and being related to one Dr. Singh?
2. Where is Wikipedia is it written that admission requirement is termed as promotional? If so than what about this? I am sure, we can find several more such examples. I know you will now say WP:OSE but that does not answer the question completely as it talks both ways.
3. WP:TONE: This question was raised and I replied point by point. It passes every single word mentioned therein.
4. Fundamentally, the bigger question is do the two articles qualify to have its own page on Wikipedia and do they pass WP:GNG? If it does not then I recommend we mark it for AfD. If it does then it should remain there for people to read. You have to understand that there are over 100 institutions in India and other countries offering this degree to thousands of students each year.
5. refuses to hear: The other user involved in the discussion was confused to begin with the term Diploma and hence he gave his first comments with that understanding. I explained to him how use of this term is acceptable not only in India, but in other countries as well. He never raised question on the WP:GNG of the article and ended the discussion by advising me to remove the redirects back (which I did).
6. You must not forget (and as I stated earlier) that considering your experience, I did not revert your changes in the first instance and instead dropped you a message to review it. You are too adamant to admit you made a mistake and are going to any lengths to prove your point, including accusing me of WP:COI.
7. You have constantly failed to quote one single rule or policy due to which these articles should be redirected. All I heard then was promotional and COI.

• I wish to end this promotional discussion once and forever. Basically, and if I read correctly, entire spamming is categorized into three parts;

1. Advertisements masquerading as articles: Quote "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.". Unquote. Clearly this was not the case and even if it was, then you were supposed to mark the article for deletion as per the guideline, which you did not do.
2. Tagging articles with spam or prone to spam: Quote "Some articles, especially those pertaining to Internet topics, are prone to aggressive spamming from multiple websites". Unquote. Again, this was not the case and even if it was, then you were supposed to tag the page with "Advert" as per the guideline (if you did not have the ability to clean up), which you did not do.
3. External link spamming: Quote "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed". Unquote. Again, this was not the case at all. Which external link, Citation spam, Source soliciting, External link spamming with bots, Affiliate links, Videos or Bookspam did you find in any of the pages?

Just because you say a page is promotional; it does not make it promotional. You have not only made a mistake, you are misleading others too by lying. As I have stated time and again, prove to me once that both pages violates any guidelines and I will stand corrected.

All I am saying is a) Article is worth having its own page (this was the original reason given by you during first page move). b) There is nothing promotional in it. If the issue is with a section then the section needs to be amended (obviously I did not write anything that praised the courses) c) Creating Wikilinks does not make an article promotional as you stated earlier. d) You cannot accuse someone of having WP:COI without any proof. Since you have accused me, you need to prove it. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of a conflict of interest. I queried whether there was any affiliation based on the same surnames, which is not any great leap. In any case, such affiliation would still be secondary to the main problem that the articles are promotional in nature.

I already cited the relevant policies and guidelines at the original discussion at my archived Talk page.

I and two other editors have already indicated that the articles appear promotional in nature, and you have not made any improvements to the article that would satisfy the stipulation by the third opinion respondent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• User:Jeffro77, So going by your logic, all the John, Lee, Chow, Singh, Patel etc in the world must know each other? Is that how we work on Wikipedia?? Your query was so lame that I don't even feel the need to defend myself. I have heard you say several times, "I already cited the relevant policies and guidelines at the original discussion": question is where did you quote a guideline rather than going on an on about it? I have read your replies there again and your first reason was, quote "These certifications appear to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. They are not broadly recognised certifications, and the information that was in the articles was merely administrative in nature, and could very likely be viewed as inappropriate promotion of the courses"???? Unquote In the entire discussion, you failed to quote one single rule that validates your action. I have clarified WP:TONE and WP:SPAM point by point. Lets assume for a moment it was promotional as you say, then too you cannot justify your act of redirect (ref WP:SPAM). You have clearly not followed any guidelines and continue to argue about a mistake you made. May I please ask you how this article fails WP:GNG? And stop misquoting people; last discussion from the other user on your talkpage was quote "Like I said before, if you think you can make the articles better, by all means, remove the redirects...." unquote. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You have not made the articles better, so the editor's comments are not an endorsement for removing the redirects.

Your comments about names are trivial and hardly worthy of a response. It was reasonable to ask if there might be a conflict of interest. And there is no requirement to quote specific sentences of the relevant guidelines, and you should reasonably have the necessary comprehension skills to see how the cited policies and guidelines apply, which have obviously been understood by the other editors who have commented.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• User:Jeffro77, So now you are the judge for quality of articles? I would again like to know - what is wrong with the article. Also, my question is why did you redirect when WP:SPAM does not ask for a redirect. Either nominate it for deletion or tag it with "Advert"; where did the redirect come from? And why there is no requirement to quote specific sentences of the relevant guidelines? Are you even sure of what are you talking about? If we don't quote guidelines then what do we edit with; our "whims and fancies and our own interpretations"? You are going beyond reason now. Unless you have a point; please don't waste mine and your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You've already repeated yourself quite a bit. At this juncture, it might be best to await a response from JamesBWatson.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the worst cases of "I didn't hear that" that I have seen for some time. Experience shows that in such cases there is usually little if any point in repeating yet again points that have already been made, as the editor who didn't hear first time and second time will almost invariably continue to fail to hear. I shall therefore not try to answer all the points which have already been answered. However, I shall make some remarks, some of which will be one last attempt to make clear a few points which have already been made. (I really do mean "one last attempt": after this I shall assume that either you do understand the points in question, or else you lack the ability to understand them.)

1. Obviously, to assume that because an editor has the same surname as someone about whom he or she is editing he or she must have a conflict of interest would be absurd, particularly in the case of such a very common name as Singh. However, equally obviously, in such a situation to wonder whether there may be a connection is reasonable, and to ask the editor whether there is such a connection is reasonable. For that editor to answer "no", and leave it at that, is reasonable. However, for that editor to answer "no", and then keep on harping on about the question at length, repeating comments on different discussion pages, and representing the question as "accusing" him or her of a conflict of interest, is unreasonable and disruptive.
2. I am not keen on use of the word "spam", and in my opinion it is much over-used in Wikipedia. There are some people who come here to spam, but far more often people who have no intention of spamming edit in perfectly good faith, and without realising that what they are doing is likely to look promotional to other people. There are blatant spam articles created on Wikipedia, which can be speedily deleted without notice, but there are also articles which are not blatant spam, but which are promotional in tone. To quote large chunks of text from guidelines, policies, or whatever, relating to "spam" and declare that because a particular article does not exactly fit the descriptions given it can't be promotional is to miss the point. I don't know whether anyone has suggested that the articles under discussion are "spam", but I do know that it has been suggested that they are promotional in character, which is not the same thing.
3. The articles under discussion contain information such as requirements for admission to courses, which is the sort of detail that one expects to read in a course prospectus, not in an encyclopaedia article.
4. The quotation beginning "Like I said before..." above is taken out of context. In the context, the remark came from someone who had made it perfectly clear that he or she thought that the present articles were inadequate, and that a redirect was preferable. It was a concession that the redirects might be restored if the faults with the articles could be addressed, and to represent it as "advising me to remove the redirects" is a total misrepresentation (whether intentionally so or not).
5. I came on the scene in order to respond to a request for administrative intervention on vandalism. The edits referred to in that request were clearly made in good faith, and were not vandalism. Nevertheless, there clearly are problems, and it is possible that some sort of administrative action may become necessary. I have not yet taken any administrative action, but I shall be willing to do so if the problems continue. I have already drawn attention to the fact that an administrator assessing such a report is likely to take into consideration all aspects of the case, and edits by all editors concerned. Apart from the disputed editing of the articles, the discussions relating to the dispute also include disruptive editor behaviour, including false accusations and a battleground approach to disagreements.
6. I draw the attention of both AKS.9955 and Jeffro77 to Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Since experience shows that a surprising number of editors think that edit warring doesn't count as edit warring unless the so-called "three revert rule" is broken, I particularly call attention to the fact that the policy explicitly states that it is possible to edit war without breaking that "rule". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I would only add that AKS.9955 didn't say "no" to the question about a potential conflict of interest. Instead, he simply said I have "no proof" (for my question?), and then repeatedly misrepresented the question as an assertion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: Thanks for that clarification. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hello JamesBWatson, thanks for your time. Just to clarify, the only reason I used the word "spam" is that is how it is defined in the guidelines. I did not imply that Jeffro77 used those words; I used those words. I also agree with your observation of edit warring & AGF and have been very cautious on these line all along and that's the reason I did not revert any edits in the beginning. I agree with your approach on concluding the matters (and my opinion is that this is a small point that has been stretched) one way or the other. If the use of sections "requirements for admission to courses" is the problem, I recommend lets remove it. I only went by the available guidelines and also few articles (ex MBA) that are in similar lines. Now that we all agree in principle that WP:GNG, WP:COI and WP:SPAM are not under question (with the exception of "requirements for admission to courses"), I suggest lets get a closure to this entire issue by removing the sections in discussion. In good faith, I take my share of responsibility but it will not be fair to put the entire blame on me alone. Lastly, please let me know if you feel that the articles themselves should not be on Wikipedia and I will nominate them for deletion myself. James, I might not be as experienced as you are but I am sure looking at my contributions you will be able to tell that spamming and COI is the last thing I am involved in. In the interest to move forward, I will leave it at this and wait for your revert. Will do exactly as advised. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@AKS.9955: I have had a quick look at your contribution history, and it is clear to me that you are a constructive editor, and certainly not a spammer. Nor do I see any reason to think that you have a conflict of interest. However, on this one occasion, it does seem to me that your reactions have not been ideal, and in particular that you have made the mistake of responding to good faith and perfectly civil editing by an editor who disagrees with you in an unnecessarily confrontational way. My comment on requirements for admission to courses was just meant to be an example of what might be seen as problematic about the article, not as a definitive statement as to what might need amending. The articles do not read to me like spam: if they did, then I would have speedily deleted them. However, they do in some ways read more like the sort of content to be expected in university prospectuses than in encyclopaedia articles, and I just tried to point out one example of that. As for whether the subjects of the articles are notable enough to justify having articles (which is, of course, a very different question from whether the existing articles are suitable), I don't have any opinion, and I would need to do a lot of searching for information to decide. I have not done that sort of searching, nor do I intend to; my involvement here is in response to a request for administrative intervention regarding editor conduct, and whether the subjects are notable is irrelevant to that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• JamesBWatson, thanks for your time in this regard and I appreciate your feedback. In the absence of any opinion (about WP:GNG) from you and that you are also of the opinion that the article is not a spam, I am taking it that lets maintain the situation in as is condition. Having said that and since Jeffro77 had also pointed out (apart from other observations) for the "admission criteria", in good faith, I am deleting those sections (although it does not violate any guidelines) to end this discussion once and forever. Enough time has been spent on this subject (partially my fault also) and I do not wish to waste my, your, Jeffro77's and anyone else's time on this matter. Sorry for the trouble and at any point, should you feel that the articles fail WP:GNG then please let me know and I will nominate them for deletion myself since I don't want to contribute to garbage on Wikipedia. Thanks again.

p.s. Jeffro77, I hope this concludes the matters now. Happy editing. Cheers Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As you did with the previous third opinion respondent, you are again pretending that other editors have agreed with you where they have not. Why do you continually misrepresent what other editors have said?

1. JamesBWeston stated that the articles are not spam, but already clearly articulated that this does not mean that the articles are not promotional.
2. He has not assessed the subject according to the GNG, "which is, of course, a very different question from whether the existing articles are suitable". His previous statements indicate that, based on the articles in their current form, the redirects are appropriate.
3. He stated that the admission criteria are only one example of the unencyclopedic nature of the content.
4. The fact that this has gone on so long is entirely your fault as you refuse to accept what other editors have actually said, just picking out the bits you think are in agreement with you.
5. When you freshly 'expanded' the articles this month, all you did was revert the redirects with one other minor deletion.[1][2] And then you immediately reverted my edits.
6. There might not be a conflict of interest, but you did not address the issue, instead bombastically treating a simple question as an assertion. Your dishonest report for 'vandalism' and pretending others have agreed where they have not do not go to your veracity.

James, just to be clear... in the articles' current form, would it be better to replace the content with redirects?--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jeffro77, Although I disagree with you (individual opinion does not matter here) but if since everyone is of the opinion that the articles are not notable and should JamesBWatson also confirm, I will nominate both the pages for AfD (which is the apt thing to do) and wait for an outcome. I am sure the result there (either merge, redirect or delete) should be acceptable to all. James, please let me know. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • An AfD isn't necessary if editors can come to a consensus without it. (I mean, to a consensus to turn an article into a redirect.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have nominated both pages for deletion with remark that provides brief background. I have checked all reasons available for redirect (as per guidelines) and this case meets none. So the best way to go forward is nominate for deletion and if the consensus build there for a deletion or a redirect, then be it. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Doggyjack8

With respect to your query, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talentbcian for the answer to your question. Rewgards. -- Whpq (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Whpq: Thanks for pointing me to that. It turns out that there have been innumerable sockpuppets since 2012. I was much inclined to think the account might be a sockpuppet, but I had no idea whose sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talentbcian.
Message added 10:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Possible sleeper has appeared. Whpq (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Galileo mathematician?

