User talk:JBW/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Deletion of Ladell Parks

Yeah I was wondering why you deleted this article the guy is a pretty well known actor and rapper he's worked with Zac Efron and Lindsey Shaw Is there any way you can undelete it maybe I could work on it more in a sandbox before posting it up as an official article. Mikeunknown (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. The article has been deleted four times by four different administrators, most recently by Chrislk02, but not by me, though I did suggest that it might be deleted. Having worked with notable people doesn't guarantee that he is notable: there are many obscure and non-notable people who have worked with people much more notable than themselves. "Best known for playing small roles" does not suggest much notability. As for undeleting it and putting it in another page such as a sandbox for you to work on, that has already been tried, and you still produced an article with no indication of notability. I have looked at the links that were provided in the article, and also searched online for further information, and nothing I have seen suggests that the subject comes near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That being so, any article about him is almost certain to be deleted, and any the time and effort you spend on it is therefore likely to be wasted. You would probably be better off trying to get publicity via other web sites which don't impose the same sort of notability requirements that Wikipedia does. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Need explanation of withdrawn AFD

I was about to nominate Raj Comics and all associated articles about non-notable characters for AFD, then I noticed you did that for Raj Comics already in 2010: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Comics. I also see several closed AFDs from years earlier (for example (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nageena) that got closed as a merge to Raj Comics.

Before I make a fool of myself by nominating it again, I'd like to understand your reasoning for withdrawing that nomination.

Seriously, it's very nearly a walled garden of articles, with Raj Comics at the root. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Nearly four years later, I have no idea why I withdrew the nomination. Looking at it now, I think it looks like a perfectly valid nomination, and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't nominate it again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Help

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs) 18:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs) 00:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your message

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taylor Steele (2) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taylor Steele (filmmaker)

Dear JamesBWatson: I requested a history merge of the two above Afc drafts because it seemed like the simplest way of avoiding confusion between the two drafts. The (2) article, which is a new submission, is a significant step toward NPOV compared to the first one. If nothing is done about the earlier draft, the most likely thing to happen is that an Afc reviewer will decline the second one because there is already another draft in Afc and ask the new user to go back and continue editing the first one. New editors don't need this complication. If you think a history merge is inappropriate, can you find another solution for this problem? Deleting for NPOV is not usually done with Afc drafts; maybe G6 will work, or maybe you know of something better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 10:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Several thoughts about this, Anne.

1. Thanks for explaining your reasoning, which makes perfect sense. I had not previously seen any advantage to be gained by the merge, but now I do.
2. I very often see your G13-clean-up history merge requests, and the substantial majority of them are clearly perfectly good proposals, and I just go ahead with them. A few, though, I decline. In this particular case, going ahead with the history merge would probably not have caused any significant problems, but since you have brought the issue up, it may be worth mentioning the reasons why I occasionally decline them.
3. As a general rule, when a new page has no content form the old page not written by the person who created the new page, it is usually better not to merge. Firstly, there is usually nothing to gain by doing so, as the main reason for history-merging is to keep editors' attributions, and in this situations that is not needed. Secondly, there are various situations where an administrator needs to trace the history of editing on a particular topic, but doing so is made difficult because the history has been obscured by moves and history merges. This can sometimes be extremely difficult when there have also been deletions, and the whole history of various creations of different pages and their subsequent moves, merges, and deletions is all combined together in one jumbled-up mess in the deleted edit records of what is misleadingly recorded as one page. It is therefore, as a general rule, better not to history merge unless there are specific reasons for doing so. Even when it looks a though no problem can be caused, it is not always possible to be certain that problems won't arise in the future. Thirdly, even a very straightforward history merge is likely to take several minutes, including checking the histories of the two pages, deleting one of the pages, moving and then deleting the other one, selecting which revisions need restoring and which should be dropped, restoring them, editing to remove history-merge templates. A good many history merges take even more work than that, due to overlapping histories that need sorting out. All that takes time that the administrator in question could have been using on other work, so this is another reason for taking the line "don't do it unless there is a definite advantage to be gained."
4. A much less important consideration, but I think one which is just about worth considering, is that on this occasion the editor chose not to edit the existing page, but rather to create a new one, and in the absence of good reason to the contrary we should prefer not to change the history to give a misleading impression as to what he or she did. Not a major consideration, but in my opinion just one more small piece of support for the principle that by default we shouldn't merge histories, but should do so only when there is a significant advantage in doing so.
5. On this occasion, as I said above, I now do see that there would be a possible advantage in the merge. However, as you may by now have seen, I deleted under CSD G6 as a redundant submission, which is a quicker and simpler way of dealing with the same problem, and also keeps the record of how the two separate pages were created and edited. (Of course, that record is invisible except to administrators, but it is usually only in admin-related tasks that such information about deleted pages is needed.)

Once again, the substantial majority of your hist-merge requests are perfectly good, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking you for the considerable amount of work you put into cleaning up G13 deletion candidates, rather than just leaving them to be deleted whether it is appropriate to do so or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWatson: Thanks for time to write to me about this. I want to assure you that I don't ask for history merges of even half of the copy-pastes that I find. There also seems to be a variety of opinion about where the line falls between those worth merging and those not, and a while ago I read some encouragement from a couple of admins, saying that it was better to paste these back together if they were copy-pasted by new users who didn't understand the difference between copying and moving (sorry, I can't remember who now). I may have taken this too much to heart, as I have since found that this isn't the general consensus.

There are a few cases in which I believe that history-merging articles by the same editor are justified:

• Cases like the one above, where the the page is an active Afc submission; Afc history may be helpful to the reviewers, the split was likely caused by a misunderstanding of the process, and the existence of more than one draft is a problem. Also, the new user receives a message saying that their article has been deleted, and this can be disheartening if he/she didn't know that it was just an older version. Long explanations on talk pages about this can result; I know I'm not an admin, but my time is valuable too.
• Cases in which most of the article's development is in the older draft. Having a long, complex article, especially by a new editor, appear in one or two edits can lead to comments at Afd such as "this is the user's only edit" and lead to suspicions that the text was copied from somewhere or that the user is a sock puppet. The new users themselves may not understand why their list of contributions is shrinking. Also, sometimes new users accidentally or through misunderstanding delete useful material which could be re-added from the history.
• Cases in which the older draft shows that the article developed over a significant period of time. Often text from Wikipedia is copied onto other websites, and if a copy-paste move makes it seem as though the article is new, when in fact the editor has been developing it as a draft for a year, it could be erroneously deleted as a copyvio, and the evidence to the contrary is gone.

I agree that experienced users may sometimes make a deliberate choice to make a new article, although the only reasons I can think of for wanting your own edits deleted are to get rid of evidence of inept or bad faith editing, or to change the creation date of the article. With the new editors in Afc, though, any copy-pastes are usually the result of either wanting to change the name of the article, wanting to move the article and not knowing how, or forgetting the name of the draft and not being able to find it.

About maintaining the evidence that there were two pages: Usually when I have requested a merge, my edit with the request, which has the name of the older page in the edit summary, appears in the history of the newer article after merge. That should help others know that there were two pages.

Okay, sorry to have gone on about this and I realize that it's just my personal opinion. If you decline any of my history merge requests in the future I will accept your judgement. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You make some very good points there, Anne. Clearly there are various issues, and it is often a matter of judgement how to weight the different factors against one another, and I will think carefully about the points you have raised. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have recently been reminded that the histmerge template has "reason=" and "details=" parameters, of which maybe I should make better use. Thanks again for your consideration. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Query about an unspecified page

why did you delete my page on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erandasahatqija (talk • contribs) 18:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Since no page that has ever been edited by the account you used to post this message has ever been deleted, I have no idea what page you are referring to, but if you tell me what page then I will try to answer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have now worked out that you mean your talk page. I deleted it because it was pure vandalism, created by an editor who is now blocked from Wikipedia. It just contained a childish attack on you, and nothing else. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Hadum Mosque

me and my friends created this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hadum_Mosque — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erandasahatqija (talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like a very good article. I think you and your friends can be proud of your work, Erandasahatqija. See also the answer I am posting to your other message, above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

can i get my talkpage back ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erandasahatqija (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your talk page has been re-created. The deleted version consisted simply of the single word "shit". Do you really want that back? As far as I am concerned, I would prefer not to restore it, because the less success vandals have in getting their vandalism established on Wikipedia, the less encouragement they get to come back and vandalise again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Somebody out there hates you ...

See here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Meh, it's just a common-or-garden troll, doesn't necessarily mean they dislike JBW. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Boris Filatov

hello there! i was going to create an article about this person, but maybe it is beter just to restore it. could you please be so kind and tell me the name of the editor that created this article? i want to ask him/her if it is okay --アンタナナ 10:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The article was created by an editor with the username BorysFilatov. He/she created the article in August 2011, and made just a few edits to it over about 3 weeks. He/she never did any other editing, except for coming back on 1 March 2012 and asking for the article to be deleted. The article was also edited by an editor using teh username Filatov.press a few times in December 2011 and February 2012. It looks to me as though those two accounts were probably the same person: if not then they were certainly two people in contact with one another. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

thank you very much --アンタナナ 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Time to go down to the casino

Just noticed that one of your template counters says that today you have been a Wiki editor for 7 years 7 months and 7 days. Not important in the grand scheme of things - but just happened to notice it! Badanagram (attempt) 11:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't noticed. At 23:53 (GMT) it will be 7 years 7 months 7 days 7 hours and 7 minutes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Nathan James Taylor

Hi James. I wonder if it's appropriate to keep all these personal details about location, birthdate, full names of minors, including the author, etc? This is supposedly a 15 year old boy. This puts his identity at risk and the IDs of the other minors he mentions by name, and goes against Wikipedia:User pages#Personal and privacy-breaching material. I tagged it as directed in userpage policy: "privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted using a suitable template, such as {{db-attack}}". INeverCry 02:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think the page was suitable as a Wikipedia user page, and I did consider deleting it. However, it really was not an attack page, so I had to decline the speedy deletion nomination made for that reason, and at the time I could not see any speedy deletion criterion that applied. I was rather short of time, otherwise I would certainly have posted a message to the user explaining why it was unsuitable, and very probably also nominated it for deletion at Miscellany for deletion. However, rather than do those two things in a rush, without giving myself time to think out exactly what to say, I just put a "user page" tag on the article, and left it to come back to now, when I would have more time. The user page tag would at least cause it to be removed from Google and similar, though unfortunately it can take quite a while for that to take effect. In fact, when I eventually came back to it, I found your message. I have now deleted the page, and given the user a note saying why.

"A suitable template, such as {{db-attack}}" has to be taken as meaning "a template which is suitable for the particular case; for example, in some cases {{db-attack}} may be appropriate", and not as meaning that {{db-attack}} is always appropriate. In fact, the quote you take is merely part of a longer statement, the full sentence reading "However, unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted using a suitable template, such as {{db-attack}}, {{db-copyvio}} or {{db-G11}}, other pages likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to deletion discussion", making it quite clear that there is no intention to suggest that db-attack is always suitable. What qualifies for deletion as an attack page is defined at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and one which does not "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass [its] subject or some other entity" does not qualify for deletion as an attack page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think it was an attack page either, but wasn't sure how to get it the quickest attention from an admin. Userpage policy doesn't give a clear speedy option for taking down privacy violations/inappropriate personal info of minors that needs to be taken down quickly. In future, I'll manually speedy tag these with an explanation. We should have a speedy criteria that addresses this kind of situation directly. I've seen more than a few young people putting up pages where they give way to much personal info about themselves, their family, location, etc. Thanks for taking care of this one. INeverCry 18:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:INeverCry: Perhaps it would be worth proposing this as a new speedy deletion criterion, because it seems to me it should be speedy-deletable, but it does not obviously fall under any of the criteria. The best suggestion I can make is to use {{db-g6|rationale=Fill in the reason for deletion here}}, but that is stretching the meaning of CSD G6. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll see about putting a proposal together. INeverCry 19:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mobina Sadat Atashi

hello mester watson,Mobina sadat atashi paper is quite standard and had no manager has no problem with it, but for the candidate you delete your user:Nojan vandalism. He is also very well known Persian Wikipedia users say they have problems with other users .Now delete this article are solely the struggle and stubbornness. Kindly to deal with them because they have broken the law and are trying to destroy. Vltfa remove labels from paper to remove Mobina sadat atashi Dear Manager: We've removed the article was previously nominated for deletion by adding reliable references from this article is neglected., Please look at history. Thank me if this article is valid, do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazaninan (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, some of what you have written is difficult to understand, as your grasp of English is evidently not good. However, if I understand correctly, you are saying that Mobina Sadat Atashi is notable enough to be the subject of an article, and that Nojan is a vandal, and his or her proposal for deletion of the article is part of that vandalism. I have withdrawn the deletion nomination to allow a chance for evidence of notability to be provided. The one source given as a reference at present is not enough to show notability, but if you can provide better sources then the article may be saved. However, if no better sources are provided the article may still be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Since writing that, I have seen more information which encourages me to think that the claim that Nojan is vandalising is probably false, including (1) the fact that the equivalent article on Persian Wikipedia has been repeatedly deleted, and has now been protected against re-creation and (2) the fact that you are blocked from Persian Wikipedia for a year for abusing multiple accounts. However, I am willing to give you and other editors a chance to reply before taking further action. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ah! Yet more interesting stuff has come to light. I have now seen that the block on Nojan was placed 2 minutes after the same administrator on Persian Wikipedia blocked Sorudeh, who created the article on English Wikipedia, for abusing multiple accounts. Also, in between blocking those two accounts, the same Persian admin blocked ویشکا, whose only edits on English Wikipedia have been on the same article, for abusing multiple accounts. Well, I am still willing to wait for awhile to give editors a chance to explain what is going on before taking further action, but it looks increasingly as though I shall be re-nominating the article for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• hello Mister watson,nojan thinks the two are one!

