User talk:JBW/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Krishnaballesh sockpuppetry

Hi! A while ago you blocked Krishnaballesh as a sockpuppeteer. Is it possible that that was done without an SPI? Because I can't find one; but maybe that's because I didn't look well enough. Anyway, I wanted to add Shehnaiartists to it, more of the same old same old. Regards, and a general "thank you" for all that you do. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Sockpuppets don't always requires SPIs. The main purpose of a sockpuppet investigation is for an editor who is not an administrator who suspects sockpuppetry to ask for an administrator to investigate. If the editor who suspects sockpuppetry is an administrator, they can go investigate it immediately, without creating a SPI to ask for an investigation. An SPI can also be started by an admin who wants a [[WP:|CheckUser]] to look at the case, but if the case is clear cut and there is no need for a CheckUser, then the sockpuppets can just be blocked, without an SPI.

The account Shehnaiartists looks as though it may be a sockpuppet, but I really don't think there is enough evidence. The editor created an article on the same subject as Krishnaballesh and Krishnaballesh's sockpuppets, but the article didn't look very similar. For the moment, I think it's just a question of watching the new account and seeing if anything more emerges. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation, I wasn't sure. The article is gone, anyway. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For what you've done on the Mau Mau page. I'm glad to see that Wikipedians are fighting vandalism today. O Great Britannia (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@O Great Britannia: Errm, what have I done, on what Mau Mau page? None my last 3000 edits were on any page with the word "Mau" in its title. Was it something I did years ago? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You blocked that sock puppet who was vandalizing the Mau Mau page yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O Great Britannia (talk • contribs) 23:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@O Great Britannia: Yes, of course: I forgot that. Nice to know that someone appreciates my efforts. The only time I ever actually edited that article was on 4 November 2010, and it seemed unlikely you meant that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

95.161.227.254 edit warring

Hello, it seems IP 95.161.227.254 is busy with disruptive editing again. Please check if the user should be barred from editing. Abdullais4u (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user Ibsiadkgneoeb back as SeatF22

JamesBWatson, I'm not sure what the rules are regarding blocked users who are blocked because of a problematic username, but Ibsiadkgneoeb, who you blocked on June 10, returned on June 16 as SeatF22. It's clearly the same user: the same bus article edits with inadequate sourcing, the same "copy edit" edit summaries for these, etc. I only noticed him now because he's returned to articles now on my watchlist that were problematic before on notability grounds, and remain problematic now. Thanks for giving this your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for pointing this out to me. The editor was actually blocked by Yunshui, and my name appears in the edit log only because I mistakenly unblocked the editor, and then reblocked to correct the mistake. However, I have thought carefully about the matter, and decided to block the new account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

More disruption by that dude that impersonated you a couple of weeks back

Looks like User:Knowledgekid87 is at it again. He's back to using sockpuppets to harass BjeliRabac and edit war on the Survivor template. Godfuckingdamnit, I hate that guy. 111.10.28.11 (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

To me, this IP seems to be causing "disruption". Pretty known that Knowledgekid87 has been never blocked for sock puppetry or any other thing, so I removed his messages because they made no sense and they were nothing but attack on other user. This IP tried to impersonate some admin on AIV.[1] I had provided explanation on my first revert, I added "no rationale". Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just saw, blocked already. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone:Yes, after I reverted here, I looked at the IP editing history, and I see what you mean. I have blocked the IP address, as you have seen. It might have made it a bit easier for me to see what was going on if you had given just a few more words of explanation, though. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes no worries. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why I am being targeted here, The IP can accuse me of socking all they want but I clearly have nothing to hide. I raised the possibility of a community ban for User:L'Aquotique here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:L'Aquotique community ban as it all appears to be connected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: @OccultZone: @Darkness Shines: Since you obviously don't have any justice for User:BjeliRabac, who was blocked for is pov, I have taken things into my own hands. For now though, it's clear that no one wants to listen to me or him, so I'll be on my way. You can ban anyone you wish, but justice will be served sooner or later, whether you like it or not. You will find that you were wrong. Completely wrong. Bye-bye :D 117.169.1.80 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No idea why you pinged me other than you are a a knob, so fuck off. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe WP:DENY applies here, from the looks of it User:BjeliRabac was given plenty of chances and warnings that he/she should have heeded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User: 64.4.93.100

