User talk:JBW/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

152.26.0.0/16

I'm still not a fan of blocking entire states without discussion at AN/I. Frankly I don't care about 100 instances of vandalism, I don't even care if it's 100 instances of bomb threats, presidential assassination plots, and child pornography being posted, blocking 100s of thousands of users for more than a week in a rangeblcok without community discussion is inappropriate. Especially considering we have edit filters, robots like User:ClueBot, and contributors whose sole focus is vandal patrol to curtail the damage caused by what is largely the most recognizable form of vandalism. You have blocked account creation. Are you a checkuser? How do you know 50 good faith accounts weren't created from that range? I brought this to your talk page in good faith instead of bringing it to AN/I, but I will bring it to AN/I if you don't either lift the block or start a discussion about the range at AN/I. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 20:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Further more, why exactly did you fail to notify the communications committee when making a block that could have political complications? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 21:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Many years ago I found that I couldn't edit from the local library, as its IP address was blocked because of vandalism. I created an account so that I could edit. It was a mild inconvenience to be unable to edit until I got to a computer where I could create an account, but I did not resent that, as I accepted that such a mild inconvenience was a reasonable price to have to pay for stopping large amounts of vandalism. Alternatively I could have requested an account using the form which was linked to in the notice informing me that the IP address was blocked, so even if I had no access to any other computer, I could have got an account and carried on editing. When an IP address or range is the source of thousands of vandalism edits and no or virtually no constructive edits, blocking can do far more good than harm. Yes, we have editors who spend large amounts of their time on vandalism patrol, but they don't catch anything like all of the vast amount of vandalism that takes place. You are, of course, free to propose a change to policy so that every range block has to be first subjected to a community discussion if you like, but I am surprised that you didn't get the message the last time you took this issue to AN/I that that is not the place to propose a change to policy. I see that this issue is one which you have made rather a campaign bout over the course of several years. As for asking why I didn't inform the Wikimedia Foundation's communications committee, why do you think I should have done so, and why do you even assume I knew of its existence? You may also like to consider the tone of your message to me. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it could be read as an angry threat, rather than as a friendly attempt to discuss an issue with someone you don't agree with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not meant as an uncivil threat, but rather as a firm promise because now we're discussing the block itself rather than policy changes. Don't get me wrong, I think you've done a lot of good at WP, but you pretty blatantly just undid the block merely to avoid scrutiny since you put another block on it after the heat went away, and I don't like that way of doing things.

Since we're on the topic of the past, I used to think vandalism was such a horrible thing and must be prevented at all costs too. I pushed for (and obtained successfully) the protection anything that User:LBHS Cheerleader had touched. Then I realized I was pushing for nuclear warfare against a fly who was easily swatted and reverted, and feeding the troll. I also used to think anybody who vandalized Wikipedia, even once, was a horrible person and deserved to be punished. Although I still prefer abuse reports over long term blocks, I probably filed hundreds of abuse reports for simple things like girls adding themselves to List of cheerleaders. I had that article on my watch list, and every time someone would add themselves to the list, if I could determine what squad they were part of, I'd send an email to the coach with a link to the vandalism a note saying how I thought the post made the team look bad, and that if the person who actually made the post was a cheerleader she should be kicked off the team because she didn't deserve to be a cheerleader. Then I realized what I was doing was awefully harsh for someone who was probably just curious about the editing process. I still think vandalism is bad, but I think blocking out editing out editing across an entire state's network without discussion to stop minor cheerleader-like vandalism from schools is inappropriate; it could stop an otherwise future FA creator from making their first edits, and if these institutions are anything like Charlotte Countu Public Schools, the users CAN'T use the form to create an account because there is no access to email from those networks. I'm a candal fighter, and I'm seeing an increase of cheerleader-like vandalism from cellular providers' ranges. Doesn't sound to me like the school blocks are really stopping anything. Anyway... I wrote this reply in pieces so apologies if anything doesn't make sense. Working three jobs irl is tough. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 00:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I "blatantly just undid the block merely to avoid scrutiny"??? What? You objected to placing a block for as long as six years, and I accepted that it was a mistake to do so, and lifted the block with a block log record that said "Let's see how it goes". I did indeed see how it went: vandalism edits at a rate of more than 100 per day, so I blocked again, this time for just a few months. How on earth is that avoiding scrutiny? If you mean you think that I imagined I had waited long enough so that you wouldn't notice, then you are not only assuming bad faith, but you are also assuming stupidity: don't you think I have the intelligence to wait for at least a month or so, rather than a day, if that is what I was trying to do? What evidence do you have that I had such duplicitous intentions? What aspect of my behaviour belies the possibility that I genuinely took on board the criticism of the six year block, sincerely, in good faith, tried unblocking to see what happened, saw that what happened was a flood of vandalism, and decided to block again, this time for a very much shorter period? I did it fully expecting that you would see what I had done, since you evidently were taking an interest in the case, and indeed that is largely why I added a note in the block log mentioning what the rate of renewed vandalism had been, to help you understand the reason for the new block.
2. Unlike you, I have never thought that "anybody who vandalized Wikipedia, even once, was a horrible person and deserved to be punished". Kids are kids. If Wikipedia had existed when I was a school kid, I probably would have vandalised it, not because I was a "horrible person", but just because it would have seemed like a fun thing to do. I have never thought that people who vandalise Wikipedia should be "punished", but I have always thought that we should do what we can to minimise the amount of vandalism. Taking action to stop someone doing something is not the same as punishing them. Of course nothing we do can ever totally stop it, but that is not a reason not to do what we can. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

To me though, it seems there's going to be a flood of vandalism from any /16 range. That's a lot of IPs, and in that range's case, it's a lot of shared IPs which means there's an exponential amount of people accessing the internet from it. Six years is a long time, but if you're going to actively monitor the range like that expecting kids, who you have rightfully said, will always vandalize because it is fun to them, to miraculously stop vandalizing and start being little angels, you may as well just indefinitely block it because the reblocking will never cease. To me, that rangeblock creates unnecessary potential for political complications and PR drama when you could just {{schoolblock}} the individual IPs spewing the vandalism (for an even longer period of time if you wish) without sending a big "f*** you" to the state of North Carolina; it's creating potential WP:COMCOM issues to stop minor pom-pom type vandalism (which is mostly what I see come from schools as a vandal fighter) which, to me, is like sugar ants on the floor in a restaurant, compared to deliberate factual inaccuracies and harassment of Wikipedians I see coming largely from open proxies and home IP addresses, which are more like cockroaches on the cook line. The sugar ants are a nuisance, and it doesn't look good if customers see them, but unlike the cockroaches on the cook line contaminating the food with germs, the sugar ants on the floor aren't really destroying anything. Whatever though, I don't think bickering is productive for the project. Although I dread doing it, I'm still bringing it to AN/I because I think even three months on a range representing an entire state should be discussed. Let the community decide if the block is appropriate. May I add I was a kid myself when I believed that vandalism inherently made someone a bad person. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 17:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

I see you placed the articles Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens, Khorkhog, Mongolian passport and Mongolian cuisine under extended confirmed protection with the reason "Troll". This is not permitted by the current policy on this protection level. Please adjust the protection to conform with the protection policy. Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thanks for pointing out my mistake. In fact I have removed protection altogether, as article protection doesn't seem to be very effective against this editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Block

To let you know. You blocked User:Mary McAllen. After the block the IP address User talk:213.205.252.185 is making the same edits (that has been reverted). So it seems to me that the same user is continuing the same vandalism under an IP address account. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sander.v.Ginkel: Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the IP address for a week. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Madhu Kambikar

The mainspace page Madhu Kambikar is a copy/paste move of Draft:Madhu Kambikar which has been reviewed and declined at AFC. I was attempting to fix that, but you refused the speedy, thus leaving the situation that we have a Draft with problems and a mainspace copy of the draft which should not yet be in mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I agree. I think the article should be deleted, but I really don't see that it satisfies any of the speedy deletion criteria, so the only ways to do it would be either WP:PROD or WP:AfD. "There is already a declined draft for this article" is not a speedy deletion criterion. In some cases similar to this the fact that it's a copy-paste is a reason for merging or deletion because of copyright, but in this case there is only one author, who has a perfect right to create copies of his or her work. You may like to try a PROD or AfD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"PBS Kids" Block Evaders

They're back again. 2601:806:C301:95B6:4872:5BBB:8518:F12E, 2601:806:C301:95B6:15A3:DDF9:1CF7:2B58, 68.38.81.129, 2601:806:c301:95b6:1179:9831:29ff:8bd0, 2601:806:c301:95b6:55df:ef81:f83e:eb19, 2601:806:c301:95b6:6861:553f:3ebd:3f8, etc. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've put a range block on the 2601:806:C301:95B6:... IP addresses. As for 68.38.81.129, it looks likely that it's the same person, but it's not immediately obvious to me that it is, and considering that there have been no edits from that IP address for a couple of weeks, I don't see any grounds for blocking it. However, that view could change if the IP address (or others close to it) start up again now that the others are blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:VeriKami's sandbox and copyright

Since the user is disputing that the text was a copyvio, may I suggest we restore his sandbox and hold a proper AfD or such? On my talk page he claimed it was just a translation of Polish Wikipedia text. I checked the pl wiki text and it does not seem to be a copuvio itself, so if his text is a translation of it, it should be fine. PS. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me, thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thank you for reminding me about this. I had actually intended to come back to it a while ago, but had forgotten to. I have restored the page, and I don't see any need for it to be deleted again, now that I understand what was going on. Unfortunately, previously I read only the talk page section which I started, as I had no reason to guess that there was discussion about it in other places, and VeriKami didn't make things as clear to me as would have been ideal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting my sandboxed version of this article. I think that now it is possible to evaluate (using references) that the entry does not directly infringe copyrights of Culture.pl. And "if" (in some details) then it could be simply improved but not completely deleted. veriKami (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Walt DIsney

Good afternoon. When you have a moment, I wonder if I could ask you to have a look at recent editing activity on the above article, as well as its talk page, specifically the mini-drama that took place there recently. I attempted to restore some sourced content that had been removed from a section I added some time ago on allegations of racism and antisemitism, because I thought the information was important to that section's neutrality. The editor currently rewriting the article took it back out again. Okay, not my preference, but not worth an argument. I then tried something less ambitious: I restored a single word, "centaurette"—because that's the term that the studio (and the cited source) used to describe female centaur characters—which someone had changed to "female centaur" in the name of political correctness. No dice. I explained my rationale on the talk page, and even offered a compromise, but he didn't want to hear it. I received a bit of belated support on the talk page, but the discussion quickly flew off the track, so I abandoned that quest too. One last try: I fixed a colon, placing it after a complete grammatical sentence, rather than in its middle. Surely he couldn't object to a sixth-grade-level grammar correction, fully supported by MOS:COLON. Wrong again. It was right the way it was, "for fuck's sake"—supplemented, for good measure, with a hostile comment and a silly accusation of edit warring on my talk page. Okay, I get the message; now that he's on the case, the rest of us are way too stupid to modify even punctuation in that article. (He says as much, straight out, in a brief diatribe at the top of his own page.) I'm not sure what I'm requesting, other than an objective opinion, since I've moved on, and won't be returning, and I'm not the AN/I sort; I just don't like letting ownership and arrogance issues slide without at least registering a protest. Unless I'm just wrong—in which case, as always, I'll say so. But thanks for your time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: This is an example of a kind of dispute which I really don't like to be involved in. In a situation like this, even if I am convinced I am right and one or more other editors are being unreasonable, I tend to take the line "the exact wording of this small point is not a big enough there are hundreds of other things I could spend my time on more fruitfully", and go away and leave it. However, I have had a look at the discussions and editing history. I agree with you about "centaurette", but don't feel strongly enough to pursue the issue. As for the colon issue, I don't have any strong preference for either version: either seems acceptable to me. The discussions about this could certainly have been conducted in a more civil and cooperative spirit, but in the scale of things that happen in Wikipedia discussions, this is a fairly mild example. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Understood. It occurred to me last night that if I were an admin, and someone came to me with this scenario, I wouldn't want to intervene because he would just yell at me too, and nothing would come of it. As I mentioned, I have in fact "gone away and left it"; there are plenty of other articles on my to-do list. I just felt compelled to bring it up with a third party, without making a federal case out of it. When I was growing up, interrupting a sentence with a colon in that manner was considered a sign of basic illiteracy. My 7th grade English teacher, bless her heart, would have cringed, and would be proud that I challenged it; but one must choose one's battles, and while it bothers me that people like SchroCat get away with that sort of arrogance and flat refusal to even consider others' views -- and accuse others of edit warring even as they revert reasonable edits -- I'm enough of an adult to leave it be. Thanks again for your time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

69.178 IP

I saw that the 69.178 IP range was blocked for 3 years due to repeat vandalism and block evasion. It appears the user is back adding information about a sherrif's office in North Dakota on the talk page of the IPs that were blocked. Not sure if these pages need to be lock from the IP editing at this point, however I have tagged them for deletion per CSD G5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Thanks for letting me know. I see that the talk pages have been deleted, and MusikAnimal has removed talk page access from the IP range. I also see that an even larger range than the one I blocked is now globally blocked on all Wikimedia projects, so there must have been extensive vandalism elsewhere too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for review of deletion of Selim Mehajer

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on Noticeboard/Incidents

Thanks for your advice on Noticeboard/Incidents. I'll continue to consider the causes that I have been seen as not so cooperative. At the moment, I think one cause may be that I tend to prioritize the accuracy of the description than the correctness of English grammar. Probably I should be try to keep balance between them. best, --Clusternote (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I copy/pasted your signature onto the ANI closure, as it wasn't immediately clear who closed the thread. Cheers. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thank you. I suppose ideally rather than copying my signature you should have either posted here asking me to do it or else used an {{Unsigned}} template, but I'm happy with what you did. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up Draft:51Degrees and the related socks. I rather stupidly did not think to check the creation log of the newer account. It's something I will add to my workflow at AfC. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 15:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for revdeletion

In this edit, a vandal tried to add gay erotica (!) into the article Chris Evans (actor). Please revdelete this as offensive material. Thankyou, Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Removed, and blocked. SQL^{Query me!} 05:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Rangecontribs

Regarding your question at WP:AN3, see this rangecontribs. (Click 'toggle all' to see the edits. This uses only the CIDR gadget that's been around forever, not the new rangecontribs in wmflabs that doesn't seem to do IPv6 ranges yet). It doesn't change the situation much. I would say 50:50 this is the same person who has been bothering CL all this time, but the evidence isn't really there, and until socking is established I don't think any exemption from 3RR is granted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The rangecontribs link you give just gives me a page which says 'User account "2601:5C2:100:9A1:*" is not registered' in red at the top, and 'No changes were found matching these criteria' at the bottom. You tell me to click 'toggle all', but those words don't appear anywhere on the page. Can you clarify how I get 'toggle all'? I thought it might be because I use "MonoBook" instead of the horrible "Vector" which for some reason is now the default interface, but I tries switching to "Vector" and it made no difference. I have no other ideas. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It turns out I am using vector.js, and I have turned on Preferences->Gadgets->Advanced->Allow /16, /24 and /27 - /32 CIDR ranges… which is explained in Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Tools#Checking range contributions. This is the 'old' rangecontribs, which had the problem that it didn't sort by date, so it was hard to focus in on a recent contributor from a big range. In this case the whole /64 appears to be the same guy, and it is only 18 edits, all since January 1. The old rangecontribs now seems to be enhanced for IPv6 and it accepts an asterisk, though if you can't get it running in monobook I guess that's a disadvantage. See also a thread at User talk:MusikAnimal#Rangecontribs. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks, Ed. That is really helpful. I have so often been frustrated by the lack of any way of checking an IPv6 range, and although this is imperfect, it is certainly far better than what was available to me before. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

089baby socks?

