User talk:JBW/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Andy14and16

He admited to using Andy14and16 which was editing while Pooet was blocked as a sockpuppet. That is sockpuppetry right there. I mean I will assume good faith because his uncle has been editing fine. But just wanted to note, it was clear he was sockpuppeting and admits it even in his unblock request. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Secret Agent Lupin III

You cannot delete a real series. This is not a hoax. I happen to know James Adams in a comic book convention. I want you to return the series or next time I retype it, do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.7.115 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I will try to remember to look out for it when you recreate it. Please make sure you provide reliable sources so that the information in the article can be verified. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Saginaw Public School District

We had an edit conflict. Since school district articles make a good framework. I was in the process of removing the promotionalism So I restored the article with the promotionalism removed. Hope you don't mind, but it seemed the simplest thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Far from minding, I think you have done a good job. I will restore the edit history, for copyright attribution reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion summary

You forgot to leave one for Cristinel Gurguiatu, might want to fix that. — ξ^xplicit 21:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Block modified

Hello James. I hope you don't mind, but after continued disruption, I've modified your block of an IP from this morning. Considering the gross incivility and complete lack of maturity this editor has displayed, I revoked his talkpage access and extended the block to a year. Hopefully he will find some maturity in the coming months. If you have any problems whatsoever with my actions, please don't hesitate to let me know. —DoRD (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a Copyright problems with Reign Toni

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

Dear James B. Watson, and thank you so much for your information about the guidelines regarding creating pages. I have no problems with my page being deleted. Shall I do so myself, or wait for any of you doing it?

Beste helsing Mette Kalrsvik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mettekarlsvik (talk • contribs) 10:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A possible vandalism

Can you look at [1]? The numbers from IMF website has been changed by this user. It's possibly a vandalism to write 8480 instead of 8723. Maybe this user uses data from another website but he does not use it in references. Kavas (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:JuanF7

Hi, I always thought that disruptive edits was grounds to report a user that has done the same edits even after a final warning on back to back days, but I guess am wrong. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess this must refer to a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, to which I suppose I replied that the edits were not vandalism. It depends on the type of disruptive editing,but generally speaking for repeatedly making the same edits the place to report is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Otherwise, if you read the page Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to which you linked, you will see several suggestions, including reporting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is a very common mistake to think of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism as a catch-all place for any kind of editing that you think is unacceptable, but it isn't. vandalism is specifaically editing with the malicious intention of doing harm. Any edits which are intended in good faith are not vandalism, however misplaced that good faith may be. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me. By the way am just going to let him do whatever he wants, it is to much hustle at the end, thanks anyways. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I changed my mind, I will continue to revert his original research, since no administrators seem to care at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, thanks anyways. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Read. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Numbers game

This edit is valid, as discussed on my talk page, where I provide valid sources for it. I am not being disruptive. As I do not wish to be blocked, however, would you please kindly undo your revision of that edit? Thanks, 68.55.212.251 (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I had actually already done this before seeing this message. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

re Brenda Hodge

I PROD'd this article and you deleted it. Now the article creator is objecting. He says the seven days didn't expire, but even if he's wrong, I would think this could still be treated as a contested PROD (albeit, technically, after the deadline has expired) and restored. Complication is that now he has begun to rewrite the article. The discussion is here: User talk:Sliat 1981#re Brenda Hodge Herostratus (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana's AIV

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 58.71.79.8's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 22:51, 15 September 2010 58.71.79.8

Talkback|77.95.97.42

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 77.95.97.42's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.95.97.42 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 21 September 2010

List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 revert

Please read discussion before reverting 120.20.128.66 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to read it - I am willing to take your word for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, thats a first for me from an editor...120.20.185.154 (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Aquarworks

Hey u have deleted aquarworks where as there are lot of other companies out there.Any particular reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilbollina (talk • contribs) 14:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Aquarworks was deleted for the reason listed in the deletion log: unambiguous advertising or promotion. The fact that there are many other articles about companies (if that's what you mean by "there are lot of other companies out there") is irrelevant, as this article was deleted on its own merits. Even if you mean "there are many other advertising/promotional articles about companies" it is still irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I would like to know if "Reign Thomas" aka "Reign Toni" can be added to Wikipedia. The author was deleted for information found on "YouTube". I have another author I would like to add "Jacqueline Thomas" also will be publishing her teen novels with Dreams Publishing Company. These women are Christian Fiction Authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonichild (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is it neutral to discuss only the legality of Israeli actions?

I think that the article should either state that there is no dispute on the ilegality of the other parties' actions or discuss them. I believe that my addition was a contribution to the neutrality of the openning section of the article. I am open, and I will look at it again, to refine this paragraph if it misses its objective, i.e., discuss all parties to the conflict rather than only Israel.

Bbeehvh (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on lack of sources is true. I will think how to present the issue correctly. Bbeehvh (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Global Business Network (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance)

Hi JBW,

I understand why you deleted the article on the "Global Business Network", but am also familiar with why the subject is notable enough to have an article. (If you're a TED.com fan, you'd more readily agree.)

I have read books on and by GBN, and thus have familiarity enough to attempt to fill in missing pieces.

Could you undo the delete so I have material to work with/ work on?

And later, I'll probably need your feedback/QA again to see if my version is up to standards.

Thank you,

Vtob (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Userfied. Replied on user talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks, JBW.

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2010 Vtob (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 September

Bonghan system

Hi! I was just wondering if you would be willing to userfy the Bonghan system article with you deleted? I was surprised to see it nominated for CSD by someone who had worked on it, but there seemed to be a hint of a worthwhile short article there. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, if at all possible, would you be able to pass along a copy of Bonghan theory, which I gather the above was a recreation of? There's quite a few papers on this subject in recent years, although most seem to be by the same group of researchers, so if it was to be recreated I'd like to make sure that it is sufficiently different from the one that went through AfD. If not, that's ok - I'll worry about it another time. - Bilby (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied the former at User:Bilby/Bonghan system. As for the latter, I have looked very carefully at the deleted article, and it seems that it was written purely to promote its subject, and is therefore unsuitable for userfication as "Material that should not be posted on user pages or subpages in the first place should not be relegated to user space if placed in article space". (Quoted from Wikipedia:Userfication.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No hassles. I only wanted the latter as Bonghan system was nominated for CSD as a recreation of the latter article, so I wanted to make sure that any new version of Bonghan system would be sufficiently different. It should be ok, though, as starting from scratch there shouldn't be a problem. Thanks heaps for your help! - Bilby (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless a new series of publications are released in the future, I can't see it being even a stub - it's fringe within acupuncture itself, the only place where it stands even a chance of remaining. The latest mainstream publication on meridians and acupuncture points I am aware of (here, I have the full text if need be) doesn't mention them.