Despite their different IP that are not under one of the two users are not objecting to the way they were suspending their dealings with Members. Ironically, they are the only user who have similar ideas and unfortunately are rather stubborn realism and wait for users to its power to prove himself in his own words, as Wikipedia so that the Persian Wikipedia does not make the progress I mentioned to him but he threatened me and pulled Mdyrtshan to happen.It is unfortunate that people with your attitude Persian Wikipedia administrator know. They do not give any value to the users personality(Nazaninan (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

I'm afraid I can scarcely understand any of that. (Are you using some sort of automatic translator? It looks more like the kind of garbled English that comes from a very poor automatic translator than like the sort of poor English that is produced by a human being with a poor command of the language.) About all I can make out is that you deny the sockpuppetry, that you attack one or more Persian administrators, and that you make no attempt at all to address the issue of whether the article should be deleted, which is what I am waiting for. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately my english language is Weak But my purpose is:nojan thinks This 2 user are a person,,,nojan thinks Wikipedia being with him.To him it does not matter People make false accusations.And when I mentioned to him That is not vandalism.,He threatened me.he many of paper Without sufficient reason To remove But Similar articles Does not remove.he user Accused.

He knows his manager but Does not respect the law.i am very uncomfortable he unreasonable accusations users...he not give any value to the users personality.Meanwhile The more Members expressed themselves nojan is wrong he dont accept.He will insult users! i am hope Better than before i speak english.(Nazaninan (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Explanation

hello mister watson,i talk nojan sang and he lies again!.Unfortunately, he insists on his lies.I want not argue with him.He is not logical.And so is unaware That thinks I've created this article Mobina sadat atashi Whereas When This article was created I was not a member of Wikipedia!!!And only once on this article I edited!Whereas 2 previous user So before me Been a member of Wikipedia!!!He's just Pertinacity sabotage!Unfortunately he has trouble with a lot of users!I wanted you Be aware of His vandalism As I mentioned to him But he Persian Wikipedia has threatened me!He must have noticed his error!Because he can not Used to deny prove!(Nazaninan (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC))

Well that escalated quickly

Well, this is something you might be interested in. STATic message me! 03:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And again. STATic message me! 18:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine what is going through the mind of someone who responds like that to a good faith attempt to offer advice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Heads up...

Hey, I just created JamesBMatson (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). Since the name is so similar to yours, I thought I should inform you of this account. I hope and don't really expect much issue here, but if there is, please let me know so I can make a note in the ACC tool. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. It does look similar enough to raise doubts, so I'll keep an eye open. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

London Wiki

Can you expand on my comment on Saviour1981's talk page. (Wikia is not WP etc) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As a general comment locality-orientated (and other subject-specific) wikis may be more appropriate for some articles which are too marginal for WP - but they should be appropriately formatted (and not provide 'too much detail'). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about "London Wiki", in fact I had never heard of it until I saw your message, but a little searching produced london.wikia.com, which I guess is what you are referring to. Whether that is what you mean or not, I don't see why it is appropriate to use a talk page on Wikipedia to debate what should and should not be posted on another wiki. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As you blocked the person here, seeing if you wished to comment. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your decline of an unblock request

For 50.157.103.28 (talk · contribs) - my bad, I'd unblocked and explained why but was about to remove the unblock request when somethng came up at home and I forgot! not sure where to go from here. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)‎

I have reverted my unblock request decline. Feel free to post an acceptance. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden)

An article that you have been involved in editing, National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gavleson (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for restoration of vandalism

can i get my talkpage back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erandasahatqija (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that you want the edit history of the vandalism restored? If so, why on earth do you wan that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Beatmaster38 user page

I think an experienced Wikipedia admin needs to have a look at this and possibly remove it entirely. The user page of User:Beatmaster38 is just a page being used in a crude and derogatory manner. Also, User:Zepterz and User:Elijah Williams I think need to be looked at as well because they are the ones editing it. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you from helping Zepterz and Elijah Williams from editing my page. This is not the first time they vandalized it i took you advice and made a new website from a free host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatmaster38 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Beatmaster38 was using the page as a joke page. It was not suitable as a user page, so I have deleted it, but he probably meant no harm. The other two editors, however, were clearly vandalising, so I have given them vandalism warnings. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I gathered that. Thanks for the help. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

calling someone an ass is not allowed, but a troll is ok?

I find this uncivil. This is allowed ?

nightscream posted to me in a rude manner, and set a tone. I let it know this. It replied I'm not rude, it is merely a phrase. I asked for a neutral party.nightscream got its friend orangemike who reverted my talk page--which was wrong. I am allowed to remove content from my talk page. I dont have to have an account to do that-- then blocked me. This has bothered me as it doesnt seem neutral/fair/upright. 172.243.183.183 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking me to do. Are you asking me to take action against Nightscream? I agree that he has been less civil than he might have been, but I am not going to take action for minor incivilities in an incident which took place several days ago, especially as he was provoked by you, and considering that, apart from the civility issue, he was trying to be rational in the face of persistent irrationality from you. Are you asking me to defend Orangemike's actions? I am not going to do that: if you look on his talk page you will see that the reason he unblocked you is that I raised criticisms of his blocking you the second time. Maybe if I looked into the history in more detail I would also criticise other aspects of his handling of the case, or maybe I wouldn't, but out of all the thousands of things I might usefully do on Wikipedia, I have time to do only a minority of them, and checking to see whether an administrator might have acted a little differently in a fairly minor incident which happened several days ago has low priority. Are you merely asking me to express an opinion? Well, I have now done that.

On the issue of removing talk page content, that is a much greyer area for an IP talk page than for a registered editor's talk page, because some types of content should be left in case of other editors using the same IP address. However, I think Nightscream was mistaken in invoking that principal here, and I will drop him a note saying so.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page, and I have made a comment in response to your message on Orangemike's talk page. I very strongly advise you to stop continually going on about matters which have been dealt with, and persistently asking again for answers to questions which have already been answered. You are being disruptive, and wasting time of other editors who could be using that time more constructively. If you continue in the same way then you are very likely to be blocked for far longer than you have been so far. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear James,I am asking you because you took the time to answer. If you want me to leave you alone let me know and I will ask someone else.
I am asking you to see it from my view point. If saying ass is incivil, surely 'obnoxiousness, hypocrisy and poor-reasoned inanity exhibited by this troll' are incivil.
I honestly felt that I and I was alone hit on my knuckles for being wrong. It really frustrated me that nothing was said to nightscream. My point about neutrality is that I feel nightscream was automatically sided with--is it because I am an anon editor? it a registered editor--and that is why nothing was done. I was blocked. nightscream didnt even get told to take a break from the article for 2 hours or get a 3rr warning. Now you are saying it was incivil, but you say 'minor' and 'provoked by 'me'. I said ass--which is in the Bible-- and that is minor, right? I repeatedly asked for nightscream to leave me after its initial rude commment, and then to please let me finish my edit before making its edit...to noavail; but you say I was 'persistent irrationality'. I was accused of not being collaborative and blocked. If you are an admin then looking into a situation in a detailed fashion is part of your job. Perhaps if you had you would have pointed out nightscream's being incivil as you call it 'in an incident which took place several days ago'.

I didnt see that and I thank you for criticising the 2nd block. But that was 24hrs later after I waited to see --and was proven right as no one came. I was erroneously blocked 20:40, 9 March 2014 for 3 days when I didnt make any edits. The block stood all of the 9th, 10th. I had to ask for {help} and then you, writ keeper, came and challenged the second block. On the 11th I asked and then the block was lifted 17:32, 11 March 2014; almost 2 days later : 45 hours later.

The matter was dealt with in your eyes. I was the one blocked for 4 days. I feel there was bias. I did ask about the blocking actions and you then said forget it or I'll be blocked longer. Now the block is finished and you are saying the same thing. Am I not allowed clarity? Questions I asked you I hadnt asked before so what had you already answered? I dont get why asking a question is being disruptive. If I dont and then continue on I'm likely to make a mistake and be entrapped all again. When a defendant is in court are asked if they understand and are allowed to ask questions.

I am asking you because you took the time to answer. If you want me to leave you alone let me know and I will ask someone else. Thank You. 13:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.243.183.183 (talk)

(talk page stalker) Rather than asking someone else, simply drop the stick. In any edit-warring situation, there are too many variables. In any civility situation, (s)he who baits is usually more at fault. Yes, "ass" is worse than "troll", as "troll" comes from "trolling" which is a behaviour especially defined in internet terms. If you edit-warred AND baited, then it means a logner block. ES&L 13:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, 172.243.183.183, I have just spent some time writing quite a long answer to you, but while I was writing it, EatsShootsAndLeaves posted that much shorter answer, which I actually think is better than my long one, so I will leave it at that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to read your response. eatsshoots probably doesnt know the whole story so its opinion are formed from not knowing all that has gone on. 172.243.183.183 (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

EatsShootsAndLeaves has summed up the essential points that I made, but more concisely and clearly. I don't see that anything whatever would be gained by saying any more about it. Please take the advice you have been given: drop the stick. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you want me to stop writing to you. 172.243.183.183 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

user:Drinkreader and IP addresses

re: the multiple IP addresses, I've been authorized to inform you that these were the result of editing from a variety of internet cafes during a prolonged period of homelessness. As such, I think it less an attempt to deceive and more a circumstantial issue. DS (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I remember, I never suggested that use of multiple IP addresses was intended to be deceptive, but since you have chosen to raise the question, I will just say that when an editor uses the same IP address over a fairly long time, is eventually blocked, and then within minutes is editing from another IP address, it does look like deliberately changing the IP address to evade the block. However, it really doesn't matter what the reason was for changing IP addresses, and whether it was deliberate or not, because editing from IP addresses while your account is blocked is block evasion anyway. The main reason why I mentioned the use of multiple IP addresses was to make it clear, both to Drinkreader and to anyone else who had any cause to be reading the block notice, that the block was based on the whole of the editor's known editing history, and the whole history of his receiving messages about his editing, both of which were far more extensive that would be evident from just looking at the history of his account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Medeis

Do you have a diff regarding the specific edit or series of edits that led to the block? Thanks! --Jayron32 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it, I think. I assume it was this one. The content is self-evident and answers all questions I had about the block. Sorry for taking any of your time. Toodles. --Jayron32 23:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for helping with Phyllis Krasilovsky page!!!! Her family will be so happy! It seems the more I read the more confused I got. Thank you for your mercy!!

Sedaray (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Medeis unblock request

User:Medeis, whom you blocked, has posted an unblock request. It would probably be helpful to the reviewing administrator if you were to respond on her talkpage to the grounds she gives for unblocking. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I for one, appreciate the break that the Medeis block has given the Ref. Desk tonight. The full 48 hours would give the editor a little more time to reflect that their verbal attacks are unacceptable. The claims of misinterpretation could be considered with a single confrontation, but lose credibility given the regularity of the disruptive outbursts. 54.224.141.248 (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Objection to Prod of David Grannis

This is an article about the Staff Director of the SSCI, a person who currently serves as right hand man to the Chairman of the SSCI, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Grannis makes personal appearances at public meetings, speaking in his capacity as intelligence oversight staff director. He is notable for making statements to the press in relation to NSA spying. He remains notable in the context of the SSCI activities vis-à-vis the CIA and SSCI scandal.

I request that this Prod be removed, please.

Deprodding of [[:{{{1}}}]]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Yellowtail2014 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

hoax?

See this old message as well as your latest on the same page concerning more than 50 sandbox subpages. That editor is still using multiple accounts, the latest being an apparent airport hoax. —Telpardec (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The airport page was clearly a hoax, and I have deleted it. I have also posted a final warning to the editor, and if there isn't a satisfactory reply soon I shall block the accounts and nominate the sandbox pages for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you comment on this?

I have nothing against you, I just would like to see discussion before anything "indefinite" because on wikipdia "indefinite" seems to mean "infinite". CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Box of Shame

Howdy. I'm not quite sure what the procedure is for this but would it be possible for you, someone else, or some process to remove the box on my user page that says I am a sock puppet? I didn't want to remove it myself in the event that that was a gross violation of a rule. Thanks! Jcs7708 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user with an inappropriate username

Hi! I was just looking through the history of the parkour article and noticed a sockpuppet vandal (who has been blocked) with an inappropriate username. I gotta admit it's actually pretty hilarious, but just to play by all the rules here, it's a blatant violation of our policy and other people would probably be grossly offended by it (lol). So is it possible that u could erase it from public view? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I wouldn't have bothered myself, but I agree that some people would find it offensive, and it was just trolling anyway, so removing it is probably for the best. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding TO THE NEW

Hi James. Will be great if you can let me know which part you felt was advertising in TO THE NEW so that it can be altered and we can revive the page. The goal was and is to keep the page informative and that's why there's more than 20 external news links from which content had been sourced. It's competitors have similar pages - Dentsu and GroupM

Looking forward to your guidance on my talk page . Cheers! Irfan E Khan (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a question of "which part" was promotional. It was the whole character and tone of the article from start to finish: it read as though it had been written by someone who works in marketing or PR. The article was full of such promotional language as "cutting edge", "leading", "pioneer", and so on, and it said thing like "delivers a comprehensive range of digital services across marketing, content, technology and analytics" and "collectively manages the mandates for 100+ clients globally", which are not the way that ordinary people talk about businesses, but rather the way that people who write marketing copy express themselves. The phrasing of your message also suggests that you are working for the company for marketing purposes: the use of the words "we" and "competitors" do not suggest an uninvolved outsider. As I have already explained to you, Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy strongly discourages us from creating articles on topics in which we have a close personal involvement, such as businesses we work for or to which we are contracted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

G4?