It's been a while since I came to you with an issue concerning this SPI case, so I hope you still remember it. I have found a few accounts that I suspect might be socks, but I have enough doubts that I'd like a second opinion before opening a formal investigation. Tat ta (talk · contribs), Salanasa (talk · contribs), Tatsuta Kazuki (talk · contribs), and Yuya wada (talk · contribs) are all pretty clearly the same person, though there's no actual misuse of multiple accounts here (unless it's block evasion). Someone with an interest in Cambodian football using multiple accounts sets off all sorts of alarm bells for me. On the other hand Tat ta's duplication of articles and use of all caps (take a look at their talk page to see what I mean) seems out of character for 089baby. Please let me know what you think. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I've had a look at the editing of those accounts, and compared with a few samples from 089baby and known socks, and it's difficult. It certainly looks as though the accounts you list may well be the same person, though what I have seen doesn't make it clear beyond all doubt. (That doesn't mean I think you are wrong, because you may have seen evidence which in my fairly quick look I missed.) There is also a striking resemblance to 089baby too, but there are also differences. As you say, there's the use of all caps, and there are also several signs of not being as competent at editing Wikipedia as 089baby, such as mangled attempts at using templates, and the very clumsy way of copy-pasting articles and not properly replacing everything that should be replaced, which suggests a much lower level of competence than 089baby has shown. However, it is far from unknown for an experienced sockpuppeteer to think of the trick of deliberately pretending to be an incompetent newbie to throw people off the scent. If you are right about the four accounts you list being the same person, then I think that person is faking incompetence, because the four accounts don't all show the same signs of incompetence. It may well be that 089baby has come up with the trick of using a number of throwaway accounts, each one briefly, so that no one account accumulates enough evidence of sockpuppetry for action to be taken. However, that is speculation, and I don't see enough evidence to justify taking any action, nor to justify a CheckUser. That is, of course, just based on what I have seen in the sample of edits I have looked at, and if you can produce specific diffs which strongly suggest sockpuppetry then I might well reconsider that view, but unless you can I'm afraid I have to say that it is one of those annoying cases where there's enough to arouse suspicions, but not enough to do anything about it. Obviously diffs linking any of the accounts you mention to known 089baby socks would be useful, but even diffs showing that you are right in thinking the the accounts you mention are the same person would be useful, because if they are then I believe the person using them has been trying to evade scrutiny, which is abuse of multiple accounts whether or not we can confidently identify an earlier master account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess the link between the four was not quite as obvious as I thought. The fact that a lot of the relevant diffs are to deleted articles doesn't help. So let me talk you through my thinking. Tatsuta Kazuki and Yuya wada were registered for the express purpose of creating articles on Tatsuta Kazuki and Wada Yuya, respectively. Recreations of both of these articles were among Tat ta's first edits. Salanasa created the article on Cambodia League 2, with the title originally written in all caps, and listing the six clubs playing in the league also in all caps. Tat ta went on to create articles on all six clubs also with all caps titles. That being said I think we're mostly on the same page here. Even if this is 089baby, I don't think there's enough evidence to prove it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for review of Deletion of AuthBridge Research Services

@JamesBWatson: I would like to request that the page should be restored. I am not involved in any way with the company but I was doing research on the background verification companies in India and used that to update an already existing page which had put the name incorrectly. I can rewrite the content to not make it look like a promotional page. I agree with guidelines of Wikipedia that no content should be promotional and about conflict of Interest, I will keep that in mind for future. It was a silly mistake on my part and I don't want the concerned company to be facing the penalty because of my error. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouris Bashir (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 May 2016

@Mouris Bashir: The reasons why I thought you were probably connected to the company were that your editing was largely about that company, that it was highly promotional in character, that your editing seemed to be coordinated with other accounts which edited only about that company, and above all that you used the expression "our clients" in writing about the company. However, I have now looked further and found that much of the content of the article consisted of copies of text which appear also in AuthBridge's web site. That means that the content you posted infringes copyright, and there is no question of restoring it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I understand and Yes, I did copy some information from their website. Thank You for help and advice. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouris Bashir (talk • contribs) 09:24, 12 May 2016

Request for review of deletion of Ajay Trehan

I see that the page was deleted because the content came out as promotional. The person mentioned is a pioneer in innovating the Background Screening industry in India. As someone doing my research on this industry, I thought that it was worthy of being mentioned. I can rewrite the content to ensure that I don't break any guidelines, If i can get access to this page again, I will go ahead and rewrite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouris Bashir (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mouris Bashir: I have restored the article, and moved it to Draft:Ajay Trehan. You can work on it there, and when you think it's ready, click on "Submit your draft for review" to ask for an experienced editor to review it. The reviewer will either move it back to Ajay Trehan as an article, or else give you advice on why he or she thinks it is still unsuitable, and if possible what can be done to make it suitable.

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. (I know that you have had this account for several years, but since you have only recently started editing very actively, you are effectively a new editor.) In my opinion Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are far too extensive and complex, making it very difficult for a new editor to know what is acceptable. You may like to consider leaving the draft for a few months while you get more experience in other editing, and then come back to it. However, if you do decide to go ahead with editing it now, you should look at the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people, to see what sort of evidence is needed to show that Ajay Trehan is suitable to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank You. I will work with one of the experienced Editors and get it sorted. Appreciate your guidance and help. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouris Bashir (talk • contribs) 07:33, 12 May 2016‎

Please restore Tevfik Arif

The result of the AFD was not Delete. There was No Consensus. Please restore it and let's try to hear from more editors. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, just taking a count of the number of comments, there was one for keeping and three for deletion. Looking not just at numbers but at the arguments advanced, and assessing them against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, on the "delete" side there are specific reasons given, together with indications of guidelines and policies to which those reasons refer, while on the "keep" side the only reason given is an assertion that there are sources, with no indication whatever what those sources are or where they are. Not only is that contrary to the policy that sources must be verifiable, but it is also contrary to common sense: it would make nonsense to change policy so that we start keeping articles because someone says "it's OK, you can take my word for it that there are sources". There was clearly consensus to delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Gary K. Michelson page being updated by employee Daniel Bernstein

Wikipedia user Danielbernstein is updating the page of Gary K. Michelson. Daniel Bernstein is an employee of Gary K. Michelson see here, and here. He is adding sources which are links to Gary Michelson's own websites and not media articles. He also added incorrect information besides links to paid "aditorials" such as C Suite Quarterly. You told me to contact you when Gary's employees update his pages and I am. I am not editing the information myself. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Mary Cummins

@Mary Cummins: I have moved this from my "open" talk page to here, because your account is autoconfirmed, so there should not be any reason why you can't edit here.

Thanks for pointing this out to me. I see that you are referring to a conversation we had almost two and a half years ago, which I had completely forgotten. I have posted to Danielbernstein's talk page, informing him of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on conflict of interest, neutral point of view and promotional editing, warning him about non-independent sources, and informing him of the need for disclosure of paid editing. He should have been warned about those issues long ago. Unfortunately, the editor has made very large numbers of edits to the article, many of which mainly or entirely consist of adding links and references, rather than substantive content, which makes it impossible to see the nature of the editing without a large and time-consuming amount of checking of links. I do see, however, that at least some of the edits seem to consist of adding promotional links. For example, a "reference" to C-Suite Quarterly, which you mentioned, was not in fact a reference for any content in the article, and looked as though its purpose was probably to increase traffic to that site. If there is substantial amounts of that kind of fake referencing, then there could be a significant problem, so if you can point me to any more specific links which have similar problems I will be grateful. Also, you say that he has added "incorrect information": can you give me any specific examples? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock.

Thanks for unblocking me. I appreciate it alot. FixCop (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Blaming someone for the symptoms of an autistic spectrum condition is as unhelpful as blaming someone for being left handed

I'll comment here, since I appear to have worn out my welcome on the other page.

I don't blame the editor for those symptoms; to the contrary, I completely sympathize. I certainly don't connect them to character. But, unlike those symptoms, being left-handed does not create repeated, ongoing disruption of the project. If we are more tolerant of the editor because of his Asperger, we have to do the same for everyone who claims Asperger, and of course there is no way to verify that diagnosis without some bizarre new bureaucracy. Then, we have to do the same for those who exhibit symptoms of any number of other disorders that affect behavior (yes, it's still called a "disorder", per our articles). I suspect a substantial majority of Wikipedia's chronic misbehavers suffer from something like that, something that they were born with.

No one can help that person but himself and whatever professional help he seeks, and he needs to cease using his diagnosis as a crutch, expecting the community to understand his special needs and give him slack that others do not receive.

My autism-spectrum condition has caused problems at WP, albeit less serious. I have been able to improve things somehat by working on myself. For what remains, I do not ask for special treatment from the community. I have mentioned that I was ADD, for example, referring to my difficulty with tl;dr, but I didn't ask people to avoid tl;dr for my benefit. I sometimes fail to control knee-jerk, adrenaline-spike reactions in heated and contentious debates, but I don't then ask for special tolerance. And so on. My problems are my problems, not Wikipedia's problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I totally agree with everything you say, and if I gave the impression either that I thought you were blaming another editor or that it was OK to use Asperger's syndrome as a crutch or excuse, then I didn't express myself clearly enough, because I certainly didn't mean to do either of those. In fact, what I was trying to convey was something like "while obviously blaming you for your condition would not be helpful, you would be better off forgetting about interpreting what others say as blaming you, and instead concentrating on what you do and say, and thinking about how to change his/her own behaviour so as to minimise the problems. I think the most central phrase in what I wrote was "no matter what the cause of the problem". I tried (successfully or not, I can't say) to convey the following two related points. (1) It is totally unhelpful to say "doing XYZ is because I have condition ABC, which is not a matter of my choosing, therefore any suggestion that doing XYZ is a problem is blaming me for it, so I am justified in just dismissing what you say"; instead, one should say, "You have pointed out that XYZ is a problem, so I'll think about how I can try to alleviate that problem. That will be difficult for me, because of condition ABC, but that just means I will have to try all the harder." (2) Even if one thinks that one is being unfairly blamed for a problem which is not of one's choosing, it is unconstructive to dwell on the behaviour of the person who one thinks is doing the blaming: instead focus on how to deal with the problem.

You are, of course, perfectly right in saying that being left handed is in some ways not at all comparable. I didn't intend to suggest that the two situations were similar in all respects, only that they were similar in the one respect that they are not of one's choosing, so blaming one for them is unreasonable.

I never thought you, Mandruss, were blaming, or being unconstructive in any other way. However, I have seen another editor blaming the person in question. (Never mind who, or when, or where.) Therefore, to have taken the line "nobody is blaming you" would have got nowhere:the person in question might well have just thought I was wrong, and therefore ignored everything else I said to concentrate on attacking me for that error. I judged it was more likely to be helpful to accept that blame might exist, and concentrate on how to move on in that situation. Also, I didn't think there was any point in getting into who had blamed and who hadn't, and why such and such a statement wasn't blaming, which again would just have given a chance to get sidetracked into arguments about that, rather than concentrating on the essential issue. I therefore did not address the fact that sometimes the person thought he/she was being blamed he/she actually wasn't. If by not addressing that I left open the impression that I thought you were blaming or unsympathetic, then please accept my apology, as I certainly didn't intend to. On the contrary: I think that part of the problem is that the person in question failed to recognise that you were sympathetic and trying to help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My central point was that it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to help the user understand these things, which is what you seem to be trying to do (a 1,000-word post for just that purpose). Your compassion is commendable, and it's not my place to tell you what to do with it, but to do this can only reinforce a user's belief that it is Wikipedia's responsibility. That is not good for the project, and I do have a legitimate interest in that. The user is old enough and intelligent enough to know that professional help exists. If they choose not to seek such help, they are not really interested in change. If they are already getting it, there is nothing we can add to it. I believe my feelings are in line with the essay, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy, indicating that I'm not alone in them. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Unlike last time, this time I don't agree with you. Of course it isn't Wikipedia's responsibility to help. However, if I can help a potentially constructive editor who is in danger of being lost from the project because of problems to become a constructive editor who is not lost from the project then that is a gain to the project. I see no reason why my choosing to do so should "reinforce a user's belief that it is Wikipedia's responsibility", but even if it does, so what? How does that harm the project? If it succeeds, then that is good, whether it is seen as a responsibility or not, and if it doesn't, then the editor will be indefinitely blocked, whether it is seen as a responsibility or not, just as would have happened if I hadn't tried, so what is lost, apart from a little of my time which I voluntarily gave?