Hello James, I very much regret to state that the above user is again up to their tricks, following their recent block. There is a wholesale deletion of "quotes" today without any attempt to transfer any or some of them to Wikiquote. This IP user has already said that they have no intention of any transfer and have not given any adequate reasons for such wholesale deletions, which I and others regard as deliberate vandalism. I fear, that as before, this is going to take a long time to put right, unless a vastly extended block is introduced. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

James, Please see additional comments at, my old friend, admin. Dennis Brown's Talk page. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't delete Boraj Tanwaran article because boraj tanwaran is a historical village of salumbar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boraj Tanwaran (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Samotny Wędrowiec

You had unblocked Samotny Wędrowiec so that he can make constructive edits, but he seems to be edit warring,[2], [3], [4], [5]. When he found that he is getting reverted, he would submit attack post and then canvass a number of established users.[6][7](you can see more through his contribution history) His post started with "Polish community on the English Wikipedia is extremely ignorant, nationalist, unprofessional..." and ended with "This Polish Wiki mafia needs to go down and admins need to stop looking the other way or giving generic answers to anyone who notices that something is out of place here."

Block or another warning, it will be your decision. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Guys, can you please actually look into this and the history behind the whole ordeal? Please don't assume too much about any of this. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So that attack post can be justified? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not my place to decide, but I haven't yet seen anyone make an effort to understand the reason behind it and investigate the history of the whole East vs Central thing regarding Poland on Wikipedia. This is much larger than my recent post on there, yet by simply focusing on me and trying to represent me as some kind of villain you are sweeping the wider issue under the carpet and allowing other users to abuse the rules of Wikipedia. I doubt you're doing it intentionally, as I obviously haven't made a positive impression. From now I can stay away from Poland and Talk:Poland if it prevents further edit warring and other commotion, but please look into the wider conflict that took place if you want to reach the bottom of this. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds better. No one is saying that you should not edit Poland' articles, but you should just try to welcome edits of others, if they comply with the guidelines. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but the problem is that (at least from my point of view) they are breaking guidelines and a select few individuals have been simply reverting all of my edits, usually without explanation and for seemingly no other reason than them not being able to accept the fact that not everyone thinks Poland is in Central Europe. Whenever I've reverted their reversions and provoked some kind of explanation, they just label me a vandal because that is the easiest thing to do. I've been trying to break that balance and show a more neutral point of view (such as Geography of Poland#Eastern or Central Europe? - written completely by me, or the extensive yet fruitless discussion that took place much earlier at Talk:Poland#Central/Eastern edit war), and I know for a fact that some people aren't happy with this.

A number of Polish Wikipedians - not all of them, but a considerable group of my countrymen - see Wikipedia as an outlet for promoting Poland as a very progressive country of great importance. Eastern Europe is a term that they find derogatory, when it shouldn't be so as the Eastern Bloc is long gone and we should not let history divide us. And it is not in our place to change how people view Poland, and most view it as an Eastern European country. Wikipedia should show both sides of the argument instead of putting one in a spotlight, especially so when it's marginal. Although that attack post of mine was indeed written during an outburst of frustration and can easily be interpreted as a simple attack on a group of people due to the language that was used, the post itself does highlight factual issues that I still stand by. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 208.54.4.231 (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:104.7.21.84

Hi... I notice that you recently blocked IP editor 104.7.21.84 (talk · contribs). Just letting you know that the anonymous editor is persisting with similar behaviour. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jeffro77: If you want IP blocked again, check WP:AIV, you can report there. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Trevor Graham

In view of the recent 'hijinks' on the Trevor Graham page and your protection of it, you may be interested in Trevor G Graham, created by The Trevor Graham (talk · contribs). FYI, --220 of ^Borg 20:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I took care of it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thanks, but they came back and re-created the page as Trevor G, Graham. :-\ I'd watch out for T. Graham, T. G. Graham, TG Graham etc etc.--220 of ^Borg 01:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that and deleted it as well. He's been given a final warning against creating any additional articles under alternative spellings.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Yep, and I got Trevor G. Graham and User:The Trevor Graham/sandbox. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So they came back again. (I suppose to be an Olympic level athlete you have to be er... stubborn?) I tried to determine what the middle "G." stood for (to search for possibly related pages like T. 'George' Graham), but couldn't find it online.
Thanks all for your Administrative-ness. --220 of ^Borg 20:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Message to Bdshahab, if he or she ever comes back here.