Hi James, As far as the question of whether Galileo was a mathematician, you may be interested in a recent article by Bascelli "Bascelli, Tiziana. Galileo's quanti: understanding infinitesimal magnitudes. Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 68 2014), no. 2, 121–136." Briefly put, the author argues that "Galileo introduced in Two new sciences the infinitesimal quantities and opened the way for infinitesimal calculus", to quote the MathSciNet reviewer. Together with Cavalieri, Galileo is arguably the father of the method of indivisibles (which was fiercely opposed by the Jesuits, along with heliocentrism; see Stefano degli Angeli). So on the balance, Galileo deserves the title of mathematician more than others that carry the title, such as André Tacquet. Tkuvho (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tkuvho: I didn't know that. If it is so, then it certainly seems he deserves to be regarded as a mathematician. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Great. Sherlock Holmes, The editor who uses the pseudonym Tkuvho (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you kindly undo your deletion then? I added material under the "math" section that makes it amply clear that he deserves the title. Tkuvho (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. You have already reverted my edit: [3]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the facts of life of wiki is that nobody has the final word :-) His "fields" are currently listed as astronomy, physics, and natural philosophy. Tkuvho (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page

I would like to recreate the deleted page without the offending reference. I believe it was using the IMDb bio for Ken LaZebnik. If that is the only thing, I will eliminate and keep the rest the same. Please let me know if this is acceptable.

MikeBravo54MikeBravo54 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@MikeBravo54: Assuming you mean User:MikeBravo54/sandbox, it was deleted because it was copied from elsewhere, rather than being newly written in your own words. I see no obvious reason why you shouldn't create a new version of it, as long as you write it from scratch, instead of copying text from somewhere else. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JamesBWatson for responding to my question. I am new to this. To confirm, I am allowed to recreate the page on Ken LaZebnik if I retype the content from scratch. The content was manually typed in originally. I know I cut and pasted the Infobox person template from the bottom of the text to the top, but I don't recall pasting anything else. Whatever I did, I will try not to do it again. Again, thank you for the assistance.

User:MikeBravo54/sandboxMikeBravo54 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@MikeBravo54: If you didn't copy and paste the text, then you must have copied it fairly closely. Even if you change the words a little, if it is close enough to the original that anyone comparing the two can clearly see that it's basically a version of the original, then it's likely to be a copyright infringement. You may or may not find it helpful to look at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.

I am moving your latest message on this page to put it together with the previous posts on the same topic. It is usual to start a new topic at the bottom of the page, but when you add another message to an existing conversation, it is more helpful to add it to the bottom of that conversation, rather than the bottom of the page, to keep the conversation together, which makes it easier to follow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok JamesBWatson...I understand what happened. I will resubmit in what I hope will be an acceptable format. Again, thank you for the time you take to respond and explain.

User:MikeBravo54/sandboxMikeBravo54 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your rangeblock of 2602:306:8322:5720::/64

Evidence suggests they've moved to 2602:302:D120:4C00. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've blocked 2602:302:D120:4C00:0:0:0:44. If you know of any other IP addresses in the same range that have been used, please let me know, and I will consider a range block, but that is the only one I have found. However, in searching for more, I found another IP range (2602:30a:c0ff:d220::/64) and blocked that too. There may be more. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Will do! –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Caught another one. 2602:302:D120:4C00:7569:6224:B5E8:A30C –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Thanks. I've blocked the range 2602:302:D120:4C00:0:0:0:0/64 for 3 months.. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexx04

Hello to all I notice that my account is under the investigation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexx04 I'm an administrator of the website www.embajadoresaztecas.org that follow the mexican footballers that plays on Europe or another contries of América, Asia, Oceania etc... I started using Wikipedia for that reason to create wikipages about notable players who are already debuted on a profesional league. I don't know what is the problem with my account or that has to do with the account of Alexx04. So I need to know waht'll hapened because I'm afraid that my account will be blocked. Thanks for your time and sorry for the inconvenence. ByTheTime (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@ByTheTime: Well, if I had nothing to go on other than a comparison of your editing history with that of known sockpuppets, I would say it was about 99.9% certain that "ByTheTime" is another sockpuppet. However, there is also the technical data linking the account to other sockpuppets. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock of IP you recently banned

I'm not sure why you blocked 86.128.148.193 but they appear to have returned as Special:Contributions/86.130.215.71 so they are evading their blockl Mabuska ^(talk) 19:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the new IP address and semi-protected the articles it has edited. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Boris Serebryakov

I saw my edited pages was deleted i would ask you reason? i want edit other pages helping google translate is this problem? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temur888 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The page made serious accusations, including allegations of serious crimes, without providing any sources to substantiate those accusations. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Persistent vandal is back

85.243.159.92 (talk · contribs) SLBedit (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Powers and abilities for non-superpower characters

When it comes to comic book characters who obviously have no superpowers of any kind, mostly just combat skills, wouldn't it be more accurate on the section heading to say something like Abilities and training or Skills, weapons, and abilities? Because that's what I'm trying to do but it's getting reverted[4]. I mean I see that on other pages like the Punisher and Batman.108.82.13.194 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The exact wording of information about comic book characters and their abilities is really not something I care about one way or the other. However, you should be aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hull United A.F.C.

I'm not sure why this page was deleted? The football club has recently been promoted to Step 6 of the National League System and therefore meets notability criteria. It didn't meet these criteria when it was last deleted. Kivo (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to regard that as making any significant difference. The deletion discussion considered lack of "significant, reliable and non-routine coverage", which is not changed, and "never played in a national competition", which has not changed, so I don't see that the discussion has in any way become invalidated. There is no specific notability guideline for sports teams, but neither in the general notability guideline nor in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) can I see anything which remotely suggests that being in the Northern Counties East Football League automatically bestows notability. Even Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability (which is of course not an official Wikipedia notability guideline, but just the opinion of a group of people who are particuarly interested in football) says "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria", which indicates that the members of that "WikiProject" certainly do not think that being in such a a league automatically guarantees notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The page here would suggest that a club at Step 6 IS notable Kivo (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A page in the userspace of an editor, presumably expressing that person's personal opinion, is not an objective guide. I also see that the editor has not edited for over a year, so it is the personal opinion of someone who is not even currently an active Wikipedia editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of precedents where clubs that have reached Step 6 have had a new page - I'm very disappointed we didn't even have discussion on it and it was speedily deleted without even looking at the matter. Kivo (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

See the following precedents which have seen clubs worthy of a page without having played in an FA cup - because they have played at Step 6 - here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Through common consensus, this means Hull United ARE notable as they will be playing at Step 6 this season. Kivo (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• If I may interject, Kivo; do you have a match report or something for Hull United A.F.C. playing in the main rounds of the FA Vase? If they have, that may tip the balance in terms of notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

They have not yet competed in an FA competition - however previous consensus has been that playing at Step 6 has been enough to confer notability. GNG would also be met by numerous articles on the club. Kivo (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• They haven't played at step 6 yet though, since they've only just been promoted. When they have played (or played in the FA Vase), then I think notability isn't an issue. Could you provide some sources to back your GNG claim? We'll need more than just "this club has been set up" and things in local papers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kivo and Lukeno94: OK, Kivo has put enough doubt in my mind for me to restore the article. This does not mean that I have decided that the subject does qualify for an article, it just means that I have enough doubt that I am willing to reopen the case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good idea; Kivo, it would be a very good gesture of good-faith if you userfied the article until Hull United have played their first match (unless you can show GNG being met). :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me to understand Wikipedia. Raginidutta (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of hoaxes

Just curious why you're deleting hoax articles instead of archiving them, per the instructions at WP: List of Hoaxes on WP.198.161.2.212 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied on one of the other pages you posted this message to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

OK i understand the process but the reason i was editing those pages are most of the pages shows blank space and most not. No i don't have any other account. Sorry i am new on Wikipedia, that's why i am learning Wikipedia. Thanks next time i will take utmost care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raginidutta (talk • contribs) 03:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Unblock changes

Thank you so much for changing the block to anon-only! It helps me edit Wikipedia at school and correct all those grammatical errors I see! I am a grammar Nazi, in case you didn't know. Jamdor (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jamdor: As a matter of interest, what IP address does this refer to? At a quick look, I can't find any block that I have recently changed to anon-only. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I assume they are referring to 69.63.114.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: Yes, but I didn't change that block to anon only. In fact, the change to anon only took place over four months before the request for an unblock which Jamdor made and which I reviewed. (I also don't understand the block log entry associated with the change to anon only, as it said both "anon. only" and "blocked proxy": if it's blocked because it's an open proxy, then it shouldn't be anon only. However, I can see no evidence that the the IP address has been running an open proxy recently, so I have amended the block log entry to remove the reference to an open proxy.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Just as a follow up, someone has taken the opportunity to immediately re-enable the open proxy at that IP. I'm presuming they're just playing games at this point, and have re-set the hard block. Kuru (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Raginidutta

Hi JamesBWatson. I've just been looking at this user's unblock request - while it's not exactly comprehensive, I'm struggling to see convincing evidence of multiple accounts. The technical evidence (I ran a CU) is very inconclusive, and the barnstar, while a little suspect, isn't a smoking gun for me (There are instances where they have edited pages shortly after you (e.g. at Venkat International Public School) or where you reverted them prior to blocking, and they added something similar to Happysailor's talkpage after being reverted - my thinking is that this could easily be construed as Nevermind, in the process of writing this I've become convinced that this user is in fact Vipskul. Forget I said anything! Yunshui ^雲_水 08:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Hi, Yunshui. I thought I might get a message about this from whatever admin reviewed the unblock request, as the evidence is not obvious at first glance, so I had mentally prepared an answer. I myself was far from convinced at first, but I do think the evidence is convincing if you look closely enough and think carefully enough, and it's interesting that you came to that conclusion too. The editor has actually made a pretty good job of making the new account look like a completely different person from the previous ones, including throwing in a load of irrelevant edits to other articles to avoid the appearance of being a SPA. However, those edits themselves looked highly suspicious to me, and the answer to my question about other accounts was the last straw, as far as I was concerned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for your help with the Quebectelemarketing spam. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, just a question -- which I'd posed at the SPI as well -- is there any way to ensure that the article at Afd is also SALTED? or will I have to reapply at RFPP? Thanks! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Shawn in Montreal: You can ask me or the admin closing the AfD discussion to salt the title after the article is deleted. (Alternatively, you can take it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but that would have the disadvantage that probably the request would be handled by an admin without knowledge of the history.) However, very often in a case like this it is better not to protect the title, because that way the next sockpuppet gives himself or herself away by re-creating the same page, whereas if the title is salted, they create it under a new title which may go unnoticed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's true, too. Very well I shall lay a cunning trap. BTW, this Indonesian angle is fascinating--a naked IP from the Philippines had added the spam link to one of the deleted articles, as well. Montreal is home to quite a lot of shading telemarketing practices. Not to suggest that this company is necessary doing anything illegal -- but the fact that we have IPs from the other side of the world working very hard on this campaign gives me pause. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Quebec Telemarketing Corp

That didn't take long: shall we salt Quebec Telemarketing Corp? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Shawn in Montreal: Well, someone else had already salted it by the time I got there. Actually, I have thought again about what I said above about not salting so as to catch new sockpuppets. That is often helpful when a string of sockpuppets have all created the same article under the same title, but it is likely to be less relevant in this case, because the editor keeps changing to different titles anyway. It seems to me doubtful whether salting really makes much difference one way or the other in a case like this, but I suppose we may as well do it, as every extra little bit of inconvenience for the spammer may help to slightly slow down the rate of spamming, and may eventually build up to a point where they give up. I agree with what you said above about IPs working very hard on a campaign to promote a business on the other side of the world from themselves. Something very striking is going on. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I do think we should continue to salt, for the reasons you state -- whatever we can do slow them down. They clearly haven't considered that they are building a track record for themselves of misrepresentation on what is a public forum. Oh and have you gone to their official website? It's full of grammatical errors, etc. Hardly what one would expect from a company boasting a billion dollars revenue, as they have on their articles. Thanks again for all your help, nothing really started to happen in any systematic way until you intervened. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Big Frame

Hey, I'm quite surprised to be doing this but... I reverted your edit as the latest revision introduces three 'c' characters for no apparent reason. It looks like an editing test really. I'm sure your revert was a mistake, but if it wasn't please explain why. Thanks. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've noticed you've been doing a mass revert - I was pretty confused at first to see an admin rollback a change like that, haha. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 16:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is rather embarrassing. I was rolling back all edits by a sockpuppet. usually, a mass rollback in that situation is fine. Occasionally one or two of the edits shouldn't be rolled back, and they soon get reverted. This time, it seems that large numbers of the edits I rolled back were good ones, to an extent I have never known before. I shall try to make sure in future that I do more checking before mass-rollbacks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a couple reverts appearing in my log so I'm reverting those and I'm sure anyone else will do the same. No problem. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 16:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I like you for fighting vandalism. Well done!