You cite Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy, but are you actually fully acquainted with what that page says? Nowhere in it can I find anything that supports what you are saying, namely that what I have been doing is "not good for the project" and should be discouraged. Indeed, on the contrary, right in the lead of that page is the sentence "Except in extreme cases, editors are not blocked before problems have been patiently discussed, but, if disruptive behavior is not controlled, ultimately the community will protect the encyclopedia by restricting the user's participation in the project." That is precisely what I have done: patiently discussing the issues in the hope of helping dealing with them, but also keeping in reserve the option to kick the editor out if that fails. Remember that my involvement in this started with declining an unblock request, and also that in my decline message I warned that an indefinite block might well come "probably sooner rather than later". What I am doing is, I think, 100% in line with the essay which you cite in the (in my opinion mistaken) belief that it supports your position. The section Appropriate responses summarises precisely the approach I am taking. As for your comment about the length of my post, you are probably right. I always tend to write at excessive length: that is one of my symptoms of attention deficit disorder. Sometimes I go back and savagely edit what I have written down to a small fraction of its original length before clicking on "Save page", but this time I didn't. Maybe doing so would have been better, maybe not: I don't know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Ok. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't mean to pile on, but I do agree with Mandruss in full. One thing to consider is that those who "flaunt" their alleged physical or emotional handicaps put at a disadvantage those of use who do not, but who simply have a greater desire for privacy. Similarly I've seen editors use age as a method of gaining advantage in discussions. That too is unverifiable and, also puts at a disadvantage (yadda yadda). I just wanted to throw that in, as a lurker. Feel free to delete if you think I'm piling on or whatever. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Conduct of another user

Hi, I noticed that you interacted with ZH8000 about a year ago. So did I recently, and I found their contributions and method of interaction with others questionable at best. I'm considering whether to initiate a discussion with them about this, and if need be, a community discussion. Would you be interested in participating in these discussions? Regards,  Sandstein  17:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Although I found myself disagreeing with ZH8000, it was a fairy minor matter, a long time ago, and I don't see any reason to pursue it again now. I see that you have posted similar messages to the talk pages of a number of other editors, Sandstein. It appears that all of the editors you have contacted have been in disagreement with ZH8000. Are you sure that what you have been doing wasn't canvassing? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to gauge whether my concerns are shared or isolated, so as to determine whether further discussions are warranted. Thanks for your reply.  Sandstein  19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You deleted my page

WHY? I think my page should be kept, for a number of reasons:

It is an effective transcript of the event.

It is not an "insult" to claim someone is seeking attention.

It is not perfect, and I acknowledge that. I'm hoping the readers can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Geckonatior (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@The Geckonatior: I have actually deleted two of the articles that you have created. One was a pointless duplicate of an article we already have, and the other was about an incident which, if true, was far too trivial to justify being the subject of an article in an encyclopaedia. I found it difficult to believe that you meant the latter article as a serious contribution to Wikipedia, but if you did then you need much more experience of what is acceptable before you create any more articles. 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) 22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

For you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For being nice to me, offering me words of encouragment, and dealing with that troll so diligently. <3 Kailey 2001 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

How can I delete my account?

I don't want my wikipedia page anymore, how can I delete my account? —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Magtf1 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 1 April 2016‎

@Magtf1: Accounts can't be deleted. If you don't want to edit any more, just abandon the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Herring

Hi. Noticed you protected the article on Richard Herring on 10 January 2012(!!), and this has never been lifted despite no further vandalism. Mayve time to remove, as there's no reason for it be there any more? —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Stehollis8 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 April 2016

@Stehollis8: Experience shows that in a case such as this, where there was persistent vandalism for years, which stopped when the page was protected, when the protection is lifted, the vandalism usually comes back. However, I have lifted the protection, and we can see how it goes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Lasko 26 - Callum Reynolds

I am in full agreement with Briohny Doyle above that this is certainly a hard medium in terms of communication.

In regards to the Callum Reynolds article, he is one of the select few that doesn't have a wiki page from our squad, he's a now a full time professional like all the others in the squad.

Boreham Wood FC is now full time and that is incorrectly stated on their wiki page and that needs updating, which I shall do now. I am supporter of the club, they are now operating on a full time basis as pro clubs do with three day full training with two rest days in a game week. Players who had part time contracts with full time jobs, had to leave the club due to the new full time day training regime. http://www.borehamwoodfootballclub.co.uk/wood-to-go-day-time-training-three-times-a-week/ - http://www.borehamwoodtimes.co.uk/sport/13778674.Noto_departs_as_Wood_switch_to_daytime_training/

• Also in regards to when he signed for Tamworth, they were a 5th tier team at the time of signing, they have been relegated since that time and now play in Level 6 of the English tier.

• Also the club mis-spelling his name on the web link of his profile, the web admin of Boreham Wood FC are not as computer illiterate as you. :)

• Everyone else in the Boreham Wood squad (bar goalkeeper James Russell which I shall do next) has a profile but he is the club captain?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasko26 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lasko26: I sympathise about the difficulties in knowing how to communicate. I remember finding it very confusing when I started editing here, but it does get much easier as you get used to it. There are two points which should be useful to you in connection with posting in talk pages and other discussion pages (but not articles). First, always end talk page posts with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~). That will automatically be converted into a signature, which not only helps other editors to see who made the post, but also includes a link to your talk page, which can sometimes be helpful to other editors who may wish to contact you. Secondly, you can make sure that another editor gets notified of a talk page post, by putting {{ping|JamesBWatson}} (or whatever the editor's user name is) in your post. Provided you also sign your post with ~~~~, the editor should get a notification. This has the advantage that you can answer a message on the same page where it was posted, rather than having to go to the other editor's talk page, which means that all discussion on the same topic is together, making it easier to follow what is going on. A conversation which jumps back and forth between different pages can be very confusing. Note that this works only if you sign with four tildes in the same edit as the "ping": it doesn't work, for example, if you realise you forgot to sign the post, and then go back and sign it. In this message, I am pinging you by putting {{ping|Lasko26}} at the start of the message, and ~~~~ at the end. The "ping" should show up on the page as @Lasko26, but typing that in directly would not trigger a notification.

Concerning Callum Reynolds, I was just going on what I could see, but you evidently know far more than I do about both the man and the clubs involved. I suggest probably the best thing for you to do is to post a query about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, where you should be able to get help from people who have experience of the issues involved. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Briohny Doyle

Hey James, sorry if you saw I replied to your comment on my talk page (or whatever it's called) - I'm finding wikipedia a bit strange to navigate as a new user. Anyhow, this is my response to the proposed deletion of the Briohny Doyle entry:

I don't have a conflict of interest. I don't know Briohny or work with her and I don't stand to benefit in any way from the publication of her forthcoming books. I'm peripherally involved in Melbourne writing communities, which is how I'm familiar with her work. She's just a writer I admire. I didn't write anything evaluative about her in the article (tho there's a positive quote), so I dispute the imputation this is promotional in tone.

Wikipedia hosts a lot of pages on minor figures, many with less info than this, so I figured my subject would be okay. The page will obviously be added to in the near future as her books are received.

I'm definitely happy to take advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniethel (talk • contribs) 10:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Anniethel (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anniethel: First of all, I suggest you read what I have written in the section below, beginning "I sympathise about the difficulties in knowing how to communicate". Everything in the first paragraph of my message there applies just as much to you as to Lasko26, to whom I addressed the comments.

I accept that you have no conflict of interest. It looked a bit as though you might have, but I wasn't at all sure, which is why in the section heading where I posted the message about it I only called it "Possible conflict of interest", and I am perfectly willing to accept that you don't have one. You say "Wikipedia hosts a lot of pages on minor figures, many with less info than this", and that is perfectly true. It is also perfectly natural for a new editor to assume that what she or he sees in existing articles is a guide to what is acceptable, but there are tow reasons why that may be misleading. Firstly, and most importantly, with millions of articles on Wikipedia articles, with almost anyone in the world able to create an account and edit, and with hundreds of thousands of people doing so, it is impossible to keep track of everything, and many articles exist which don't satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and will probably be deleted if and when they are noticed by some editor who is aware of Wikipedia's standards. Many times over the years I have seen a new editor who has created an article, see it deleted or nominated for deletion, said "but what about such and such n article, and such and such an article, they are very similar to my article", only to find that the answer is "yes, you are right, thanks for calling those to our attention, they can now be deleted too." Secondly, quite often what looks to a new editor like two very similar articles can in fact be two articles one of which satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines and one of which doesn't. The notability guidelines depend largely on what coverage of a subject there is in the world outside Wikipedia, and it may well be that a very well-written and detailed article on a subject of little notability will be deleted, while a much poorer and more minimal article on a notable subject survives.

My personal opinion is that Wikipedia has over the years acquired far too many policies and guidelines, and those that there are have grown far too long and complex, making it confusing and intimidating for a new editor. It does get better as you get more experience, because you get to learn what the main points are, and don't have to get confused by all the detail, but I would prefer only to have the main points, and not all of the detail. However, the most relevant guidelines in this case are the general notability guideline (which is just one section of the fairly long page Wikipedia:Notability) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). I suggest you have a look at those. The main point of the general notability guideline is that a subject is considered notable if it has substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. An announcement by the publisher of an author's books is of no use in establishing notability, as it is not independent of the subject: obviously they have an interest in promoting her work. I remain of the opinion that Briohny Doyle does not currently satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but to give you a chance to prove me wrong, or for the situation to change if she gets more attention in the near future, I shall remove the deletion proposal and move the page to a draft, at Draft:Briohny Doyle. That way, if evidence of notability can be found, it can be added, and eventually the page can be moved back to Briohny Doyle.

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) 10:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anniethel: Sorry, in my first version of the message above I typed Draft/Briohny Doyle by mistake instead of Draft:Briohny Doyle. I have corrected it now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Riaz Ali Shah

hi. this is legends2016. please contact me on my email usman_shah@hotmail.com. my article is authentic and the personality is very famous. i have cited the sources and can scan them to you in orignal. there is a road in honor of this person in pakistan. also, the stuff written is re written from the articles and the links mentioned on the page such as the Rockfeller foundation etc can be contacted. none of it has been my opinion. independant socurces are mentioned plus also the web site which mentions the videos of the leaders actually shows footage of the leaders so you can verify it. thanks buddy. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Legends2016 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 May 2016

@Legends2016: Most discussion about Wikipedia editing should take place on pages in Wikipedia, so that it is visible to all editors, and email should be used only if there is something to be said which is confidential, or for other reasons can't be made public. When there is a good reason to use email, I don't email Wikipedia editors directly, but instead use Wikipedia's email forwarding service. If you have anything to say to me which can't be said publicly, then enable Wikipedia email, which you can do using the "preferences" link at the top of the page, and then on this page use the email link to contact me. I also suggest that you remove your email address from the pages where you have posted it, as making it so publicly visible may attract spam. When I posted my message to you about Riaz Ali Shah, I said, among other things, "I am confident that he is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article", and I don't need persuading that he is significant and prominent, or that there are relevant sources available about him: I was simply offering you advice on presenting the content in a way which would be consistent with Wikipedia standards, to maximise the likelihood of your contribution remaining. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson, thanks James. Im sorry there is nothing I need to hide from public. I am just new at this Wikapedia thing so that is why I mentioned email. I read wikapedia all the time but have never posted about anyone. sure. I will sumbit article soon. . this is one of the most prominent doctors in -pak history and not to mention him would not be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legends2016 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

editing Joseph Ayo Babalola Univeristy page

Hello James, I received your feedback on my editing. I was confused on what you wanted me to take off on the page ? Did you wanted me to take out the school colors information or the administration office contact information ? Please get back to me asap ! Thank you and god bless. (Mikkeyboy15 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)).

I didn't want you to remove anything, I myself removed what I thought needed to be removed. Contact details, such as the phone number of the admissions office, belong in the university's own web site, not in an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia does not serve as a contact agency or a medium for publicising information for recruitment purposes. I can't off hand think of any situation in which including a telephone number in a Wikipedia article would be appropriate. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sro23

I find it strange User:Bbb23 reverted a sockpuppet investigation into User:Sro23. While the filer was eventually banned, the investigation should have proceeded as a matter of course. The evidence against User:Sro23 appears strong. [1] 8.26.121.214 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Henri White

Hi, I created this page as I represent the artist Henri White as an agent. I Don't know how best to clarify this but I would appreciate some communication in how to prevent this page from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriWhite (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@HenriWhite: If you are Henri White's agent, then you should not be using the username "HenriWhite", as it gives the misleading impression that you are Henri White. You could just abandon this account and create a new one,but in my opinion it's much better to have your account renamed, as that way the history of your edits is kept together. You should have a look at Wikipedia:Changing username. Also, if you are Henri White's agent, then Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest discourage you from writing about him. Experience shows that someone with a close professional connection to the subject they are writing about is likely to find it difficult to write from a neutral perspective, even if they honestly intend to do so.