May I suggest however, that the talk page be transferred as well? There is some analysis of the sources there that may be useful (in my horribly narcissistic opinion anyway). Also, the last long version of the page can be found in the history, here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, WLU, both here and at User talk:Bilby/Bonghan system. It will be interesting to see how the page develops, if at all. Meanwhile I have userfied the talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as well. Personally, I don't think there's anything in the theory - but there might be just enough coverage of it to warrant a NPOV treatment of topic. - Bilby (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. Obviously it's not widely accepted, but there is a fair number of primary research articles about it in third- and fourth-string regional journals. Is that sufficient to pass WP:N? I would argue not (obviously, since I CSD-ed it) because of the implications of the system if it actually exists. A whole new anatomical structure threaded throughout the body that verifies the beliefs of a prescientific culture? That's big news. But since we're not seeing it in the newspapers... For me, most convincing is that even the most recent article I could find focussing specifically on acupuncture points and meridians (linked above) doesn't mention it. That means it fits into the "tiny minority" part of WP:UNDUE such that we don't even bother.

At least they didn't invoke "quantum". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Venus

Hello, I apologize for my revert, I did`t saw that in the meantime , while I was examining IP`s contributions you already reverted. I did`t intended to revert you. Sorry, my mistake. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the sort of mistake that can easily happen. I've done worse myself. Since you realised your mistake and put it right I don't think there's anything to worry about. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Diffs of policy violation are expected

Your name has been extensively used to justify a sanction on three editors. However, you never provided diffs in which clearly the policy was violated. So, I would appreciate that you provide diffs so that we know how exactly you can contribute to the understanding of this case [2]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My response is here. However, in brief, my answer is that I never said that "policy was violated". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Hi..

May I ask why you have twice removed the alterations I have done to the site Solomon Iguru I ?

I simply added some text that had been put on the Iguru I of Bunyoro that has been marked for speedy deletion..

Skibden (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The tool I was using (Huggle) should have given you a message telling you why I reverted your edits, and I don't know why it didn't. You added large amounts of text without any source. i now see that the whole article is, in fact, unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is.. I am working on getting sources. As you can see on my userpage I am working on a series of articles, and it take time to find the sources, especially about a small un-developed kingdom, in an area where internet is almost non-existing.. :) Skibden (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tionna T. Smalls Revised, Ready for Submission?

Hello! As I have revised the page that was previously deleted for Tionna Smalls, I wanted to resubmit it. Prior to me doing that the creation paged advised to me contact you, which is the action that I am taking. I will include below the completely revised article and look forward to hearing back from you regarding if it is ready for submission or not. Please advised throughly what needs to be changed or revised if it is still not ready. Thank You.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oateney Silvera (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 September 2010

(I have removed the copy of the draft article which was included here. Just a link to User:Oateney Silvera/Tionna T. Smalls would be good enough.)

I have looked at the draft article, and it certainly does a much better job of providing sources to show notability than it did when it was first tagged for speedy deletion. If you want to move it back to Tionna T. Smalls now I can see no problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lee James (BBC)

can you reinstate the page lee james (bbc) - i have references to add - sorry am new to this and just finding my way - sorry for not doing correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdsport (talk • contribs) 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now added two refernces to this page. And details of notable. Please can you make live —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdsport (talk • contribs) 11:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are now references, so I am removing the unreferenced tag. I am also correcting a typing error in one of the references. However, the references are both to the BBC, for whom Lee James works, so they are not independent sources. I am not convinced that he is notable by the relevant criteria, but I will not tag the article for deletion at the moment. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:BGWeditKF

• BGWeditKF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just a heads up, reblocked, for continuing exact same pattern of spam / advertising, and disruptive editing, after having been unblocked. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all surprised . I somewhat expected as much, but thought I would AGF and give the editor a chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and no objections to that. Just next time, let me know about it as a courtesy? I am most likely bound to not object whatsoever. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal alert.

Sorry to disturb you if you're doing some, but the Indonesian misinformation vandal has done it again. He's using the address 118.161.64.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Same MO on the same kinds of articles. Action needed ASAP. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Ted Nuce

Out of curiosity, how is inclusion in a professional sports organization's hall of fame not an assertion of significance or importance? While it was only sourced to the PBR website, Ted Nuce did make that assertion. —C.Fred (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this award is significant enough to confer notability on its own, but now that you have prompted me to think a bit harder I accept that it is a claim of significance, so I have restored the article. Thanks for prompting me to think again. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for restoring the article. (And I'd been down that road myself with the article already. Sithrathien (talk · contribs) had created a number of articles with no assertion of significance or importance. This was the only one where there was an assertion of significance—the Ring of Honor—so I cleaned it up rather than delete it.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion decline

Hello there. I just saw that you declined a speedy deletion request stating: "Taking author blanking as request for deletion under CSD G7 does not apply to user space pages.". However, general speedy deletions do apply to user space pages. Please take a look at WP:CSD#General. You will see a line that says: "These apply to all namespaces (and so apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc)". Thank you, and if you have any questions, please contact me. :)

Please note that the page was deleted as G7. MJ94 (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that "General" speedy deletions apply to all namespaces, and also specifically that G7 (Author requests deletion) does. What I said does not apply is taking blanking by the author as a request for deletion in user space. If you take your own advice to "take a look at WP:CSD#General" you will read "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request" (my emphasis). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing by Maxandnutmeg

Hello, Maxandnutmeg. I see that you have encountered quite a bit of opposition to your editing, which must be discouraging. I will try to explain to you what some of the problems are, in the hope that it will help you. You have repeated the same or very similar changes without discussion. This is known as edit warring, and is not acceptable. You have repeatedly removed all content from an article. This is not acceptable: if you think the article should be deleted then you should say so, not take unilateral action. You appear to be trying to impose a particular point of view on an article, and suppress other points of view. This is not the way Wikipedia works. If you think changes are needed and other editors disagree then please start a discussion on the article's talk page. You have repeatedly added unacceptable links. Please see Wikipedia's links policy to see what is acceptable. Please feel welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello James, The article has many inaccuracies. A link to "Hidden Spring Hilbillies" is included as a reliable source of the the shows call screening policies. The other link was included to balance this, AS A DESCRIPTION OF THE CALLERS EXPERIENCE WITH STEVE'S CALL SCREENER WAS INCULDED. It is inaccurate to say that ALL callers are asked specific and detailed information about the dead person they want to contact. Clearly this is not being done. If Hidden Spring Hillbillies (which is obviously a blog from a disenchanted caller) is included, the link from a satisfied caller should also be included. Keeping the Hidden Spring Hillbillies link and deleting the link I added clearly shows your bias against Steve's show and suggests he is using some kind of trickery with his callers.