Laughing Elephant (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A trout for you!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Weegeerunner (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting the User:SpeedDemon520 account (Cali11298)

While I understand reverting SpeedDemon520 (talk · contribs) per WP:Block evasion, you are restoring bad edits; see here and here for examples. Flyer22 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That's why I whacked him with a trout. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. A trout has rarely if ever been more deserved. I have now done a mass revert on my own mass reverts. I hope I haven't missed any: if I have, please revert for me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I came across this matter via WP:STiki (not because I've been keeping up with the articles that SpeedDemon520 edited (well, Hypersexuality was already on my WP:Watchlist when he edited that one), and then I looked at your contributions. Weegeerunner, how did you come across JamesBWatson's reverts? Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Nopirosyadi

Hi again. I thought you might like to know that the indef blocked sockpuppeteer has requested an unblock at User talk:Nopirosyadi. Earlier he'd done so at one of his socks and it was declined on the grounds that he needed to do so via his primary account, then this request popped up. I for one had five questions for him about what's happened to date. Of course I'm not an admin and he doesn't need to satisfy me, but I'm greatly curious as to what's going on. Adding to my suspicions are the shady nature of "Quebec Marketing" itself. As I live here, I know that that neither the company name or the amateurish mainly English website are legal under our business language laws. This is not a Quebec company, so my concern is that Wikipedia is being used to abet something deceptive that may have real-world, non-revertable consequences for people. And you'd mentioned an Indonesian angle? I haven't gotten into all that yet -- curious to see what he says. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RevDel

I think this should probably be RevDel'ed... please contact me at my Talk page if you have any questions. DonIago (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

vandalism User:Truth200

I'm so sorry about that. Was my fault. --Mentelucida (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Restore the page of James Stunt

Dear James B Watson , I'm really disappointed. You deleted my whole research & work of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stunt . I agree with you , it was deleted because of lack of references in 2011. You left a Massage G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion But now , i'v added more reliable references & soucres. James Stunt clearly a Notable Subject for a Wikipedia Entry. You can help me to improve it's contents. I'm not a experienced editor like you.

Please check the article again. He is now a Nobale subject. Even his wife Petra (a Notable Celebrity ) Holding her name on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra_Stunt

James Stunt got reliable references from BBC America (http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2014/03/picture-this-a-billionaires-sacrifice-likely-to-benefit-britains-art-lovers/) , Telegraph Uk , even from Daily Mail UK & also lot of Media coverages. Even Google search UK ( Notable Box ) showing him as a Businessperson. I'm ready for a Wiki Discussion. Please restore the article. --Khocon (talk 03:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Khocon: Having carefully checked the article and its history, I accept what you say, and I have restored the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I admire your generosity.It was a frustrating moment. I'm sorry if I have offended you, that was not my intention. Thanks my friend! :)--Khocon (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete Tag

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. --Jarmeyanh (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jarmeyanh: What page are you referring to? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

album Be yad asatid--Jarmeyanh (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

James, your civility in this matter is to be lauded, but this user appears to be part of a large sock farm whose sole purpose is to create information about this non-notable artist and his works. Competence and comprehension of English appear to be one of the hallmarks of this farm. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Thanks for letting me know. It was obvious that it was a question of when, rather than whether, the account would be indef-blocked. I could have given an immediate Competence block, but didn't want to bite a new editor. However, once you pointed out that it wasn't a new editor, there was no reason not to go ahead and block right away. (I didn't know about the sockpuppetry, even though I was the one who blocked the original account. That was eight months ago, and I don't remember everything I did that long ago.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Abusive user

I think the abusive user is back: 81.193.2.240 (talk · contribs), 85.247.78.198 (talk · contribs), 81.193.37.65 (talk · contribs), 85.245.57.9 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: certainly it is from the same ISP in the same city, and there are similarities in editing interests. However, I don't see anything that really screams out that it's the same person, and there seem to be some differences: for example, has the abusive editor a history of editing on sports other than football? At present, all I can see is that an editor editing from Portugal is editing articles relating to sport in Portugal and doesn't seem to know much about things like Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. That is obviously nowhere near enough to justify any action. However, if you can see specific reasons for thinking it's the same person then please let me know, and I will consider whether a block is justified. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: After posting the message above, I noticed the edit summary for this edit. In light of the editor's past history, that does look slightly suspicious, but still nowhere near enough on its own to justify any action. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am also unsure. SLBedit (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

85.245.81.227 (talk · contribs) is definitely him. SLBedit (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Agreed. Also, I am now rather more inclined to think the others were too, though it's still impossible to be certain. Anyway, since none of them has edited within the last few days, there's nothing to be done about them now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Big thanks

Thanks for sorting out the User:Vamsiraj sockpuppet issue. Was doing my head in! I suspected as such but I wasn't very close to the original case and as such was treading carefully. I'll keep my eye on the articles as no doubt they'll be back. Glen 21:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Renewal of page deleted back in 2014

Hello JamesBWatson,

I am the user who originally compiled the deleted page in question and I am looking into reposting/remaking it.

Info on the deleted page: 13:09, 15 January 2014 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Mounif Nehmeh (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I must "admit" that I know Mr. Nehmeh in person, which may be a reason why I am into his work. Nonetheless, it's a fact that he is a notable architect/constructor/builder/contractor (or however you'd like to call him) in the Arabic region, with projects and ties placing him in the top tier of his expertise area.

Might I ask for any specific hints about what is needed to make the page viable on en.wiki? I'd be really grateful, because parallel pages in German and Italian were accepted without any real issues (I mostly had to edit some layout stuff I messed up as I was totally new to wiki entries). The sources were the same, the content was the same barring differences because of translation, etc. So I don't really know what to do, especially because that rather frustrating experience kinda scared me away from deepening my interest in Wikipedia and I only found back to it recently.

Thankfully, Glavcos (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Glavcos: First of all, what happens on other Wikipedias is not a reliable guide to what happens here, as each Wikipedia is autonomous, and has its own standards. Also, even if you were to make a comparison with another page on English Wikipedia, it is not a reliable guide, as there are many articles here which clearly and without any doubt do not satisfy English Wikipedia's requirements, but until someone notices a page and nominates it for deletion, it stays.

The article was nominated for deletion by an editor who wrote "advertisement material, questionable sources". I will give you my thoughts on those comments

Considering the description of it as "advertisement", there was wording such as "developing iconic projects", "developer of prestigious projects", "gained him an excellent reputation", and "great influence". Even if those are realistic descriptions of his reputation, they are expressed in laudatory terms, not in the neutral way that is required for Wikipedia.

Turning to the suggestion that there are "questionable sources", I find that the sources cited do not come anywhere near establishing that he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. (Please note that I am not saying he is not notable, just that the sources provided don't show that he is. He may well, in fact, satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, and if so there will be suitable sources around somewhere, but the ones you provided didn't do the job.) Apart from a link which is now dead, and a source which is not online and which I don't have access to, so that I can't comment on them, the sources cited in the article were as follows. (1) Copies of several pages certifying that he had taken a master's degree, and listing his grades for that degree. That is of no value whatever in establishing notability in Wikipedia's terms. No matter how highly educated someone is, if they have not obtained sufficient attention to be the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, they are not suitable to be the topic of a Wikipedia article; conversely, someone who has no education at all but who has been widely written about in numerous independent sources is likely to qualify. (2) Some pages which barely mention him, such as two pages about buildings, where the only mention of him is a note at the bottom of the page saying "Architect in charge: Mounif Nehmeh". Many people new to editing Wikipedia assume that if something (in this case a building) has received substantial attention, then anyone closely associated with it (in this case the chief architect) is shown to be notable, but that is not how Wikipedia's notability guidelines work: to show that he is notable, we need substantial coverage about him, not about things with which he is associated. (3) A page written by himself, which is not an independent source: what someone chooses to write about themselves is no evidence of how notable they are in the sight of independent observers. (4) A page about him which is written in glowing terms, not looking at all like an impartial source independent of him. Looking more closely at the page, I found that it has a link labelled "Add your information free" (and an Arabic version of the same, "اضف بياناتك مجانا"), so that again we have a source which is probably not independent. Also, any web site where members of the public can post there own content is not accepted as a reliable source, as anyone can post any nonsense. (If you had 1% of my experience of the rubbish that many people post to Wikipedia, for example, you would have no doubt about that.)

My impression is that Mounif Nehmeh may well satisify Wikipedia's notability standards, though I don't know whether he does. I do know, however, that the article about him did not come anywhere near demonstrating that he does, and also that it was written in a manner which was too close to expressing praise and admiration for him, rather than reporting in a totally neutral way. You say that you are "into" his work, which may make it difficult for you to write neutrally about him, even if you intend to do so. Likewise, the fact that you personally know him may make it difficult to write about him objectively. This sort of difficulty in being objective and neutral about a subject to which one has a close connection is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest is discouraging about writing on such a subject. I stongly suggest looking at that guideline if you are thinking about writing about him again. Also, if you have not already done so, you should have a look at a few other relevant guidelines. The most relevant ones, I think, are the general notability guideline, the gideline on notability of people, and the guideline on reliable sources. I am sorry to throw so many guidelines at you: in my opinion Wikipedia has far too many guidelines, and most of them are several times as long as they need to be, but unfortunatley that's how it is, and if you want to avoid having your work deleted again then it will be best if you have at least a general idea of what they say, even if you don't learn and memorise every detail.

One more thing. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. Of course, if you have no interest in making other contributions apart from writing about Mounif Nehmeh, then you may not wish to take that advice, but I still think it is worth considering.

If you do decide to go ahead and work on the article about Mounif Nehmeh again, let me know, and I can restore the contents of the old article for you, and "userfy" it for you to work on. That means putting it in a page with a title such as User:Glavcos/Mounif Nehmeh, until it is ready to be posted back as an article in the encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page

Extremely gross and violent comment made in Asian language.Cosmic  Emperor  10:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@CosmicEmperor: You may well be right, but I have no idea what it means. Unless you can tell me, there's nothing I can do: I can't justify taking action against an editor on the basis that another editor claims he or she has been offensive, without any indication of what is supposed to have been offensive about the editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The first line is ____How are you___Then it means in Bengali..."I will cut your genitals. I will bring out blood. I am much clever, than you are".--Cosmic  Emperor  11:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest giving the editor a warning about personal attacks, and if the message means what you say it does, then I think it would be justifiable to make an exception to the general rule that one should not remove another editor's talk page post. If the editor continues in the same way after being warned, let me know again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I re-create my user page?

I now know that I cannot put info non-related to Wikipedia but please message me on my talk page if I can do it without the non-related information. Jamie Welford (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

They won't know...

Even though I mentioned I live in Eastbourne, I haven't included info like my house number, address, postcode, area etc. So I just wanted you to know that no-one will figure out which house I live in. Jamie Welford (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jamie Welford: That's fine. There's nothing to stop you putting that sort of information there if you want to. I just wanted to make sure you knew that there can sometimes be a slight risk, so that you can make an informed decision whether to do it or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Doubt

What is the right place to report this promotional userpage? I reported it to WP:SPAM. SLBedit (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Before I answer that, I will say that the speedy deletion criterion you gave did not really apply, in my opinion, because although the editor has made only a few edits, most of them are outside userspace, and the intention of the page seems to have been to provide a little information about someone who is becoming an active editor, which is exactly the purpose of a user page. Nevertheless, I have deleted the page, for reasons which I have outlined on his talk page. If the promotion had been the only issue, I think simply removing the rather small amount of promotional content and giving the editor a friendly note explaining why would have been sufficient. There certainly was promotion there, but I don't think it was spammy enough to justify deletion, unless he put it back again after it had been removed.

WP:SPAM is actually a shorthand link to the guideline Wikipedia:Spam, not Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, which is where you made a report. That page, like most "WikiProjects", is one of the parts of Wikipedia that I have never had any involvement in, but I am inclined to think it is for serious and persistent spamming, rather than just a good-faith user page made by a new editor who is not aware of what is considered acceptable. Generally, for a mildly promotional user page, my advice is make a judgement as to whether to just remove the promotional content and explain why to the editor, or to nominate it for speedy deletion with one of the CSD G11 templates, such as {{Db-promo}} or {{Db-spamuser}}. For an editor who has persistently been spamming, you can make a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which for some reason or other is regarded as being suitable for spammers as well as vandals, though not for any other kinds of problematic editors. However, reports there are likely to be rejected unless the editor has been vandalising and/or spamming repeatedly, despite receiving warnings. A report there would certainly not have been appropriate in this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. SLBedit (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Yep, I know, because you edit-conflicted me while I was writing an answer to your report there. Oh well... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What to do when a registered user or IP refuse to sign posts after being warned? Like the abusive user and this IP 71.229.210.102 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no easy answer to that. If it has just happened a little bit, it is too trivial to be worth doing anything serious about, and just politely explaining to the editor why signing is helpful is probably best. However, if an editor persists in refusing to sign over a long period, after more than once being asked not to, it can become significantly disruptive. You could try taking it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but my experience suggests that doing so may well be a waste of time unless the problem has been on a fairly big scale. Another point, though, is that in my experience editors who persistently refuse to cooperate in this respect are likely also to refuse to cooperate in other respects, so it is a case of a significantly disruptive editor, not just one who won't sign. In that case, an admin noticeboard report is likely to be reasonable. In this case, I have looked at the editor's history, and it is clear that he or she is persistently uncooperative and disruptive, using more than one IP address. I have given him/her a warning, and if any aspect of the disruptive editing continues, I shall be willing to block for a short while. (My experience of editors with the kind of attitude that this one has makes me doubt whether a short block will stop the problem, but I at first would give him or her a chance to respond to just a short block.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

IP replied to you, without signing, and changed my comment. SLBedit (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Anglo Schools International Services

Hello This is my own website www.angloschools.com I do not aim to advertise at all but would like to create an article on the company and debate school placement. I see schools and companies have profile pages - could you advise me on how to do the same? Thanks (S.oweiss (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC))

I am not sure what you mean by "debate", but it is not likely to be consistent with Wikipedia's purpose. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It is almost certain that you should not create an article on your own company or web site: Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest discourage doing so. I have also searched for information about the company, and what I found convinced me that it does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, in which case creating an article about it is likely to be a waste of time, as any article on a subject not satisfying those guidelines is likely to be deleted, no matter how it is written and who writes it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Randall-Paulson Architects

Lcc46 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Hi James, I have left you a message on my Talk page - Lcc46. Please do respond, thanks. Lcc46 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments James and the opportunity to align it with Wikipedia standards. Please allow sufficient time to edit a revised draft and then to submit it for official review. Thanks, Lcc46 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mr JamesBWatson, I beg your pardon!