Now to answer your question about deletion. The nomination for deletion was made because an editor thinks that Henri White does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The most relevant guidelines in this case are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people, and you should look at those, if you haven't already. The central point is that to show notability it is necessary to show that there is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. If you can show that there is such coverage, then you should go yo the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henri White and explain what they are. On the other hand, if you can't, then you will be much better off accepting that he is not suitable for a Wikipedia article, because any time and effort spent in trying to keep the article is likely to be wasted, as the article will probably be deleted anyway. (Please note that I am just trying to help by explaining to you what the possibilities are. I am not expressing any opinion on whether he does or doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, for the simple reason that I don't know.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

MediHelp International

Hello, James, What information should the page contain in order for it to be available on Wikipedia? Other insurance companies such as BUPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupa, Allianz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allianz or Cigna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigna, have Wikipedia pages that have been approved. I just want to make it informative not commercial. Thank you for your answer. Have a nice day :) Anca.Comms (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If you can write a page full of language such as "MediHelp successfully combines international health insurance cover with international medical assistance for the benefit of its clients" and not think that it was promotional, then it's difficult to know where to start. Are you a professional marketing or PR person? If so, perhaps you are so used to seeing marketing-speak all day, day after day, that you have become desensitised to it. As for the other articles you mention, if they are written as blatant advertisements then they too should be deleted, and if not then they are irrelevant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Autoconfirm

I have made at least 10 edits in 4 days since I created my account. I would like for you to make me an autoconfirmed user, please. Dr. Neurosis (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Neurosis: Your account was actually created a few hours short of three days ago, so there is a little while to go. If you wish to do something which requires a confirmed account and you don't want to wait the day plus a few hours that it will take to be autoconfirmed, by all means tell me what it is you want to do, and if it seems appropriate I can make you a confirmed user, but it wouldn't be an acceptable use of administrative tools to do so without knowing why you want it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh. A few hours short of three days ago. Dr. Neurosis (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I will intend to use Twinkle as an autoconfirmed user. Dr. Neurosis (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Neurosis: OK, I've looked at your editing history, and you appear to be a responsible editor, so I have confirmed your account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Harauthi/Hadothi/Hadoti, etc, are all interchangeable.

Hi, I posted this on my talk page, but again as I'm a bit of a Neanderthal when it comes to some forms of technology - I wasn't sure whether you would be notified of it, or not.

Thank you for your help, and I appreciate your concerns re: establishing consensus. However, the most reliable language source on the internet by far, Ethnologue, has Harauti as a seperate language: https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hoj

Furthermore, the second source you provided (Glottolog) automatically takes some of it's data from Ethnologue (and vice-versa) - and that also has Harauti as a seperate language under an alternate name (Hadothi/Hadoti) as it is listed in bold. Hadothi/Harauthi/Hadoti, etc., are all interchangeable names, and the position of 'Harauti' in a dialect section is probably a consequence of accidental automatic scripting - or a reference to a standardised variety of the language. (I.E. if you look at some other language entries in Glottolog they may also have repeated entries in the dialect section).

Interestingly enough, what you have said to me actually demonstrates the importance of avoiding Indian sources on this matter. This is because you will often find in Indian sources, especially outdated ones, that the term 'dialect' is erroneously applied to regional languages such as Marwari and Bhojpuri. These are either innocent mistakes (sometimes 'dialect' is misunderstood and wrongly assumed to be synonymous with 'language', or that a series of closely related languages must somehow constitute 'dialects' of some sort) or perhaps indicative of a political agenda, like you mentioned. For example, Rajasthani languages were conflated with Hindi, but this has been empirically invalidated thanks to objective referencing and research from likes of Glottolog and Ethnologue.

Also, this particular page on Wikipedia has an 'infobox', which, as far as I know, are only used for clear-cut languages - not dialects.

Doing this article and Wikipedia justice requires a name change, in accordance with Ethnologue and Glottolog. I really hope you will think about this. Again, please check the Ethnologue and Glottolog entries - Harauti has a seperate language page on the former, and a seperate language entry on the latter (under an alternate name). Other than that, have a nice day and bless you for your help. Navistheman. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Navistheman (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 May 2016‎

OK, I understand what you are saying, but I am not an expert on Indian languages, and I don't think it would be a good idea for me to move the article on the basis that one Wikipedia editor thinks it should be moved, without clear evidence that the change is supported by a consensus of reliable sources. I don't know enough about the subject to make that sort of judgement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

With respect, sir, you don't have to be an expert on Indian languages to make pertinent improvements wherever necessary - that's the beauty of Wikipedia. All I'm saying is that being regarded by Glottolog and Ethnologue (among other sources, check Google-Books) as a seperate language is sufficient reason to warrant a move. It has all the hallmarks of a seperate language which are consistent with the linguistic protocols for Wikipedia - infoboxes, ISO-codes, etc. etc. It just makes sense to call it a language, and this is corroborated by many reliable and prominent sources. Anyway, I understand your reluctance, but I hope you will change your mind. Thanks all for your help with my other article - people like you are the backbone of Wikipedia. Have a nice day. Navistheman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navistheman (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I have given an answer on your talk page, but for the record I will briefly say here that the outcome is that I have moved the article back to its original title, which was Harauti language. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Again I would like to say thanks a lot for your help, and taking the time out to assist me on matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navistheman (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Innovation Factory

You mentioned i infringed copyright, infact you pointed to the same article from another source which i already referenced. I referenced original source in the article. if you see both title and author are same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muneebkiani (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Muneebkiani: I am not 100% sure what you mean, but I get the impression that you think that copyright does not apply as long as you say where you have copied from. If so, you may be confusing copyright with plagiarism, which is not at all the same thing. Copyright law does not cease to apply just because the person infringing copyright openly says that they are doing so. Also, the version of the article which I deleted did not contain any references at all: it was later, when you re-created the article after I had deleted it, that you posted a reference to the article you copied from. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

ok thanks i got your point, i think i need to understand wiki rules in bit more details. Though i am sure i didn't violated copyright because this is something i am working on myself. Anyways if you can kindly remove this article as i don't want "Innovation Factory" keyword to appear on an unrelated page and indexed by searched engines. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Muneebkiani (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 May 2016‎

@Muneebkiani: Several points come out of that:

1. If you own the copyright in the text, then posting it here probably didn't infringe copyright law, but it still infringes Wikipedia's copyright policy. We don't just accept content on the basis that someone who creates a Wikipedia account claims to own the copyright, because people can (and often do) come here and falsely claim to own copyright which they don't. We require proof of copyright.
2. If you do own the copyright, then by posting it on Wikipedia you are agreeing to license it under Wikipedia's reuse terms. That means that you are giving permission for anyone in the world to re-use your content, either as it is or modified in any way whatever, for any purpose whatever, subject only to saying that they copied it from the Wikipedia article. You may be happy licensing your content as openly as that, but if you aren't tehn you shouldn't post it here.
3. Even if you provided us with solid proof that you are the copyright owner, and indicated that you were willing to license it for free reuse, it would still be unacceptable, as it is promotional in tone.
4. It seems to me very unlikely that the Innovation Factory satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if it doesn't then any article about it is unlikely to survive, no matter how it is written. You are, of course, very welcome to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways, but if your only purpose here is to try to publicise the Innovation Factory, then you are more likely to achieve that by putting effort into doing so in other places, as Wikipedia is not the place to do it.
5. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia in other ways, then 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) 08:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeffrey P. Freidberg

Okay you deleted the article of Jeffrey Freidberg as being by a sock, I just found Jeffrey P. Freidberg on the new page feed-is it possible its the same guy? (Only found it because I was seeing if that was a page to put a DAB for) Wgolf (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As a note it seems the name does link to List of New York University alumni (which I'm not sure if it should be removed or what). Wgolf (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wgolf: I'll look at that, and see what I think.

I thought I posted the following message a few minutes after you sent your first message above, but it isn't here. My guess is that I got an edit conflict with your second message, and didn't notice, because I went offline immediately after posting. Anyway, here it is now, more than 10 hours later.

Thanks for telling me about this.Having looked at the relevant history, I can say that it's more than just "possible its the same guy": there are certain tell-tale signs which show without any doubt it's another one of the very many sockpuppets this editor has used. I have blocked the account and deleted the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Message

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

331dot (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies, my watchlist jumped unexpectedly, causing a misclick and an accidental rollback of your post here. I've of course undone my error. Fram (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: That's OK, I saw you had self-reverted, and realised it must be some mistake, so I wasn't concerned. The way that pages sometimes jump just as one is about to click is really irritating. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

a LITTLE CONFUSED

hey there. i recently got a message from you asking me to stop "unconstructive edits". I am confused as to why this has happened. thank you yours truly, Arkhaminsanity (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arkhaminsanity: If you create an article about a film by a very prominent director, with prominent actor in its cast, and substantial indications of being a very noted film, and if no evidence for existence of the film is to be found anywhere other than that article, if there are numerous "references" which don't have any connection to the film, and if a substantial part of the page is a direct copy of part of an article about a completely different film, then you cannot really be surprised when people think your editing is unconstructive. And that is just one of the things you have done here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Indef semi-protection of Imaginary number

This was done two and a half years ago in response to vandalism. Time for it to be lifted? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: OK, I've tried removing the protection. The substantial majority of editing had been vandalism and reverting of vandalism for years (don't ask me why) and I'm not at all confident that things will be any different now, but I'm certainly willing to give it a try. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Dicky Ryan

Hello. I noticed you speedy deleted Dicky Ryan as a page recreated following a deletion discussion. That discussion explicitly closed as delete as unsourced, but, if memory serves, the latest article had at least one source. Also, I would guess (but obviously can't confirm) that the 2016 article isn't "substantially identical" to the 2012 article. Thoughts? Rebbing 15:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: The wording used by the administrator closing a deletion discussion gives an indication of his or her thoughts on the discussion, but the reasons for deletion include the comments made in the discussion. It was not true that the original article had no sources at all, although the one source was formatted as an external link rather than as a reference, which for some reason some editors think means it doesn't count as a source. One contributor to the discussion said "There are no sources except for his boxing record", and the only sources in the new article were his boxing record and a book which mentions one fight he had. Was it "substantially identical" to the old article? Well, its substance was essentially the same, but many editors interpret "substantially identical" in a more strict way, so I am not willing to swear to my decision. If you like, I will restore the article which I deleted, but it seems to me entirely likely that the outcome may be another deletion discussion which uses the same reasons as the previous one and comes to the same conclusion, which I will regard as a waste of time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough explanation. I had mistakenly remembered seeing better sourcing than a boxing record and book mention. What you've described easily qualifies as substantially identical in my book, and I'm now confident that speedy deletion was appropriate. Cheers. Rebbing 16:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Bobby digital in stereo

Revoke talk page access? —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahk (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 May 2016

@Cahk: Yes, I've done that. In fact I had already decided to do that before I saw the talk page edit by the vandal, because I had discovered that it was a sockpuppet of a blocked editor with a history of talk page vandalism while blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of User:Ww1 man

You deleted this page under criteria G1 of speedy deletion, patent nonsense. I just wanted to point out that WP:G1 specifically states that it doesn't apply to the user namespace. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: You are perfectly right, though why editors should be allowed to store patent nonsense pages in userspace I can't imagine. I have re-deleted the page under CSD U5, the criterion under which it was originally tagged for speedy deletion by CAPTAIN RAJU. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I suppose it could be used as a test page or something like that. Anyway, thank you. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Can you semi-protect my user and talk page? You already saw that the vandal was willing to vandalize my page, he might come back and do it again. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I have indefinitely semi-protected your user page. If you want it unprotected, let me know, but I can't see any reason it shouldn't stay that way indefinitely. Your talk page is more difficult, as semi-protection can prevent legitimate editors from contacting you. For now, I have protected it for a month, but that is a compromise. As you can see from the notice at the top of this page, I have an alternative talk page for editors who are kept away from this page by the semi-protection I put in place. You may like to do the same. I'm afraid it doesn't completely stop the troll, but it does reduce the frequency of his/her vandalism, probably because it stops it from being so publicly visible, which is what trolls want. You won't see the trolling in the history of my alternative talk page, because I delete it to avoid feeding the troll. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

In regards to Therealshannon

I'm thinking WP:DENY would be the best way to go forward, from a non-administrator point of view? I mean, the username and the strange claim that she is the owner of a very common English name instantly tells me that this is a troll account looking for attention. In case you were unaware, there's an ANI thread open (I have no intention of making a comment). Just bringing it to your attention. Regards --PatientZero ^talk 15:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: No, I didn't know about the ANI thread; thanks for telling me. I would agree about WP:DENY except for the fact that I thought that this editor was probably going to need to be blocked, and if she (or he) was warned right away then blocking the next time she/he made a silly edit would be reasonable. Blocking an editor who has never been warned is not impossible, but it is generally thought to be inappropriate except for really extreme cases, such as serious libel. I have now blocked the account. Let's hope that's the end of it, but if she/he comes back with sockpuppets I will be happy to block immediately, without any further warnings. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response James - definitely hope that's the last we'll hear of her also. --PatientZero ^talk 20:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Confused

How do we deal with IPs who continue to put incorrect info on an article? I can't keep reverting it or I will get hit with the 3RR. I'm confused on how to deal with it? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Since I don't know the particular case you have in mind, I can't offer advice relating directly to the circumstances of that case, and can only make general comments. Almost always the first step should be to explain to the editor in question that you disagree, and except in the case of obvious vandalism, why you disagree. After that, if the "incorrect info" you refer to is deliberate vandalism then yo can report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but that doesn't apply if it's good-faith but mistaken editing. You may possibly find something helpful at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Wikipedia:Third opinion can sometimes help. All too often the editor in the minority just refuses to accept the third opinion, but even then, at least at that point you have moved towards establishing a consensus, and ultimately an editor who persistently refuses to accept consensus can be blocked. Sometimes other methods can be useful, depending on particular circumstances, but there is probably little point in listing a whole string of ideas which work only in very specific circumstances, most or even all of which won't apply in the case you have in mind. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I noticed it's always the same changes from the same IP that links to Vietnam according to whois. It's always the same wrestling articles and same info being placed after its been removed. I have reverted several of them and gave the reasons why they were not viable but then a few days go by and it's the samething again. They change names of the people in the article then link The sources but the "sources" do not go to what they are supposed to be linking too. Which I guess would be vandalizing but i don't want to make accusations like that. I don't want to get hit with 3RR or edit waring myself with them either. I did not say anything on the talk page of the IP as it was an IP and I wasn't sure how that was handled or what I could and could not say. Thank you for your insight and information I will look into the information you posted. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Would you like to let me know what articles they are, or what IP addresses, or both? If you can do that I'll have a look at it, and see what I think. If, as you say, the sources don't say what they are supposed to, then it may be more than just a content dispute, and perhaps a block for vandalism might be in order. Also, it may be worth a look to see if any of the IP addresses involved, or other IP addresses in the same range, have ever been blocked for similar activity. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP is 27.2.128.118 (talk) and the pages have been The_Wyatt_Family, which that one they blanked half the page if you look at its history and Daniel_Bryan that one they keep changing his name and the sources cited say nothing about any type of name change for him. One of the sources when you click on it brings up the website but the article doesnt exist. On the talk page for the IP it looks like someone has warned them about their edits not being constructive already for The Wyatt Family for this edit Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: I wouldn't think that reverting the editor at this stage would be a problem, as the rate of reverting is not that great. However, if you do revert, explaining why on the article talk page, and using an edit summary saying "see talk page", would be a good idea.