Steve Godfrey has on numerous occasions said he is not a psychic. He is a medium. So calling him a self professed psychic medium is inaccurate. There are half a million listeners who would also call him a medium. Self professed has a negative connotation that suggests he is arrogant.

Your argument that my edits impose a particular point of view can easily be applied to this ariticle as they are clearly biased against Steve and his show. Have you ever talked with him? How much do you really know about his program? There is virtually no personal information about him in this article. Even the affiliate information is out dated. Clearly this article was thrown together by someone with a chip on their shoulder.

His contact information is on his website. His office phone number is 602-258-4389. I know for a fact he does answer his phone. I suggest you call him. If you insist on keeping the content as is, the article should be deleted entirely.

Also, I only deleted the content once and that was an accident. There are many who believe in what steve does and many who don't. I will continue to edit this article daily until it is fair and balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxandnutmeg (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to help by explaining to you why other editors (not me) had been opposing your editing. You have responded here with a long explanation of your point of view. I am glad that you are willing to put some effort into explaining the reasons for your edits, but since I was not one of those reverting your edits and warning you, my talk page is probably not the most useful place to do so. The article talk page would be better. You say that you "will continue to edit this article daily until it is fair and balanced".d413aebb9f85a123a7c74d; centralaads very much like an declaration of the intention to continue edit-warring, which is likely to get you blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

125.164.*

Hi, I've noticed the occasional block given by you to this IP editor that has been coined the 'Megafauna vandal'. See User:First_Light/Fauna_vandalism#Megafauna_Man for some background. He edits from a new IP address every 24 hours, so there was a filter put in to prevent him from adding certain categories to pages that had a taxobox. It seems that he's figured out the filter, which explains his strange edits today (I noticed you gave him a warning) at: 125.164.19.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've notified User:Shirik, who created the filter. Anyway, in case you have any ideas, see User talk:Shirik#Megafauna vandal figures out the filter. First Light (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation: I had wondered about the odd editing pattern. I have blocked this IP, but presumably another one will be back tomorrow. The only idea i can think of is a range block, but a short term block is unlikely to be effective for a disruptive editor who has been doing the same kind of thing for 4 years, and a long term range block is really to be avoided. It is just possible that a few short term blocks might discourage the editor a bit, so perhaps it is worth a try. Please feel welcome to let me know of further instances. Of course I won't always be online, but I will block the current IP if I am. I will make a few other suggestions for trying to get the IPs blocked more quickly. I don't know how much of this you already know, so please forgive me if I seem to be telling you that grass is green. Reporting further examples at WP:AIV immediately (i.e. without waiting for the new IP to vandalise a whole string of articles and receive multiple warnings) may be worth while. However, if you do that make sure you give a brief explanation of the fact that this is a vandal with an extended history, otherwise an admin is very unlikely to take action without several warnings. (A link to User:First_Light/Fauna_vandalism#Megafauna_Man would also be helpful.) Another thing worth considering is to give an immediate {{uw-vandalism4im}} on the IP talk page, once again with a brief mention of the history. Not only does that indicate to any admin reading it that there is a long term problem, but also if a vandalism patroller using Huggle reverts another edit by the same IP then Huggle will (by default) automatically report it to WP:AIV. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas - the {{uw-vandalism4im}} is especially helpful. Lately, I'm not usually online when they are (they are in Indonesia), so I'm not often there to catch them live, but will certainly start doing that when I can. Typically I look at Special:AbuseFilter/331 to see if they were active the day before, and then revert any damage they've done. I looked into the possibility of a range block, but it appears that there would be too much collateral damage. But the more editors that are familiar with him the better, so thanks for giving this some thought and suggesting some good ideas. First Light (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotion of book

Dear James,

You deleted an entry I made to the Orlando Wikipedia page recently. It was the second time I made that entry (I amended it from the first time), and the first entry was deleted by Barek. I've written to Barek with some concerns about the situation and I have copied my message to him below. I think the same points I've made to him, and the same questions I have asked, I would also direct to you. I am anxious not to set you at odds, so to speak, but I am seeking a clear answer to my concerns and if you can elucidate on it I would be grateful.

Thank you and best wishes, Hugh Hunter.

Dear Barek,

Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my question; I appreciate that you must be busy. I must say, however, that I'm still left confused about your view on this: it seems to me arbitrary at best, and almost capricious. In what sense was my addition 'solely to promote a book.' It is true that I wish for the book to be known about, but in as much as it is a book set in - and largely about my official work in - Orlando I cannot see why it is inappropriate to mention it in the section "In popular culture'. There are other books mentioned on that page and in that section, so why aren't they 'solely promoting a book'? Additionally, there are references to sports franchises, cars, bands and all sorts of other things that must surely, on the same criteria you apply, be 'solely to promote' a product. Further, there are actually Wikipedia pages completely and only about books. How are they not promoting themselves?

In my entries I specifically did not say that the book was good, nor did I recommend it in any way. I did provide a link to the publisher, but only because when I read the Wikipedia guidelines it encourages you to substantiate an entry with references. The best way to substantiate that my book exists, and that I'm not just making it up, or vandalizing the site, is to provide a link to the publisher. If I've misunderstood that, then the simple solution is to remove the reference to the publisher. Consequently, I cannot understand how I was 'promoting' the book.

The only other aspect of this that seems to potentially apply to me is the section on autobiography and conflict of interest. I read these guidelines carefully. Wikipedia does not prohibit such entries, it only encourages you to think carefully before writing an entry. It is true that I wrote the book I mentioned in my edits, but I cannot make that clear to the public as Wikipedia prohibits this (for, it seems to me, good reasons). Nevertheless, if I'm fair and objective, why should it matter? Are you seriously suggesting that there aren't many books (or for that matter, other things/products) that appear legitimately on Wikipedia that weren't written by the author/manufacturer or somesuch? Most of them probably take the precaution of writing under an alias or getting a friend or colleague to do it, but I chose to be more direct in what I did.