Amoreakiss (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You did use 286 Words, 1584 Characters and I did get it after you delited my 16 day work. I am sorry to offending you!

Must submit in 15 minutes or will be deleted ! It would have made more sense!

• 1) I beg your pardon, but I don't quite understand computer lingo and I am not selling anything and I try to learn your wiki language. I am a scientist and I can understand science. I am typing with the speed of early Stephen Hawking, also I am using "Dialup". It was suggested on wiki that the sandbox one can make mistakes and is not delited, or that is incorrect ?

• 2) I am very please to talk with you and to know that you are the administrator , Bufonite Master Editor III for the Wiki., and your native speaker of English.

• 3) I am not English at all, I am native Hungarian speaker and I ask other people for editing perhaps I can request you to edit the information I have collected for 16 days.

• 4) According to your opinion was not anything worth saving regarding to the Oak Flat campground?

• 5) Please let me know how to communicate with you on Talk or.......... email. ?

• 6) I did not read and did not understand your message box; perhaps you did made an offer in computer "lingo" to edit it for the wiki purposes? I did not understand the work will be delited in 10 minutes.

• 6.1) Can we ask help wiki or you to edit ?

• 7) Do you have listing forbidden english words that are not acceptable for wiki?

• 7.1) Can we use any adjective on wiki?

• 7.2) Can you give me examples when adjectives are acceptable on wiki.

• 8) "the only choice for the Superior Town residents" how can I state the fact when it is only choice, is no other campground 4 miles from Superior? or just cannot state that ?

• 9) Would you please let me know SAP.

• What can be done from your end ?

• Perhaps Undelite and Edit if you can?

• Respectfully yours

• Istvan Kiss Amoreakiss (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Evolution Rollerderby deletion

Hi! I created the page Evolution Rollerderby which you deleted citing copyright violations. Is there any way I can access the page and remove the offending parts because any violations were unintentional (I am the team's website admin so anything copied, I wrote in the first place. But I understand that I can't "prove" that, so technically it is a violation) and I'd like to put them right :-) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam198447 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that by the time I got round to dealing with this, you had already re-created the article, so presumably there is nothing for me to do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

London bus routes

This is to inform you of a situation that happened while you were on your wikibreak. You blocked some accounts of a sock-puppeteer who was persistent in restoring articles on London bus routes. There is another user doing the same thing. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#London bus routes
• User talk:BlueMoonset#London bus routes
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibsiadkgneoeb

-- PBS (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism?

No hurry, but why do you consider this vandalism, given the IP is replacing one unsourced fact with another equally plausible unsourced fact? I ask because the matter was brought up with two page protect requests. [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I stand corrected. I have checked the editing history, and it is not vandalism. My earlier checking must have been too superficial. I considered lifting the blocks, but the editor has been edit-warring for over a year, using various IP addresses, and after thinking about it I decided to leave the blocks in place for now, but change the block logs to give edit-warring as the reason. However, I am much less sure about the blocks than I was, and if you disagree with them, Neil, please remove them, stating n the log reason that you do it with my agreement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

April O'Neil

The April O'Neil page is being vandalized [6][7].68.75.23.110 (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the IP address for 48 hours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hermagoras Society

Back in January you deleted Hermagoras Society. It has been recreated based on [8] or [9] (Wikipedia mirrors), and I cleaned it up. It would be the same as the article was as of 2015-01-13T08:31Z (deleted as of 13:40, January 25, 2015). I wasn't sure what to do with it since there isn't a deletion reason in the log. Have a look, and let me know when you have returned. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Sorry about not giving a deletion reason in the log, that was an unfortunate slip. Looking at the history, the reason seems to have been creation by a blocked editor in defiance of a block. That leaves an interesting situation. Since it was re-created from a copy, without attribution, it is a copyright infringement. Perhaps I had better restore the history, to provide the necessary attribution. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It happens, no worries. As long as you have no reason to believe that Walkswithheadinclouds is a new sock of the blocked user, then the article can stand. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/KatieBoundary

Hi James, a couple years ago you blocked the user KatieBoundary (aka PPdd, ChinaUpdater, ParkSehJik, DanieliM). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KatieBoundary/Archive I believe he has created a new account called Florawilde and is also editing under the IP 50.247.76.51. Same manic editing style, same defense of the puff piece on himself (Eric Diesel), same hundreds of edits to the Alternative Medicine article, same desire to defame Pearlasia Gamboa. Can you please recommend what should be done? Thanks, Lampuser (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lampuser: there is no such account as Florawilde, but after a bit of searching I found that you must mean FloraWilde. Certainly she has been using the IP address you mention, and I can see a few possible connections to PPdd and the known sockpuppets, such as geolocating to the same area, similar editing on "alternative medicine", and editing Eric Diesel, so you may be right. However, I don't see any edits by Florawilde concerning Pearlasia Gamboa, I don't know what you mean by "manic editing style". Can you give a bit more information, preferably referring to specific edits? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: On the talk page for Pearlasia [10], 50.247.76.51 made this edit [11] objecting to a bunch of content being removed from the article (content that Diesel's previous sockpuppets had added [12]. A user named Bromley86 also mentions on that talk page that he suspects 50.247.76.51 is Eric Diesel [13].

By manic I mean the way he shows up in articles and makes dozens of edits, often only minutes apart, for hours at a time: [14]. Previous puppet examples: [15][16] On June 3, 2014 the first day the FloraWilde account became active, he made 78 edits about flowers. [17] I believe that was about 6 weeks after the KatieBoundary ban.

I also just noticed that FloraWilde made about 20 edits today to the Acupuncture talk page. This is another topic that his previous puppets were interested in. [18][19][20] Lampuser (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lampuser: I looked into this when I read your last message here, but did not find enough evidence to take any action. I have looked into it further now. I keep feeling there is enough of a general impression of similarity to make me uncomfortable about FloraWilde, but not enough to justify blocking. You could try reopening the sockpuppet investigation, but I think it is unlikely you will get a different result there, unless you can provide further evidence that I haven't seen. (Of course, I may be wrong, and you are perfectly free to give it a try if you like.) Unfortunately there is no future at all in asking for a CheckUser, as the known sockpuppets are all too old to be of any use for that purpose. Just one other thought. One of the links you gave above is to an edit by an account called ParkSehJik. That account is blocked for "abusing multiple accounts", but there is no indication what other accounts were involved. I can't find any connection to the PPdd sockpuppets, apart from a common interest in "alternative" medicine and acupuncture. Can you tell me why you believe that account to be another PPdd sockpuppet? If so, that might help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: A while back PPdd created the article on himself - Eric Diesel.[21] After he was banned, ParkSehJik showed up and added the bulk of the (mostly unsourced) content to it.[22] ParkSehJik also created the poorly sourced page for his father.[23] PPdd has since edited both pages throughout the years on his various puppets. FloraWilde (sometimes using the IP 50.247.76.51) is the latest account trying to maintain and defend the two articles, again without using real sources. Based on that alone I am convinced that FloraWilde = ParkSehJik = PPdd. There's more though.

PPdd has a longstanding, negative interest in Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture. I believe his edit wars over TCM are one of the main reasons he got banned originally. ParkSehJik, on his talk page[24] (in response to a comment by you actually) referred to TCM and acupuncture as "a Communist plot." FloraWilde, the current puppet, has also disparaged acupuncture and TCM.[25]

Another connection between PPdd, ParkSehJik, and FloraWilde is that they have each made hundreds of edits to the article and talk page for Alternative medicine, each in the same style where dozens of edits are made on the same day. In fact, both ParkSehJik and FloraWilde have had disagreements with the same person (Qexigator) regarding Alternative medicine, several years apart.[26][27]

There are also a bunch of little things I can point to if this is not enough. For example PPdd made hundreds of edits to the article on Louis Lesser. ParkSehJik also edited that page after PPdd was banned. Another point is that PPdd was obsessed with an obscure person named Pearlasia Gamboa, who FloraWilde also recently tried to make look bad. Lampuser (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Lampuser, for that further information. My comment above about not finding any connection of the ParkSehJik account to the PPdd sockpuppets, apart from a common interest in "alternative" medicine and acupuncture, was largely based on the fact that the Editor Interaction Analyzer came up with no pages at all edited both by ParkSehJik and by PPdd. Likewise, it gave no pages at all edited by ParkSehJik and by FloraWilde. However, in the light of your latest message above, I checked the editing histories of the accounts manually rather more extensively than I had done before, and found that there is a huge amount of overlap, with the article Alternative medicine alone having numerous edits by all three of those accounts. Goodness knows why the Editor Interaction Analyzer fails to come up with anything. I also managed to find further similarities in editing, unrelated to alternative medicine and the other issues you mentioned, which removed the last remnant of doubt from my mind, so I have blocked FloraWilde. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks James. Your work on Wikipedia is greatly appreciated. Cheers, Lampuser (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You are considered an admin that works to defend Wikipedia, for all of your hard work. Coconuts31 (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Inquiring Why Was My Article Deleted

My article has proof to back it up so how was it considered vandalism. The bible was the most reliable source. As well as the movie, the song, and if you would have visited the site that I posted you would have saw that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer's Wife (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have saw it, would I? Well, it may not have been vandalism, because you may actually believe it all, but it did not come anywhere near being suitable as a Wikipedia article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A shame it was deleted so rapidly -- I'll bet it was an entertaining (if unencyclopedic) read! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ludi Inc

Hi James,

My name is Adam Goldsmith and I'm a grad student at the University of Missouri Health Management & Informatics program and intern at our innovation center. You've recently deleted my article. I'm trying to publish a few articles about relevant companies that address emerging needs within the healthcare industry. What can I do to prevent future articles from being deleted? I'd appreciate your input. Thanks.

157.130.97.242 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Adam

@HealthcareTrends:

1. Make sure that the subject of any article you create satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If it doesn't, then any work you put into writing about it is likely to be wasted, as the article will probably be deleted.
2. Make sure that any article you create is written from a neutral point of view, and does not seem to be trying to persuade the reader that the subject of the article is good. Use of language such as "premier", "the only technology solution on the market that helps organizations measure and manage activity on complex physician agreements" and "allows hospitals and healthcare systems to streamline physician compensation processes while cutting costs and mitigating non-compliance risks" looks like marketing copy.
3. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.
4. I strongly advise you not to switch between editing from your account and editing without logging in. At best, doing so can confuse other editors, as they can't tell whether it is the same person editing or not, and at worst it may give editors the impression that you are deliberately trying to seem to be two different people, for deceptive purposes. (I am sure you were not doing that, but if editors get that impression they could start distrusting other things you do.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hispanophobia

Dear James,

I knew that wouldn't last, it was sort of a stopwatch test. However, my original impulse and therefore frustration is that I could not figure out any way to 'report' what I consider to be slanted or bogus entries, specifically the paragraphs implying that wanting one's laws, language, culture & country to be respected is racist or hispaniphobic. Quite the opposite, thinking that you are ENTITLED to ignore those things and invade another country simply because you're Latin American is racist...

Please tell me that I keep missing something obvious on the page, and that there IS a legitimate way to register such complaints.

Thank you, Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinking12 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I am don't know which paragraphs imply "that wanting one's laws, language, culture & country to be respected is racist or hispaniphobic". However, if you think that there are paragraphs that do that, posting a denunciation into the article is not the way to deal with the problem. Try explaining rationally on the article's talk page what you think the problems are, and what changes you think should be made. From your editing history, I wonder whether you do have a rational case to argue, but if you do, then unless and until you present such a rational case, nobody will know what that case is, and so nobody will take any action to deal with any problem you have in mind. No doubt you have posted on this page because I posted a message to you pointing out that adding "commentary or your own personal analysis" to an article is unacceptable. Comments on what you think is wrong with an article belong in a talk page, not in the article itself. You may also like to consider carefully what way of expressing your opinions is most likely to gain support for your opinions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Block?

Do you think this perhaps deserves a block? Mr Potto (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Somebody else has already done it. Mr Potto (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mr Potto: Yes, I certainly would have blocked for that if I had seen it before the account was already blocked. However, it was obvious that the account was virtually certain to be blocked for sockpuppetry anyway. The only reason I hadn't already blocked all the accounts was that I thought waiting for a CheckUser first would be better, in case of any more, as yet undetected, sockpuppets, and so it turned out: see Special:Contributions/Amzias. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A Sock from the Past

Greetings Mr. pseudonymous Watson. On 6 May 2014, you blocked Vaselineee and Vaselineeeee as sock puppet/eers. There is now an account named Vaselineeeeeeee. I've linked you to 'his' Talk page, which reads to me like a sock puppeteers echo chamber. PLEASE, do not block the account. I believe it's part of a larger problem, truly industrial scale puppeteering. If you agree with my assessment of the Talk page, please leave me a message here or on my Talk page, and I'll explain matters further. Regards Tapered (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tapered: What do you mean by "reads to me like a sock puppeteers echo chamber"? I had a quick look at the talk page, but it's very long, and without knowing what I was looking for, and being unwilling to spend ages reading huge amounts of irrelevant discussion, I didn't spot what you meant. I am also intrigued to know why, if you think it is a case of sockpuppeteering, you post to an administrator's talk page to let him know about it, but ask him not to block the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Because I think there's an outside chance of a case of industrial scale sock puppetry, including Vaselineeeeeeee. I studied the edit history of Andrea Pirlo, and to a lesser extent Francesco Totti. The editor 'Messirulez' has done voluminous editing at both plus several other Italian soccer/assoc football stars. By comparison of styles, I'm convinced that 'Fabrizio 1998', an account which edits Totti almost exclusively, is the same editor as 'Messirulez.' Vasinleeeeeeee has edited both articles, also. The Pirlo article epecially has quite a few editors with a similar style. The lengthy, mutually congratulatory exchange between 'Messirulez' and 'Vasilineeeeeeee' at the latter's Talk page made me suspicious that it was 2 socks on the same 'hand' talking to each other. It would take a detailed forensic investigation to examine the info I've accumulated over a few hours to see if any of it fits together. I've only given a 'preview.' One thing about much editing I've examined--it has a manic quality to it, with far too many edits for the actual amount of productive editing done. If I'm wrong, I'm an over-imaginative fool. If I'm even partially right, some one may be playing a rather complex, sprawling game at Wikipedia's expense. I wanted to bounce all this off an editor of substance, but I wanted you to ask the above question first. Tapered (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear

Was it terribly exhausting for you to add that apostrophe?