I found that the IP address you mention is just a small part of the problem. The same editor has been editing over a long time, from a large number of IP addresses in the range 27.2.128.0 to 27.2.128.126, and has received messages on several IP talk pages, but has never shown any sign of taking notice of them, as far as I can see. It can be really difficult to communicate with an editor in this situation, because if you post a message to the IP talk page, as likely as not the editor will move to another IP address and never see your message. Also, editors who see problems are unlikely to know that the same IP editor has received messages on other IP talk pages, so every message is posted by someone who thinks it is the first message, so nobody ever escalates it beyond level one messages. However, there is one feature of this particular case which makes it a bit easier. All or virtually all of the edits from the IP range are clearly from one person, so it is possible to block the range without fear of significant collateral damage. I have blocked it for two days, and in the block log reason I have included a link to the talk page of the last IP address used, User talk:27.2.128.38, where I have posted a message about the problems. Whether that will persuade the editor to start taking notice, it is impossible to say, but it's the one thing that stands a chance of doing so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:, sounds like a plan I just don't wanna find myself in trouble for anything. Hopefully they take notice.

@JamesBWatson:

Looks like the IP 27.2.128.38 from Vietnam is back on User talk:27.2.128.36 same edits and same name changes being made, I did get it reverted, of course I didn't realize I wasn't logged in so yes the IP that reverted was me. Didn't realize I was logged out on mobile till I saved it. How do I warn them or should I even bother with it being an IP?? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: First of all, Chris, you don't need to use "ping" when you are posting to the talk page of the editor you want to notify, because he or she will be notified of edits to his or her own talk page anyway. You only need to use "ping" when you want an editor to be notified of an edit on some page other than his or her own talk page.

Now, to answer your last question, yes you should bother to warn IP editors. It is true that you can't be sure that the editor will see your message, but there's a good chance that they will. A very frequent frustrating situation I encounter in my work as an administrator is finding an IP editor who has been editing disruptively for a very long time, but nobody has ever tried to explain to them what is wrong with their editing, or warned them to stop. This is especially true when the editor has jumped around over many IP addresses, never making more than a few edits from any one IP address, because other editors see only the edits from one IP address, don't realise there is a long history of problematic editing, and don't think it's worth bothering to warn the editor. If the same editor had been editing from an account, he or she would probably long ago have been told about the problems, and either he or she would have listened and stopped being disruptive, or else he/she would have carried on in the same way and been blocked, but as an IP editor he/she is allowed to get away with it for years, and there's usually nothing an administrator can do about an editor who has not been warned. If everybody who reverted the edits posted a message to the talk page of the current IP address, the IP editor would see at least some of them, and if the disruptive editing continued after quite a number of warnings, administrative action could be taken. If you revert an edit by an editor using IP address 27.2.128.36, and if the editor has been editing from that IP recently, then posting a message to User talk:27.2.128.36 stands a good chance of being seen by the editor. (It's a different matter if you revert an edit made some time ago, and looking at the IP's editing history you see that all edits from that IP were made within one day, more than a week ago, but that will not always be the situation, probably not even usually.)

You are clearly perfectly right about 27.2.128.36 being the same editor as before, and I have found that since the block the editor has also used 27.2.128.41, 27.2.128.82, and 27.2.128.90.

Next point is that in similar situations in future it will help if you can give a bit more information. I had to spend some time searching through the editing history of the IP address you gave, and then through the editing history of each page in that IP editing history, to find an edit which had been reverted by an IP editor which might be you. Since you must have known which article it was, you could have saved me trouble by telling me. When I eventually found the edit that I guess you meant, I then had to spend some time searching through web pages about the wrestler in question, to find what the edit you reverted was about: again, since you evidently know about the wrestler in question, you could have told me what it was about and saved me time.

The edit which I think you must be referring to was a change of a name. When I searched, I found that it is indeed an alternative name which the person in the article has used. From your edit summary, it is clear that you know that, but think that use of the alternative name is inappropriate in that particular place in that article. You may well be right about that, but since it is a genuine alternative name for the same person, it is not at all certain that it was vandalism. The IP editor may have thought in good faith that putting that name in was a good idea, even if he/she was wrong about that. None of the other edits since the block that I have looked at are obviously vandalism either, and none of the ones I have seen is covered by the situations that I warned the editor about when I blocked the range. Also, most of the edits have not been reverted, so it doesn't look as though the editor is making a lot of changes which seem disruptive to people who regularly edit wrestling articles. There have also been no talk page warnings to the editor at all since the block. All this adds up to the fact that nothing I have seen provides evidence that the disruptive editing from before the block is continuing. In your message above you said "same edits and same name changes being made", but I didn't see any repeats of the same edits as before. That doesn't mean that there aren't any, just that in the sample of edits I looked at I didn't spot any. Since you have far more experience of editing about wrestling than I do, you may know of particular edits since the block that repeat the same things done in particular edits before the block: if so, please let me know of particular edits, and I'll look into it. If I see evidence that the editor is ignoring the warnings I gave when I placed the block then I will consider whether another, longer, block might be suitable, especially if I can see that the editor has been warned again and has continued to ignore warnings, but so far that hasn't happened. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

First off sorry about the ping, Second sorry I was not more specific.Third the name was only used by fans and dirt sheet sites which are ones that mostly outlawed ones,hence why not 1 legitimate reference has been posted on the matter because there are none. if the name was used by WWE on their site or TV then that would be different as it wasn't an Official name he used that is why it was reverted.Oh so and so called him blank guess we better add it.That's not information that's wasting space.Its only IPs putting that on there and no registered user has put it up or reverted me on the matter so clearly someone agrees with me it's wrong.Sorry I brought it up to you again,wont bother you about it again. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please check edits

Greetings again, JamesB. I wonder if you would check the recent edits of User:Murnau's Ghost. My impression is that they have been verging on vandalistic and that he may need a warning from an Advisor. Thanks, Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mzilikazi1939: I have looked at the editor's editing history. A couple of the edits seemed questionable, but not obviously vandalism. The one thing I noticed which might possibly be regarded as vandalism was an edit with a misleading edit summary However, if you believe there are problems with the editing, then please go ahead and explain why on the editor's talk page. If the editor continues to edit disruptively after suitable warnings, then there may be need for an administrator to take action, but at present there is nothing to do that you can't do just as well as an administrator: in fact very probably you can do it better, as you mat know more about the background, so you have a better idea what the problems are. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow up your suggestion. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Plugee

Just FYI immediately before you blocked him, he engaged in yet another personal attack on me here, one of several he has made (and not apologised for) over this entire situation. He even changed my signature. Ogress 17:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of draft

Why did you delete Draft:Trevor Henry (commentator)? I don't believe G6 applies directly to Draft space unless it was deleted through MfD.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You may be right, but why? There was a deletion discussion which concluded that the article should be deleted, but it wasn't deleted. I can't understand why that doesn't mean that it should now be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well its been removed from article space now, that's for sure. Anyways, can I get the draft restored please.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion of IP: 180.234.58.150 + other IP's in the same range

It looks like this IP is block evading under 180.234.248.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now. Perhaps a range block is in order here? Vensco (T / C) 16:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The Beyonders again

It seems like BeyonderGod has returned to his usual antics after the 1-month ban. Help would be appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyonders&type=revision&diff=723422415&oldid=722782051

If you are interested, he has continued here, here, and here. David A (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

RyanSunshine

Thanks for cleaning up that mess. Not the first time those socks have moved an article all over the place during an AFD. Meters (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: Moving an article during an AFD is sometimes done innocently, but very often it is clearly a ploy to evade deletion. Of course, it shouldn't work, because the administrator closing the AFD should always look at the article before deleting it, but many of them don't. (In fact no administrator should ever delete any page without looking at it first to see what they are deleting, whether as a result of an AFD close or under any other circumstances.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

IP avoiding block

I know how to report a user socking, but not an IP. I'm fairly sure this IP is the same person as this one that you recently sent packing for three months. I suggest a soft block for the range for a shorter period to prevent collateral damage in order to make the fool stop IP editing entirely as he should be. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have placed a number of shorter-term range blocks in small ranges that this editor has used, but a block on a range big enough to stop both the IP addresses you used, (let alone all the IP addresses I have seen) would also affect a large number of other editors, so it's not really acceptable, except perhaps for a very short time. I can try using a short-term block on a wide range, but while that method sometimes persuades an editor who has been editing for only a short time, this one has been around for at least a year to my knowledge, and an editor who has persisted with the same disruptive editing for that long, undeterred by blocks, is unlikely to suddenly give up because of a block for a week or so. I have protected the most recently affected articles, which may slow things down a little, but it is unlikely to have a major impact, as he or she will probably just continue on other articles. Unfortunately, in this situation the best that can be done is blocking individual IP addresses and small ranges for a while as each one comes up. That doesn't stop the problem, but it's the best that can be done to reduce its effect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

That's all I could have asked. Just one thing. You reverted my reversion of his edit on Madison Eagles by mistake. Could you fix that? I obviously can't. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You are perfectly right in saying that I reverted your edit by mistake, and I apologise for that, but it doesn't look to me as though you were reverting editing by that editor. However, I have restored your edit. On a completely different matter, why don't you create an account? It would have several advantages, including that you would be able to edit the articles I have protected to stop this disruptive editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No thanks. I tried and got bullied and no one did anything about it. I haven't used an account for years. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Message from Summit09

I didn't mean to upload Tom Coventry: moose and the Canada National Rugby Team kit change was taken from an image from a recent match. Ask me whether I did it on purpose before you start deleting things I have done. Summit09 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Need to understand

I am a bit confused, i submitted an article about an ecommerce company on which i made a project report for BBA from MSU , Vadodara , Gujarat. 1) How can i name it to the company's name 2) How do i know that i haven't spammed or promoted because i had written about the company and i am not sure is it a promotional stuff or informative. If its promotional please share a tempelate of how to write informative description about a company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dones.Mathew (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Repton School

Thank you for your message, I note what you say.

I do not have any association with that school.

Until quite recently the entry was a once sided marketing puff piece which did not cover unfortunate aspects of the school's recent history.

I have made a balance of positive and negative edits, and the account @reptonschool and @wateringcan5 have been reversing or reverting them back, and another account @davetwigg deleted the whole entry. Quite happy for the article to be reviewed off course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimus ma (talk • contribs) 14:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of article Corvedale Three Castles Walk

You have proposed deletion of this article. I would like to enter into a discussion, with a view to consensus, as described in Articles for deletion but I cannot find out how to do this. If I go to Articles for deletion there is a log of AfD discussions for 27th May but this article is not in the log. I can find no method of opening a discussion - "Add a new entry" took me to the editing page for the log of discussions for the current date and adding an item to the top of the list (as per the comment) did not work. Can you explain the process? Archerbarrie (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Archerbarrie: I've removed the deletion template from the article (after adding a ref to a reliable independent source). I'll leave a message on your talk page a little later today, and give you some guidance. And Welcome! I do hope you'll continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Robevans123 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

History deletion

What was the point of this? I was hoping to go back at some point to see if there was anything here that I could find sources for and usefully add to the "Silent Night" article, but now the previous content is unavailable to any non-admin who wishes to do that. If you prefer to communicate in policyspeak then please note that WP:A10 specifically excludes articles where the title is a plausible redirect. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly right, the deletion was a mistake, and I have restored the deleted revisions. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And now I find this edit, which removed a reference to a reliable source. Please try to be a bit more careful. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And one more thing. I now note that you deleted the article about Dicky Ryan, the deletion of which I contested in good faith, and I have seen the discussion about it on your real talk page, which I am not allowed to edit. The closure was very clearly on the basis that it was an unsourced BLP, so, whether or not that was true, the recent article addressed that issue, and, more importantly, another reliable source was added. It would be absurd to say that the result of a discussion is an endorsement of everything said in the discussion in support of that opinion. The most important thing that we ask people to do before reposting articles is to add sources, so to say that the article is still substantially the same as it was at the time of the first discussion is clearly incorrect. And, if the book source was ISBN 9781490717746 (which as a non-admin I can't check), it was published after the previous deletion discussion in 2012, so is new information that should be taken into account in a new deletion discussion.

I thought that it was coincidence that you made bad decisions about two articles for which I had contested speedy deletion, but to think that three within such a short time constitute a coincidence stretches credulity. Why have you decided to abandon the assumption of good faith in regard to my edits? I hope it's not because you are hanging out with the children at IRC. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you say you have seen the discussion on my main talk page about Dicky Ryan, I won't repeat here what I said there, but what I said applies just as much to you as to the editor I addressed my remarks to there. However, I will try to address the issue you have mentioned which was not dealt with there. The deletion discussion for the original version of the article was based on lack of notability. Comments included "no sources except for his boxing record", and "Not enough reference". Also, one editor referred to it as "Unsourced", which was not quite accurate, but apart from that one word, even that editor's comment (38 words, excluding signature) dealt with the lack of notability of the subject of the article, not with the sources in the article. The closing administrator said "The result was delete", and could have just left it at that, but instead he added the comment "Unsourced BLP". Was the closure as "delete" correct? Indubitably yes, because there was a complete consensus to delete, based substantially on the lack of notability of the subject, supported by the inadequacy of the sourcing. The fact that the closing administrator chose to add a comment of his own does not in any way detract from the fact that there was consensus to delete, and that that consensus did not depend on the view that the article was completely unsourced. On the contrary, it is possible to make a good case for saying that the administrator's comment should be completely ignored, as his task was to assess consensus as indicated by the comments in the discussion, not to take into account his own assessment of the article or its sourcing.