After your first messages last night I re-added my book to the Orlando page, but without the link to the publisher. It was removed again by someone else (I shall copy this message to that person also). I am, as you probably can tell, somewhat frustrated at this as it seems so unfair. I added edits to other pages last night (all of which you deleted and I've not re-visited). In the case of Krishna Maharaj and Chantal McCorkle - both convicted felons - their Wikipedia pages must surely have been set up and run by them (or close friends and supporters) for the purposes of presenting their cases. I am totally unable to understand why my adding the existence of my book, which discusses their cases, is advertising or any less promotional than the very existence of their pages. In the case of Slick Rick - also a convicted felon, whose case is discussed in my book - I expect also that his page is, if not created and sustained by him, at least managed by those close to him. I believe in all these cases that if a scholar or someone who is even just casually interested in these people were to use Wikipedia to research them, they should know about a book that deals with their cases.

I would be grateful if you could, when you find the time, address these points that I raise.

Very best wishes,

Hugh Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh H Hunter (talk • contribs) 11:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Hugh H Hunter's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying - I've had limited free time the last few days, so hadn't been editing or replying to posts. I'll take a look at User talk:Hugh H Hunter later today, and post any additional thoughts I may have on the subject. --- Barek (talk) - 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thermal wave massage

Hello, JamesBWatson, Thank you for your attention to my page. Really, I am new user. Please, help me. Aren’t official sites of European Patent Organization trustworthy sources? Why not? Basilius (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They are perfectly trustworthy. However, thousands of inventions are patented and then forgotten about, so the fact of having applied for a patent, or even having a patent granted, does nothing to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ок, I agree to delete this article until the technology will be world famous ;-) Basilius (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for replying there; could you take another look at your most recent comment? I'm not sure if you meant to put in the last part. Thanks again, Airplaneman ✈ 22:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Some sort of error in editing my comment before clicking "save page". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rallye Alsace-Vosges

Hello! I do not understand your revert. I'm currently correcting articles, as Rallye Alsace-Vosges and Rallye de France–Alsace are actually two different rallies. --Glopp (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. Must have been some sort of mistake. Thanks for alerting me. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! --Glopp (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

re:October 2010

When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

Consensus was gained and User:Kwamikagami violated that when he started to claim that Croatian is "the name commonly used for Serbo-Croatian as spoken by Croats." --Jack Sparrow 3 11:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.7.30 (talk)

Doubtful. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

AIRY Internet Media Player

Hi There, you deleted my created page about the open-source product I offer.

How come you delete my page as advertising, when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player is almost identically the same, and I followed guidelines to create my page. Please advice, what can I do to offer description of my product . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airyimp (talk • contribs) 13:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

1. It is natural for someone new to editing Wikipedia to think that the character of an existing article is a guide to what is acceptable, but unfortunately it is not always so. See WP:OTHERSTUFF to understand why.
2. VLC media player is not by any means "almost identically the same". It does not contain blatantly promotional language such as "Get access to billions of video clips hosted by Google, find the stuff, get related videos and you just won't get enough, because it's endless!" and so on and so on.
3. If you sincerely cannot see that language such as the example I have just given is promotional, then you may well be better advised not to try editing Wikipedia. Every day large quantities of content far less blatantly promotional than that gets deleted as spam.
4. If you are considering writing a new article in less promotional terms I suggest first checking that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines, and that you can provide reliable sources to indicate that it does. Otherwise there is a danger that, in common with many other newcomers to editing Wikipedia, you may undergo the frustrating and disheartening experience of putting a good deal of time and effort into writing an article which is doomed from the start to being deleted. The article was deleted because it was blatantly promotional, but it also did give any indication of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Replied. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I Am Veryyy Sorry For Doing That —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermon67 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Replied. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Monitronic college

Hey Games You have recently deleted monitronic college..reasons please?, Is that not vandalism? User:Elianamwiha Elianamwiha 13:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you have seen the reasons given on your talk page. Also you can see the reasons listed in the deletion log (which you can see by clicking on Monitronics Success College), which I guess you have already seen, as otherwise I don't know how you know I deleted it. If there is a specific point in the reasons given which you need clarifying please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh My Lord! another more deletions?

I can see you are vandalising, You have deleted all the articles i have created! I have lost hope in adding artyicles and creating new ones because of your actions, Why are you so hard to deal with? You are being unfair! User:Elianamwiha Elianamwiha 13:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elianamwiha (talk • contribs)

The reasons have been explained to you on your talk page. I have been (a) undoing breaches of Wikipedia policy and (b) removing breaches of copyright law. If you really think that these constitute "vandalising", then you be likely to encounter considerable difficulties in editing Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good For You.

You are too hard to work with bro, I even thought you are rude, good byee anyway , Kala po nawa.................. Elianamwiha 13:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elianamwiha (talk • contribs)

Well, I did my best to be helpful, even in the face of being repeatedly accused of vandalism. I am sorry you thought I was rude. To help me avoid similar mistakes in future are you willing to tell me which parts of what I wrote seemed rude? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Davy Fresh

Dear JamesBWatson: Regarding Davy Fresh, I have been tracking the article's creation (and its related talk page) for a while. Believe it was and is a good candidate for an A7 speedy delete. I see you have recently been the third administrator to delete the article. May I suggest salting it? Thanks for your consideration. Saebvn (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the user, which is likely to be more effective, as the article has been recreated under different titles. However, I have also salted the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page

James,

You recently deleted a page I created as you felt it fell under "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I did not create the page to promote the company and would like a chance to edit the information to address your concerns.

Thanks, Sdjeremy (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Usually I do not restore articles deleted as promotional, as promotional material does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia, not even in user space. However, in this case I feel that the promotional nature of the article was not as blatant as is often the case, so I have userfied it at User:Sdjeremy/DPT Labs. This is intended as a short term measure to give you a chance to improve the page before returning it to main space as an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson

Please reply. (Tariq babur (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

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

Responded. Nothing to add. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology!

Dear Games

Sorry for being too harsh on you yesterday,regarding the articles you have deleted, But my anger was a bit reasonable to say, You automatically deleted the two articles (based on the reasons that they were directly copied from the source and they were kind of "advertisement and promotion" as if I have some conflicts of interest with the colleges that you deleted) you must at least nominate them for deletions (credit due to Monitronic because that is the only article you nominate for speed deletion and I was informed thanks to you I contest the deletion just to find it was gone for good), I felt offended by your actions and could not control my anger, But I suggest next time you don't just delete, ( don't just be ) Mr DELETER but try to edit the content for the article that you find unsuitable , that is the best you can do.You are making us loose hope in editing the articles by deleting our articles as if you don't appreciate our works.