JamesBWatson, you may want to reply over at WP:REFUND#Gracie Barra Montreal. I have to admit it doesn't look like it qualifies for WP:CSD#G4 to me, since the version you deleted was a complete rewrite that didn't resemble the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracie Barra Montreal. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Gracie Barra Montreal

Hi James,

Thank you for your message about the Gracie Barra Montreal page. I appreciate your contributions. Indeed there was a previous version of this page that has been deleted for legitimate some reason. To help this school, I took the time to rebuild this new page painstakingly by complying to all the Wikipedia policies amd rules. I believe that you deleted this page by mistake because it has been approved and assigned a class already by a couple of other Wikipedia official editor. Therefore, I will appreciate if you could take a second look at the page and consult with other editors who already evaluated it. When everything is OK, I will be grateful if you could please reinstate the page.

Thank you for your understanding.

M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamadoutadioukone (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

1. An article should not be written "to help the school", which amounts to saying that it was created for promotional purposes. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion.
2. If you are working for the school, then you have a conflict of interest in writing about it, and Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you from writing about it.
3. The fact that someone has given an article a class just means that they have looked at it and assessed what it seems like, not that it has been given some sort of official approval and is exempt from the policies on deletion.
4. There is always room for debate about how similar a new article has to be to an old one to qualify for deletion as a repost of a deleted article, and if that were the only consideration there might be a case for restoring it and taking it to a new Articles for deletion discussion. That would virtually certainly be a waste of time for you, me, and all others involved, as I have checked your references, and I have very little doubt that it would be deleted again, as there is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, that is all predicated on "if that were the only consideration", but it isn't, as the article was clearly purely promotional, which in itself is sufficient reason for speedy deletion, quite apart from the previous deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

From Mamadoutadioukone

Hi James, Thank you for taking the time to respond and give such a detailed explanation. I appreciate your dialogue.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the expression "to help this school" I used. I have no interest or affiliation whatsoever with this Martial art school. The reason for using this term is that I have seen the first version of the page that has been deleted. It appeared to me that it was obviously written by ignorance, in an advertisement tone by the head instructor of the school himsself. In addition, it appeared to me that the person who had proposed that first version for deletion was a Wikipedia official editor who happened to be a Martial artist too. Here is the profile of this editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PRehse. In addition, it this same editor who reviewed the new version of the page and approved it together with another editor. Coincidentally, I am also a Martial artist (Judo) and a scholar (computer scientist) who lived in Japan for a long time. These are the coincidences that rang a bell and drove me to land a helping hand to this Martial art school. As you mentioned, the new article has been indeed build from scratch with no similarity with the old one. I am not debating about this aspect. I took great care about reading in the archives the reasons why the first version was deleted. Therefore, I followed step by step these warnings to make sure the same mistakes were not repeated again. I am sure you will understand my surprise when I see a number of Wikipedia articles of the same type, nature and same context that are out there on Wikipedia. A couple of examples are these: "Brazilian Top Team" , "10th Planet Jiu-Jitsu" and many others. We non-experts, usually follow good examples that are standing and have been accepted for a long time. Concerning the references, I have indeed read the criticisms about the first deleted version and I am pretty sure I have addressed those issues of reliability and independence of references about the school to establish notability. I was indeed obsessed by this last word all along.

My intention in this note is of course not to waste your time but to let you know that I was indeed aware of all the issues you raised before I painstakingly crafted the new version over several days. I have come a long way indeed and it hurts me to see all my time and effort gone in smoke. Therefore, I am confident that you have a better picture of this new page and will surely reconsider your decision.

Thank you for taking the time to read my long message. Have a good day.

M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:46, 14 March 2014‎ (talk • contribs) Mamadoutadioukone (UTC)

I see that rather than wait for me to answer here, you posted at requests for undeletion, so I have answered there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User: Maynardox

I stopped paying attention in 2012. He received several warnings about spamming. I checked his contributions again and all through 2013 he was doing the same thing as before, spamming links to his interviews in external links in articles. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Where should I report this? WP:ANI or WP:AIAV ? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

He also has a second account, User:Maynard Media --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this to my attention, Harizotoh9. I too had stopped paying attention in 2012, and completely forgotten about this editor. I have blocked the first account, and posted a note on the second account's talk page calling attention to the block. Please let me know if you see any more from this editor, from any account or IP address. If I hadn't dealt with it I would certainly have said WP:AIAV rather than WP:ANI, as the former is far more likely to result in quick action, rather than an endless argument that leads nowhere. For some reason, "Administrator intervention against vandalism" is taken as covering promotional editing, as well as vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Help

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have read your message there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

As you will recall, you and I had a rather lengthy discussion about my alleged violation of BLP when I had asked a question on a Wikipedia Reference Desk (about Oscar Pistorius). You had responded to an "administrator help" request that I had posted on my Talk Page. I came back here to close out that discussion with you. So, I just wanted to say "thanks" for your help in the matter. I do appreciate it. Thanks again. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, if I recall correctly, you were the one responsible for issuing a "block" against the offending editor in this matter. Thanks for employing that method to resolve this problem. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree!

Was my first day on Wiki and had the energy to swing hard. No apologies but I acknowledge.

Did I edit user page thats not helpful? cite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambala Forces (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reddysbhargava

Could Reddysbhargava and Talk:Reddysbhargava be deleted (again), and could you maybe consider blocking User:Reddysbhargava? DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have been done. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Could this IP be blocked for overly persistent vandalism, or at least be looked at? DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing it out to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Plants and their geographic categorisation

I notes with interest your removal of some geographic category from Betula pendula. I raised this issue here in January at Wiki Project plants, but elicited no interest whatsoever. In the meantime we have editors such as User:Impuls666666 adding what appears to be every tree known to the Flora of Ukraine. I don't believe that this is helpful but would welcome your suggestions about how it might be mitigated. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Debian --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Average Homeboy

Hey, I was just going to sort of ask a question: I declined the speedy on Average Homeboy previously because the article did have different sourcing from previous versions. The way the article was written was also fairly different, as the version I cleaned up ended up being about the video as opposed to the entertainer himself. The version deleted in 2012 at Denny Blaze had two sources, whereas the one at AH had eight. Even before I cleaned up the article, it still had more sources than the prior AfD did. I still don't know if it'd pass notability guidelines, but the addition of the new content and rephrasing of the article made it something that I'd be more comfortable running through a new AfD. It's kind of the type of thing where it might be a bit of a waste of time but it's different enough to where it would be better run through AfD so we could later hold up any previous rulings because we could say that we took the new information into account. I'm not particularly hard lobbying for this, but I had one of the page's editors leave a message on my talk page where they were confused as to why the newer version was deleted. I've pointed them towards deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: OK, since you think the deletion is questionable, I have restored the article. There is always a wide variation in interpretation of the G4 speedy deletion criterion is to be interpreted. However, the purpose of that criterion is to avoid the time wasted by putting essentially the same article through AfD more than once, with essentially the reasons for deletion applying. That being so, it seems to me that the only reasonable way to interpret the criterion is that if the changes do not make enough difference to in any way alter the validity of the arguments raised at the previous AfD, then it is sufficiently the same article. New sources? Yes, but are those sources any better than the previous ones? Do those sources successfully address the issues raised at the previous AfDs? "Rephrasing"? Yes, but if every time an article is re-created with some rephrasing we treat it as a new article, then G4 becomes meaningless. This article, under two different titles, has been taken to AfD three times, and all three discussions reached the same conclusion. It seems to me reasonable to think that when three separate discussions, with different people participating, have all reached the same conclusion, we need pretty significant change to justify overturning those decisions, and I really really cannot see the changes that have taken place as sufficient. However, I have restored the article, since you evidently feel differently about it, and experience leads me to respect your opinion, and also since letting it go to deletion review would at best be as much of a waste of editors' time as an AfD, and at worst would be an even bigger waste of time, as the article would be discussed, restored, sent to AfD for a fourth time, and discussed again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• My reason for bringing that up is that recently the article Remember the 13th was created, which was a re-creation of Remember The 13th Hoax, which was deleted only a few months prior with largely the same sources and content. I'd nominated it for a speedy deletion per it being almost identical, only to have it declined because there were 1-2 sources that were different- despite nothing new truly being added. It was my understanding through that, that any new additions to the article would merit another run. It's not that I have a huge desire to have this page on here, just that this is what I'd been led to believe was the norm for this sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: OK, I fully understand what you say. However, my experience is that there isn't a "norm", and that interpretation of G4 varies very widely, with some editors taking virtually any change to an article, no matter how trivial, as invalidating a G4 deletion. Indeed, that wide variation is another reason why I was willing to restore the article once you had questioned it. I have found out from experience that deletion reviews of G4 deletions are highly unpredictable, probably even more so than for A7 deletions, and I regard it as unhelpful to commit myself to deletion when it is far from certain where consensus will lie if it is discussed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

After I posted my reply to your first message above, I saw that on your talk page you encouraged another editor to take this to deletion review. I think you should have either suggested contacting me as a first step, or else told the editor that you would contact me. Otherwise there was a risk that the editor might waste time and effort time taking the matter to deletion review, only to have their report summarily dismissed, either because of a failure to consult me first, or because the article had already been restored as a result of your consulting me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Another

I think a temporary full-protection needs to be added to Compas music. There is serious, excessive edit warring going on, and it's been happening for months now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You may possibly be understating the case: the two editors in question have been contending against one another since at least as far back as 2011. The whole history is extremely complicated, and even though I have spent some time looking at edits to the article, it is not clear to me whether the current situation is an edit war or not. Certainly there are quite a few reverts, but are there many examples of the same changes several times over? If you can give a few unambiguous examples, I will be willing to take action, but I have found searching through dozens of edits looking for repetitions of the same change is like looking for a needle in a haystack, and I have given up. If any action is needed, I am doubtful that full protection of the article is the best option, since that would freeze the version preferred by one of the edit-warriors in place, excluding anyone else from making positive contributions. Since both editors have been blocked for edit warring in the past, neither of them needs any warning about it, and if the current situation really is an edit war then blocking them may be better than protecting the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking further, I have found that the IP editor has been blocked at least six times for disruptive editing of various kinds, so I will be willing to block for a long time if there is good reason to do so. Unfortunately, IP editors can often get away with things for a long time without getting a substantial block, because nobody checks the combined history of all the IP addresses involved, so nobody realises the extent of the problem. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, just forget that then. I wasn't aware that you knew. Not too fussed, can't bothered either to be honest, I just came across it and it looked obsessive. All good. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: No, I didn't know about it: what I wrote above is based purely on what I saw when I looked into the history of the editors after you drew my attention to this. Thanks very much for pointing it out. It seems to me that the IP editor is very probably heading for a fairly long block, and I shall keep an eye on it for a while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I misunderstood. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for taking the time to review the block on this IP. Doubly so for choosing to unblock it. I'm somewhat tech savvy, but I'm no expert. When Mastcell said it was an open proxy I just assumed he was right and never thought to challenge him on it.

I would go say thanks to him for not standing in the way, but he doesn't sound happy about things in general around here. The more sincere I try to sound the more I end up sounding like I'm gloating or something. I think its better if I quietly move on.

Anyway. Thank you. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mount Apo

Hi you probably remember me, you blocked me for edit warring a few weeks ago. I don't want this to happen again so please can you go to [1] and let me know if you think anything I have done there is out of order. Viewfinder (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous editor has been posting several different heights for the same mountain, in a way that I can only possibly see as vandalism, so you were quite right to keep reverting, Viewfinder. Reverting blatantly obvious vandalism is one situation where the edit warring policy is irrelevant. I shall also consider whether to block the IP address range that has been used by the vandal. If I find that other editors using the same IP range have been making a significant number of constructive edits, then a range block will be inappropriate, and I shall consider whether to semi-protect the article instead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for three months, since the vandalism has been going on since January. Please feel welcome to let me know if the vandalism starts up again after that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy-paste

Sorry, forgot to restore first, trying to do too many things at once Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated changing of dates and deletion of sourced material by an IP User Wikipedia previously blocked

Hi. I discovered yet again than a non-registered user (172.250.31.151 (talk)) has been changing dates on the Millennials page. I noticed he/she is repeatedly doing this, as well as reverting another user's edits, which is not constructive. I am not sure what to do other than contact an administrator (I am not sure you are one exactly) or someone who has dealt with this person in the past. I can come back to your page for a response. Thank you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am an administrator, as you can see here.