I am so so sorry. YohanN7 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@YohanN7: I suppose it was a bit silly of me, in a way. While sometimes omission of an apostrophe is just a slip (I do it myself sometimes), and for all I know this one may well have been such a slip, there are many people who really really seem to find it difficult to grasp when apostrophes should be used, and since to me it has always seemed really easy and straightforward, my feeling when I see a mistake tends to be something like "oh dear, here's another person who can't understand apostrophes", and that feeling prompted what you saw. I suppose it was not helpful, and if the person who posted the apostrophe-free version really was one of the people who find it difficult to understand, then possibly even hurtful, so I probably shouldn't have done it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your straight up reply. I probably shouldn't have reacted like I did either. I usually wouldn't, but after a marathon edit session over several days (trying to master the subject as well), ..., well, you understand. I'm not a native English speaker, but I usually get things right. Nevertheless, slips are common on my part because I'm often accustomed to something else (like no apostrophes). Anyway, you hereby have full license to correct me when I'm wrong (linguistically and otherwise), in fact, I urge you to do so (barring slips perhaps). Best! YohanN7 (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

deleted page re-created

In February 2013 you deleted the page Lorenzo Brusci under CSD G11 and protected it against re-creation.[28] I have noticed that an editor has created the article Lorenzo brusci. Looking at the new article, it has some references, and although it seems pretty suspicious I can't tell whether or not it is spam. But I thought I would bring it to your attention, because in any event it can't stay where it is, contravening capitalization rules for no good reason. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mathew5000: Thanks for letting me know. The article is nowhere near as spammy as the three deleted versions, and in my opinion it does not qualify for speedy deletion as spam. However, I don't think the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so I have proposed deletion. I have also moved it to the correctly capitalised title: as long as it exists, it may as well be written properly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Tanoshii Moomin Ikka IS Japanese-Finnish anime.

This is From the Finnish page: on vuosina 1990–1992 tehty japanilais-suomalais-hollantilainen animoitu televisiosarja

translated: have been made to the Japanese-Finnish-Dutch animated television series in 1990-1992

and Alkuperämaa Suomi, Japani

translated Country of origin: Finland, Japan

and heres the page for the finnish version: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muumilaakson_tarinoita Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJontza (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@MrJontza: The fact that someone has decided to post that claim on Finnish Wikipedia is no more reliable evidence than the fact that someone has decided to post that claim on English Wikipedia. Do you have a reliable source that states that the television series was partly made in Finland? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As a contributor to the mentioned article in Finnish Wikipedia, I may comment this. The only thing that links the production of this series to Finland is the nationality of the producer Dennis Livson, who was a Finn. Tove Jansson's brother Lars Jansson was also given the right to supervise the content of the series, but he didn't actually take part into the making of it. Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle was also among the several European TV companies which invested considerable sums of money into the production. Otherwise the production had nothing to do with Finland (except that the stories were partly based on the books of a Finnish author) — the series was made completely in Japan and Livson's production company was set in Netherlands. For some reason Finns like to think it as being at least partly Finnish production, hence that definition in the Finnish article. --Risukarhi (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

And as far as I know, same goes for the prequel film Comet in Moominland. --Risukarhi (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Risukarhi: Thanks for that information. You clearly know more about it than I do, but what you say is completely in line with what I thought was the case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Idea Internet Network

We conflicted - you deleted this immediately after I moved it to Draft, because the author had claimed at REFUND that this had been "the most talked about advertisement in India in the past six months", and it seemed to me that in that case he ought to be able to source it properly. I doubt that you intended to delete it from Draft space, but if you did, my apologies, and feel free to re-delete! JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

John, not only are you right in thinking I didn't intend to delete it from draft space, but we actually had an undelete-conflict: I saw that it had been moved to draft space, and tried to restore the page, but you beat me to it by seconds. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

An undelete-conflict is something new in my experience! Next time I will remove the speedy tag before doing the move to draft and trying to remember how to do the {{subst:AFC draft}} template. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Good not to inform readers about basics?

Hello! I don't understand what's been going on here. Could you help us through what looks to me like some users being determined to prevent the most common usage of the word from being mentioned? Reversals time and again, almost all lof them ignoring talk. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: This is interesting. I can actually understand both points of view. On the one hand, it is accepted practice for a disambiguation page to begin by saying "XXX means YYYY; it can also refer to:" where YYYY is the usual, basic meaning, and other uses follow with links to relevant articles, and that is more or less what you are trying to do. On the other hand, though, I can see the validity of objections to putting a meaning among the list of links, even though it does not link to an article about the meaning. Another difference from the usual "XXX means YYYY; it can also refer to" situation is that it seems to me more difficult to pin down an underlying basic meaning of "debut". In French, it is a very general term for the beginning of something, but in English it has a much more restricted range of uses. You say that "the first public performance of an entertainer or first publication of media" is the commonest meaning. That may be true, I don't know, but even if it is, I don't think it's obviously an underlying meaning that all other meanings are secondary to or dependent on, in way that is usual in "XXX means YYYY; it can also refer to" situations. Perhaps it's worth trying to find an introductory sentence that gives a broader general description of what "debut" means in general, including, but not restricted to, first public performance or publication, and placing it at the top of the page, where at present it just says "Debut (from the mid 18th century French début, from débuter 'lead off') may refer to". Obviously, in view of the amount of opposition there has been to your changes, any such idea should be first proposed and discussed on the talk page. If you do wish to follow this up further on the talk page, I have two suggestions on how yo go about it. (1) Specifically invite other editors who have been involved in the disagreement to the discussion, so that there is nobody who has not seen the discussion, and and whose opinions of any eventual change to the article are based purely on the edits they see there. (2) Think very carefully about how you word any proposal, and how it is likely to seem to others who read it. Make sure it comes across as "I understand your reasons for disagreeing with what I have done, and I am now trying to come up with something which deals with your legitimate concerns. I would appreciate your opinions", and not as "you are just wrong, and I am right, and here is why...", which is likely to just antagonise people, and ensure that nobody will ever move closer to your view". No matter how constructive and reasonable what you are trying to say may be, how it looks to others is, of course, very important in influencing what sort of response you get. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this extensive reply. I don't see anything by me on that talk page that can be interpreted as "you are just wrong, and I am right, and here is why..." and it made me sad that you wrote that part. I'll deal with this as well as I can, so that our readers will find the most common meaning of the word on that page when they go to it. Seems to me everybody is pretending that a stage debut is not the most commonly used meaning. I cannot for the life of me understand why. We've had the same problem on Plot. People have gone there too, and wondered if their going mad when everything else about the word, except it's most commonly used meaning, is listed. I worry about the fact that there may be many more such examples, and that WP is done quite a bit of damage by such nonsense. And I interpret the guideline (as I quoted it in both places) as very commonsensical in trying to avoid such. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: You say that "everybody is pretending that a stage debut is not the most commonly used meaning". I honestly do not know what the most common use of the word is; I am not pretending, and I see no reason to suppose that anyone else is. You may be right that the use you refer to is the most common one, and if so, it may be that your experience makes it obvious to you that it is, but it does not immediately follow that it is obvious to everyone. Why do you not assume that other editors are acting in good faith, rather than accusing everyone who expresses an opinion different from yours of "pretending"? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. I guess it's just too obvious to me. Hard to handle for me that it isn't for everyone else. Makes me feel like I've been living on another planet. Googling the word seems to bear me out 100%. That helped me feel even weirder. Sort of like a dumb little kid at school who says that a wall is brown, which is brown, but nobody will agree, and the best the kid can get is "you may be right", and then everybody walks away. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

How can I get recognised as an Actor on Wikipedia?

Hello Sir,

My name is Christopher Fosh and I am an Actor.

How do I get a profile on Wikipedia? I have tried several times, but keep getting deleted. I really do not understand the computer languChristopher Fosh (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)age spoken on here and would like some help please?

I do have references to prove who I am, please see below:-

References

1. Spotlight Profile (http://www.spotlight.com/interactive/cv/1/M98795) 2. IMDB Profile (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2054096/) 3. Personal Website (http://www.christopherfosh.com/index.html) 4. Acting Managers Website (http://www.marlowes.eu/christopher-fosh/) 5. Christopher Fosh Facebook Page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Fosh/5849362961)

I have been I several film productions and been credited, so am not a want to be! Could you please help me? Could you please let me jnow how I can be recognized as an Actor on here?

Thank you in advance for any help or advice you can give me.

Regards and Best Wishes

Christopher Fosh (Chris) —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Fosh (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 July 2015‎

@Christopher Fosh: Wikipedia is not a medium for self-promotion, for posting personal web pages or "profiles", or for getting "recognised as an Actor". At present, you do not seem to come anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If some day you do so, probably someone else, unconnected with you, will write an independent, neutral, article about you, without any of the promotional hype that you posted about yourself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry into your feedback on Experteer Draft page

Hi Mr Watson,

This is a kind enquiry about your feedback on the Sandbox article for Experteer page.

I understand the points you have made and would appreciate if you could let me know which lines/words sounded like advertising so that I can ReEdit them.

I have tried to ensure that every single line of the draft presents the facts and with credible sources too.

Thank you.Awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Falkner (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your first version, written last November, was full of promotional language from start to finish: to give just one example, "Backed by strong international and domestic growth even in the midst of an economic recession". In your more recent version, you have clearly made an effort to write in a much more restrained way, and I can't pick out any specific sentence which in itself seems terribly promotional, but the overall feel of the page as a whole is that it gives the feeling of speaking to us in the way that the company might speak to people it wanted to impress. It is, however, probably not so unambiguously promotional to be speedily deleted for that reason, as was the case with the previous version. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling this will be a weird AFD

It has all the hallmarks of POV pushing paid yet incompetent editors creating glittering spam ware. Fiddle Faddle 20:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I agree. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've asked CorporateM, a self identified paid editor whose work and opinion I respect, to take a look at the deletion discussion and the article. If it survives the AFD they have a way of cutting right through the crap with a scalpel, leaving a useful article. They sometimes have trouble funding a useful article within the spam ware. Fiddle Faddle 20:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we are now getting sock puppetry masked behind possible proxy servers, or use of different ISPs to log in. I suspect that the COI editor is not behind these per se. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they have contracted with an incompetent external agency to perform their edits. The latest IP has a less than good command of English in the deletion discussion, which leads me to suspect an Asian sub-continent subcontractor who has been hired to give gloss and glitter to what might, just possibly, be a genuinely notable corp. If only they would desist then to might be trimmed into a state where it might have real references found and survive.

We do have the amusing trend where rhetoric is being used to seek to counter policy based arguments. I definitely see this as one requiring admin rather than non admin closure in due course. I wonder how long it will get.