User:Elianamwiha Elianamwiha 07:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea of leaving an article in place and editing it rather than deleting it has much to commend it. However, there are several reasons why this is not in practice always the best thing to do. For one thing, copyright violations cannot be left in place, as to do so is to break the law. When an article consists of nothing but a copyright violation from another web site, the original author of the Wikipedia article normally still has access to the original, so no information which might be built on for a future article has been lost. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying

Regarding your delelations............can't you like revert your deletes and allow me to make changes please, atleast not all contents were taken directly form the website specifyed, Aint you being unfair like that dude? User:Elianamwiha Elianamwiha 10:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not for WP:COPYVIOs, no - we'd end up with "a derivative work". It's far safer to start over. Sicne you have access to the original source from which the copy-vio was taken I don't see what the problem is - simply use the source to create a new article which isn't a copy-vio. TFOWR 10:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFOWR. Also, I have checked one of the articles very thoroughly, and I cannot find anything at all that was not copied form one web page or another. A quicker glance at the other articles suggests that the same is true there too. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Seleukosa

Hello, I see you have been quick in coming to a decision about the unblock request, too quick for me to get my 2c in first. You might still be interested in my comment at User talk:Tnxman307. Thanks, -Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was reading that comment and preparing a reply to it while you were posting here, and your comment swayed me to change my decision. Thanks for your input. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mario Pezzi

Hello, Mario Pezzi is a name of several people, one aviator and other is a priest, so I changed. Should make a disambiguation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutrupe (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understood your reason, and I am sure that your intentions were entirely good, although your method was mistaken. However, no matter what method is used, creating a disambiguation page is not justified unless there is more than one person of the name who satisfies Wikipedia's notbility guidelines, particularly that on notability of people. You have not produced any evidence that the priest satisfies those guidelines, nor indeed any information about him at all beyond his existence. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at PMDrive1061's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

shlomit lir

I have noticed you erased the eatery on Shlomit Lir - can you explain why as she is an acclaimed writer an editor and curator with articles on her in different languages including Italian, Spanish, Chinese as well as English. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.119.63 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The article had been proposed for deletion for a week, and the proposal had not been challenged. However, I will take your message as a belated challenge to the deletion proposal, and restore the article. The proposal said that Shlomit Lir was not notable, so you may like to consider the relevant guidelines to make sure that you can show evidence of notability, to avoid another deletion. The most relevant guidelines are, I think, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

James, can you please undelete the talk page too, and ensure that it has the appropriate WikiProject tags on it. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding about the talk page, which I had missed. I have now restored it. It has a WikiProject Biography template. I am not sure if any more are appropriate, but if you know of any then please add them. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mario Pezzi II

Yes, look at this: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Pezzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutrupe (talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest (JEB Foundation)

Dear James,

Thanks a lot for your message and concern. Indeed I am part of the Foundation's team and it is in agreement with all of us, that the page has been created. So we assure that there is no conflict of interest. On the other hand our goal is not to promote the foundation through Wikipedia (your guidelines are pretty clear on this issue). We would like to add the page, since the one on René Berger exists on the English version of Wikipedia (matter of relevance). The official website is also French-English, and we get a great deal of requests from art amateurs of professionals throughout the world (proven by statitics and external/academic participations). Finally, French may not be the easiest language for all interested individuals, so an entry on the English Wikipedia would be most welcome! Should there be any disapprouval or suggestions, your remarks will be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards, Aline Debusigne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aline Debusigne (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk was not moved (swapped)

Hi, some months ago you moved Mathematical alphanumeric symbols Unicode block to Mathematical alphanumeric symbols (actually, swapped it with a redirect). See log and history. The old Talk:Mathematical alphanumeric symbols Unicode block was not moved to Talk:Mathematical alphanumeric symbols. Could you do that, or is there a prevention somehow? Should I improve WLH first? Btw, a future move is discussed re these pages here. -DePiep (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now moved the talk page. I have no idea why it wasn't moved before: normally by default a talk page is moved along with the article. Perhaps I accidentally unchecked "Move associated talk page". Anyway, thanks for prompting me to correct it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thx for explaining, no issue. -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI question

I saw you recently blocked 2.97.73.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a sock of Alacante45 (talk · contribs) (aka Unclebert11/ Whistleblowerrrr). AFAICS 86.173.33.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Oracle Orb (talk · contribs) are also socks of his. Do you want to take a look, or should I raise this as a fresh SPI case? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It is 100% obvious that these are the same person. 86.173.33.234 even says so in this edit. I have indef-blocked Alacante45 and Oracle Orb, and blocked 86.173.33.234 for a while. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Review for Seleukosa

Thank you JamesB for your immediate review to my appeal.[[3]] I apologize if I came out with an angry tone but I was quite frustrated at that time. I do take much care to be extremely civilized and especially not to insult anyone even if I receive insults.Thank you again for your effort.Seleukosa (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you JB for your reply. Of course I’ve realized that your comment was not meant to be critical. Actually I found it quite helpful. I only wanted to point out that frustration might cloud a person and can be carried away, it happens and probably gave the angry tone to my appeal; thank God I manage to remain civilized most of the times.

May I also ask what should be done with this page [[4]]. I know that you unblocked me because of doubt and I really appreciated it (especially I thank you because you actually bother to check my history in wikipedia) but here this page still condemns me as the creator of this sockpuppet (if this guy is a sockppupet after all,).Is there something else I should do? I haven’t faced such situation before and I don’t really know what to do. If FuterePerfect hasn’t helped me, I probably wouldn’t have been able to present my case sufficient enough. Sometimes it’s becoming impossible to prove that you are not an elephant! Thank you again for your time. RegardsSeleukosa (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the notice on the page you refer to, so that the sockpuppetry is merely stated to be a suspicion of "an editor", rather than a fact. Would you be willing to settle for that? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you BJ for your fast reply and action (really fast!!). If it is possible I would personally prefer to see something like “this user is suspected to be a sockpuppet”. I don’t like to see anything that associates him/she with me. I value my reputation as a wikipedian editor and this is why I defend my self so much. However if you advise me to settle and accept it as you have change it, I would accept your advise. I don’t want to keep arguing about it. Already you have done enough. Thank you again for your time and efforts. RegardsSeleukosa (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the user page notice and placed a block notice (which does not mention any name) on the user talk page instead. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your quick and efficient actions. Far better than before. RegardsSeleukosa (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Andy14and16

They are admitting to socking, promising not to do it again, and have already been blocked for several months. I'm thinking unblock, but technically you blocked them last so I'm checking in with you first. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think under the circumstances unblocking is reasonable. Please go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be busy on other things, I will unblock myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was waiting for User:MuZemike to chime in, but since he has edited his talk page twice but still not responded to my message it looks like he doesn't have any strong opinions on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Having read that I was going to consult MuZemike before taking action. However, MuZemike has now gone offline without responding to your message, so "he doesn't have any strong opinions on the matter" is probably right. However, I will not unblock just at the moment. If you want to that is fine, or we could wait a bit longer to give MuZemike another chance to respond. I don't feel very strongly one way or t'other. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage! Trust me, that idiot will ned up on LTA befoe long. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Middle schools and huggle