Most of the editor's recent edits look fine to me, but I have seen a few dubious edits, and in view of the editor's history, I have posted a fairly long message to the IP talk page about the problems. If you know of specific edits that show that the recent editing continues edit warring from the past, then please let me know what edits they are, as that would lead me to reconsider the matter in a different light. Also, if similar editing continues now, after my message to the editor, please let me know, and i will consider whether a block is justified. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

My reply to JamesBWatson: My edits are usually supported with a good reference. But as you requested I'll be sure to give an explanation of any newer edits -- unless they're trivial. Thank you for your input.

Also in connection with these edits ([2] & [3]). Two (2) was removed because if you do a word search for the quote it doesn't appear in the Forbes article. So it's a misquote. For number three (3) we actually could use a better source for a number such as this. At this point, the author just claims Millennials are "about 80 million people".

My reply to CreativeSoul7981 is: your edits appear to be more constructive recently. However, based on your prior edits to the generational articles over a long period of time -- weren't you arguing over the statement in the introductory paragraph on the Millennials page to "no later than 1981 or 1982" and getting into many disputes about those particular years? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CreativeSoul7981 I need to look for the examples of those disputes in the archives. Please stop POV pushing (if you in fact are). Thank you. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have problems with the editors in past disputes if you check the history. In fact, I have previously included the other date ranges in edits to the generation pages. I also backed up one of these editors (Peregrine981) by reversing an anonymous user's edits when he reversed Peregrine's for no reason. My concert was in regards to this very same anonymous user deleting my sources and and also changing the dates in the edits I added (with the sources). So basically, the source included the date ranges I used in the article, and this person just changed the dates. Isn't this vandalism. He's done this at least 2 other times. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your talk page reveals alot about your disputes. Many seem trivial and are a waste of time. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Those disputes have long been settled. A compromise was drawn and I have myself included several dates that I did not agree with, included them in generation articles for variance and difference of opinion. You, however, have repeatedly gone through the Generation X page and changed dates backed by sources. So, you either deleted reputable sources and whole chunks of text, or you kept the text and changed the dates (which did not match the source I myself had added). That is vandalism. You can complain all you want, but the administrators have obviously noticed what you are doing and commented on it. You have been blocked several times. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Message of apology

Sorry sir, I will take care in future. HulkRider (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Message of appreciation

Thank you very much for your help. I'm grateful to you. HulkRider (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

Heya! Noticed that a user you had blocked has made an unblock request several days ago, addressing your concerns. See here. Would it be possible for you to review this request and respond please? Thanks for your help! SQL^{Query me!} 06:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) edit is so utterly incompetent that that the unblock request should normally just be ignored. Doc talk 06:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline it if you wish in that case. Just bringing it to the blocking admin's attention. SQL^{Query me!} 06:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right that it should be handled, to get it off the list. Any admin can decline the ludicrous unblock request. Doc talk 07:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free. My intention was merely to bring this to the blocking admin's attention. SQL^{Query me!} 07:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But I'd decline the unblock request if I were one. You did nothing wrong by bringing it to the blocking admin's attention. Cheers :) Doc talk 07:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure only the actual act of an unblock requires the admin / sysop flag. I'd bet all the money wikipedia pays me that you can edit that page. If you feel that strongly that the user should not be unblocked perhaps you should take action. SQL^{Query me!} 07:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be "bad", as only admins can technically decline these requests (even when they are so pointlessly weak). Hopefully activity on this page may speed the process along with this case... Doc talk 07:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Leave your comfort zone. The only permission needed to decline is that which is required to edit. I would encourage you to handle this case. This would be excellent RFA material. SQL^{Query me!} 07:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Any blocked editor requesting an unblock has a right to have their case reviewed by an independent administrator, and anyone else removing the unreviewed unblock request would be denying them that right. Also, it is generally accepted that an administrator does not review a request for an unblock on his or her own block, so that the blocked editor gets an independent review. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking explicitly says "An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block..." (My emphasis.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Derick Wanganeen

The reason I am here is because I followed the links. Derick Wanganeen played his first game of senior AFL football today http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hawks-look-at-three-debutants-20140318-hvk54.html so I would like his page recreated. 3 years ago a page for him was deleted , he must have had a fan who was a persistant sockpocket Purrum (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Crash (song

Crash (song was never deleted as the result of a discussion, so it isn't eligible for G4. The content is also different, so again, it isn't eligible for G4. WilyD 11:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@WilyD::

1. It was deleted as a result of a discussion: the discussion resulted in speedy deletion.
2. The content was different? You mean that it redirected to a different article? Utterly irrelevant, since what article it deleted to was irrelevant to the reason for deletion.
3. Irrespective of whether or not it was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, it qualifies for deletion as an implausible redirect.
4. Irrespective of anything at all, it is obviously not a useful redirect, and I cannot imagine any good-faith reason for wanting to keep it. I can only assume that you are trying to make some sort of point, though I have no idea what that point is. I suggest that the best thing to do is to drop the matter, and find something constructive to do to improve Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to direct readers to the content they're looking for when they make a typo (and failing to close a bracket is a typo I make twenty times a day. A discussion that's open for a few minutes for something that's then speedily deleted is not a deletion as a result of the discussion. It's a transparently useful redirect - it directs whoever ends up there to what they're looking for. That's the whole point of redirects, sending readers to what they're looking for rather than being unhelpful. If you don't believe that directing readers to the content they're looking for is an important part of an encyclopaedia (or somehow, a violation of POINT, though I can't imagine how), I'm not sure how you can hope to judge the usefulness of anything. WilyD 11:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@WilyD: OK, I now see that there is a good faith reason for wanting to keep the redirect, and I was mistaken in thinking there wasn't. However, I still disagree with you on almost everything else.

Many readers may search on Wikipedia for "Crash", meaning the song. Many may search for more specific search terms, such as "Crash song". Among the minority of Wikipedia readers who have enough experience of how Wikipedia works, there may very well be some who search for "Crash (song)". Among those, there may well be some who, like you, have a frequent habit of missing brackets. Among those, there may even be a few who miss a bracket not at the end of a sentence, having had time to forget, but at the end of a four letter word. Those who do will probably think "Oh, silly me", and repeat the search with the bracket. Really, if we had redirects for every slip that someone somewhere might make, and which would result in a few seconds' delay in finding the relevant article, we would have endless redirects all over the place. The discussion was open for rather over four hours and forty minutes, so "a few minutes" is a dubious description. A discussion that lasts a few hours, involves three people (including the closing admin) and is unanimous, is still a discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"A few minutes" may be a bit hyperbolic, but a three people, few hour discussion, where the closing admin !voted, can't be considered a discussion (heck, if it were deleted as a result of the discussion, the closing admin should be different from someone who voted, except in really unambiguous cases). The standard for deletion (both by R3, and in practice at RfD) is implausible, not uncommon - because uncommon typos still happen regularly, and so someone's looking to get directed somewhere. I generally agree with the preposition that you shouldn't pre-emptively create redirects for possible typos, but when the typos occur, it's a good sign that it's a good idea to create it, because the first time ain't likely to be the last. It's probably true that most users who get lost will figure it out quickly, but not all will (and indeed, someone failing to notice their typo will often go through the work of creating a new article - hardly a desirable outcome. But when you balance that against the upside of deletion (which is essentially nonexistent), there's no compelling case.

Beyond that, of course, speedy deletion shouldn't be used to do an end run around a deletion discussion whose outcome might go either, but to skip a discussion where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. WilyD 12:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I honestly did think that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. As I said above, until you gave your reasoning, I could not conceive of anyone having a good faith wish to keep this redirect. I now see that you have a very different view of the issue, though. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing then to restore the redirect and list it at RfD? It would probably be better to open a new discussion than re-open the hastily closed one, but I'd certainly be willing to be flexible about that. WilyD 10:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@WilyD: Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I have restored the redirect. At the moment, I have no plans to do anything else to it, such as taking it to a new deletion discussion, because it doesn't seem that important to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. WilyD 13:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Lindley (journalist)

Hello. I want to create a wiki page for Richard Lindley (journalist). I see that you previously deleted a page with this title and so I wanted to check with you first to make sure that you're not simply going to delete it. I assume you deleted the page on grounds of plagiarism. So, assuming I don't plagiarise an existing source, I take it you will have no objection ? Very many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietnamvat (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted because of copyright infringement, which is not the same as plagiarism, though the two concepts are related. However, the copyright infringement was the only reason for the deletion, so I have no objection whatever to your creating a new article on the same subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Weigh in on discussion?

Hi. Would you care to weigh in on this discussion? It concerns whether a particular review quote should be removed from an article. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

IP 178.66.191.199

James, I see you've blocked 178.66.191.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Are you sure they're Need1521? I kind of assumed they weren't, and left them on ANI when I removed the other IP posts. The English is better — not good but better — the insults are missing, and they said they're not Need1521. That may sound naive… but as far as I've seen, none of Need's obvious IPs have tried to pretend they're not him. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

No, I'm not sure, so I have unblocked. I did think it looked pretty likely, but the doubts you raise are valid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Re-Review of Dr. Raj's page

Hello! I would sincerely appreciate it if you could re-review the Wikipedia page for Dr. Raj at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Rajagopalan

The entry contained factual data about his career and accomplishments along with a significant amount of references to those accomplishments, Board Certifications, tv shows he's been on, etc.

If you look at doctor pages that are on Wikipedia such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Diamond

They are really no different and present factual info about the doctors. I would appreciate it if you could reinstate the entry thank you. David Greene, MD, MBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlgreene1969 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you sincerely did not view the article as promotional, then I can only assume that you are so closely connected to the subject that you are unable to stand back from it and see how it looks to an uninvolved outsider. It clearly seemed promotional to the editor who nominated it for deletion, and I agreed. What is your connection to the editor who created the article? I assume that you have some connection, since from what you say you evidently know what the article contained. As for your statement that the two other articles you mention are no better, you are certainly right about Jason Diamond, which has been deleted twice and re-created. In my opinion it comes nowhere near the standards required for a Wikipedia article, and I have nominated it for a deletion discussion, in order to settle once and for all whether it should be deleted and this time stay deleted. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. Robert Rey is scarcely any better, and I would not bet on its survival if it is taken to a deletion discussion. It is natural for a newcomer to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles to see what sort of thing is acceptable, but unfortunately it is not a reliable guide, as large numbers of articles that do not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines are created, and some of them survive for quite a while before they are noticed and removed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Extentia Information Technology

Dear JamesBWatson,

Please reconsider the deleting of Extentia Information Technology page. This is official wikipedia page for our company and we have made sure that we are not promoting any of our services. The content we have given in is mostly references to technology facts and trend. There is no intend to promote our company.

Regards, Prashant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prash305 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that you refer to "our company". Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages us from writing about subjects in which we have a personal interest or involvement, such as companies that we own or that we work for, and this article may be a good example of why. In writing about a subject in which one is closely involved, it may be difficult to stand back and see how ones writing will look to an uninvolved outsider, which very often results in a sincere inability to see why ones writing looks blatantly promotional to independent observers. In the case of this article, I wonder if there is more than that to it: if you honestly did not see the article as promotional, then it may be that you work in PR/marketing/advertising and are so used to reading marketing copy that you are desensitised to it. If I ask someone I meet what a particular business does, I expect to hear an answer such as "it makes cars" or "it sells books", i.e. an answer that tells me what the business does. Nobody except advertising/PR/marketing people would ever answer by saying that the business "delivers solutions", and when that expression comes in the very first sentence of an article, it screams out "this is a PR-piece". Nor did the rest of the article fail to live up to that promise: most of it was a list of all the things that the company is really good at, written in terms that were clearly intended to impress us. There is no way at all that I can read it as a neutral, impartial account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism on Mad Dogg Athletics Page

I am a biking enthusiast with no connection to Mad Dogg Athletics. This is a popular biking company in my city, and I use their products often. I also go to their spinning classes.

I know that they are involved in a trademark lawsuit with a company in the Czech Republic.

The company owners in that country are constantly editing the article to add biased information about their trademark disputes because they know that it will bolster their position in the lawsuit.

I have tried reverting their edits, and they have responded by reporting me to you. I think this is unfair and I am concerned that they will continue to vandalize the page by adding misinformation and irrelevant information about Mad Dogg Athletics in order to gain an edge in their lawsuit in the Czech Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rr123456 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable Behavior of user Rr123456

The Rr123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is issuing fake administrator's warnings threatening to ban me from wikipedia on my Discussion page. I have made some edits regarding the history of spinning and since then I am being randomly harassed by (probably) Mad Dogg Athletics' connected people Rr123456 being one of them.

I did remove Rr123456's threat on my Discussion page. I asked him politely on his Discussion page not to harass me. He re-added fake warning on my Discussion page and removed my request from his. He also keeps removing unfavorable information from Mad Dogg Athletics page despite your clear warnings on his Discussion page. I feel that reverting reverts is going nowhere... Please, advise what to do or what to correct in case you find my edits not following Wikipedia rules. Thank you.