I wonder how this company could, normally, attract a following of editors braying "keep!'. Ah well. Such is Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I agree with every word of that. Oh well, we'll see how it turns out. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acorn Publications may interest you. Not a lot can ever come of IP SPI investigations, but it might fire a warning shot across their bows. Fiddle Faddle 17:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous user

85.247.77.19 (talk · contribs) – he's back. SLBedit (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Now IP is being disruptive. Time for a (temporary) block? SLBedit (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Already done by the time I got here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

He's back. 81.193.34.80 (talk · contribs) and 81.193.5.154 (talk · contribs). Thanks in advance. SLBedit (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

81.193.37.35 (talk · contribs), again disrupting S.L. Benfica (futsal). SLBedit (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Blocked. Remarkably persistent. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Hi, I've watch the same pages and woke up to this battlefield...Can you show me where did the user vandalise anything? For my view, he added a regional title for a section, but once it was reverted, he started deleting regional titles in other articles too, which isn't exactly "inconsistent", especially when there is no guideline, nor has one been discussed about that. Are you familiar with subject or just blocked on request?--Threeohsix (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Threeohsix: Since the blocks are stated to be for block evasion, and one of them links to an Administrators' noticeboard archive, presumably you did not draw any conclusions as to the reasons for the block without making at least a brief check of the history. However, your message here looks as though you think it was all a matter of one fairly small matter of "regional titles". The editor has a long history of disruptive editing of various kinds, including personal attacks, racist comments, edit-warring, persistent deliberate refusal to accept consensus, changing and removing other editors' talk page comments which he or she doesn't like, and so on ... The editor's account is globally locked on all Wikimedia projects because of the extent of the disruption on both English and Portuguese Wikipedias, with persistent block-evasion, both by IP-sockpuppetry, and (at least on Portuguese Wikipedia) use of one or more sockpuppet accounts. If you think that global lock is mistaken, then you may take it up on meta.wikimedia with the steward who imposed the lock, at meta:User talk:Teles, but as long as the lock stays in place, any editing on English Wikipedia is block evasion, and is likely to lead to blocks of the IP addresses used. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I check all of the edits of three IP's here, not the further back. But just check the original discussion and according to what the other admin admitted is impossible to relate all IP, "though on the surface it appears the IPs are related, there doesn't seem to be any possible range blocks that would not have collateral damage, i.e., inadvertently blocking productive users". How can you know it belongs to CoUser? Might be a completely unrelated person, using a IP in the same range, since ISP providers buy batches of IPs to distribute.--Threeohsix (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

1. I can know it is CoUser because I have spent a long time checking the editing history, not just of the three IP addresses listed here, but of numerous other IP addresses used, and because I have an extensive experience of this case, extending over a period of several months. The similarities go way beyond what plausibly might occur from different editors. If it were just a matter of similarities of one or two related kinds (e.g. interest in editing the same articles and similar opinions on what content should be included) it might possibly be different people, but when the similarities occur over a wide range of various different, and unrelated, aspects of editing, it becomes clear beyond reasonable doubt that it is the same person.
2. Even if you doubt that the persistent disruptive IP-editor is the person who used the account "CoUser", there can be no doubt whatever that one editor has edited disruptively without using an account, has been blocked, and has then evaded the block using other IP addresses. Whether it is CoUser or not doesn't matter.
3. I don't know what you mean by "impossible to relate all IP", but all that the administrator you quote was saying was that any range blocks covering the IP addresses referred to would also affect other editors, not that the IP addresses referred to were not all used by one person, nor that individual IP addresses should not be blocked.
4. I never impose any block for block evasion without first doing enough checking to be very confident that it really is the same person. If you check the history of communications between myself and SLBedit, you will see I do not always block an IP address reported by SLBedit. The usual reason for that is that, although there is a noticeable similarity, there is an element of doubt about its being the same person. The amount of time and trouble it takes me to decide whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a block is frequently considerable.
5. I never impose any IP block, whether on an individual IP address or on a range of IP addresses, without first checking to make sure that the risk of collateral damage to other editors is not significant. In this case, the IP addresses are very widely spaced, so that any range block would take in other IP addresses that have been used by other editors. However, individual IP addresses within the ranges involved are typically used in ways that show every sign of being used by only one person. The risk of collateral damage by range blocks would therefore be unacceptably high, but the risk of collateral damage by blocks on individual IP addresses is negligible: way below the risk from many other IP blocks that are commonly made. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your quiet diligence in following up threads which then either show misuse of Wikipedia or are shown to be innocent but imperfect use, I offer you this barnstar. Bizarrely my autocorrect turned that into "barrister" which also seems to fit! Fiddle Faddle 11:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Bizarrely indeed! Thanks, anyway, though. It's nice to know that at least sometimes the significant amount of work I put into Wikipedia is appreciated by someone. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have oft found that those who just 'get on with it' fail to receive praise. Their work is taken for granted. I find I neglect to praise far too often, and must remember to do so more. All the thanks I need for my praise for you is that you pay it forward. Fiddle Faddle 11:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I do that because:

That Moomin 1990's anime is a Japanese-Finnish work. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJontza (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 July 2015‎

@MrJontza: As I have already explained, you need to provide a reliable source for that claim, and so far you have not done so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Its parly Finnish-Dutch made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJontza (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@MrJontza: I'm not sure if it's possible to make this any clearer to you than I have already done, but I will try. It is not enough for just anyone who chooses to create a Wikipedia account to say so: unless you can provide a reliable source that says so, you must not put it back in the article once it has been challenged and removed. And you especially must not keep on doing so if it is repeatedly removed, as that is contrary to Wikpedia's policy on edit-warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Omg.

Even YLE's page says its Japanese-Finnish-Dutch anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJontza (talk • contribs) 13:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@MrJontza: Can you give me a link to the "page" you are referring to? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

http://areena.yle.fi/1-2256795 Its Finnish but I translate it: Japanese-Finnish cooperation born Moomins is based on Tove Jansson's beloved Moomin books and comics. Moominvalley life is full of small and big adventures and the time will never be bored Moomintroll, Snufkin and other valley among the inhabitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJontza (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Wjkxy and User:Zurich00swiss

FYI - at User_talk:RichardOSmith#Zurich00swiss there is a discussion pertaining to both the above users' desire to get their blocks overturned. My involvement in all this has been in undoing Zurich00swiss and his socks' persistent vandalism, during which Wjkxy also got blocked to my surprise. I raise this with you (and user:Bbb23) with no further comment. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

List of countries by highest point

Hi, please can you advise me on how to handle this unregistered editor? Other than persistently reverting him - and getting blocked for "edit warring", or allowing his patently silly version to stand, I don't see what else I can do. Viewfinder (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: I have posted a warning about edit-warring to the IP talk page. I understand what you mean by calling the editing "patently silly", but since whether Kosovo is part of Serbia or not is disputed, there is no objectively correct answer to whether attributing the point to Serbia is right or wrong, and it may well be that the IP editor simply sees the inclusion in Serbia as the truth. I see that you have posted to the article talk page about this. You may like to post to the IP talk page, either explaining your reason there, or calling attention to the talk page and inviting the editor to comment there. If the IP editor continues in the same way after having had the situation explained, I will be willing to block the IP address for a while, but it is very likely that he or she has no previous experience of editing Wikipedia, and simply doesn't know about how Wikipedia works. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!

Hi, I'd like to thank you very much for unblocking me! You have been really understanding, and you've helped me a lot. May I remove all these messages from my talk page?
thank tou very much Wjkxy
p.s. I've learned what to do with personal informations. thanks —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjkxy (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 July 2015‎

@Wjkxy: Yes, now that you are unblocked you are perfectly free to remove all the stuff about the block from your talk page. I am glad to have been able to help, and I am sorry it took such a long time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice

Could you please see this draft Draft:LRN and advice me. Previous you have deleted a page LRNinc on 3 August, 2012. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nannadeem: The deleted article was blatant spam. The draft you have written is very different; I have had a quick look at it, and did not notice any problems at all. However, I see that a reviewer is currently reviewing it, so I shall leave it to him or her, rather than spend a lot of time duplicating that reviewer's work. In any case, reviewing new drafts and giving feedback to their authors is not something I do a lot, so you may well get more helpful results from someone who is more experienced in that area of Wikipedia work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Afar sultanate and clans.

Hi James, You have edited the Mudayto clans page and surprisingly you have removed all that I typed up with my hard working. I have been learning about the Afar people in Awsa regions and to see someone removing what I wrote without any notification or explanation is quite disrespectful. Also I wrote the biography of Muhammad Ibn Hanfare Illalta and you edited it to make it look like yours, that is my property and it seems like violation of copy right. Historianalafari12 (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Historianalafari12, and thank you for contacting me to express your concerns. I shall try to answer your points.

1. I did not remove content without any explanation, as you suggest. I gave a brief explanation in my edit summary, which you must have seen, as it occurs next to my name in the editing history, and it is only by seeing that that you can have known I was the person who made the edit in question. However, since evidently my edit summary was not sufficient explanation for you, I shall slightly expand on what I wrote there. I hope that by doing so I can clarify things for you. (a) I mentioned that the editing was "unsourced". That means that you did not state where the information came from. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, there is nothing to stop people coming along and posting information which is either unequivocally false, or else just personal opinion, and indeed we do get thousands of edits every day which add content which is untrue, whether as good-faith edits which are mistaken, or as edits which are deliberate lies. Wikipedia policy, therefore, is that content of articles should be verifiable by reference to reliable published sources. (b) I mentioned that much of the editing was "out of context". The text you wrote beginning "When the word 'Moodayto' is mentioned.." does not make it clear what the connection is to the definition "Mudaito Dynasty" which it follows, or why it should appear in the lead of the article, where the meaning of "Mudaito Dynasty" is being established. For much of it, it is not clear that it is actually information about the Mudaito Dynasty: it seems to be about clans, rather than about the dynasty. (c) I mentioned that the editing messed up table formatting. To see that, you only have to look at the table in the article in the state in which you left it.
2. You say that you regard the article Mahammad ibn Hanfere as your property, so that I have no right to edit it. However, when you created the article you donated it to the Wikimedia foundation, and it is now the property of that foundation, not your property. It is a condition of editing Wikipedia that you agree to allow your writing to be edited in any way whatever by other people. In fact, you agreed not only to allow the article to be edited in Wikipedia, but also to allow other people to copy it and publish it anywhere else (either on other web sites, in print, or by any other means) either as it is or edited and changed in any way at all, subject only to attribution to Wikipedia. If you did not realise that that is how Wikipedia works, and you are not willing to release you writing under such very free terms, then it is perhaps unfortunate that you made the mistake of posting here. However, now that you do know that, it is up tp you to decide whether you wish to continue to contribute under those terms. If you are not willing for your writing to be edited by others, then Wikipedia is not the right place for you, and you should look for another place to publish your work. You may find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content.
3. You indicate that you feel that editing a Wikipedia article created by another editor is unacceptable, but I see that you edited the article Mudaito Dynasty, which was created by Dr Sachs. You may like to think about that. It is, in fact, essential to the very nature of Wikipedia that editors are allowed to edit articles created by other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Historianalafari12 (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Fernando Luis Alvarez Gallery

Hey User:JamesBWatson, I see that you have deleted the page that I created for the Fernando Luis Alvarez gallery under sections G11 and G12 of speedy deletion, but I was wondering exactly what parts you saw as promotional. Please let me know and I would be happy to take them out. The article is by no means meant to be bias or promotional so if you could let me know what needs to be edited in order to make it neutral, that would be great. Would you mind clarifying which part caused you to delete the article under section G12? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicitycain (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Felicitycain: You say that I deleted an article that you created. I deleted an article of that title more than four years ago, and the article was created by an editor using an account called "Flagallery". Was that you? As for telling you "what parts [I] saw as promotional", it wasn't a question of "parts" that were promotional: the whole thing, from start to finish, read as though it was written by a PR agent, and it was full of such marketing-speak as "Alvarez and his lips are swiftly becoming a significant player in the main stage of contemporary art" and so on and so on... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Interesting to know, but that user was not me, and I'm surprised someone tried to make a page about the gallery back then since it's only been around for 5 years. Also, the quote you just mentioned about Alvarez and his lips is not featured anywhere on the wikipedia page. All of the content is just factual, so I'm not entirely sure the best way to change it so that it's not deemed promotional. If you'd like to give advice, it would be appreciated because the majority of the page is really just factual information Felicitycain (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Felicitycain: The article you have written is nothing like the one I deleted. The draft you have now is not particularly promotional, in my opinion, and I personally wouldn't speedily delete it as promotion. You were right to omit the mention of "mission" which you had before, as it really looks like an announcement that the article is presenting us with the view of the gallery that the gallery wants to present, rather than a neutral outsider's view. I would remove the word "important" too: what is important is a matter of opinion, and it is a word which is much loved by people who write things like sales catalogues for galleries, and rather makes it seem as though the article is trying to impress us with how the gallery has "important" connections. I would say, however, that with your draft article, the big question is not promotion, but notability. If you have not done so already, have a look at the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Neither your draft article nor what I have been able to find from my (admittedly brief) internet searches persuade me that the gallery satisfies those guidelines. You may be able to produce evidence that it does, but bear in mind that if you can't, then any work you put into the draft is likely to be wasted, as it is unlikely to survive long as an article. A promotional article can be made non-promotional by editing, but no amount of editing an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. I don't know whether you are only interested in writing about the Fernando Luis Alvarez Gallery, or whether you would like to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways, but if you are interested in contributing on other subjects, my advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank for you information on notability, perhaps I'll try writing again when the gallery becomes a little more well known. Just out of curiosity (and this is in no way meant to sound rude), did you mistake the first draft for that old article you deleted? Because the only change I've made from when you deleted the article a few hours ago and when you said that this draft was entirely different was removing the mission statement and changing around about 3 words. Felicitycain (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Felicitycain: I rather think you have misunderstood the information in the deletion log. You refer to "when [I] deleted the article a few hours ago", but I didn't delete anything a few hours ago. Until you posted your first message here, I had never even known of the existence of your article, let alone deleted it, or done anything else to it. The deletion log, which you can see here, has two entries, for two different articles with the same title. First, it says "18:02, 21 July 2015 NawlinWiki ... deleted page Fernando Luis Alvarez Gallery (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)"; then, it says "19:44, 31 March 2011 JamesBWatson... deleted page Fernando Luis Alvarez Gallery (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://flalvarezgallery.com/flag/fernando-luis-alvarez/)". That is to say, I deleted the original article in 2011, and that was my only involvement with it until you posted here. I said that your draft was entirely different from the article which I deleted, that is to say the old one from 2011, not that it was entirely different from your first version of the article, which NawlinWiki deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

JReport page deletion

Hello.