I don't know if the recent, persistent account was related to the middle school page. It may be. There are a few accounts on there with some curious histories, including one that looks squeaky clean but has made maybe 20 edits over 2 years, about a quarter of those to the middle school article. I don't have the motivation right now to get into it (I'm burnt out on a few other SPI things I dealt with last month), but thanks for handling that. I actually used huggle regularly for quite a while but recently took a break for a few months while I was transforming most of my computers around. Now I'm back, from time to time. Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In this kind of situation, where vandalism has gone undetected for a while, it can take for ever searching through huge numbers of edits to find what has been going on. Often this means you have the option of either spending far more time on one article than is reasonable, or else settling for a very inadequate job, with bits of vandalism missed, and constructive edits inadvertently reverted along with vandalism. (I have found an example of the latter in this article.) Well, we just have to do what we can, and remember that, even if the job we do is far from perfect, we have left the encyclopaedia a little better than it would otherwise have been. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about a deleted article

Hello, I was working on some research and found that you just recently deleted something that I felt was very helpful. It was an article called "To Shin Do". The reasons for the deletion said (this is an article without independent sources that fails to say why this is a notable martial art). I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. I would like to try to help get something on Wikipedia about this martial arts. It's become a very popular form of martial arts in America. So I want to help find sources so the topic can be added to Wikipedia. Can you give me a couple examples of what types of sources would be helpful to include? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmonie (talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I can find no trace of a deleted article with the title To Shin Do. Perhaps you have made a mistake in the title.
2. If I did delete an article with the words you quote in the deletion log then they will not have been my words. It will have been an article which was proposed for deletion, and the wording will have been those of the person making the proposal. Anyone could then have contested that proposal. After a week in which nobody had contested the proposal, I will have had a look over the article to check that the proposal was not an unreasonable one, and, provided it wasn't, I will have deleted it.
3. I can't comment on the particular article you are referring to, as I don't know what article it was, but I do remember deleting a number of articles on the general topic. As far as I recall none of them showed that their particular sub-branch of martial arts was significant. Some or all of them appeared to be about minor fringe branches of schools of martial arts, and it had been suggested for some or all of them that the articles were written by people involved in order to promote their fringe schools. What I saw, both in the articles and in quick web searches, was entirely consistent with that suggestion. As I have already indicated, I am not able to say whether that was the case with the article you have in mind.
4. For an indication as to what sort of evidence of notability is required for a Wikipedia article, see the notability guidelines and the guideline on reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Checked JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Taztouzi is back again

This time using the name Agenceluxe. He's edited Mister World 2010[5], Manhunt International 2010[6], Mister International 2010 [7], and Mohammed Al Maiman, which he created without misinformation and then changed after a couple of weeks [8]. John KB submitted the SPI request:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agenceluxe I'm assuming I can't tag the Al Maiman article for speedy deletion until Agenceluxe is officially declared a sock. Susfele (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Tionna T. Smalls

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

Replied. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you stalking me?!!1!

That's the second tab I've had to close because you've finished something I've started! At this rate I'll be able to down tools and relax ;-) TFOWR 09:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a question of "great minds think alike", I reckon. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dialog Axiata

Thanks for doing the merge & move along with the deletions. Top Jim (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For your intervention. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of a page?

Hello James.

• 13:25, October 11, 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Robert J Rubinstein" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I Created the page Robert J Rubinstein, and seen that it has been deleted as it is seen as SPAM. Robert J Rubinstein's organization is a non profit organization. He organizes conferences around the world speaking about Sustainability. He has became world famous teaching people on this subject.

Please advise

Regards,

Stephen Cassidy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen j Cassidy (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether Rubinstein's organisation is a non profit organisation or not is irrelevant. The article was unambiguous promotion of him and his work, and Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion. If you sincerely can't see that this article was promotional, then my guess is that one or both of the following applies: (1) You are closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. "Robert has been able to make significant breakthrough with respect to consciousness raising", for example, is at best an expression of personal opinion, and at worst an attempt to promote. (2) You work in advertising, marketing, or "public relations", and are so used to marketing prose that you have become desensitised to it, and are unaware of it. If neither of those two applies then I can only suggest that editing Wikipedia articles is not going to be your forte, as you lack the ability to take an objective view. As for "He has became world famous", if you can provide reliable sources independent of Rubinstein which give significant coverage of him, then a Wikipedia article on him will be fine (though not, of course, if it is written in a promotional manner). However, I have searched, and failed to find any such sources. I also see that you have re-created the article, and it has been deleted again, this time because another administrator determined that it was a copyright infringement. I recommend being more careful: if you continue this way you may eventually be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dungeon Sea Article deletion

13:24, 11 October 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Dungeon Sea Online" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Why did you delete the page?

Which part of it was advertising? I fixed the article and it was still deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanm07 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly written to promote its subject. It contained such language as "DSO has an excellent high standard of support with all problems being resolved within a month". It was largely written in the first person (e.g. "our website"). It gave detailed information clearly aimed at people who would go on to use "Dungeon Sea Online", not at people wishing simply to read an objective account in an encyclopaedia article. If you sincerely can't see that this article was promotional, then my guess is that you are closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read it after we made the edits you would have saw that we rewrote that section and removed most of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanm07 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment was based purely on the final version, immediately before deletion. I had a copy of it in front of me as I wrote the above comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The final version (which I only read after it was deleted) still included references to "our website": Players who use a "Proxy" to access our website, forum or game will be automatically banned if caught. TFOWR 13:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That was a copy of the rules from the game..

Are we allowed to rewrite the article from scratch? Seanm07 (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but before you do so you should be aware of some of Wikipedia's guidelines, otherwise you may find yourself spending time writing the article again, only to see it deleted again, which will no doubt be very frustrating. It is not clear to me that the subject Wikipedia's notability criteria. Check the notability guidelines before doing anything else. If the subject does not satisfy those guidelines then you will be better off forgetting it, and spending your time on something else. If, however, you decide it does satisfy the notability guidelines then check the guideline on reliable sources to see what evidence you need to show that it does. Also, including copies of information from elsewhere (such as the rules of the game) almost certainly means a copyright infringement, which could be enough to get the article deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB & WP:RED

Regarding this edit and the associated comment, Removing entries not linking to articles, please read WP:MOSDAB & WP:RED.