If you have not already done so, I suggest that you read my comments at User talk:5.223.184.21. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I had to mention your name at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Neutralhomersimpson. It has to do with the Angie Goff article. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A Very Strong Probable Sock of an editor you permanently banned in April 2014 User:IRoNGRoN

Mr. Watson, I am sorry to bother you with this matter but you have had previous involvement with the editor Irongron and he seems to be at it again. He very strongly appears to be another new editor that is showing the same uncivil behavior and disrespect for other editors and and admins. His new sock has already been temporarily banned and threatened to be permanently banned for his behavior and disruptive editing. Here is the case I spent a couple of hours putting together:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:220.236.1.216 17&18 APR 2014 IP research:OPTUSNET.COM.AU Result: Blocked for this vulgar entry as Irongron http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moriori&oldid=604546136#irongron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.110.69.113 18 APR 2014 IP research:OPTUSNET.COM.AU Accussed James B. Watson's of malicious editing for revert of his previous sock and was subsequently reverted by James B. Watson who then protected the page because of Irongron's persistent block evasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_A-12&direction=prev&oldid=604708499

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.108.147.54 19&20 Apr 2014 IP research:OPTUSNET.COM.AU Performed 3 edits that were reverted for being a sock of User talk:IRoNGRoN and IP hopped again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Insolent-fuka 19 APR-6 May 2014 Result: Blocked after 2 A-12 edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.73.60.98 4 May 2014 IP research:OPTUSNET.COM.AU http://www.iplocationtools.com/114.73.60.98.html 1 Edit @ Gary Gabelich Probable IP Hopping Sock based on same subjects and IP is same location and provider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/&offset=&limit=250&target=178.216.122.254 Probable IP Sock of Irongron based on editing the same articles, immediate deletion of warnings from editors (same thing Irongron did) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:178.216.122.254&oldid=613332466, Restoring a deleted post of claiming to be from AUS and using the same hammer and sickle as Irongron to sign his post as "Soviet" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Putin_khuilo!&oldid=613332282 IP research:Ukraine http://www.reputationauthority.org/lookup.php?ip=178.216.122.254&d=rdsnet.ro

This all leads to demonstrate that User talk:Иронгрон a probable sock of Irongron. Warned here and he immediately blanked his talk page as Irongron did: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D0%98%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD&oldid=613333653 Again he claims he is from AU here and now living in the Ukraine which also explains the above Ukraine IP "I'm from Australia and I have been living here for the last few months. ☭Soviet☭ 20:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)" He signs this claim as ☭Soviet☭ very similar to ☭Irongron☭ and not as his user name here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Putin_khuilo!&oldid=613331287

User talk:Иронгрон is editing the same articles as Irongron and his documented socks, shows up right after other Irongron socks are discovered/blocked, claims to be from Australia as was Irongron but now living in the Ukraine. A Check User would determine if the IP being used is Ukranian and if the same or similar to the above. The above editor exhibits the same uncivil behavior and misuse of editing as ☭Irongron☭ after being properly warned and temporarily blocked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D0%98%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD&oldid=613579988

Additional Information: It is possible that User talk:ИДИОТ ХУЕВИЧ ПОМОЙКИН was also a sock ofUser:IRoNGRoN based on his asking for you to be banned here as an act of revenge: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=613666289#JamesBWatson Also his knowledge of the Russian and slavic languages is the same as ☭Irongron☭User:IRoNGRoN and ☭Soviet☭ User talk:Иронгрон.