--Filein 17:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is important for you to understand the difference between a fake warning and an inappropriate one. Rr123456's warning was not fake, it is a standard template that can be issued by any user as long as three warnings have already been given. However, he has not warned you before, and did not sign the template, which made it inappropriate to issue. It was also inappropriate for him to restore it after you blanked your talk page, because you are permitted to do so by policy. Right now it appears that Rr is aggressively edit-warring on the page Mad Dogg Athletics. You have shown restraint in not taking up battle against him. You are doing the right thing. Rr has filed what appears to be a frivolous report against you - although I do note that he claims you are involved in a lawsuit - of course, if this is true then you have a WP:COI but there is really no way for us to verify this at all. Elizium23 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 22:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Been trying to work out how to deal with Category:Electronic harassment for a while. That makes thing so much simpler... GDallimore (Talk) 23:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The LGAQ web team block matter

Two replies:

• User talk:LGAQ web team
• User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Comment about a block

Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 16:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talk Back

I have responded to your post on my talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User issue

Hello. I need you help in reviewing two users, although I think there might be a sockpuppet here. Those are User:Enslaver and User:Johnbutlerr. The first says he is an admin, but he is not, the other says he is rollbacker and reviewer, and he is not. Additionally, I think they "stole" user and user talk pages from other users, making them their own. I believe those accounts are made for single purpose, and that is to disruptively edits Nigma Talib article. Thanks in advance. --BiH (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved by other admin as you were away. Thank you anyway. --BiH (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

TRIO world school

Hi you have moved page TRIO world school to Trio world school without leaving a redirect (The school uses the title in the form "Trio".) Please redirect it to trio and TRIO world school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishwa 777 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the name commonly used in the capitalised form? If it is, then as far as I know there is nothing to stop you from creating a redirect at TRIO world school. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Another User:089baby sock?

Hello James,

Given you comments here, I wanted to make you aware of Jamesson123 (talk · contribs). His five edits so far seem innocuous enough, but it is an account interested in the same subject matter as 089baby created on the day that the rangeblock of his IP's comes out of effect. Like you, I won't be able to edit Wikipedia for the next few days, so in case you get back before I do, would you mind checking in on him? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It is more than just a matter of being interested in the same subject matter: every one of the account's edits has been on an article on which the editor had recent block-evading edits reverted, and almost every one of the edit at least partly reverted the reverting of the block-evading edits. It would, in my opinion, be enough to justify an immediate block for sockpuppetry, but in view of the extensive history of sockpuppetry, I shall take it to SPI in case of sleepers. I can't find a range block that expired on the day that the account was created: can you let me know what range it was? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I just blocked a vandal on Wiktionary who was using the account name of "JamesBWaston". I notice that they created an account here using the same name. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've username-blocked the account here, as well. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: @Yunshui: Thanks to both of you for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected article

Hi. you previously protected this article, for some reason it has some history with sockmaster per Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nipponese Dog Calvero. There's a new account with similar Japanese-character name (a real person/pop star) active on the article today. Would you mind having a look? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: As you have seen, I have moved the article back, and move-protected it. I have also blocked the account, as even its very short editing history makes it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that it is another Nipponese Dog Calvero sockpuppet. Please feel welcome to contact me again if you see any more from the same editor. (The gap of nearly 13 hours between my taking action and my posting this message was because I was short of time and had to go offline suddenly.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Redcaracademy

Hi JBW. I must admit, I'm a little discomfited by your unblocking of this editor. Unless you're privy to some off-wiki communication which I don't know about (in which case, fair enough), their comments - right up to the most recent one - seem to me to indicate pretty clearly that they're only here for the good of their organisation, not for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. Whilst I've nothing against improving the Redcar Academy page (and thank you for implementing some of the changes there), I'm concerned that this user has not demonstrated the requisite level of understanding over what Wikipedia is for and how it works. Certainly if I came across an unblock request formulated as their last comment, I would not have chosen to unblock.

It's your call, obviously, and I've nothing against other administrators disagreeing with my decisions; I simply would have preferred to have discussed it with you first. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: First of all, I apologise for not consulting you. I did not think of what I was doing as disagreeing with your decision, but rather as making a new decision in a different situation (since the editor has expressed the intention of changing his or her editing approach) but I certainly would have consulted you if I had thought you might object. Evidently I misjudged the situation.

I will attempt to explain my thinking on this, and why I was willing to unblock. I certainly do understand your points. You are certainly right in saying that he or she is "only here for the good of their organisation", but as long as he/she sticks to simple factual corrections and updates, that is not necessarily a problem. Also, he/she has this time consulted on whether his/her proposed edits are acceptable, and if he/she continues to do that then there should be no risk of unacceptable editing, while if he/she goes back to promotional editing, then it will be easy enough to block again, and a second time neither I nor (I guess) most admins would be so willing to unblock a second time. I am a great believer in WP:ROPE, though I find myself generally much less willing to apply that principle to anything that looks like COI editing than many admins, but at least in this case you are clearly even less COI-tolerant than I am. Also, it is a simple fact that many articles on schools (including this one) are left to get more and more out of date, until they are hopelessly out of touch, and it is very often only when an employee of the school updates the article that it is corrected. There are therefore sometimes pluses as well as minuses to COI editing, and it seems to me that it is better to have an editor who we know has a COI making corrections and updates than having the same user creating a sockpuppet without revealing their connection to the school. As you can see from what I wrote in my original decline of the unblock request, I certainly did not disagree at all with your block, and it was only because I saw signs of willingness to change that I was willing to unblock. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for the explanation. I'll watchlist the article and keep half-an-eye on it, as I'm sure you will too, but I'll leave him to his own devices if I can. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Returned Disruptive Editor

Hi James. Remember this guy?

• 82.5.224.162
• 81.109.92.81
• 81.109.94.184
• 81.109.92.88
• 82.5.224.244
• 81.109.93.181
• 62.255.138.2

Well, he seems to have returned once again as 81.108.41.143, I thought I'd let you know, Thanks.Footballgy (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Footballgy: Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much that can be done effectively. I have blocked the IP address, and reverted many of his/her edits, but he/she will no doubt return under another IP address. The IP ranges are too wide for range blocks. Maybe I will semiprotect some of the worst affected articles, but there are rather a lot of them, and protecting a whole lot of articles stops legitimate edits too. However, do feel welcome to contact me again if you see more from the same person, and I will keep blocking IP addresses. Reverting his/her edits may actually be the most effective thing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Jamdor

It appears it's an open proxy block not an autoblock, made by an admin who hasn't been seen since last autumn. Open proxies are out of my area of experience. Could you have a look? Peridon (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Peridon: I am not the greatest expert on open proxies myself, but I do know a little about them, and I have done some work at WP:OPP mainly because most of the editors with a better knowledge of the subject who used to be active there have become inactive, leaving long backlogs. I have had a look at this case, and got conflicting results. If you are interested, you can see my further comments at User talk:Jamdor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I really must try to learn about these things, including IP ranges. Peridon (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Materials and Processes Simulations

Dear JamesBWatson as you can see in the history of this article there has been long time since our article on Materials and Processes Simulations (MAPS) was deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Materials_and_Processes_Simulations).

Today, 5 years later we believe that we have a strong case which justifies the article to go live. First of all I would like to mention that we are not trying to make any advertisement using Wikipedia. We believe however, that it is our duty to inform everybody about the existence of MAPS in a similar way others do it here as well. Scienomics' MAPS is a software tool that helps people do efficiently molecular simulation and modeling work using state-of-ther-art software even open-source software. As the publications mention scientists use MAPS because they can not only easier access several tools but also perform task that they can simply not do, e.g., build amorphous structures of complex systems. Scienomics also is devoted in promoting molecular simulations and modeling. For this reason we have several collaborations with Sandia Labs., or even finance/sponsored scientific events and scientists from countries that do not have the resources to send their scientists to international conferences.

We are available to provide you with all information we currently have.

Best regards,

The Scienomics Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienomics (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You say "it is our duty to inform everybody about the existence of MAPS". That may be so, but it does not mean that Wikipedia is necessarily the place to do so. The reasons you give are largely about your belief that the software is useful, effective, and important. However, Wikipedia's notability criteria have nothing whatever to do with usefulness, or effectiveness, and the central issue is whether there is substantial coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. When the deletion discussion took place, it was decided that there was not enough suitable coverage to establish notability in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have now searched for information about it, and I have failed to find any evidence that the situation has changed in that respect. It is very common for people who are inexperienced in Wikipedia editing to think that Wikipedia is an ideal medium for publicising a worthwhile and noble topic which is insufficiently known: indeed, that is exactly what I thought when I started editing here some years ago. However, the policy is that Wikipedia does not serve to "inform everybody" about something which has not already received substantial attention. (After editing here for a while, I also realised that there are what I regard as good reasons behind that policy, but that is not really relevant, since we have to follow policy whether we personally agree with it or not.) Since you are directly involved in the subject matter, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing on the subject. I also notice that your username is the name of the company involved, and that you describe yourself as "The Scienomics Team". Wikipedia policy is that an account is for an individual, may not be shared by multiple users, and must not represent a company or organisation. You should therefore edit from an individual account. You are free, if you like, to have a username that shows your connection to the company, such as "John at The Scienomics Team", but it should not be the name of the company, nor anything else that indicates that the account represents a group or organisation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Chirag Paswan

This page redirects to a film. Chirag Paswan has now joined politics and is a leader of a political party in India. He is contesting April 2014 parliamentary election of India. Please consider to remove protection and redirection so that the page can be developed. Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for prompt action on the request.Shyamsunder (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

great!

i nominated 1st time 1st page asif laghari page for CSD#g5 and you deleted it. I'm new one here. Can I've barnstar plz? Bordan man (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC) and kindly give me some project list where i can contribute Bordan man (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bordan man: No, but I have given you an indefinite block as a blatant sockpuppet. Why don't you stop wasting your time creating sockpuppet accounts that just get blocked, and repeatedly creating vanity pages that just get deleted? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Laghari

Re "removing an AfD template and putting in a CSD G5 tag instead": I had been wondering about the reason why he did that. Now I understand. Thanks . - DVdm (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Tricks like that are a pretty sure sign of an experienced sockpuppeteer who has a lot of experience of trying to get round the system. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)There is a long term abuser who does this.. I'll search the list. Flat Out let's discuss it

Review

Can you review [[4]] just looking for comments and eyes, not looking for specific action ATM. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ste. Genevieve Catholic Church

I think this article is previously created by some one else in vandalism see here look at user's talk page also here, huge number of proposed deletions. I have put warning on user talk page. Can you please respond that user ? Muetasif 63 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I have something to show you and let you know what I have found in 3-years being on Wikipedia. I know I don't have any more chance to be on Wikipedia, but this is last time I want to show you and my Intention is really not wrong this time. I am telling you myself, See my user page here please, do not block me this time. My aim is to be good editor in Wikipedia like you all are. Everything is clear to you now. I want to use only one account for editing, should I use this account or should I use my 1st account that is Princenel if any one unblock that account ? Thanks Muetasif 63 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC) James, I have read your bio on your user page and I am impressed !. You are one man army Muetasif 63 (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Angie Goff

The edits you deleted need to be restored so the article may be improved. 99.198.79.138 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If I were to deliberately restore edits when I have already shown that I know they infringe copyright, I would personally be legally liable. It's out of the question. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries.

Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries.[26] In the United States, when copyrighted material is enacted into the law, it enters the public domain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Government_works

The Gotti tapes were not private conversations, they were taken in Federal Prison, and they are fully aware that they are being recorded.

There is no copyright issues.

--GottiQuotes (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything showing that this falls in that category? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is an article showing the videos are made in Federal Prison, A United States Government institution.

http://nypost.com/2013/08/12/watch-mob-legend-john-gotti-didnt-want-grandson-to-be-baseball-player-because-you-must-take-steroids-in-1998/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GottiQuotes (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

and this also

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2026&dat=19991110&id=M70jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uNAFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1560,2361112 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GottiQuotes (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Those recordings aren't nec public domain though. If it was that simple the prosecution wouldn't have had to ask to get the recorded phone calls by Aaron Hernandez. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how hard it is to get them released, but once they are, they are now Public Domain.

These have been released, they are now Public Domain. --GottiQuotes (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no individual copyright opportunity when we're talking about prisoners in U.S. Federal custody filmed by federal authorities in the course of their duties, and the images/videos/sound bytes are in the public domain. Footage filmed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (a division of the Department Of Justice) cannot be copyrighted. Period. The copyright holder is the one who recorded the footage, and that would be all of us. Doc talk 11:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: There are two issues here: the copyright in the words that were spoken, and the copyright in the film and its associated audio track. I do not doubt that under US law the latter is public domain. There is no copyright in "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". Clearly the film or recording of the conversation is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties", but equally clearly the actual words of the conversation are not. Do you have any source confirming that people lose their copyright in their own words because they are "in U.S. Federal custody filmed by federal authorities in the course of their duties"? There may be such a provision in US law, but I have never seen anything in a reliable source saying so. If there is one, I should be very interested to see it.