As it happens, you have done the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.

Please note that in certain circumstances it is not only acceptable, but it is encouraged to place red links.

If you want more information, please feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that full well. However, "Removing entries not linking to articles" is quicker to type than "Removing entries not linking to articles and for which none of the recognised exceptions which might justify their inclusion apply" (or something equivalent). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

True. But had you done so, I wouldn't be wasting both my time and yours. C'est la vie. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

General question

hello, i am just wondering why a few things i have updated have been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymington2010 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean Jason Brookes and Alex Easton.. If so, the reason, as stated in the deletion log, is that they did not "not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Have a look WP:GNG and WP:BIO to see what is required. The messages placed on your talk page by the editors who tagged the articles for deletion also give more information. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of my WP page "Ken Costello"

Hello James, I am trying in vain to upload a perfectly honest and verified article regarding the life and times of a fairly well known British motor racing engineer called Ken Costello. Everytime I have tried to do this, someone takes it off WikiPedia stating it is advertising (what, I have no idea - they wont tell me), its "unambiguous" (meaning?) and now yourself telling me I might be blocked from ever uploading anything to WP again.

I find this rather unfiar. Ken Costello is a friend of mine of 5 years and well desrives his place in WP as an old, but very well respected man. The gentleman who wrote the article for me to upload is in fact a well known television journalist and has known Ken for over 40 years. There is NOTHING in the article that is contentious - everything is correct and verifiable.

I have one last copy of the text, heavily edited and with anything even REMOTELY looking like advertising (which it never was), or violating copyright (which it never was) has been removed.

I would appreciate if you let this version go live and you take the controls of editing it.

Be very pleased to hear from you soon

Kind regards Lawrence Wood.

PS: My website, www.mgcostello.com, will verify Ken's history and the nature of the cars he built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolwood (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The last version of the article was clearly very closely modelled on http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Ken-Costello-MGB-V8-1.htm. That page carries the notice "© 2010 British V8™ All rights reserved". If, contrary to that notice, the copyright owner has in fact released copyright, the message on your talk page tells you what to do about it. I was not the administrator who deleted the first version as promotional, but I have seen it, and I do agree with the admin who did so. The article recounted in glowing terms how wonderful Costello was. It was not written in the detached, objective, tone that is suitable for an encyclopaedia article. If you sincerely can't see that, then probably you are so closely involved with the subject that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. The fact that you describe yourself as a friend of Costello, and say that the article was written for you someone else who knows Costello tends to confirm this. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

Hi. You didn't need to add NOINDEX to the Bitcoin draft article - the {{userspace draft}} template does that automatically. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Milky Waif

Could you please reduce the protection of The Milky Waif to semi, I think that you meant it. Thanks Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you protect Pup on a Picnic, per before. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Both done. Thanks for pointing them out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not attempt to unblock CU-blocked ranges

From what I can see from your block log and User talk:71.178.49.227, it looks as though you attempted to unblock half of a range blocked by User:MuZemike with the {{checkuserblock}} template. Do not, ever, attempt to unblock these ranges without first consulting a checkuser. Fortunately what you attempted to do isn't technically possible, so nothing happened, but if you had managed to undo that block, you could have allowed a serial sockpuppeteer to continue to target the project after we'd already attempted to stop them. The block message provided clear instructions for how users on that range should proceed - requesting an account. This allows checkusers to verify that an account does not belong to the socker before it's created, and the proper response there would have been to refer the user to ACC. Please do not attempt to unblock these ranges again! Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I blocked 71.178.0.0/17 at 10:21, 23 September 2010, and unblocked the same range at 19:33, 30 September 2010. MuZemike's range block on 71.178.0.0/16 was at 22:09, 8 October 2010, 8 days after my unblock. The IP made 6 edits after my unblock and before MuZemike's range block, indicating that my unblock had succeeded. The message I posted to the IP's talk page stated that I was undoing a block I had imposed myself.JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I see - I'm very sorry, I completely misread things. Sorry for the brusque comments. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, I am as guilty as anyone of sometimes acting without checking every detail of the relevant history: there is a limit to how much checking it is reasonable to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A little help

Hi

Thank you for telling me. So then how can I do that as I did with Cambodia to KOC without having to be reverted back by you or someone else?

Answered on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you for your explanation. I am aware now. If not too much, I'll be contacting you for further instructions on Wikipedia.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaramayana (talk • contribs) 09:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please feel welcome to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Related to this, there's another bit of copy-and-pasting that I'm about to fix up: Angkor Youth Orchestra and Angkor National Youth Orchestra. I've never done this before but it looks easy enough. It would be useful, though, if you were able to check over my post-merge work to make sure I've not messed it up...? TFOWR 10:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The ones I dealt with for this user were quite straightforward, and I decided that just delete and restore the original version was enough. More complex cases, where history merging is needed, can be confusing and error prone, but if you are really careful and don't be tempted to rush then it should be OK. Drop me a message here when you've done it, and I'll have a look. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Since it's the first time I want to take my time and get it right. I'll grab a coffee and do some re-reading first. TFOWR 10:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that all seemed very straightforward! Angkor National Youth Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to have the complete history. Thanks for providing me with a "security blanket" ;-) TFOWR 10:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, as far as I can see. A good job done. I suppose the next thing should be to improve the English. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. There are some stray refs, too. When I get some time I'll go through it and stick the refs where they belong, and copy-edit it. I'm wary of doing too much - I got myself in this mess by copy-editing down to a minimal stub...! TFOWR 11:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing of the article to improve its English. However, I am always wary of doing much of this, for several reasons, including the risk of inadvertently changing the meaning. I feel confident in changing "It is supervised by two musician" by simply adding an "s" at the end, but less sure about "the first establishment of any trace of orchestral classical music". What exactly does it mean? I have written something in coherent English which is probably close in meaning to what the original author intended, but in the past I have had experiences where my attempts have inadvertently changed the meaning to something which is simply wrong. Consequently I tend to make fairly minimal edits in cases of this kind. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi James!
Thank you for the quick revert on my talk page. Though the blocked user was referring to the wrong revert, they inadvertently made a good point. Though I can translate an article in a language I've never studied, I really did struggle with senior high level maths... :-)
Thanks again, --Shirt58 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the user did make a good point. Their understanding of mathematics is wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word for that. Me not grok strange language with funny counting squiggles. Thanks again. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at January's talk page.
Message added 11:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

January (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you James

Cheers for cleaning up all of my messes at the ArbCom election pages; may your trigger finger be ever itchy and your aim true! Skomorokh 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page