I have no idea why you think I have not been assuming good faith in your editing: I really don't see anything I have said or done which indicates that. I noticed that you had been removing very large numbers of PRODs and speedy deletion nominations, so I had a look at a sample of them. For almost all of those that I looked at, I agreed with you, so I left them as they were. For a very small number I disagreed, and you have picked me up on a couple of those few. One of those I have already said that you were right, and thanked you for drawing my attention to my mistake. I have never thought that you were not editing in good faith. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

The fact that you have no idea why I thought that you were not assuming good faith demonstrates that you have a very different idea of acceptable behavioural standards from those that I expect from an administrator, or any other editor. You deleted an article for which I had validly contested speedy deletion without even bothering to inform me that you had done so, and also performed blatantly incorrect actions on two other articles where I contested speedy deletion. Put yourself then in my shoes. What other reason could you think of for such actions than that you were not assuming good faith? And I note that you have still not offered any explanation for your action at Tapan Sinha (admiral).

I can accept that you simply had a bad day when you reverted three of my valid actions, but only if you are prepared to accept with good grace that you were mistaken in all three rather than defending the indefensible. And I would like an assurance from you that no back-channel off-Wikipedia communications influenced your decisions, because I suffer enough from other editors ganging up on a non-logged-in editor who dares to contribute to Wikipedia, without receiving the same treatment from an administrator. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Your silence speaks volumes. Most people are taught as small children that it's polite to own up to and apologise for mistakes, so that is the least that can be expected of an administrator of the world's favourite encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I responded.

Please look at User_talk:98.195.88.33.98.195.88.33 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Plugee

Plugee was warned not to edit the page Amalia (given name) without consensus or be blocked; they were then blocked. They are back; first they edited from an IP, then they just waded right in on their main account after I warned them about editing while logged out. No attempt to discuss this issue has been made whatsoever and they continue to add specious cites and unverifiable cites to "source" their edits just as they did when it was judged edit warring. Ogress 01:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have every right to add cited information to this page. Please verify the links and take a look at the sources that I have offered. I would ask that my contributions be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugee (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to add, firstly, that a book on Google books is not a suspicious site. Secondly, there has been discussion about this on the Talk page for Amalia (given name). Please take a look. Plugee (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You have repeatedly made multiple personal attacks against me, you were specifically warned to discuss edits and gain consensus before making them, got blocked for it, and have now once again decided to just go ahead and edit the page after trying to add your edits from an IP.

You have posted cites and claimed they said they supported your position when they have not; I'm not sure if you are falsifying or you are just unable to understand the cites' language. No disrespect is meant by that comment; I simply note your reading comprehension is questionable (as on this page), perhaps because it is not your first language. For example, I said "specious cite", not "suspicious site". Ogress 02:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

userfy request

Please userfy Draft:Parting gift you deleted. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann (talk • contribs) 05:01, 10 June 2016‎

The page has existed as a draft for almost five and a half years, with no attempt from anyone to improve it. It languished unedited in the article incubator for nearly two and a half years. It was then nominated for deletion. You were informed of the deletion nomination, and edited numerous times before the nomination was closed, but did not comment at the deletion discussion page. The deletion nomination was closed unopposed, and the page deleted. You asked me to userfy the page, which I did. In almost three years since then it has been completely unedited apart from one bot edit which added a date to a template. It looks as though you are using userfication to indefinitely keep a page which has been deleted at MfD, and which is not suitable as an article, rather than to give an opportunity to improve the page to make it suitable as an article. That being so, I don't see any justification for userfying it again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Re

My apologies for the lack of context on ANI. The gist of my comment was that I had never witnessed such persistent and egregious copyright problems to that degree. Just wanted to clarify. GAB^gab 22:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Jaredgk2008

So at the SPI yesterday I asked if 30/500 protection would be okay for articles Jaredgk2008 loves socking (like on Hank Goldberg). Another one he loves is Woody Paige and it became indefinitely fully protected in August 2015 because of the severe socking. That was back when we did not have 30/500 protection. I asked Drmies (because he protected it) and he said I should ask you. He said "if it's OK with him (you) it's OK with me (Drmies)". He also said Jared needs a girlfriend. Do you want to try 30/500 protection on Woody Paige and see how it goes? —MRD2014 T C 01:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

67.83.60.230

You mentioned block evasion over at Special:Contributions/67.83.60.230's block log. Curious who the evader is (if you're allowed to divulge it). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I too am curious who the evader is. All I know is that the editor has repeatedly stated that he or she has an account which has been banned, as for example in this edit and this one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Stuff stuff

I don't know if this was accidental or not but this is not the way RM closures work. Click here for help. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: Thanks for telling me. I'm not sure whether I have ever closed a "requested move" before, and if I have then it was a long time ago, so I carefully read the instructions, and tried to follow them. Since you have now alerted me to the fact that I didn't do it properly, I've looked very carefully at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Step-by-step formal closing procedure, and compared it with what I did, and I really can't see how what I did differs from what is prescribed in the instructions. Can you tell me what I did wrong? It possibly doesn't matter now, as a bot has removed the section anyway, but I should like to know in case I ever close a request again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You're supposed to edit the talk page and close the discussion thread there. The bot will then automatically remove it from the list on the RM page. You edited the list instead of the talk page of the article. You did it the way XfDs work and it's expected for someone new to RM to think that it works the same way. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: OK. Rereading the instructions now, I see that what you say makes sense, but it wasn't clear before. Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't get it

I didn't receive the e-mail you sent.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: OK, I've tried sending it again, this time directly, rather than via Wikipedia's email system. Let me know whether it arrives this time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it this time. I believe I know why I didn't get the first one. When I respond, which may not be quick just so you know, I'll explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee to help you keep going

Thanks for administering that block for me, Wikipedia can be addicting. I'm currently on vacation right now but I've found time to edit :) P.S. I passed! Saltedcake (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

APOPO wikipedia page

Hey there, Thank you very much for your relevant and useful comments. I am currently updated the page because I realized it was not up-to-date. I am still a beginner on wikipedia but please note that I carefully read all the wikipedia guidelines and instructions and I am aware of the wikipedia rules and code of conduct. Upon your suggestion, I have just published a note on the talk page. Editor4Apopo (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

L&T Technology Services

Hi, James Im not able to see the L&T Technology Services wiki Page. Was it deleted by any chance?. I have not found any marketing or any promotional content, and this page was reviewed and validated by wikipedia editors previously within 3 months. I have never added any advertising content. I'm adding the content with little moderated content with respect to old article. Kindly help us. It would be greatful if you suggest on the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagoba321 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nagoba321: I am wondering why you asked me about this, rather than someone else. The only reason I can think of is that you saw my name in the deletion log entry for the article, which said "13:45, 10 June 2016 JamesBWatson ... deleted page L&T Technology Services" but that makes no sense, because if you had seen that you obviously wouldn't be asking "Was it deleted by any chance?" Can you explain? As for saying that you "have not found any marketing or any promotional content", if you sincerely believe that the content that you posted (never mind any that you "found") was not promotional, then I wonder what on earth you would see as promotional. It read exactly as though it had been written by a professional marketing or PR person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Sided Amphora 63.1515

I am writing in hopes of avoiding a deletion review for this decision. The closing seems to me to completely out of line with the generality of deltion decisions in the visual arts area, where I have been active for almost a decade. Let's take your closing statement piece by piece:

"The result was Delete. The "delete" arguments are , while the "keep" arguments aren't. Several of the "keep" arguments amount to saying either that amphoras of this type are collectively notable as a class or that some amphoras are notable, not that this particular one is notable in its own right. Then we have "it gets 78 hits on Google": even if the number of google hits were a measure of notability (which it isn't) 78 would be a derisory number. Then we have a link to a book which gives a brief three sentence mention of the amphora, in a passage primarily about another one. It is not Bearcat who "seems to misunderstand the GNG"."

So:

• "Several of the "keep" arguments amount to saying either that amphoras of this type are collectively notable as a class" - Don't even know what this means. Obviously not all individual vases (amphora is just one shape) are notable, but equally clearly "some amphoras are notable" - we have 29 articles on individual vases, plus dozens on painters etc, and many vases have very large literatures indeed - in classical studies vase scholars are notorious, and often rather criticised, for the amount they churn out.
• "not that this particular one is notable in its own right" - no, I was very much arguing that; I don't really see how this isn't clear.
• "Then we have "it gets 78 hits on Google": even if the number of google hits were a measure of notability (which it isn't) 78 would be a derisory number." Really? What is the not-derisory number? One correct thing more or less said by a deleter was that most of the literature in this field is not online. I had added one Paris exhibition catalogue entry for the vase, but not mentioned it in the debate - perhaps I should have done. Arguably this in itself is enough to get past the GNG, or would be if we could see it. My going into "it gets 78 hits on Google" was in response to a point by a deleter, discussed below.
• "Then we have a link to a book which gives a brief three sentence mention of the amphora, in a passage primarily about another one." Yes, well the other one is in the Getty collection, who are great in putting everything online. There will be other coverage where the roles aere reversed. Nb what the GNG says: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
• "It is not Bearcat who "seems to misunderstand the GNG"."" I think it is. His nomination: "Article about a museum artifact, which simply describes its physical characteristics. No indication whatosever is given here of what would make it uniquely deserving of its own encyclopedia article, over all of the hundreds or thousands of other amphoras that are held in other museums around the world -- and the only source here is one deadlinked entry in an online directory of museum accessions. As always, Wikipedia is not a directory of every single thing that exists at all -- but nothing here suggests or sources any reason why an encyclopedia should maintain an article about it." takes a completely different tack from what the GNG says. There is nothing at all in the GNG about a requirement to explain "what would make it uniquely deserving of its own encyclopedia article" (& btw, "uniquely" here obviously being rather silly). As I said in the debate, the amount of literature would mean that we could in theory have about as many articles on Greek vases as we do on Scottish lower-league footballers, but fortunately not many people actually want to write them.
• Taking the arguments of the other deleters, according to you "strongly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines", we have:
  • "The article name makes an internet search unfeasible,[what policy does this relate to?], and I would further imagine that anything which established the notability of this thing would in all probability be in an academic journal.[semi-true, but that in no way detracts from notability] But at present, the article's museum catalogue entry merely proves that it is of sufficient quality to be in a museum. [the article, which I now can't see, did in fact contain assertions of notability, such as the early date for the style, and by the close, that it had been requested for an exhibition in Paris].
  • "Delete instead as this could've been accepted since it's at a museum, but there's simply nothing else either so it's unlikely this can be better improved as its own article." Hard to parse, but further sources were already given in references and FR. I can't see this as "strongly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines" at all. Doesn't really address notability as such at all. The article was not that short already.

I hope you will reconsider this close. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Thank you for letting me know of your concerns. I shall try to answer the points you raise.

1. You say that you don't even know what "Several of the "keep" arguments amount to saying either that amphoras of this type are collectively notable as a class or that some amphoras are notable, not that this particular one is notable in its own right" means, so I shall try to clarify that. "The academic interest in Greek vases has been so great that notability is effortlessly demonstrated (not necessarily online) for large numbers of them" is a statement that many Greek vases are notable, not that this one is. Likewise "works of this kind have been the subject of extensive scholarship" does not indicate that this particular work has been the subject of extensive scholarship. It is true that the statement continues "and this is a fine example", but we require evidence that there is significant coverage of this particular work, not just that there is coverage of other similar works, and this is a "fine example", so that (presumably) we can guess that there must be coverage of this one. Similar remarks apply to "Bearcat seems to misunderstand the GNG - there is so much published on Greek vases that thousands would easily meet it": even if that is true, we need evidence that this one meets it, which is effectively what Bearcat was indicating when he wrote "No indication whatsoever is given here of what would make it uniquely deserving of its own encyclopedia article, over all of the hundreds or thousands of other amphoras that are held in other museums around the world".
2. In relation to that comment from Bearcat, you wrote There is nothing at all in the GNG about a requirement to explain "what would make it uniquely deserving of its own encyclopedia article". That puzzles me. All of the notability guidelines, including the GNG, are entirely about what makes any particular subject worthy of its own individual article specifically about that subject. The only way I can make sense of what you wrote is that perhaps you thought that Bearcat meant that this one amphora was unique in alone being worthy of an article, unlike all others, but I can't possibly see Bearcat's comment as meaning that.
3. Now to answer to your comments about "78 would be a derisory number". First of all, the number of Google hits is not a measure of notability, as I said, and if I have understood you correctly you have indicated that you agree, as shown by your saying that "most of the literature in this field is not online" and other remarks. There are many reasons why numbers of hits are not a useful guide, including the fact that in some subjects (such as this one) most coverage is not online, the fact that some subjects have huge numbers of hits for trivial mentions, and so on. What I meant was merely that if we started taking the number of Google hits as a measure of notability, then 78 would be a pretty clear indication that there is no notability, as it is very common for topics that do not come anywhere near satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards to have thousands of hits on Google. I mentioned it merely because you wrote "TheLongTone would imagine wrongly, and very clearly HAS'NT TRIED an internet search! "Boston amphora 63.1515" gets 78 hits, 76 relevant." I have thought very carefully about that statement, and I can't see any way to read it as anything other than an indication that you think that getting 78 Google hits is an indication of notability, so that TheLongTone was wrong in saying that there wasn't anything indicating notability available online. If that is a misunderstanding of what you meant, then I will be very grateful if you can clarify it for me.
4. You say "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Yes, but a three sentence comment which is not primarily about the subject in question is not, in my experience, generally considered to be significant coverage.
5. Perhaps it was a mistake to say "The "delete" arguments are strongly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines", and maybe I should instead have said something like "The "delete" arguments include reasons which are strongly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines". You have taken a couple of poor sentences out of the "delete" arguments, but those "delete" arguments taken as a whole are substantially based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thus, we have "the only source here is one deadlinked entry in an online directory of museum accessions" (which was true at the time when that message was posted). It is entirely in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines that a listing in a directory does not establish notability. Then we have "nothing here suggests or sources any reason why an encyclopedia should maintain an article about it", which again refers to the need for sources to justify having an article, in line with guidelines. Then we have "at present, the article's museum catalogue entry merely proves that it is of sufficient quality to be in a museum", again referring to the fact that the only source being a catalogue listing does not indicate notability on accordance with the notability guidelines. The one "delete" argument which is not clear is SwisterTwister's one, but it appears to mean that there is nothing to indicate notability apart from the fact that it's in a museum, which again is in line with the guidelines.