I would like to know why you have deleted the page JReport which has been on wiki for 8 years without any discussion. This was a page about JReport, a software with unique and copyrighted technology. This does not fit in A7 as it is not an article about a website or a blog. JReport is a software produced by Jinfonet Software Inc, a medium sized business with a physical location. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by FromLeIntenetz (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 July 2015

@FromLeIntenetz: How long the article had existed, the fact that its subject has unique technology, and the facts that the business is medium sized and has "a physical location" are irrelevant. However, you are right in pointing out that the subject does not qualify for speedy deletion criterion A7, and for that reason the deletion was a slip, and I shall restore the article. Thanks for drawing my attention to that mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

And thank you for blocking Masonhenry. Not that it was a major concern but I just got that feeling that it was one of multiple accounts. I was sure it was from a certian user but guess I was wrong :) --BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: Yes. I have no doubt that it's a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, but it is not 100% clear which blocked editor. However, it that doesn't matter: sockpuppet of somebody is enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Blueprint Magazine

Not that it constitutes definitive proof, but these [29][30][31] seem to suggest the company is a fraud, and the user is just using Wikipedia for free advertising. --Drm310 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drm310: Yes. I saw two of those three, plus similar things on another site. Probably not a reliable enough source to put in a Wikipedia article, but certainly enough to raise doubts in one's mind. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Rizky

A sockmaster you have blocked in Rizky Iconia (talk · contribs) could be back. I just noticed Ah. Rizky (talk · contribs). Could you please take a look?

Could be same as Rezart Taçi (talk · contribs) blocked for adding logos on 20 July (One day before creation of Ah. Rizky). See this ANI report where it is suspected Taci actually is Rizky Iconia. Qed237 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Obvious sockpuppets. Both now blocked indefinitely. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

Got another set for you: 98.90.88.13, 98.90.88.187, 98.90.89,206, 98.90.89.30, 98.90.88.42, etc. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: OK, I've blocked a range covering all those for six months. What kind of weird mind must anyone have, to put so much time and effort into something so totally pointless? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I did not know this one was still around since they had not popped up on my watchlist for the last few months. My thanks to you Skywatcher68 for tracking those disprutive edits and to you JamesBWatson for dealing with them. MarnetteD|Talk 20:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You want weird? Check out this guy pretending to be Andrew Bolt! http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/nest/246121894 –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes. Interesting. However, I think it's a pity that the others participants in the discussion did so much feeding of the troll. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Zurich00swiss

Good morning I'm zurich00swiss, a stupid and naive user, a user who has done something that is like destroying his dream: flying. I'm really young and I know I made a mistake, I know that you aren't probably interested in what I'm writing because I'll probably remain blocked. I created many sockpuppets because I wanted to continue editing my favourite airports, airlines but specially my dreams. I'm apologize for everything I've done; I want to became a pilot in Swiss International air Lines, this is the reason of my nicknames... If you give me the last chance I will surely be better, if I could go back to the past I'd never made this mistake, this stupid mistake of being a person without a hart with a part of my life! Without Wikipedia I'm empty, so I would like to ask you to give me the last chance. Best regards. THANK YOU ZURICH00SWISS.

P.S. I decided to excuse me alter talking about this with my dad, so he also tried to help me with the tramslation —  Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.29.154.74 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 July 2015‎

Answered on the talk page of your account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JamesBWatson thank You very much for unblocking me, I won't disappoint you. in addiction, I want to tell you that I'm going to edit an article just edited by Wjkxy, because he let me finish the work, but please don't think that we are the same person :) —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurich00swiss (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 July 2015‎

@Zurich00swiss: That's all right, I really don't think you are the same person. I hope you can now get on with useful editing, without any more problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Goose-editing IP sock creates new user account

Hi, the IP who has been editing goose articles with "Javad Ramezani" has now started to edit blue-winged goose and other articles with the new user account user:Goramk. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

CCP Contact Probe Co., Ltd

You are, of course, quite right in pointing out the policy within which a user may incorporate a company or organization name within their username. Given that this user is a self-stated single purpose account, albeit not a harmful one, and as the editor (who may be illegally multiple) obviously had little clue as to correct procedure, I was trying to make username selection more straightforward for him, as I could forsee a series of unacceptable names in the pipeline. Perhaps I was wrong; certainly I was in terms of precise statement of policy. His latest suggestion is, of course, good.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: I fully understand your point, but I strongly feel that the common practice of persuading an editor with a name which announces their COI to replace it with one which hides their COI is totally unhelpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair point; I would not dream of arguing with, especially as I recognize that you are right! But I have seen occasions when a perfectly good article, written by an editor with a declared interest, has been flagged for deletion for conflict of interest for no other apparent reason that the aforesaid declaration; and no, I cannot now provide diffs.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: Yes, I have seen that too, and no, I can't provide diffs either. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User:JacksonViking

Hi. Just wanted to let you know my old buddy Jackson is at it again. The last two entries in his talk page reference edits that it would have been reasonable to give an "only" warning for unreferenced defamation. As I said at his most recent visit to ANI, I'm not sure whether it's CIR or NOT HERE, but this boy has wasted enough of all our time. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Davey Asprey

Hey there,

I was having a discussion with the creator of the page here when this was deleted. It seems like he was making a good-faith effort, and although there was a potential COI, in my personal opinion, there was substantial content as I read it that was not reading as an advert or overly promotional.

Thanks! -| Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, your idea of what is "overly promotional" is different from mine. An article full of such language as "pushed Daveys' sound to a wider audience and has garnered an intense following of trance fans around the world", "and tipped as one to watch by the likes", "music regularly graces the decks and airwaves", "some of the finest talent within the scene", and so on reads to me as pretty promotional. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if what I said was confusing. I accept that some of the article was written promotionally, however WP:G11 states that the article has to be essentially unsalvageable before it can be CSD'd with a G11. That is what I dispute - there were plenty of references. The article has been recreated, and it looks to me like most of the POV issues are resolved. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am trying my very best to get the hang of this posting on wiki, but how can anybody stand a chance who is not as tech savy as you all appear to be when without warning posts, which are near identical to others that are freely allowed to be posted, get deleted? Remove from the article what is offending or breaching policy, and I will re-work the post to fit the guidelines. I cannot see how i can be any fairer than that.We are all made of stardust. (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Daveyasprey: It is natural for a newcomer to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable. Unfortunately, though, it is not a reliable guide, as many unsuitable articles are created, and while a large proportion of them are deleted very soon, many more stay for a long time before being noticed and deleted. I wouldn't like to guess how many times over the years I have seen a new editor whose article is being considered for deletion say "but what about such and such an article and such and such an article" only to receive the answer "Yes, you are right. Thanks for pointing them out. I have nominated them for deletion". I don't know what other articles you have in mind, so I can't say whether that applies to them, or whether in fact there are significant differences from the article you have created, such as satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines and not being written in a promotional way, but what I can say is that they are irrelevant to the issue of whether your article is suitable: it will be assessed on its own merits. You say that you "will re-work the post to fit the guidelines". Some problems, such as the marketing-speak in which much of early version of the article were written, can easily be edited out. However, no amount of editing an article can change the notability of the subject of the article, and I really think it is only fair to tell you that I have searched extensively, and everything that I have seen suggests that Davey Asprey does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You are welcome to prove me wrong if you can, but if he doesn't, then any work you put into the article is likely to be wasted, as it will almost certainly be deleted. If your only purpose in editing here is to publicise Davey Asprey, then really really I think your best bet is to put your efforts into doing so somewhere other than Wikipedia. That may seem like an unfriendly thing to say, but it is honestly said because I have seen many people in your situation put a lot of time and effort into something which was doomed to failure from the start, and I think it is actually more friendly to warn you of that, rather than encouraging you to do the same. If, on the other hand, you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia in other ways, then you are certainly very welcome to do so. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.

There is also another important fact which you need to know about. Since your user name is Daveyasprey, I assumed that you were Davey Asprey, but I now see that you have made statements which indicate that you are not him. Your username is therefore likely to mislead people (as it misled me), and such a misleading username is contrary to Wikipedia's username policy. You therefore must not continue to edit using that username. You should instead apply for a change of username. Information about doing so is at Wikipedia:Changing username, and normally the place to actually make the request is Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Daveyasprey

The deletion of kunlun fight company page

would you please explain why it got deleted, thank you

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KunLun fight —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzabi21 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 27 July 2015‎

The discussion which led to the deletion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KunLun fight. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Handy (company) deletion

Hi JamesBWatson! I see you have delete article about Handy the company for G5, A7, and G11. I can't speak about G5 and G11 because I have no idea who that user is or what the page looked liked, but I can talk about A7. This article says that Handy has 10,000 contractors on its platform compared to Homejoys 1,000. If Homejoy is considered significant enough, then its bigger and still living competitor should be as well.

Because of its significance, I believe Handy article should be undeleted. The article itself, if it blatant advertising, should be fixed. I can do the fixing. Eladamry (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly welcome to write a new article on the subject. However, my experience indicates that any person who is willing to keep on creating new accounts to evade blocks will just continue to do so as long as he or she finds that what he or she posts to Wikipedia has a good chance of staying, whereas if he or she finds that anything posted by sockpuppets will be deleted 'and stay deleted, then there is a good chance that eventually he or she will give up. I am therefore unwilling to undelete the article. I do realise that writing a new article from scratch will take a bit more work than cleaning up the old one, but if it prevents a persistent disruptive editor from seeing that his/her article eventually got accepted, I think that is just a price will have to be paid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! When I have some time to put in the proper amount of work I will create one and do it right. Handy was known as Handybook before they rebranded and it looks like that article was suffering from the same problems back in 2014. Eladamry (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback....

Dear James,

Thank you so much for your feedback regarding the Wikipedia page I was working on as well as your suggestions moving forward. They were thoughtful and they all made sense. Really appreciate it.

The earlier draft was certainly not meant to be "promotional" but I do understand your comments about the overall tone appearing so. It seems that the more "neutral" draft was less problematic, and that was the one I intended to keep on the user page in hopes of satisfying wikipedia's requirements in that area.

Many thanks too for your honest comments regarding the notability guidelines. Of course, I submitted this article because I believed Charles Bonnett's innovative surgical career and real estate career to be notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. However, the need to cite sources makes perfect sense and is a very fair request. I will add the appropriate sources and submit it for consideration again--certainly understanding there is no guarantee of inclusion. But I do appreciate your candor and expert opinion based upon your experience as an editor.

Lastly, thanks too for the tip regarding making small edits on other articles. This seems like a great piece of advice to better understand the way Wikipedia works.

Again, I really appreciate all the time you too to send me such a helpful response. Thanks again.

My Best, David Joseph —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsj1408 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 28 July 2015‎

OK. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sir James

I want to discus with you on a topic and i am a new user on wikipedia. I am a video Director and Editor in Punjab, India. There is a page of Gippy Grewal and diljit dosanjh, (Punjabi singers) But why not the page of Director Gifty and other directors, who make their status in public. If i am want to create a page on my own Direction then why there is Bugs,errors. Why its not completing. So respected sir, if i am want to create a page on myself then please tell me how to edit it. I am very thankful to you if u give reply on it. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourav08saini (talk • contribs) 13:58, 28 July 2015‎

Wikipedia is not a medium for people to tell the world about themselves and their work: that is what your own web site is for, if you have one. If and when your work receives enough attention to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, no doubt some uninvolved impartial person will write an article about it for Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia on subjects unrelated to your own work if you would like to, but as has already been explained to you on your talk page, creating articles about subjects such as yourself, your work, your company, and so on, is not in line with Wikipedia's accepted practices. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir James

Yesterday, I tried to create a page for the [New York Singing Teachers Association (NYSTA)]], which you deleted. I thought I had followed the rules of objectivity according to Wikipedia. I paraphrased, and it certainly wasn't a promotional page. If the National Association of Teachers of Singing and American Choral Directors Association has a Wikipedia page, there should certainly be one for NYSTA as well. There is no difference. Also, many other articles (Oren Brown, Enrico Caruso), could be linked to the page. Can you please explain why this article was deleted and how a successful one might be written? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebra95 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You say "it certainly wasn't a promotional page". Certainly by the time of the last version of the article you had toned it down, and removed some of the most blatantly promotional content, but the focus of the article was still on presenting to the readers of Wikipedia the view of the organisation which it wishes to present to the world, including such language as "provide voice professionals, both locally and globally, with the tools and inspiration needed for an increasingly informed and creative pedagogy", "By making these resources accessible to our members, we foster twenty-first-century pedagogy, rooted in the great traditions of the past, incorporating the new knowledge of our time", "encourage the highest standards of musicianship and artistic singing", and so on and so on... No amount of putting quotation marks round the text you post, and prefixing it with such words as "According to its website" or "NYSTA has adopted a mission statement..." in any way diminishes the fact that that sort of stuff is the view of the organisation which you were trying to present to the readers of the article you wrote. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Googolplexian

Before you closed that RFD, I was going to object to the fact that it was a protected redirect. Seeing as the "dispute" on that redirect happened back in 2006, could you unprotect it? I really don't think that protection is necessary anymore. Thanks. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix:  Done. So obvious, that I can't think why I didn't think of it. Thanks for pointing it out. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• I appreciate it. Now I can add the relevant WP:RCATs. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

About relationship to Kaunas Chamber Theatre

There was a notice that Kaunas chamber theatre article will be deleted. I only ask you not to delete it, I understand that I cannot be a contributor of this page because I am working at that theatre. But is there any other way to update information without any conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Less poetree (talk • contribs) 07:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Less poetree (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have been editing the article, including removing a deletion proposal, using the edit summary "This page cannot be deleted because it is about the theatre where I work." If you wish to avoid problems with conflict of interest, then yo can post suggestions for changes to the article on its talk page, Talk:Kaunas Chamber Theatre. If you do that, you should post the tag {{helpme}} on the page, above your suggestion, to alert editors who check help requests to the fact that there is one on that page: otherwise, it is perfectly possible for a message to go unseen by anyone for a very long time. Since you contested the proposed deletion, I have now nominated the article for a discussion to decide whether it should be deleted. You are welcome to contribute to that discussion, but if you choose to do so, you should first make sure that you are familiar with the notability guidelines. The guidelines which are most relevant are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of organisations and companies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

About a user you recently blocked who has returned

Not much above 2 days ago you blocked "The_kyle_3" for 48 hours. [32], at least in part for his behavior at 2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting, which is under the Israel/Palestinian 1RR. Now editing again, he has rapidly made his second series of reverts to the categories on the page [33]. Thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: The block I replaced was for personal attacks. The editor has been uncivil since the block expired, but has not done anything that amounts to a personal attack. If the editor starts making unambiguous personal attacks I will be willing to step in, but I am unwilling to get involved in issues regarding Israel/Palestinian issues and 1RR rules applied to articles. In fact, because I rarely go near anything relating to such issues, I don't even know how to tell whether the article you mention is subject to the 1RR or not. I suggest you either approach an administrator with more experience in that area, or take it to one of the admin noticeboards, presumably either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Apostrophes

You are absolutely correct that singular words ending in an "s" are made into a possessive form by adding "^{apostrophe}s". The Americans have adopted the simpler approach and just add an apostrophe. Unfortunately Wikipedia'a manual of style requires the possessive to follow the American convention regardless of the language variant in which the article is written. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ratings and rankings system

The arbitration restriction mentioned as a reason for deleting this page only applies to articles. Peter James (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Peter James: You are perfectly right. I deleted the wrong page by mistake: I meant to delete Universal Ranking System. Later, I realised that Universal Ranking System was not deleted, so I deleted it, but Wikipedia:Ratings and rankings system remained deleted too. I have now restored that page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

why did you delete paris jefferson from wikipedia

Why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сяра (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Because that was the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Jefferson. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In regard to

This: My apologies. I saw the month and for some reason read 2014 as this year rather than last year. Glad you caught the error and deleted the speedy delete notice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Another sock of User: Solhjoo?