I can post this to others who have had crossings with above editor if your time does not permit you to consider this matter. Thank You for your consideration. 208.54.35.169 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at some of this. Иронгрон is clearly a blatant sockpuppet, and I have blocked the account. I shall try to find time to look in more detail at the other aspects within the next day or two, if I can. Unfortunately, if my understanding is correct, the IRoNGRoN account became stale for checkuser purposes a few hours ago, but it may be worth asking a checkuser to look at Иронгрон and the IP addresses, to see if there are any other sockpuppets. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Иронгрон is Irongron written in the Cyrillic alphabet... Thomas.W ^talk 12:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I spent a great deal of time and effort putting together the case. I was hoping all my effort was not in vain. I had no idea about the cyrillic translation. That seems to be the smoking gun here. It as if they like the cat and mouse game of getting caught. 208.54.35.169 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now received two emails from this editor. The first one requested that I delete both user pages, which I have done, and also said that he/she "thought the ban expired on the 4th of June". I don't understand that, as I can't see any block or ban relating to this editor that was due to expire on that date. Maybe one or other of his/her IP addresses, or some sockpuppet account that I don't know about, was blocked until then. However, if IRoNGRoN ever reads this, he or she can see at Special:Contributions/IRoNGRoN that he or she is blocked indefinitely. There is a link on that account's talk page to instructions on how to request an unblock, and unless and until the account is unblocked, he/she does not have permission to edit any Wikipedia page at all, whether from any account or without logging in. The second email denied being ИДИОТ ХУЕВИЧ ПОМОЙКИН. Well, all that I can say about that account is that it was a single-purpose account made for the sole purpose of attacking me, that it was made by someone with a knowledge of Russian, and that it was almost certainly made by an editor whom I had blocked. Whether it was the same person who used the IRoNGRoN and Иронгрон accounts, I don't know, and don't particularly care either. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not buy their argument that they thought it was ok to start a new sock account. They will likely do it again. Please keep their contributions and talk pages so when they appear again in the future their will be some evidence to go off of. I hope their email was civil which their previous communications sorely lacked. I was not sure about that SPA either but it sure seems to fit the pattern. Thanks again for your diligence and time. 208.54.35.169 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Watson, Could I please trouble you with placing this conversation on the two banned accounts as an automatic filter keeps restricting me from doing so when it comes to anything with another time stamp and signature already in the conversation (not even my own signature???). Probably designed to stop impersonators. I put as much as I could into the Irongron talk page. The purpose is for historical purposes and possible future socks so it will be easier to track and investigate. Thanks again. 208.54.35.169 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is an ongoing sock investigation concerning above matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IRoNGRoN#Comments_by_other_users The IP curses out editor on talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:208.54.35.169&oldid=618153623 8.24.100.129 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have closed that Sockpuppet investigation, and blocked the IP address. I have also semi-protected articles the IP edited. I will be willing to block any more IP addresses that this editor uses from now on. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggest using WP:DENY reversions at Talk:Richard Helms rather than semi-protection of an article talk page. Blocking, for weeks, all new and anonymous users from discussing a subject seems to me to be too much collateral damage. VQuakr (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously there is always a balance to be considered, and I never protect any page without a thorough review of edits to the page, usually over a period much longer than that for which I am considering protection. On this page there have been no other edits by new or unregistered editors for eight months, and, in view of the clear determination of this editor to continue, expressed not only on Wikipedia but also in trolling emails, I think the very remote risk that this will just happen to be the first time in eight months for a legitimate new user to want to edit the page is outweighed by the advantage of conveying the message to this editor. That appears even more so now than it did when I placed the block, in the light of what he said in his latest email to me, in which he jeers and boasts about what he perceives as a failure to close up all his disruptive editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Planet Earth Institute

Hi. I would like to try publishing a new, less promotional page for this UK charity. There are new links to it from each of the trustees (all of whom have their own Wikipedia pages) and feel there is an absence for it that needs filling. As you are the administrator I have contacted you following the instructions on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AUnreviewed-preload&editintro=Template%3AUnreviewed-editintro&summary=&nosummary=&prefix=&minor=&title=Planet+Earth+Institute&create=Create+a+new+article+directly — Preceding ~~Timaldiss~~ comment added by Timaldiss (talk • contribs) 07:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

74.135.53.96

Good morning, JBW -- Sorry to bother you again, but the above IP is back at it, adding the same unsourced crap to Jeff Smith (chef). I've made another attempt to communicate with him/her -- not that I think it will do any good, since s/he's never responded to any outreach from anyone. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I've reblocked the IP.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I (and other frustrated editors) greatly appreciate it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @DoctorJoeE: I would have done the same, but when your message arrived I was out of time and had to go offline. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No problem; sorry my timing was bad. I still wonder if this person is a deliberate vandal or just exceptionally clueless. Neither seems particularly plausible. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Just wanted to bring this one to your attention [8]. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to your message

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigman (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Probable disruptive sock of the banned User:Januarythe18th