The page you deleted in relation to Liam Mcdermott that was created by me had no venom in it. Liam McDermott is one of my closest friends and he loved the page! I beg that you will restore it so we can both keep adding to it i.e. Liam Mc Dermott an me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelitoG (talk • contribs) 15:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether your friend approved of the article or not, it was not acceptable as an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia articles about people are not owned either by their authors or by the people that are their subjects. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael Viney

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

Read JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Branford Boase Award

Are you sure that there is very little independent coverage of the Branford Boase Award? There's all this in Google News Archive. Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is always disagreement on what constitutes substantial coverage, and I am not going to quarrel with you if you think this does. However, almost every one of the 32 hits is a page with just one passing mention of someone having won the award, or having been shortlisted for it. In only one case is the fact of a person having been nominated for the award the main topic of the item, and in that case it is a local report about a local writer having been nominated. Even in that case, we have an article about the fact that a local writer has been nominated, rather than an article about the award itself. There is not even a single case where the article is primarily about the award, and, as I have already said, almost all of them barely mention it. I have known people to argue passionately in AfD discussions that a subject is notable on the basis of less coverage than this, but to me it is not substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as it wasn't an oversight, I don't mind. Abductive (reasoning) 08:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bum wiper

Really? With that user's history of wiping bums? Toddst1 (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said on the user's talk page, I wasn't 100% happy about it, but I could see nothing that I could objectively object to except for the old username. Your comment above and your (now removed) comment on the user's talk page suggest you do know of more grounds for objection. If so please reblock. I certainly won't quarrel with you over a block that I am borderline on myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Ok! What does the process actual involve? -Est.r (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Responded on Est.r's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You're stalking me again ;-)

You g11-ed this at the same time as I declined an a3 - sorry about that. Right now only my post-deletion edits are in history: I'm agnostic as to whether it should be kept (I redirected it to its parent University). I can re-delete using g11, or use some newly discovered hist-merge skills to restore the spammy bit - which isn't ideal. Any suggestions? TFOWR 10:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously hist-merge isn't relevant here. I've restored the deleted revs, but I'm still in two minds about it - it seems like an unlikely redirect, though I guess it could have some use. Still open to suggestions... ;-) TFOWR 10:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• You edit-conflicted me. The following is a slightly edited copy of what I was going to post in answer to the first of your posts in this section.

1. You were clearly right to decline the a3.
2. The version I deleted still looks promotional to me, and in addition has too little encyclopaedic content to be much use.
3. I have no objection to the redirect.
4. We have to either delete the whole editing history except for the redirect or else restore all of it. The present version effectively gives you as the creator of the version which is still visible in the article history. Since you were not the author of that version this is technically a copyright misrepresentation. Of course it is too trivial to matter, but it is really better to always stick to the rules on copyright, otherwise we get "where do we draw the line?" problems.
5. I don't feel very strongly about which we do (delete or restore) but on balance I would go for delete and re-create the redirect, because information like phone numbers really should not be there.
6. We really must stop bumping into one another like this. It's really too much.

• End of old edit-conflicted post, and now back to the present. Unlikely redirect? Yes, but harmless, it may as well stay. Now that you have restored the old edits I am inclined to just leave it. Really it's not a big enough issue to be worth spending even this much time on, let alone more. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Next time I do CSD stuff I'll check what you're up to first. ;-) TFOWR 11:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I should damned well think so. Good to see you've realised who's boss. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scarborough and Ryedale Mountain Rescue Team

Thank you for your concern about vandalism about the removal of the team's entry on Wikipedia, but I can assure you that it is not vandalism and we would like the complete entry removed if possible. We will shortly be updating our website and together with this we will be putting a new entry on Wikipedia. Thanks Andy Crossley, Team Leader Srmrt (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you wrote that without having read my message on your talk page explaining why that is unacceptable. I trust that you will now read that message, and will not go ahead with the changes you have proposed. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In reference to your last message, the third party view of the team in Wikipedia is not in line with the current team. We support Wikipedia, but not this entry. I am happy to work with you on a new entry in the near future, but in the short term can you remove the current entry. Thanks. Srmrt (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing is if you explain on the article's talk page exactly what is wrong with the current version of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland move

You moved the page currently at Alice in Wonderland, but did not move its talk page. Could you please? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for telling me. Done now. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely protest the move of this article and its Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 13:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you? Why? In what way do you disagree with the reason I gave for the move? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For one thing it seemed to be an abuse of Administrator powers, since it involved deleting the redirect page to make room for it, which mere mortals cannot do. Normally such an act is done by an admin when requested on the basis of consensus for a move. But that's not central. What's central is that your assertion that Alice in Wonderland is the most common name and therefore must be the article title is not supported by others in the community -- some of whom, like me, are experts on Carrolliana. Please see the Talk page of the article in question. -- Evertype·✆ 16:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scouts Royale Brotherhood

Although we seem to be coming at things from different directions on the AFD for Scouts Royale Brotherhood, I was very impressed with the note that you left for Nurkahn Tampakan (talk · contribs). I hope we can work together to make this a useful page, but if it does get deleted, I think we've done our best to let the proper wikipedia processes occur.Naraht (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nembrala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I know that Nembrala is a terrible, awful, article. However it is about a real place rather than a product so I would personally hesitate to put it up for G11 when it can be stub-ified. I'll stub it now and probably remove your G11, however I would have no objection if you were to re-speedy on alternative grounds. Fæ (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with what you've done to the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Lists of film topics

Hello James. My least recent edit, such as the one I made to Lists of film topics was very constructive because it deletes a wrong link because Lists of film topics is not the same as it:Glossario cinematografico and fr:Technique et grammaire cinématographique it is a List of film topics not a List of film glossary. This is why I made this change. But you just reverted or removed it.

>Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make

This was not a test!

Thank you. -- Fruchtgrapscher (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

investigation

Please dont interfere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelpanicer (talk • contribs) 11:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He is not interfering its an investigation about him, the defendant has a right to defend themselves, besides he is innocent of sockpuppetry, its an alternative account--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a troll, so I've blocked it indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

what about the SPI, that should be closed and denied, Poor James has been accused of a crime he didn't commit--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It certainly should, but I'm not sure about the "mechanics" of the SPI process. I hope a clerk will do the honorable thing. Favonian (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. This was a sockpuppet of a persistent sockpuppeteer, taking revenge because I blocked another of their socks. Presumably the SPI will be closed sooner or later, but if you want to ask for it to be closed by a clerk I believe what you should do is replace {{SPI case status|CUrequest}} at the top of the SPI page by {{SPI case status|close}}. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)