@GottiQuotes: Do you have any reliable source to justify "I don't know how hard it is to get them released, but once they are, they are now Public Domain"? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright attorney, and I'm sure it's a complicated issue. The audio recordings were made by Federal authorities along with the video: if anyone could claim copyright over them I would assume it would be the party responsible for the recordings. The words are not copyrightable, but the recordings of those words certainly can be. If Gotti or his daughter had used a cellphone to record the audio and video, they would be the copyright holder. Since the Feds recorded the video and audio, I don't see how any other party can rightfully claim to hold the copyright. Of course, if I'm wrong it would hardly be the first time. Cheers :) Doc talk 01:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are the words not subject to copyright? Under the peculiar way that US copyright used to work until the 1980s, spoken words could not be subject to copyright separately from any record of those words, for various reasons, perhaps most importantly that copyright was closely bound to publication, which clearly applied only to a recorded form of the words, and also because spoken words could not be submitted for the registration process which was required. However, since the US went a considerable way towards bringing its copyright laws into line with the standards applied in most of the rest of the world, by such means as adopting the Berne Convention, copyright exists as soon as content is produced, irrespective of publication, and without having to be put through a process of registration. In most countries spoken words are treated no differently from written words for copyright purposes, and there is no obvious reason why they should be treated differently in the US, under the general framework of copyright law that is now in force. Having said that, US copyright law does still retain some of the old exemptions and restrictions that existed under the idiosyncratic form of copyright that it used to have, and it is possible that one of those peculiar US restrictions may be that spoken words are not subject to copyright. However, I have never, as far as I am aware, come across any statement that that is so (other than in this discussion), it would be out of line with copyright practices in most of the world, and there is no evident reason why it should be so, now that publication and registration are irrelevant to copyright in the US, as in most countries. I know very little about you, Doc, and you may well, for all I know, have good reasons to support what you say. However, in my experience a very large proportion of misunderstandings on Wikipedia about copyright come from Americans who, without actually having a detailed knowledge of what copyright law says, have general impressions as to the basic ideas of copyright which are based on the old US copyright concept, and are out of line with the current law. (To give just one example, time and again we get people thinking that things do not have copyright unless they have been put through a process called being "copyrighted".) Since your statements would certainly have been correct under the old US laws, but would constitute a special exception under the present law, and since I have not been able to find any source stating that such an exception exists, I wonder if you may be making that common mistake of basing your impressions on the old system. As I have already said, there may, for all I know, be such an exception, but for the reasons I have outlined, I would really want a reliable source indicating that there is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Location_map_quick etc.

I understand you want to follow petty rules about TfD, and ignore the core pillar "wp:Ignore all rules" which is intended to bypass petty rules and get Wikipedia running again, but the overall problem has been User:Plastikspork deleting several templates without consensus, or by some imagined consensus, where functionality does not apply in that view of consensus. I hope you realize, this day, a template should not be deleted when it provides functionality not available elsewhere, such as precise positioning of map-markers with any browser, including older versions of Internet Explorer, or Firefox or Opera, etc. But it does not matter to Plastikspork, who has deleted several templates which I have carefully developed for years, while I explained "Keep" but deleted anyway, some of them even without notifying me of the TfD discussions. Oh well. I really think there should be a term-limit for admins, such as at most 5 years, and encourage other admins to join, to share the workload, and let admins who cannot cooperate move into other areas, after the 5-year cutoff limit. Instead, Wikipedia's endless avalanche of thousands of new pages and new templates is pressuring admins to become more desperate to stem the flood of new pages. So, it is no wonder that better templates get deleted without thinking, and the whole website descends into worse performance with rampant errors, and even with some Bots run amok to insert thousands of errors, or edit-warring to uncorrect hand-fixed text. Bots fighting Bots or "Robots painting robots". The core of Wikipedia's encyclopedia should have been limited to avoid the "wp:Megatemplate crisis" of templates used in so many millions of pages that botched changes can get slipped into thousands of pages, but it takes 3-4 months for the megatemplates to be reverted and reformatted across all the millions of related pages, to undo the thousands which had generated errors. Smart people will be needed to solve these problems. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wikid77: I don't agree that what you call the "rules" are "petty". I think that we need some structure, or else Wikipedia would degenerate into chaos. How strictly to stick to that structure in any particular case is a matter for individual judgement, and in this case there was no evident reason for me to deviate from standard agreed practice. It s unreasonable to criticise my action on the basis of information which was not available to me at the time, such as the history of other interactions between Plastikspork and yourself, which you now tell me about. I wonder if you were tongue-in-cheek when you reprimanded me because you think that I "want to ... ignore ... Ignore all rules", or if you really failed to see the contradiction in your position. If you believe that Plastikspork is using his/her administrative tools disruptively, then you can take that up with him/her, and if you are unhappy with the outcome, then you can take it further. However, for one individual to decide that because he or she does not like what a particular administrator has been doing he or she will feel free to unilaterally revert actions of that administrator is not helpful. (And, for what it may be worth to you, I say that not because it is some sort of "rule", but because I see it as best for the encyclopaedia.) As for your other comments, not relating to this case, I'm afraid I really don't understand them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnnybob2744

Could you please block User:Johnnybob2744? He/she is obviously not here to positively contribute. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am reluctant to block an editor after only two warnings, one of them at level one, and no edits after the second warning. However, now that a warning of a possible block has been given, even one more vandalism edit will, in my opinion be enough, so feel welcome to come back here if you see another one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The user seems to have stopped. All good for now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Czechs protection request

Hi JamesBWatson. I want to request semi-protection for Czechs as User talk:Kohelet#February 2014, who has been blocked for racist edits on "Gang rape" article, is now removing Jews from the article about Czechs with sock puppets. Thanks--Der Golem (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. After my request here was somewhat vandalized, I turned to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers--Der Golem (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Custom templates discussion reply

I replied at User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Custom templates at the Yellow sandbox. No rush. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Willy (Character)

A short article without content, it gotta be kidding me.--Toмa646 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Дед Мороз1: OK, I have looked again, and the context can be worked out by following links, so as to find out what "Maya" is, so I have restored the article. However, I won't bet on its staying long in its present form, as there is no indication whatever of notability. I will also advise you that you might be better off contributing to Wikipedia in your native language, rather than to English Wikipedia, as your standard of English is not good enough to contribute to encyclopaedia articles. For example, "Maya's best friend, with whom it constantly" is not an English sentence, and doesn't mean anything in English. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This good joke :-D, but should not we make exactly this fun of each other, because we in Wikipedia. Thank restoring.--Toмa646 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no joke. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mark Tufo

You asked me what my personal relationship to Mark Tufo is. I do not have a "personal relationship" to him. I've read his books. He's one of the few that inspire me by his writing style. I also admire Joe McKinney and Thomas Harris. Both their WIKI pages are pretty concise and beautifully done. I saw Mark had his book picked up for a movie, went to the Wikipedia page to confirm that, and saw that there was some aggressive arguments tied to his entry. I then realized that the person that did the entry had written it more "essay" style and decided to enter facts and try my hand..btw, it's definitely not for the feint at heart.

Albeit a wonderful compliment, I am not personally related to Mark Tufo, nor am I, " a sleeper account" just because I've had wiki for 7 years. If you look ME up on google, you'll see I've been around -- and I'm female -- for many years. Thank you very much for your time.

www.thedevilshalo.com www.unsaintly.com (.net, etc) twitter - unsaintly

and so on, and so on, and so on...

12.228.121.141 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)unsaintly

You must be User:Unsaintly, since that is the only person I have asked about a personal relationship to Mark Tufo. If you do not have a personal connection to him, how do you come to be in possession of a photograph of him taken by his wife, and how do you come to have permission to publish it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Re; the picture...You're kidding right? As I stated on my Commons submission it was on the internet, free of license as I assumed. How does anyone get pictures of any celebrity? I'm confused.....http://www.independentauthornetwork.com/mark-tufo.html look, there it is again.

I think you're reaching. Google ME. I'm pretty real. In fact, why not join my twitter...under UNSAINTLY

Unsaintly (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Unsaintly

@Unsaintly: No, I'm not "kidding" at all. Wikipedia has a strict policy on copyright, and we don't accept work on the basis that someone "assumes" that its copyright has been released: we need evidence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have FOLLOWED the permissions and guidance on the commons page. You don't have to tell me about the rules because I had to click the radio box that said whether I was the owner, or found it on the internet. I also have a week to provide all necessary requirements. I have seen his photos on his webpages and Google. Which is where I retrieved it.

This isn't about that, though. This is about your accusation that I could have a personal connection to him.

Answer: No. No more than I have a personal connection to you.

Unsaintly (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Unsaintly

Accusation? Why on earth is that an accusation? Is having a personal connection to Mark Tufo wicked or disreputable? You appeared to imply that you had a personal connection to him, or at least to his family, and I asked for clarification, in order to establish your right to release copyright. There was no "accusation". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If I upload a picture onto Commons, it asks me my permissions. I never claimed to be the person to hold the copyright. I just knew, via reading his websites (the many that I did my research for the contribution I did) who took the picture. One of the options is, "I don't know I found it on the internet". And I am given a week to make sure this is all peachy.

Unsaintly (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Unsaintly

Hmm. I will not go into the commons copyright policy on uploads, but certainly English Wikipedia's copyright policy says "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others" (original emphasis). An image must not be included in a Wikipedia page until it is established that it has suitable copyright status: it is not good enough to say that you will provide evidence of licensing at some time in the future. Also, please don't create a new section on this talk page every time you post a new message on the same topic as an existing section, as doing so makes conversations difficult to follow, and please don't put several blank lines in your posts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearing my own talk page

Hi James! Just wanted to check with you on whether I am allowed to clear my own talk page? Thank you. EmilyREditor (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Normally, anything on your talk page that you have finished with, you can remove. There are a few exceptions, the commonest being that while you are blocked you should not remove information about the block, such as declined unblock requests, but I hope you won't be blocked again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ROLLBACK

Hey James. I am A.Minkowiski, fighting against vandalism from some days. Now I am looking for WP:ROLLBACK to fight vandalism, also requested @ Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback but didn't receive any approval yet. It would be better if you gand me such rights. I am quite familiar with ROLLBACK guidelines and usage. Best Regards: A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe Sugg - brother is not guilty

If two users use the same computer and one posts at 00:17 on 20 April, then the second posts at 00:19, I doubt that the two were unaware of each posting on the same page. Then the second posts at 00:20 and the first at 00:23 implying a fast game of musical chairs. [5] The second edited the article at 23:59 on 19 April, the first then edited at 00:02 on29 April -- meaning they switched keyboards four times in quick succession. I agree - this is not "my brother did it" at all. [6] Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You have a new message

Hi James, I got the message that you sent me on my talk page. I replied to it. Please write back as soon as possible; thank you. EmilyREditor (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleting my edits

Why you delete my edits in Wikipedia, i evasion blocks, but i no understand, why delete my constructive edits and protected article Zbečník stream. This is against common sense. Please answer me to this question. What you eith it herself you prove, taht you something better than iam.--Táhni do prdele (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If you learn that anything you do here is likely to be deleted, it is just possible that you will eventually get the message that evading blocks is not going to serve your purpose. Either make a reasonably intelligent and meaningful request for an unblock, or go away. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete good edits, its no good for for Wikipedia. I request unblock, but this request no acepted. I'm not vandal, I'm good user and I want do good edits, but when i blocked and others delete my good edits it me extremely provoke to hard personal attacks because it stupid idea. I go to Wikipedia, do good edits next me blocked and delete my edits, and I hate they for it.--Okurka v prdeli (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Closure of MfD

I think your made a rush decision. MfD normally runs for 7 days and you closed the MfD in question after only 4 days. For fairness sake, may I ask what criteria you used to base your decision on? You claimed that "There is unanimous support for deletion except for the author of the page", which is a oxymoron. As long as I the author oppose to the deletion, you can't claim "there is unanimous support for deletion". Even the author of a fringe article shouldn't be discriminated against. Why not let the discussion run the full course otherwise you may appear to have some ulterior motive. You also accused me of "continually plays IDHT", please elaborate your claim with evidence. I consider myself much more of a contributor than an editor and I haven't edited any topic articles other than my own for at least a month now. I fail to see how I could possibly have committed disruptive editing. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

1. I didn't make a rushed decision: I gave the matter very careful thought before coming to a conclusion.
2. I didn't say that there was "unanimous support for deletion": I said that there was " unanimous support for deletion except for the author of the page". Did you somehow overlook the word "except"?
3. Your editing is disruptive in many ways, most notably your persistent refusal to drop the stick on an issue where it has long become clear that consensus is against you. I seriously considered blocking you, and that option is still open if you persist.
4. I have far better things to do with my time than explain how you keep up IDHT "with evidence". The evidence has been presented to you before, and you didn't hear it: I see no reason to think that this time your behaviour would suddenly be different.
5. Yes, an MfD usually runs for a week, but there are exceptions. This one was a waste of time, and it was more constructive to put it to an end. See Wikipedia:Snowball clause.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You are the accuser and you failed to back up your accusation with evidence. You also failed to follow the normal procedure without enough justification. I have no other choice but to take you to the deletion review. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course you have another choice. You could drop the stick and move on to do some constructive editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Dream on. What would you expect people to do when you keep forcing them into defending themselves, deleting their articles or reverting their edits, hindering them at every move and threatening them with blocks and bans? Of course I am not accusing you of doing all these things. Just a hypothetical question. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello, I had written before and I can't seem to find your response. I placed the following page with lots of references and facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Rajagopalan

Can you please reconsider restoring the entry as it does not promote with unsubstantiated material. In addition, I could point out at least 10 physician entries that have much less in the way of references and facts and are still there.