I have put quite a bit of thought and time into trying to clarify my reasons for my close of the discussion. I hope that has helped yu to understand my reasons better, but please feel very welcome to ask for further clarification if any of it is still unclear. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it hasn't really! You endorse Bearcat's comment but fail to explain what his "uniquely" might possible mean, except that I am obviously wrong in thinking it means "uniquely". There are several other incorrect points here - your description of what the (independent) Perseus database is is wholly wrong. Wierdly, you claim that "You have taken a couple of poor sentences out of the "delete" arguments" when in fact I have given the nomination and the whole initial comments of both other deleters in full above! I don't think this is getting us very far, but I have been looking online for more sources, with some success. The vase has an entry in the database of the Oxford Uni "Beazley Archive", which gives a bibliography, in compacted form:

"275680, ATHENIAN, RED-FIGURE, AMPHORA A, 525-475, PIONEER GROUP, MAENAD WITH IVY BRANCHES BETWEEN SATYRS DANCING, HERAKLES (WITHOUT LIONSKIN) AND APOLLO, THE STRUGGLE FOR THE TRIPOD, PALM TREE, Boston (MA), Museum of Fine Arts, 63.1515, Carpenter, T.H., with Mannack, T., and Mendonca, M., Beazley Addenda, 2nd edition (Oxford, 1989), 157, Beazley, J.D., Paralipomena (Oxford, 1971), 324, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, IV, PL.126, HERAKLES 2963 (A), Beazley, J.D., Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd edition (Oxford, 1963), 1705.7BIS" - this lists 4 publications, the last of them the standard work on the subject.

In addition, "Vermeule, Cornelius. "Greek and Etruscan Painting: A Giant Red-Figured Amphora and Two Etruscan Painted Terra-Cotta Plaques." Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts 61.326 (1963): 149-65. Web. JSTOR has about a page on the vase (the "Giant Red-Figured Amphora" of the title), incluing material which asserts its significance (I think I can email a PDF if you want).

This in addition to the sources already in the article - the independent & highly respected "Perseus" database, the French catalogue entry, as well as the museum's own page with several photos (don't think they have these for every item they own - they don't). A google search just on Boston 63.1515 produces a larger 166 hits; many of the extra ones are relevant, though many are not. I quite agree that google hits are not the ideal measure of notabilty, though in fact they dominate most deletion discussions, but strongly disagree that for a single 2,500 yo object, in a museum for over 50 years, 78 or rather more is a very low number that suggests non-notability. I suspect I am more used to this area than you (or Bearcat), and I can assure you this is not the case. Of course in other contexts, especially commercial ones, eg an American church or business, these might indeed be low numbers. But for a single ancient art object, this is a respectable figure, as most sources will not be online. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello? Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Apologies for not responding earlier. I did not want to make a rushed response, and so I waited until I felt I had enough time to consider the issues properly and give a proper response to your concerns. Much of what you have written on this page appears to be an attempt to indicate ways in which you believe I have been mistaken in the past, both in my original close of the deletion discussion and in responding to your comments here. Some of it, however, consists of presenting new sources which, if I am not mistaken, were not made available at the time of the discussion. I shall first make just one more attempt to clarify some of the points you raise in your criticisms of what I have done, and then I shall deal with the new sources.

First of all, some of your comments look as though they may possibly be based on a misunderstanding of my role in closing the deletion discussion, so I shall say a few words about that. My role as an administrator in closing a discussion is deciding whether there is a "consensus" (in Wikipedia's rather idiosyncratic meaning of that word) among the editors who have taken part in the discussion. It is not my place to allow my personal opinion of the issues discussed to influence my decision, and if I were to do so that would be an abuse of administrative powers. For that reason, my own opinion on the issues is irrelevant, which is why I have not mentioned those opinions above. However, for what it is worth, my personal opinion is that this amphora is clearly significant enough to justify being the subject of an article, far more so than some of the thousands of articles we have on such insignificant subjects as individual episodes in obscure cartoon series. If everyone felt as I do, this article would never even have been nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. However, my opinion on such matters is totally irrelevant. My task as the closing administrator was to weigh the comments made by the editors taking part in the discussion against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as they are, not as I would like them to be.

You put great emphasis on Bearcat's use of the word "uniquely", and on what he meant by it. I could offer speculations as to what he meant, but that would be pointless, as the way to find out what he meant would be to ask him. The only reason I mentioned it at all was that it seemed to offer a possible explanation for the fact that you seemed at pains to argue that large numbers of Greek vases can be shown to be notable. The question at issue is whether this particular amphora satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards, so arguments as to whether other amphoras do so are irrelevant, no matter what Bearcat meant.

You say that my "description of what the (independent) Perseus database is is wholly wrong", but I don't believe I have ever said anything about what that database is. Are you confusing what someone else said with what I said?

You say "Wierdly, you claim that 'You have taken a couple of poor sentences out of the "delete" arguments' when in fact I have given the nomination and the whole initial comments of both other deleters in full above!" Yes, you quoted the whole nomination, but you answered only one part of it: "There is nothing at all in the GNG about a requirement to explain 'what would make it uniquely deserving of its own encyclopedia article'".

I don't understand why you put so much emphasis on the stuff about numbers of Google hits, since I have already said, and I thought you had agreed, that a number of Google hits is not a measure of notability.

My personal view is that Wikipedia's notability guidelines leave much to be desired, in several ways. However, whether I or you or both of us like it or not, the central point of the guidelines is that we normally require substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. We also require that those sources be produced, so that they can be verified: simply saying "you can take my word for it that sources exist, even though I can't tell you where they are" is not good enough. The editors who argued in the discussion for deletion pointed out that substantial coverage had not been demonstrated. Those arguing for keeping relied on arguments not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, such as "works of this kind have been the subject of extensive scholarship" (my emphasis), which is not the same as "this particular object has been the subject of extensive scholarship". Under Wikipedia's policy, that means that the arguments for keeping carry little weight, and my assessment was that there was, in Wikipedia's peculiar sense of the word "consensus", a consensus to delete. I therefore stand by my closure of the deletion discussion.

I shall now move on to the new sources you have mentioned. Thank you for offering to email me a copy of the article by Cornelius Vermeule, but I have access to JSTOR through my university, and I have downloaded a copy for myself. If that source were available in an article at a deletion discussion, it is entirely possible that there might be disagreement as to how far it provided evidence of notability: I have seen cases where editors have argued that similar amounts of coverage are insufficient. However it seems to me that it is at least sufficient coverage to reopen the question of notability. The Beazley Archive bibliography also indicates that there is further coverage of the amphora, but unfortunately it is no possible to tell how extensive that coverage is. My personal view is that there is enough there to establish notability, and it changes the situation from that discussed in the AfD discussion significantly to justify re-creating the article. Whether it would survive another deletion discussion or not, I cannot say, but I shall re-create the article, and add references from what you have told me. I shall also inform the other participants in the deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your patient and considered responses here, and the new decision. I will add more material from the paper to the article before too long, and let's hope we get a picture one day. Thanks again, Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Samit garg / Samit Garg

I came across Samit garg and intended to move it to Samit Garg, but could not. Can you tell if it is the same as what was deleted?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Becky Sayles: It was a somewhat abbreviated version of the article which had previously been repeatedly created and deleted. The content was a straight copy of content from the earlier versions, but some had been omitted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

London City Soccer Club

Was this a mistake? They may not be the biggest club, but the article noted them as runner's up in a national cup competition, plus have competed at a national level in league football in Canada. I restored on this basis but happy for you to AfD if I have missed something. Fenix down (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

About the CSD

I've asked Widr about it, and see [2] Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Can you clarify what CSD you are referring to? Your diff is misformatted, and just links to an attempt to view the article 726156786 which, unsurprisingly, says "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name". I guessed that you meant {{diff|cur|726156786}} which gives this link [3] to a discussion regarding Third war of panipat:story of the captured maratha POWs and Draft:Third war of panipat:story of the captured maratha POWs, neither of which I have any knowledge of. The only recent CSD that you and I have both had anything to do with, as far as I can see, was on User:Jackdexter06, but I don't see any connection to what you have said to Widr, so I'm lost. ???? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: OK, I've found another one, Building Giants, but I don't see any connection there to what you said to Widr, either. I give up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, I was eating. Yes, I was talking about The third war of panipat. The point was that I wondered whether you could've histmerged it, or do the right procedure (another administrator deleted it). My apologies for not clarifying. Cheers, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Right. I assumed from the section heading "About the CSD" that it was supposed to be some CSD that I already knew about. This would actually be a very easy history merge (unlike some history merges, which are hell to do), but it was just one editor who copied his or her own content from one page to the other, so there are no problems with attribution of edits by other editors, and it isn't clear to me that there's any need for history merging. If you do have a specific reason why a history merge should be done, rather than just an assumption that copied pages should always be merged, then please let me know, and I will do it, but I don't think that histories always need merging. In general, I positively favour not merging when there isn't a need to do so, just in case there is ever any reason in the future for needing to see the separate histories of the pages, though I admit I can't off hand think of any reason why that would create problems in this particular case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems like User:Jackdexter06 recreated his user page, just now everything is copy-pasted from the Ancient Greece article. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

HElp neede asap

Hi james i need immediate help before this image dubai3 (on my talk page) is deleted I want to know how can I keep such a image on wiki. --VarunFEB2003 ^{Talk • Contribs • Guestbook} 12:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@VarunFEB2003: That is the wrong question. You keep an image because there's a good reason for keeping it: you don't invent reasons so that you can keep it. As I have already told you , I can't imagine any free use rationale that would apply to this image. I suggest forgetting about it, and instead of wasting more time on it spend some time on constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia. Also, I would like to now spend some time on improving the encyclopaedia, rather than spending all my time answering questions about images that don't have any good use, pages full of pointless barnstars awarded just for putting a signature on a page, and other such crap. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok thnx --VarunFEB2003 ^{Talk • Contribs • Guestbook} 13:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A KITTEN FOR YOUR AMAZING CONTRIBUTIONS TO WIKIPEDIA.

Vimala Darshani (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request for the LarryBoy Redirect

Change the Redirect of the LarryBoy page from List of VeggieTales characters#Larry the Cucumber to Larryboy. I have turned the Larryboy redirect into a disambiguation page because Larryboy refers to both Larry the Cucumber and Larryboy: The Cartoon Adventures. Also Larryboy, not LarryBoy, is the official spelling. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: That makes sense, so I've changed the redirect as you suggested. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Thank you. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

how do we......

How do we get a ruling for an AFD?? So far the consensus is to delete at 4 to 2 and hasn't changed in about a week. Not sure how this works??? The AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Novak (wrestler) Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: I have closed the discussion. However, deletion discussions normally run for a week before being closed, and this one had gone only a few hours past that, so most probably it would have been closed some time today anyway, if you had just waited. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I just wasn't sure how it all worked, Sorry to have bothered you, Thanks. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

PatW, Risker

I see you reverted your comment on my talk page (yeap, caching). Note that I did ping Risker, see [4]. If you think it would have been more appropriate to comment directly on his talk page instead, let me know and I'll be happy to do that in the future. I had thought Risker was guaranteed to see it as s/he was active on the day I pinged him/her. But looking at the contribution logs, it's possible Risker hasn't been online since the ping. Anyway, I welcome your feedback for the future, whether it's something you think I did incorrectly or something you think I could have done better. --Yamla (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Yamla: No, what you did was fine. It was my mistake. I should have included in my edit summary when I reverted that I was withdrawing my comment relating to Risker as well as the comment about the unblock on hold. Sorry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi all. I was mostly offline from slightly before Yamla's ping (I have just returned from Wikimania). While I don't have any particularly strong feelings about the outcome, I'm just confused why all of a sudden there was a desire to respond to a two-year-old unblock request. If I'd made that block today, given the changes in policy in the interim, it would probably have been an oversighter block and Yamla could not have unblocked. That's all moot, since I've got no reason to believe that PatW will edit again, unless they've been making off-wiki unblock requests recently. Risker (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The unblock request was from 2016-06-23. --Yamla (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Yamla: Yes, but you removed the time stamp in this edit, leaving 15 September 2014 as the last date shown, so it isn't surprising that Risker thought that was the date of the unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries, all around. Let's see how this user does. I won't have the opportunity to watch too closely, but as long as PatW is staying away from the topic area related to the original block, it should be okay. I'm going to assume good faith all around. Risker (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. --Yamla (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Jason Binn

Thank Hi, You speedily removed the page Jason Binn based on past removals, bit put no conversation forth as to why. The issues of the past articles had been resolved and the article was well researched and referenced. It seems that no matter how much time goes by and no matter what new issues arise, you are basing a delete based on an older, outdated argument. Jason Binn, whether one cares or not, has founded numerous businesses, publications and has become notable for his magazines and lifestyle. https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Jason+Binn&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#tbm=nws&q=%22Jason+Binn%22, USA Today, Huffington Post, NY Post, Hollywood Reporter, Media Bistro, etc have profiled him. NY times had a day in the life of Binn, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/nyregion/jason-binn-spends-summer-sundays-on-the-beach.html, and I believe it deserves a closer look and another debate. August 2015 is not June 2016. Observer called him everyone's new best friend in 1999 http://observer.com/1999/05/the-hamptons-menace-jason-binn-is-everybodys-new-best-friend/, and someone thought that news of his divorce was noteworthy enough http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3418303/Celebrity-magazine-publisher-Jason-Binn-wife-Haley-quietly-separate-12-years-marriage.html. We can talk about it again, and I think he is noteworthy. Please consider a discussion and not merely a quick and secretive speedy delete. Thank you Veggies 2 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Veggies 2: I have no idea what about the deletion you regard as "secretive", but I have restored the article you created, and you are welcome to take up time with the discussion you ask for, if you like. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, and I will ask for a discussion. I appreciate the patience and communication.Veggies 2 (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

reply to your message to me (immunophenotypingk

I am adding information to wikipedia which my line manager has told me to. Information which she has already been given the go ahead by another wikipedia editor, who had the same reaction you did when she first started adding this information months ago. While it IS to increase a visibility of a particular work, which we DO have connection to... the work is open source and the data is freely available to the scientific community, and the information which we are adding is merely information and not advertising in any way. Please look up immunophenotyping.org and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (WTSI) and the International Mouse Phenotyphing Consortium (IMPC) for more information. Our work is non-profit and publicy funded and putting up on wiki that this work is available doesn't derive us any benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immunophenotypingk (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of joke article

Hi James you deleted the page RIBBS that I created yesterday. The page itself is a private joke for a good number of residents in this small part of Brittany in France. It is a family place where about 5 different families settled about a 70 years ago (my grand father bought a strip of land near one on his best friend) and at the time these houses were the only one near a fisherman's village. Since then it has become a very urban environment so we have created this Group claiming independence. I am very happy to clarify that this page is an hoax if you feel that would help keeping it online. The tone in which it is written and the overall context is quite joyful and funny as I hoped you noticed. Let me know what edits would be required to keep it within the guidelines. Thanks in advance. RonLory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonLory (talk • contribs) 13:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@RonLory: It's fine to create joke web pages, but Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" doesn't mean "Anyone can post anything they like to Wikipedia Wikipedia", it means something more like "anyone can make constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia within Wikipedia's framework of policies and guidelines". Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopaedia, not an open web site for people to use for their own purposes, unrelated to building the encyclopaedia, nor is it a medium for publishing fiction. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

James,

 Thank you for restoring access to editing Wikipedia.