Please see Rambodnikraftar, who's moved Piranshahr to Piranshahr of Mokrian, like User:Persiskbruker had done before. Alakzi (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have wondered about that editor, but on the whole I don't think the evidence supports sockpuppetry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Alakzi (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for calling my attention to that editor. That edit was mild compared to some of the editor's comments several months ago, but the overall point is the same, and I have blocked the account. It also looks to me as though it is likely to be a sockpuppet, but I can't be certain. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Genre warring

Hi there, "James". I note your comment on genre warring at AIV. I suspect many of us see comments about different musical (perhaps more correctly "musical") genres, which I at least, being an old fogey, do not understand. I have asked my grandchildren to define the various genres, which seem actually to multiply almost daily, and I get a different definition, albeit frequently a linguistically opaque one, from each grandchild. Do you think that there is any chance of promulgating a policy in Wikipedia which stipulates that edits stipulating musical genres, which are commonly in any case defined by the performers and variously defined by their audiences and critics, should automatically be accepted, and changes made to them should equally be accepted without argument? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: I have no grandchildren to ask (that's not my fault: blame my children) so I am perhaps even more in the dark about these "genres" than you. However, I have long since been under the impression that in most cases of "genre warring" it is so completely arbitrary what genre to ascribe that all editors involved are just wasting their time on something which really doesn't matter. As for your suggested policy, I can see the attraction of the idea, but I don't really think it would work, for at least two reasons. (1) Sometimes a genre really is obviously WRONG: to take an extreme example, would you be willing to accept without argument an edit to Don Giovanni which gave the genre as "punk rock"? (2) What would "changes made to them should equally be accepted without argument" mean in practice? Would it mean that if you change a genre, I change it back, you repeat your change, I repeat mine, and so on and so on, with changes happening every few seconds, nobody would have any right to intervene to stop us? That would have the effect of making it virtually impossible for any constructive editors to make substantial improvements to the article, as they would be subjected to endless edit-conflicts almost every time they tried to save an edit. A long time ago, I gave up even bothering to check the editing history of an article where "genre warring" was reported, because experience had taught me that doing so was a waste of time, but I don't think it would be realistic to try to make ignoring such edit-wars a requirement under policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair point; but you clearly understand my irritation at the apparent incessant activity of some editors in changing descriptions from one apparently meaningless description to another equally meaningless label. In reality I do, of course, recognize the impracticality of imposing a blanket policy on this topic; perhaps it would be possible to commission an article from someone of the right generation and background giving us concrete definitions of the inordinate number of music genres which now appear to exist?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: But that wouldn't stop disruptive editors from genre-warring, and would you be willing to put in the work required to (a) read up on the genres being warred over so that you knew what they mean, (b) read up on the musicians being warred over so that you knew what their music is like, (c) make a judgement as to which if any of the genres in question apply, and (d) do something about it (such a blocking)? As far as I am concerned, the only practical way of dealing with the problem is to ignore it, and let the silly children (or adults who behave like children: no difference) play their silly games, unless there is a report at AN/EW, in which case it can be assessed in the same way as any other edit-warring report: block if there is edit-warring, without making any attempt to decide whether or not any of the genres being warred over is valid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, although slightly tongue-in-cheek; possibly Don Giovanni might have been considered punk rock, or at least its eighteenth century equivalent, by Mozart aficionados at the time of its premier?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) One problem with establishing "concrete definitions" is that there are none; that is, one person's sea punk is another person's chill wave is another person's shoe gaze (yes, these are all real genres). The other problem is that, according to EveryNoise.com, there are no less than 1,264 genres of popular music -- today. (Tomorrow there will be 30 or 40 more.) I share your genre-warring frustration, and I regret that I don't have a brilliant solution to the problem (and my granddaughter is only 2) -- but I can tell you that Don Giovanni was definitely not 18th-century punk rock; Mozart, genius that he was, worked only within the established classical genres of his time. Beethoven, on the other hand, was the original punk rocker. And Franz Liszt was the original Elvis. Seriously. Women threw their underclothing at him as he performed! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello watson

1) Dj1kamal is my account , and that wikipedia article is created by some Guy from USA 2) i m here to edit my picture and album names , and news is this allowed ? 3) i made this account just to edit the information about my article 4) can you explain what is conflict of interest ? and how to fix and correct my article as i dont know much about it :)

I shall be thankful to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj1kamal (talk • contribs) 11:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dj1kamal: I am aware that the article was created by a different account than the one you are using here, though I didn't know she was from the USA. I would be very interested to learn how you knew that, since I can't see anywhere where she says so. Perhaps she did say so somewhere on Wikipedia, and I have missed it; if so, can you tell me where she said so? Alternatively, maybe you know because you have had contact with her off Wikipedia: is that it? The concept of "conflict of interest" is explained in the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, but very briefly the idea is that people editing about themselves or subjects closely connected to themselves, they are likely to find it difficult to do so neutrally. At best, an editor with a conflict of interest may be sincerely trying to write in a neutral and objective way, but fail to so so because they are unable to stand back from their own perceptions, and see how their writing will seem from the detached perspective of an uninvolved outsider, while at worst we have editors who come here deliberately to promote themselves, or worse still to whitewash articles about themselves, removing valid content because it is unfavourable to them. Looking at the contributions you have made to the article, I don't see anything that could be regarded as blatant promotion, but really it would be better to suggest changes on the article's talk page, so that some impartial editor can review your suggestions and decide whether to make the changes. If you do that, put {{helpme}} on the talk page, above your suggestion for editing. That will alert editors who check for help requests to the fact that you are asking for help: otherwise, there is a danger that nobody will notice that you have posted the request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello watson

As frankly speaking and GOD promise i dont know who made my wikipedia i m saying USA Person because few weeks ago when i released my album on 17 july i got the email from some of my fans and they said hey congratulation you are now on wikipedia so first i thought he made it thats why i m saying because he/she was from USA ,

then i put this link to my twitter account and thanked the person who made it

then i made dj1kamal account and i edit my picture , album name etc

Now final words i need from you as you have experienced and i have not neither my english good how can i fix this link or correct it

as you are owner / admin of wikipedia can you fix it for me , ? as i m newbie dont know what to tag or not

i need guidnace and support from you and i ll request you dont delete my page as my career is behalf of this article :)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj1kamal (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I got this tag in wiki i have source link but how to post the source link ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Kamal_Mustafa

@Dj1kamal: There are various nice fancy ways to format references, which you can read all about at Wikipedia:Citing sources if you want to, but in my opinion that page is way too complicated for anyone new to editing Wikipedia. (For ages after I first started editing I didn't dare try to add references, because I found that page so confusing and intimidating.) All you need to know to get started on adding sources is that at the point in the article where the reference is needed, you can add the tags,<ref> and </ref> with the details of the source between them. For example, if your source is a web site, you can add something like.<ref> http://example_website.com/whatever.html </ref> Provided the article also contains a {{reflist}} tag, that should do the trick. (That tag is normally put in a "references" section near the bottom of the page.) That is just a very basic way of adding a reference to a source, and if you do much editing of Wikipedia you may like to learn to do better versions, but that basic version is good enough to get going. If you do want to know more, you may find Help:Referencing for beginners more readable than Wikipedia:Citing sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dj1kamal: I've also just discovered a sequence of instruction pages beginning at Help:Introduction to referencing/1. I haven't read them all, but it looks as though they may be helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct

Ok i understand now i did some reference of my interview and game source site including defence forum , now final help i need can you lemme know how to remove the warning which i m getting in my page for deletion of article i dont want wikipedia team to delete my article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Kamal_Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj1kamal (talk • contribs) 13:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dj1kamal: The way to try to prevent deletion of the article is to post your reasons in the discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Kamal Mustafa. Before you do so, you should have a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. In my opinion, there are far too many of these guidelines and policies, and most of them are far too long, making it very difficult for a newcomer to Wikipedia to know what is going on, but the one most relevant in this case is Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Also relevant to some extent is the general notability guideline. Do your best with defending the article, but I think it is only fair to let you know that what I have been able to find about you (both from the references in the article and from my own web searches) makes me think that it is unlikely you will succeed in preventing deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion time

1) Who going to delete it ? 2) When will i get final answer that it will delete or not as newbie i dont know what to do it will be serious shame for me if my page get delete 3) if someone has made official songs for famous singers , made 3d films , and developed few games then he must have exact page on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj1kamal (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Normally, a deletion discussion is allowed to run for a week, which in this case means up to 12 August. At the end of that time, an uninvolved, independent, administrator reads the discussion page, assesses the reasons put forward on both sides, and decides whether there is "consensus" to delete the article. I put the word "consensus" in quotes, because the reviewing administrator takes into account not so much what the opinions of the participants in the discussion are, but rather how far the reasons they give stand up in the light of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. (That is why it is essential to have a look at the most relevant guidelines before commenting. If someone says, for example, "Keep, because I'm a fan of this person, and I think it's a great article", then the reviewing administrator will completely ignore that comment, since liking an article is not a reason for keeping it according to Wikipedia policy; likewise a comment that says "Delete because I hate his stupid film" will be ignored, because a Wikipedia editor disliking a topic is not a reason for deletion.

Making songs for famous singers is not regarded as grounds for notability: it is necessary to show that a person has himself or herself received the kind of attention that shows notability, not just that he or she has connections with people who have done so. Merely having made 3-d films and games is no evidence of notability, as there are large numbers of people who have done things like that but who are totally insignificant. You may think that Wikipedia's guidelines about notability should take into account things like that, and if so you are free to suggest changes to the guidelines, but the deletion discussion on the article about you will be assessed on the basis of what Wikipedia's notability guidelines say now, whether you agree with them or not.

One last point before I log off, because I can't afford to spend any more time here now. I see you have edited Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/DJ Kamal Mustafa. However, if you want your comments to be taken into account when the deletion discussion is reviewed by an administrator, you need to post to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Kamal Mustafa. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I think i answered you yesterday please check i used only this account to edit my article i dont know other persons ali shani or robert something like that , i made this account to change and edit the article thats all sir , i even dont know how to make article , and i didnot made dj kamal mustafa wikipedia myself its created by someone else , final word and in short Dj1kamal made by me to edit some changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj1kamal (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Liban Barre page

here's prove that Liban Barre has almost 15,000 fans https://www.facebook.com/FunnySomaliVideos?ref=hl and his facebook account will be verified from what his manager told me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed9558 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ahmed9558: If you mean that he has 14000 odd "likes" on his facebook page, then I don't see that as evidence of significance. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and rather than speedily delete the article as having no claim of significance, I shall nominate it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

sir you told me to show you prove that "Liban Barre" has fanbase of 14 thousand almost close to 15,000 and i showed you now whats the problem ? his manager told me his going to have his Facebook verified and google is creating his knowledge graph so when you type in his name his box information pops up and his Wikipedia information.so why is it getting deleted and this one of Siad Barre great-great grandchild and if so tell me what i am missing on this page so it could be on wikipedia —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed9558 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 August 2015‎

Having a lot of "likes" on a Facebook page is not an indication of notability in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. If you have not already done so, I suggest you have a look at the general notability guidelines, the guideline on notability of people, and the guideline on notability of musicians. (Incidentally, I also think equating number of "likes" on a Facebook page to number of "fans" is questionable.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

i understand that but this guy is really famous his getting verified on facebook and in order to get verified you have to be a Celebrities and public figures Global brands and businesses or Media and he is getting a knowledge graph in week or something tell me how i can keep my article about this person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed9558 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is nominated for deletion because its subject does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have given you links to the relevant guidelines. if you can find reliable sources which indicate that he does satisfy those guidelines, then you can state what those sources are, and that should mean that the article is kept. However, I have searched, and failed to find any such sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)