Davidlgreene1969 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC) David Greene

You can see your previous message and my reply to it in an archive of old talk page content at User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 58#Requesting Re-Review of Dr. Raj's page. As for the 10 poor quality articles you mention, please let me know what they are, so I can consider whether to nominate them for deletion. Among the four and a half million articles on English Wikipedia, there are, unfortunately, thousands that are unsuitable, and it is only when someone notices one and flags it up that any action can be taken. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian American

Hi,

I saw you were the one who protected Russian American. I saw a certain user added people without discussion or agreement, could you please revert it? I can't revert for whatever reason.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FixTheErrorNow (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

-i gave links for Pamela Anderson, bloomberg and this other women have it stated they have ancestry from russia--Crossswords (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the people involved, and have no idea whether they should be included. I protected the article to stop disruptive edit warring, but I have no intention of taking sides in content disputes about the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Shard

Hi there,

I created a page for submission a while back in August with information on the viewing platforms at the top of The Shard. I would love to resubmit the article, but would like some feedback on why the submission was deleted so i can make relevant amends?

"16:09, 27 March 2014 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The View from The Shard (G13: Abandoned AfC submission)"

Many thanks, Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewswilson87 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Andy. I have restored the page, so that you can see for yourself what was said about the reason for declining the submission, and so that you can edit it to address the issue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of Page for My DNA Fragrance

Hello JBW,

My SEO person thought he was doing me a favor to do some editing to the wiki page, which has been there since 2008 with no issues. I would like to request the restoration of the deleted page for My DNA Fragrance and have it restored to the original content that has been there since the page was original accepted and approved in 2008. The page has not had any issues since then and My DNA Fragrance is a notable product that is eco-friendly and has garnered global media attention since its creation in 2007.

Please note that I cannot remember the login info for my original account JadeIce, and I do not have the same email address from that time. However, I would like instructions from you regarding what is necessary on my part to have the page restored as there are literally hundreds of links in google that go back to this page since 2007 and we would like to make sure that those links do not remain dead and expire.

Any follow up from you is greatly appreciated.

Jade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeice1000 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the article was created on 18 May 2010, not 2008. The name of the account which created it was Jaydeice. By "with no issues" I assume that you mean that nobody objected to any aspect of it. However, that is not true: the very first edit made by anyone other than you had the edit summary "tone down wording", and consisted of reducing the amount of promotional language in the article. Apart from edits either by editors clearly working on behalf of the business, edits made by bots (i.e. computer programs doing routine maintenance tasks), and utterly trivial edits (such as replacing "My DNA Fragrance Official Website" by "My DNA Fragrance official website", adding a tag saying that the article had not been categorised, marking links as dead, etc) every single edit to the article consisted of removal of some of the promotional content that you or others working for the company had posted. Such edits were made by Slightsmile, Fetchcomms, and Ubiquity.

My guess is that your reason for mentioning the survival of the article "with no issues" is an assumption that an article which has gone unchallenged for a long time must be all right, as everyone who has seen it has accepted it. However, that is not necessarily true. While unacceptable content in an article on a prominent topic is likely to be seen by many thousands of people per day, including large numbers of active Wikipedia editors, an article on a more obscure topic may be seen by very few people, fewer still of whom are Wikipedia editors, and fewer still are Wikipedia editors who are likely to pick up policy violations such as use of Wikipedia for promotion, so problems can go undetected for a long time. I have known absolutely blatant vandalism on a little-viewed article to remain in place for years before being noticed and removed. For example, in the last 30 days the article Adolf Hitler has been viewed 659,182 times, and United States 1,169,961 times, while a sample of 10 months over the lifetime of the article you are concerned about suggests that it has been viewed on average about 7 times per day. Before April 2014, there had been a total of eight edits that were not either by the account that created the article or by bots. Seven of those eight edits made utterly trivial changes, as described above. The one other edit was the one I have already mentioned, reducing (but by no means eliminating) the promotional language. All that is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that the article had been left as it was because it was largely unnoticed, rather than because a lot of people approved it.

However, all that is of limited relevance, because the issue is whether the article was consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not how and why it escaped for so long. The editor Ubiquity studied the article and decided that it was an unambiguous advertisement, and nominated it for speedy deletion. As a Wikipedia administrator, I assessed the nomination, and concurred with Ubiquity's view. The article has been full of such marketing gobbledygook as "enjoying leading the field in this customization mega-trend, giving the consumer one-of-a-kind exclusively crafted items", and so on and so on. There is no way that any impartial observer could see the article as anything other than a blatant attempt to abuse Wikipedia by using it as a free advertising service. That is against Wikipedia policy, and any such article is liable to speedy deletion. You should consider yourself lucky that you got away with free advertising for four years before it was noticed. There is certainly no case for restoring it.

You ask "what is necessary on [your] part to have the page restored". I'm afraid that the answer to that is that you should not have any part in trying to get an article about your business in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest strongly discourages editing in connection with a business you have a connection to, and you should certainly not be creating an article on this subject. Indeed, the totally promotional character of the article you did create is an excellent illustration of one of the reasons for that policy. Wikipedia is not a medium for businesses to publish information about themselves: that is what the company's own web site is for. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi James,

Thank you for a very concise explanation. I understand that Wiki is a neutral environment. My DNA Fragrance has significant international media attention and qualifies for inclusion in the Wiki. Will take all you said into consideration now. Thank you for your time.

Jade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeice1000 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Fetald

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

Seen. Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fresh eyes please

Could you have a look at this sequence please.

• |I blocked User:IRoNGRoN after happening upon an insulting attack he made on another editor.

• This insulting post was then made to my talk page by IP:220.236.1.216 but was signed IRoNGRoN.

• Shortly after that, the IP made edits to the Lockheed A-12 article where he was involved in a dispute.

Perhaps I am damned if I do or damned if I don't in this situation, so could you take a look please. Moriori (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Moriori: Totally unacceptable. I have blocked both the account and the IP address for a week, and reverted the IP edits to the article. I will be willing to consider further action if the editor continues in a similar way. Please feel welcome to contact me again if necessary, though I will be less available than usual for the next few days. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, personally if I had been in your position I would have just removed the post to your talk page without comment, on the principle of not feeding the troll. However, that is obviously a matter for personal judgement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Moriori: ...and now there has been more block evasion from another IP address geolocating not far from the first one. I have increased the block length again, and given a warning that the next one will be indef. However, as a kindness to the editor, I have semi-protected the article for the duration of the block. If it isn't obvious why that is a kindness to the editor, it's because it reduces the likelihood that he/she will evade the block again and get the indef block. It is to be hoped that he/she will have the sense to get the message, and either request an unblock or stop editing until the block expires. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Auto block finder

The tools are up, and should remain up, but can still intermittently fail.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo-grammarian

Hi,

Re that/which: I make changes so that the sentences concerned have their intended meaning. It's mostly for my benefit, because it annoys me to read incorrect usages. I'm cynical enough not to expect the general public to be able to understand the distinction between the words, but it's surprising to me how many mathematicians haven't grasped this either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.213.132 (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

...and what is this supposed "distinction between the words"? And on what basis do you think that the supposed distinction reflects actual English usage? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can I direct you to google something along the lines of 'difference between that and which'?

I have done that, since you suggest doing so, and I found exactly what I expected. Much of it was prescriptive grammar, using the concept of "correct" usage, with no attempt whatever to show that the supposed distinction reflects real English usage. There were also people giving examples such as "The books, which have red covers, are new" versus "The books that have red covers are new", which misses the point, because exactly the same distinction exists between "The books, which have red covers, are new" and "The books which have red covers are new". Everything I saw, in fact, conformed exactly to the impressions I have formed over the years, namely that this supposed distinction is a totally artificial one, not actually reflecting what English speaking people say and what they understand to be the meaning. Can you actually provide any justification whatever for claiming that the supposed distinction actually exists in current English usage? If not, then it is a pseudo-grammatical rule, as artificial as the nonsense about not using "split infinitives" and not putting prepositions anywhere other than before a noun or noun equivalent. Merely pointing to a way that I can find loads of people prescribing the distinction (which is all that your suggested Google search achieved), without providing any justification for their doing so, achieves nothing useful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Instances where misuse of 'which' cause a genuine risk of ambiguity are rare. I'll try and find a good example.

Here is an example of a sentence that I underlined when I first read it because I wasn't sure of its meaning. It is on page xiii of Blackburn, de Rijke and Venema's Modal Logic: In this framework, modal formulas are viewed as algebraic terms which have a natural algebraic semantics in terms of boolean algebras with operators.... It was not clear to me whether 'algebraic terms' all have natural algebraic semantics in terms of boolean algebras with operators or not.

Your contention seems to be that there should be no doubt about the meaning because 'which' is always used to mean 'that' and ', which' is always used to mean ', which'. I don't agree that people are always reliable with their use of commas, nor with their pauses when they are speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.213.132 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes, that is a genuinely ambiguous sentence, and an interesting one at that. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.
2. No, I wasn't suggesting that people are always reliable with their use of commas: I was just suggesting that in the example quoted, the disambiguation is sufficiently achieved by the use of commas, irrespective of what relative pronoun is used, so that citing it as an example is misleading.
3. The example you quote is, as I said, genuinely ambiguous. However, it would not be ambiguous if we could be sure that it were written by someone competent at punctuation. If, on the other hand, the writer is capable of writing "Modal formulas are viewed as algebraic terms which have a natural algebraic semantic" when meaning "Modal formulas are viewed as algebraic terms, which have a natural algebraic semantic" then can we be confident that he or she is not capable of writing "Modal formulas are viewed as algebraic terms, that have a natural algebraic semantic" to mean what you would require to be written as "... algebraic terms, which have ..."? There are certainly people who are capable of that, and even people who are capable of doing the same but without the comma. It therefore seems to me that (a) if I am confident that I am reading something written by someone with the level of clarity about such issues that you evidently have, then whether that person makes the distinction that you insist on or not is irrelevant, as he or she will disambiguate in other ways, such as appropriate punctuation, while (b) if I am not confident that the writer has such clarity, then self-evidently I cannot rely on his or her use of "that" and "which" to disambiguate his or her meaning; thus in neither case does his or her making that distinction help to disambiguate. Conceivably there may be a middle ground of people who consistently follow the distinction you require in use of relatives but are careless or incompetent in their use of punctuation, but even if there is, I cannot rely on the assumption that I am dealing with such a person. Indeed, you have explicitly acknowledged that in citing the example you give: if you really thought that the that/which distinction were a rule of how English is used, then you would have found no ambiguity in the sentence that you cited, as the word "which" would be unambiguous. You found the sentence ambiguous only because you know full well that in fact there is no such rule in real English: it is a fake rule that you and various other people wish were a rule of English. I take the view that it is futile to try to impose a grammatical rule which does not correspond to the reality of how a language is used, no matter how good a logical case there may for holding the view that it would be better if we did all follow that rule. I myself make considerable use of grammatical distinctions which are lacking in the present day speech of almost all native speakers of English: for example, I make fairly frequent use of the subjunctive. However, using it myself is a different matter from trying to impose it, by changing what others have written.
4. Having said all that, I do now see that you had some reason for what you were doing, rather than just doing it because of some arbitrary rule of thumb you had been taught or had read somewhere, which is nearly always the reason for some editor suddenly appearing and making strings of changes to one grammatical point. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Irongron

WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IRoNGRoN_indef_block_-_more_eyes_requested

It's quite possible I'm not seeing the whole story here, but I see this rate of escalation to an indef as quite wasteful of someone who looked like a useful editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Corkythehornetfan

A few of this blocked user's image uploads were tagged with CSD#G5 deletion tags due to the user being a sock puppet and banned/blocked. I'm not really sure how those should be handled, but I've declines all of the speedies because the images are within policy and there are currently no replacements on Wikipedia. I don't think those articles should be stripped of their content simply because a user was blocked. Do you have any guidance on this? Or thoughts? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: There is no clear answer in this sort of situation. I tend towards the view that letting a blocked editor find that he or she can keep creating sockpuppets, and having them blocked, but it doesn't matter because their edits stay anyway, encourages them to keep socking, whereas letting them find that doing so is a waste of their time, because whatever they do with sockpuppets gets reverted or deleted, encourages them to stop doing so. For that reason, I usually delete in this situation. However, I can see that there is a case for the view that useful images are still useful even though uploaded in violation of a block, so I will not criticise you if you take a different view from me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I guess I could go through and upload exact copies of the files and delete the SP's revisions. At least his name would disappear and we would keep the same images. Would that work enough to show that it is a waste of time, or would the images being there at all be counter productive in the battle against SPs? TLSuda (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologizing to everyone?

Hi again, James! I'm sorry to bother you, but I did have a question. I'm trying to find a way of apologizing to everyone involved in this discussion for my immature and inappropriate behavior (without spamming). I was thinking of emailing them, or leaving them messages on their talk pages, but I'm not sure if that would seem too spammy. I just wanted to show them that I have matured and turned myself around. Maybe my actions will show that, though (they speak louder than words)? But let me know what you think. Thank you. EmilyREditor (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

My thinking is as follows, "Emily". Obviously the affair will see a big issue to you, as it affected you to great extent. However, all of the editors who took part in the discussion have made thousands of edits on Wikipedia, most of them tens of thousands, and after nine months they will have pretty well forgotten what to them was one small incident concerning one of the hundreds of Wikipedia editors they have had dealings with. It's up to you, but my advice is to drop the matter: put your past problems behind you, and concentrate on the good editing you can do from now on. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Yes, the avoidance of bringing it back to the table is the best advice to me, so I will definitely have to use it as I find a better way to help out. Thanks again. EmilyREditor (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

About my earlier comment

Although I'd appreciate if you withdrew/struck the part where you said that I've "brought up an ad hominem argument that has no bearing" on the ANI complaint, if you still maintain that it was ad hominem after seeing my reply here, can you please quote the portions of my earlier comment that I should strike out accordingly? Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that your comment was made in good faith, but I think it was mistaken, as the earlier problems with the editor's contributions have no bearing on the issue currently under discussion. Bringing up past problems involving the same person, but not related to the issue at hand, is an ad hominem argument. I don't see any need to withdraw or strike out any part of what I wrote. As for your striking out any part of what you have written, that is entirely up to you: there is nothing that I wish to request that you strike out. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi James, I object the article Iceberg B31 to be deleted. THanks Ashish Lohorung (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You are perfectly free to contest deletion by proposed deletion, but if you do it may still be deleted at WP:AfD. You may like to edit it to give an indication of size that means something to people who have no experience of Atlanta, i.e the overwhelming majority of the world's population. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

About Wesley Witherspoon

Hi JamesB. It appears Mr Witherspoon, formerly of the University of Memphis Tigers has been picked up by Philippine Basketball Association team Air21 Express.