Sthubbar (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of wishup

Sir, The post on 'Wishup' you recommended for speedy deletion was not meant for promotion. It was only an information page for the company since the users on messenger app were requesting access to the same information. That article simply gave an idea of what the company is about. If you want, I ll edit the part you feel related to PR but kindly let that page exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millind213 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Two-handled amphora (Boston 63.1515)

Could you possibly restore the talk page, as well, and place a note on it about your decision to restore the article? Right now, the deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Sided Amphora 63.1515) would support a speedy deletion. Thanks. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

your comment on my sandbox draft article

James, thank you for moving the page to my sandbox, I will work on it there. What you saw yesterday was just a beginning of a draft text. I will also work on the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke2016 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

your speedy deletion of Muhammad Bawazir For Trading Co. Ltd.

James, this was not supposed to be a promotion for the company. It was supposed to be general information for a large company in Saudi Arabia. I made sure to include multiple newspaper references so that none of the information was incorrect. Because of the company's long history and recent presence on the media, many people in Saudi Arabia have requested and looked a background on the company. This was supposed to be informational only. I have rewritten the article to remove anything I thought you might have viewed as promotional and have added information about the company's significant achievements that are affecting the markets in Saudi Arabia. If you want, I can still edit the parts you feel are promotional. Otherwise, please let the page exist.
--Aftab hussain shahnawaz (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

IP avoiding block again

I have mentioned this to you before - I know how to report a user socking, but not an IP. I'm fairly sure this IP is the same person as this one and this one that you sent packing for three months in May. I suggest another block for this new IP who persists in adding information without a reliable independent source to both The Mighty Don't Kneel and Hartley Jackson against WP:BLP. I have warned him on the IP talk page, but he has a history of not paying attention. He insists that Jackson is a member of TMDK and I know he's not. 101.182.105.59 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

And another one here that reverted your edit on the Ladybeard draft. 101.182.105.59 (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the IP addresses, but unfortunately the editor will no doubt just turn up on another one. I have also placed a range block to stop that happening, but only for a very short time, because there are other editors in the range from time to time, though all of them together do much less editing than this one person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Techtrek

Hi, Techtrek has taken it upon themself to delete your warning regarding soapboxing. I have restored it to to their talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C207:A800:D198:DC3F:2310:FFC2 (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but in fact that wasn't really a good thing to do. The editor has read and acknowledged the message, and there is no purpose served by keeping it there after that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood, apologies.2A02:C7F:C207:A800:585:A65D:F204:CD72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Keyboard/music minutiae block evaders?

Just noticed these two with suspiciously similar edits in the past month: 207.237.147.171 & 68.175.71.85. I'm guessing the latter just came off a six-month block. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Killer Instinct

You're going to have to put Black Orchid, Jago, and Fulgore page's back on protection and maybe every page Killer Instinct page.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Æ-202 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Æ-202: Thanks for pointing it out to me. I've put all the articles affected under semi-protection again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

E-mail

James, I didn't receive the e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: A few times recently I have sent Wikipedia emails which have not arrived. I have no idea why. I have now tried emailing it to you directly, rather than through Wikipedia's email system. Let me know if it still doesn't arrive. Sorry it took me so long to respond to your message here, but for family reasons I have been having very little time available for Wikipedia recently. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about the amount of time, James. RL takes precedence. I got the e-mail. Can I reply directly? Can I copy Boing!? It may also take me a bit of time to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes, feel free. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Just sent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I replied to both of your e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes, I have received your replies, and I have sent you what it seems will be the last email between us on this topic. I am far from sure what the best way to deal with the outstanding matter will be, but I'll sleep on it and see how it seems tomorrow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just sent a reply to your latest e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes

I saw that when you added in move protection for Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, you also added in full protection. The page was previously semi-protected before the move. Can you please lower protection from full protection to semi and move protection? —MRD2014 T C 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@MRD2014: I had intended to just make move protection full, and leave edit protection at semi. Evidently I clicked the wrong link, so I have corrected it. Thanks for drawing the mistake to my attention. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of the page Hookson

I would like to recreate this page, including reliable sources as advised. Will this be possible? All sources are reliable and relevant, with many being news articles published about the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookson (talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing that I can see suggests that the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The most relevant guidelines in this case are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of organisations and companies, but I suggest the best place to look for guidance is Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which gives a fairly good summary of many points relevant to creating articles about companies, much easier to follow than having to look at numerous pages on different relevant topics. I really strongly urge you to consider whether the company does satisfy those guidelines before doing anything else, because if it doesn't (as seems likely to me) then any time and work you put into writing about it is likely to be wasted, since whatever you write is likely to be deleted. It is also important for you to be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, and of the fact that if your editing is part of work for which you receive pay you must declare the fact. (That applies whether the pay is in the form of salary or whether as an employee, profits as an owner, commission as a paid external contractor, or whatever.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Institute for Development Impact (I4DI).

Hi James. This page was not meant to be a promotion for the organization in any way. I believe I4DI is a notable non-profit that does meaningful work towards sustainable development in the world. I think it is important that organizations such as I4DI that are smaller should have a page so that others can learn about about their work. I based the page off of the page of other management consulting firms such as McKinsey & Company, and PwC. If you could advise me as to how I can fix the language to better the page so it can serve its intended purpose I would appreciate it. Thank you. Also would it be possible to receive the text back from the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreya bathwal (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shreya bathwal: How anyone can repeatedly write whole pages of such unambiguous marketing-speak as "With our broad-based expertise, we provide tailored, high quality program and organizational effectiveness consulting services" (and so on and so on) and then say that it was not intended to be promotional is beyond me. Both versions of the article were unambiguous attempts to use Wikipedia as a free advertising service. However, even if the article were rewritten in a totally non-promotional way, I doubt that it would survive long, as my searches have failed to produce any evidence whatever that the business satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While some problems with articles can be solved by rewriting, no amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. My advice is that any time and effort spent in trying to create an article about your business on Wikipedia is likely to be wasted, and you would be better off putting the same time and effort into publicising it by other means. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

E-auction 3.0

Hello James. This is the second time when my article is deleted and I do not understand how to change and improve it in such a way that wikipedia will accept it. Can you give me some advices about what I can do? Thank you! —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasha1443 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 July 2016‎

@Pasha1443: The article has actually been deleted three times, not two, under two different titles. There was nothing in any of the three versions of the article to indicate that the subject is significant enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, nor have my searches found evidence that it is. To see the sort of thing that is needed, see Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Links to websites associated with eauction or idf are of no value in establishing significance, as they are not independent sources; nor is YouTube, as anyone can post anything there; nor are sources such as gitbook, which publishes publicity material on behalf of organisations and companies. While some problems with articles can be solved by rewriting, no amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. In addition, while the articles were not written in blatant marketing-speak, the general impression was that they were created for the purpose of publicising "E-auction 3.0", which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. It is very common for people to think that Wikipedia is the ideal way to get publicity for a new and as yet little-known project, campaign, club, web site, company, or whatever else, but it is a mistaken impression, as Wikipedia is not a medium for publicity or promotion, and also as Wikipedia's guidelines require subjects of articles to already have substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. My advice is that any time and effort spent in trying to create an article about your business on Wikipedia is likely to be wasted, and you would be better off putting the same time and effort into publicising it by other means. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

your speedy deletion of Katarina Jewelry

Hello James, It was supposed to be a general information page of a reputed eCommerce store. If I can't post this information- would you be able post the similar content. I had found many ecoomerce jewelry companies owning their page on wikipedia. Please help me.

talk —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantasmyth (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 July 2016‎

@Samantasmyth: First of all, you seem to have come here with mistaken ideas about the nature of Wikipedia. That is not surprising: when I first started editing Wikipedia I had very inaccurate ideas about how Wikipedia works, and so do many other new editors. One of the mistakes you have made is thinking that companies "own" Wikipedia articles about themselves. All Wikipedia articles belong only to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation obtains content for articles from volunteers who contribute freely. The intention is that articles should be neutral, and written by uninvolved third parties. As has already been explained to you on your talk page, anyone working for or closely connected to a business is strongly discouraged from editing about that business.

The article was unambiguously promotional, reading from start to finish like advertising copy. That is unacceptable. However, even if the article were rewritten in a totally non-promotional way, I doubt that it would survive long, as my searches have failed to produce persuasive evidence that the business satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While some problems with articles can be solved by rewriting, no amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. My advice is that any time and effort spent in trying to create an article about your business on Wikipedia is likely to be wasted, and you would be better off putting the same time and effort into publicising it by other means. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi James,

Thank you for your guidance. I have found many similar entries in wikipedia. I understand that I should not be using this as an advertising channel. But after running the business for 13 years, I thought, it is fine to make an entry in wikipedia to inform consumers searching about Katarina Jewelry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewelry_retailers_of_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kranich%27s_Jewelers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BaubleBar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritani

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pura_Vida_Bracelets

I would appreciate how can be qualified to be published on wikipedia like the companies listed above?

Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantasmyth (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You are quite right: all of those articles are promotional in character. One of them was so blatantly promotional that I have speedily deleted it, and I shall try to find time soon to look at the others in more detail and decide what should be done about them. However, the fact that some businesses manage to get away with posting articles which are not in line with Wikipedia policy for quite a while before they are noticed and dealt with does not mean that it is acceptable for other businesses to do so. You may find it helpful to read WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is written in connection with deletion discussions, rather than speedy deletion, but the same principles apply. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Careers360 Page

James, Sorry If I violated Wikipedia guidelines. Careers360 page was not created with intention to promote the company. It provides information to students to help in college Admissions. Millions of students visit the website to get the information about exams, courses & admissions. I request you to please restore access to page content so I can edit the page following Wikipedia guidelines.

--Alphaq21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alphaq21: You are asking for the article to be restored so that it can serve the purpose of attracting students and potential students to the company's website. That is a service which Wikipedia does not provide. Also, looking at your editing history, I see that your sole purpose in editing Wikipedia is to post such promotional articles on behalf of businesses. That means that you are in conflict with Wikipedia's policy that promotional editing is unacceptable, and assuming that you are paid for doing that, you are also in breach of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, as undisclosed paid editing is not permitted. You are likely to be blocked from editing if you continue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Egon Spengler

Perhaps you can explain to these users why such info in not needed.[6] Much of that is useless information that does nothing for the page, non-canon info or it's simply made-up and even trivia, because I can't get though to anyone on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.15.200 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Johanna Granville

Hi, JamesBWatson, this just popped up on my Watchlist. Please consider restoring. It was an entry about respectable historian and author, with proper infobox and a number of reliable third party sources to back it up. I have no idea what went on or who was responsible for it, but the article was well referenced and clearly should not have been tagged with WP:SPEEDY. This is a procedural mistake I believe. And, thanks in advance for your consideration. Poeticbent talk 19:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Input requested

Hi JBW, could use your input here. You salted Sheena Bajaj back in 2012. Yesterday, some dude created the article at Shena Bajaj. You might notice the misspelled first name, which I'm sure was done deliberately to avoid scrutiny. My instinct tells me to move the article over the redirect at Sheena Bajaj (the correctly-spelled name) and then see whether or not the subject is notable, and go through AfD if not. Got any thoughts on this? Thank you sir, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: One of the first things I noticed when I looked into this was that a number of sentences in the recently created article are word for word identical to sentences from the version discussed at AfD, and there is also more which is closely paraphrased. I then put a number of excerpts from the recently created article into Google searches, and every excerpt that I tried turned up on some other web page somewhere; for example, I found bits of the recently created article at www.filmyfolks.com/kmh/sheena-bajaj.shtml and www.justbollywood.in/sheena-bajaj. I shall therefore delete the article as a copyright infringement. I shall also post a message to the editor who created the article, outlining a number of problems with his or her editing. It may or may not be suitable to create a new article about Sheena Bajaj, but if so then this one isn't it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: One more thought. The creator of the new article subsequently cut-and-paste moved it to Bajaj Sheena. That looks rather like a way of getting the correct spelling of "Sheena" in despite the page protection under the original title, which reduces my AGF-based willingness to think the misspelling could have just been a mistake, rather than a deliberate attempt to evade protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Still hasn't learned

So after your last block DanratedRKO still hasn't learned not to attack other editors. Several warnings have been issued since the block expired for edit warring and personal attacks.Think someone needs another timeout. Special:Contributions/Danratedrko Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: blocked for two months, with a warning of a possible indefinite block if the same continues after this one ends. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping this would teach him to be better but ummm I think he's very angry with you now judging from his talk page. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)