Would it be OK with you if I undeleted the article without going through the bureaucratic processes? The article didn't have an explanation of the subject's significance (real person), admittedly. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Yes, of course. The deletion was because there was no explanation of the subject's significance, and if you can provide evidence of significance, then there is no problem at all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps You Can Help

I am trying to create a note that is also a reference for an article. I am trying to put this reference link along with the words "Ratings - Nielsen's in TV and Arbitron's in radio - help determine how much advertisers are charged to run commercials during TV programs and radio listening hours. The higher the rating, the more people there are watching and listening. That translates into a higher price for a commercial spot." I am trying to explain what references are in an article (which I hope to take to FAC) without going off-topic (and outside the scope of the article) in one of the sentences.

I have seen this done in other articles, but for the life of me I can't find any of them. Can you help? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid at the moment I can't think of anything helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Regarding your notification of the topic ban, please back up your following accusations with facts. "You have continued to repeatedly re-create versions of a page which you know full well has more than once been discussed at deletion discussions and deleted. You have also edited disruptively in other places in connection with the page." - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You know the facts full well. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless you list the facts you consider relevant and justify your accusations I would consider your decision unwarranted and take further actions. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Synsepalum2013: OK, I don't think there is any likelihood whatever that explaining to you what you have done will enable you to understand any better, but I will do so for much the same reason as GDallimore had in mind when, on another page, he wrote "I'm going to give you some detailed links here so that "justice can be seen to have been done". I will not comment further since it is demonstrably a waste of time to engage with you." However, I am also warning you that I regard your pestering me to specify things which you already know as yet another piece of disruptive editing, and it may well be one more step on the road to an eventual indefinite block. I honestly don't know to what extent your "I didn't hear that" is deliberate trolling and to what extent it is genuine inability to understand, but either way it impedes your ability to fit into the collaborative structure of Wikipedia, and if you won't or can't overcome the problem then you will never be able to function here effectively.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull closed as "delete" on 18 January 2014, as you know, since you took part in the discussion. Instead of accepting that consensus was that the article was unsuitable, you have been carrying on a relentless campaign to try to overturn that consensus. The exact history of your disruptive editing is somewhat obscured by the fact that in some cases pages were moved and subsequently deleted, with the result that edits are recorded under different page titles than those under which they were made, but the following account gives the essential facts. You have repeatedly created pages essentially the same in content as the article which was deleted as a result of the "articles for deletion" discussion, both by creating new pages de novo and (at least once) by converting as redirect into an article. You have requested a move of an "articles for creation" page you wrote to article space, to replace a redirect, even though the "articles for creation" submission had already been declined, and when (unsurprisingly) your move request was declined by an administrator, instead of accepting the fact, you reverted the administrator's decline. Subsequently, another administrator protected the page to prevent you from continuing the same kind of disruptive editing, giving a protection log entry which said "Someone is very determined to have a separate article. AfD says no." When one of your attempts to overturn the original AfD discussion was under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull, there was a clear consensus for deletion, with every single participant in the discussion other than you agreeing, but instead of accepting that consensus was against you, you kept wasting everybody's time posting totally unconstructive messages, repeatedly asking about things that had already been explained to you, appearing to fail to see what was said to you whenever it didn't fit in with what you wanted to hear (see WP:IDHT), and denying facts which were plain for all to see. At one point you wrote "What policy? Please specify and discuss in detail", and an administrator replied "The same policy that caused it to be deleted before. This has already been explained to you", to which your ridiculous response was "You don't know. You are beating about the bush." It was in this discussion that another editor wrote the comment which I quoted above, including the statement "it is demonstrably a waste of time to engage with you." You have also persistently posted to user talk pages about this, in some cases, as in some of your posts to my talk page, coming across as belligerent, and sometimes making noises which give the impression of being intended as threats. Dennis Brown is, in my experience, of all the administrators active on English Wikipedia, one of the most willing to be accommodating to editors who do not fully understand how Wikipedia functions, but he, in a fairly long discussion with you on his talk page, wrote "I get the feeling you are about to head into a world of hurt. ... I'm not sure what to tell you on this, other than I recommend dropping the subject altogether." I really really can't give you any better advice than that: the way you are going is nothing but a waste of time for you and everybody else involved, and if you go on the same way probably sooner rather than later someone is going to decide that you have wasted enough of our time, and block you indefinitely. You are not going to get your article on "voice to skull", and you would be better off accepting the fact. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, your argument is full of opinions and interpretations and few scientific facts. Maybe you can learn how to present simple facts as they are from this example. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Revealingly, "being full of opinions and interpretations and few scientific facts" is exactly the reason people give for why the article you have written keeps on getting deleted. This does not entitle you to respond with the same argument to a comment which consists of nothing but an accurate, clear, non-opinionated editing history followed by a single opinion that, based on that history, you are in serious trouble.

Personally, I'm just hanging around to see how long it takes for you to start accusing Wikipedia of being under the control of government conspirators, although suggesting someone looks like they have an ulterior motive is getting close...GDallimore (Talk) 08:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

For review

Can you review my article? And is this article appropriate for publication ? link :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Veron_%28Software%29 Nip123 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I normally answer posts on this talk page here, to prevent conversations from becoming fragmented, on this occasion I think it will be more helpful for a record of what you have been told to be on your talk page, so I will answer there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you are evading blocks on at least two other accounts, this account will be blocked too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

CobolScript

You PRODded this article back in September 2013; I subsequently deleted. Just to let you know that I have now restored the article following a request (of sorts) at my talk page. Regards, GiantSnowman 22:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of LarryBoy

The article LarryBoy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

redir to List of VeggieTales characters#Larry the Cucumber, per the 2008 AfD. There is no other meaning for this term. This is not a disambig.

Any worthwhile content for this character belongs at one article, and under one name. That name is Larry the Cucumber.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Review unblock?

Hello !James. I've just unblocked Marveloils (talk · contribs) - the first time I've unblocked a user. The blocking policy says "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." I assumed that the user's comments in discussion over the unblock request counted as such 'significant changes' but I thought I might check - do you agree? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Olaf. Wow! First unblock? I've unblocked hundreds of editors. (In fact, I think one of the best things I do on Wikipedia is giving second chances to editors who might otherwise not get them. I really believe in WP:ROPE.) My own view in a case like this is that the editor has indicated that he/she will not repeat the kind of editing which led to the block, and so there has been a significant "change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking". Nevertheless, different admins have very different ideas about how much consultation is required, so in general it's not a bad idea to take the line "if in doubt, consult". However, in this case, I see that the blocking admin has not edited for ten days, so consulting is not so easy. All things considered, I think what you did was fine. I might have unblocked my self if it weren't for the fact that my watchlist is ineffective due to having thousands of pages on it that I can't bear to remove "just in case", so I didn't see the latest message from the blocked editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've never happened to thinking of going to the list of unblock requests before, hence no unblocks. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Synsepalum2013/sandbox/Voice to skull

I think you don't have a valid reason to delete a page on my user space without citing any policy/guideline violation. Please justify your action. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

For christ's sake, I did cite a policy/guideline violation: re-creation of content deleted as result of deletion discussions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And what policy/guideline does that come from? Besides the key fact is that you deleted a page on my user space. I would think that as a user I am entitled to keeping a copy of my deleted article on my own space. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Try WP:G4 WP:WEBHOST WP:STALEDRAFT. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. For clarification purposes, please cite specific entries in the policies that you think apply to this case. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

James, I think you can safely just ignore him on this one... GDallimore (Talk) 22:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Your original MFD closure was correct, as was this one. SmartSE (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: since we haven't been able to reach an agreement, would you mind if I place an RFC tag on this discussion? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You've had plenty of comments. It would clearly be a waste of time and inappropriate use of RFC. Indeed, consensus is so clearly against you that, should you open an RFC, I would be perfectly entitled to simply close it immediately and then report you to WP:ANI for harrassment, timewasting and disruption. And before you ask, here's the relevant bit of policy at WP:RFC: "Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RFC/Us is an abuse of the dispute resolution process." If you don't recognise that as an accurate description of your behaviour, well, that's your opinion and you would be able to lodge your own complaint against me at ANI. GDallimore (Talk) 23:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth Synsepalum2013, I think it's highly likely that if you seek to open up yet more discussion about this an admin will interpret it as a violation of your topic ban and decide to block you. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Synsepalum2013: Yes, I would mind. Either you are deliberately trolling, or else you have some quite exceptional inability to understand what has been said to you over and over, by innumerable editors, including several administrators, on various pages, and I am sick of wasting time on your crap. Consensus is utterly, totally, and unambiguously against your persistent attempts to use Wikipedia to publish a page about your beloved topic. Either accept that fact and drop the matter NOW or expect to be indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia, without further warning. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of LarryBoy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LarryBoy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LarryBoy (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Sorry about the above boilerplate warning. You had redirected the article, but later users recreated it. Safiel (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Safiel: That's OK, it had the effect of alerting me to the problem, so that I was able to deal with it. I would have deleted, redirected, and protected the article long ago if I had known it had been re-created. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsalt request

Hi there, Jeremy McGovern made his debut in the AFL yesterday,(ref) so can you please unsalt the article. It was one of the plague of single line stubs of untried players that were created and salted a few years ago. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Your holiness. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another Sayan Basu sock

I've just blocked User:JamesDWatson as a probable sock of Sayan Basu based on gut feeling and the user name :-). I'm at work so I don't have the time until tonight to check out what damage he has done or even if I was right. Feel free to unblock if you think I got it wrong. Nthep (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thanks for letting me know. I have checked the account's editing history, and there is no room for doubt at all: it is a totally blatant sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are a wonderful person, thank you for making Wikipedia a better place!

Lizziet123 (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

History merges

I saw your comments regarding history merges on Anne Delong's RfA.

If you could wave a magic wand and change the software so that the effect of a history merge as seen by non-administrators was preserved while magically making it easy to see what you need to see to track suspected problem editors/sockpuppet(eer)s, what would that "magic code change" look like? Can you think of a way to do this that the Wikimedia coders would be willing and able to implement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have often thought that something like that would be helpful. However, I really can't offer any suggestion as to how to implement it. Probably it would be necessary to have some idea of how the existing code works in order to be able to have a reasonable idea of what might be realistically possible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Would a user script that gave an "expanded page history" be useful?

Here's a mock-up of what I have in mind, based on the move and deletion logs of Elevation (emotion) and any pages moved to that location (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elevation (emotion)):

• (cur | prev) 15:17, 27 April 2014‎ Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,969 bytes) (-302)‎ . . (rv histmerge junk) (rollback: 2 edits | undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 04:41, 27 April 2014‎ Davidwr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,235 bytes) (-629)‎ . . (→‎External links: remove afc stuff) (undo)

• DELETION LOG 15:16, 27 April 2014 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) restored page Elevation (emotion) (18 revisions restored: histmerge)
• DELETION LOG 15:16, 27 April 2014 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page Elevation (emotion) (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
• (cur | prev) 04:41, 27 April 2014‎ Davidwr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,235 bytes) (-629)‎ . . (→‎External links: remove afc stuff) (undo)

• ....
• (cur | prev) 02:01, 22 April 2014‎ Roserc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,271 bytes) (+607)‎ . . (undo | thank)

• DELETION LOG 15:16, 27 April 2014 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) restored page Elevation (emotion) (18 revisions restored: histmerge)
• MOVE LOG 15:16, 27 April 2014 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elevation (emotion) to Elevation (emotion) (histmerge) (revert)
• DELETION LOG 15:16, 27 April 2014 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) restored page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elevation (emotion) (56 revisions restored)
• DELETION LOG 15:15, 27 April 2014 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elevation (emotion) (lose 2 late edits after c&p away)
• (cur | prev) 02:01, 22 April 2014‎ Roserc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,271 bytes) (+607)‎ . . (undo | thank) In Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elevation (emotion) (hist) (logs) (expanded history)
• ....

If the information exists in administrator-viewable locations, an administrator running such a tool would have a "more intelligent" view, one that only showed the deletion actions if that action affected the edit in question, and it would show edits that remain deleted or which have since been moved to other pages. For example, an administrator-privileged script would not show the deletion log entries for the "02:01, 22 April 2014‎ Roserc" entry above because it (the script) would be able to figure out that those entries in the deletion log did not affect this edit. Well, at least I would hope they could. If not, the deletion logging needs to be beefed up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)