Sorry to bother you, JBW, but a new user has suddenly appeared and started to make major changes to the article Brahma Kumaris and Dada Lekhraj. Those [9] are in general very similar to the ones previously made by the user User:Januarythe18th. His claims [10] on the talk page are also very similar. It seems obvious that he is a sock for the number of similar words, expressions, claims, and disruptive, religious prejudicial type of editing. Any help would be much appreciated. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@GreyWinterOwl: At a quick glance it looks as though you may be right, but I don't have time to check properly at the moment. At present I have no internet access at home, so I won't get a chance to look into it before tomorrow, or possibly even the day after. However, thanks for calling my attention to it, and I will get onto it as soon as I can. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@GreyWinterOwl: My internet access has now been restored, and I have looked at the editing history. I have found a few edits which possibly suggest the two accounts are the same person, but nowhere near enough evidence to justify any action. I can also see definite differences between the two editors, but that means very little, as there is reason to believe that Januarythe18th may in the past have faked differences between two accounts that he or she used, to avoid the impression of sockpuppetry. Can you give me some specific edits that look suspicious, beyond just a general feeling of similarity? The fact that both editors have a similar critical view of the editing of the same article is not enough, as there may be many people who share similar views about the religion. You refer to similar words and expressions; can you show me a few examples of the different accounts using strikingly similar wording? (You may like to do so by email, to avoid warning the editor what give-away signs to avoid in the future.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Can I send the evidence by email in wiki format, so that I can include diffs? Thanks. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@GreyWinterOwl: Yes, that's fine. Even if you send wiki markup that doesn't work in the email, I can easily copy it, paste it into a sandbox, and click the "preview" button, so that I can read the wiki format without actually posting it to any Wikipedia page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at the evidence you gave in your email, and I have given you my conclusions on your talk page. My comments are here, in the section headed "Possible sockpuppet". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Response

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyWinterOwl (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible Young Living Sock Puppet

Can you please help me? I believe that User:Tpmeli is a sock puppet for the company Young_Living. I believe he is Thomas Meli, a Young Living distributor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6pA7lluDbc). I cannot undo (rollback) his edits due to edits which have occurred since then. What should I do?Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Christopher -

I AM a young living distributor and I corrected numerous factually incorrect data - please see the talk page on the Young Living wiki page for details on how much was completely erroneous about that page.

I invite you to please look carefully at what was changed and the talk page between greyfell and I. What exactly you basing the conclusion that I am a "sock puppet" for the company on? That I am a distributor?

Would you rather have a page full of incorrect information or the page than someone who is actually involved with the company and knows about them edit them?

I know now COI is a big problem here. But perhaps we should be training people to get beyond their own biases instead of going crazy because someone involved in a company is making edits. If people who actually know what is going on are discouraged from making edits, then ACTUALLY incorrect data and information will continue to proliferate on these pages - which in my eyes is OUT of integrity with Wiki's intentions.

i am used to living in a world where the experts write the encyclopedia entries... and me being more familiar with the company and the model than people who are not YL distributors did not realize what a sin it would be to attempt to clarify what I myself have expertise in.

In the future I know to be more transparent about my involvement with YL or MLM before I make an edit, but in the future perhaps other people should likewise not make the error of claiming I am a "sock puppet" because I work with them.

There is obviously a balance to seek here, and I'd rather aim towards that then both hyperparanoia about COI or blanket dismissal of it. It is obviously important, but lets seek a middle ground. Tpmeli (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli

Judith Silverthorne

The subject article was PRODed by yourself - it has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD in the light of this result.

Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Fammazali

Hi James,

About 3 weeks ago you blocked Fammazali (talk · contribs) for repeatedly uploading copyrighted images without proper permissions. Well, he's still at it, not only uploading the same images again, but also clear copyvios from wwe.com. He does include a link to the websites where he found the images, but his tags are incorrect, claiming the images as his own work. Plus the images are being used where a free image can be used. I orphaned the images and tagged them for speedy deletion, but, sadly, I don't think Fammazali understands, despite the efforts to tell him, that he cannot just grab images of the Internet to upload. oknazevad (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Fammazali does not seem to understand. It may be a case of the remarkably common confusion between plagiarism, which is avoided by citing your source, and copyright infrignement, where citing your source makes no difference (except for calling attention to the infringement). I have blocked the account indefinitely, but tried to explain to the editor that he/she can be unblocked if he/she can show an understanding of what the problem is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

For your consideration

Following the one-week block on Rizky Iconia (talk · contribs) with a more than sufficient explanation on the reason behind it, it seems that the editor has persisted in edits of the same nature after the expired block.[11][12] There is no language barrier as the editor clearly understands English as evidenced by this edit. You might wish to have a further word with him considering he ignores valid advice and warnings from multiple editors despite his other good contributions. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@LRD NO: It is very difficult to deal with editors of this kind, who largely edit constructively, but persist with a few of their own ideas against consensus, and never respond to messages. Blocking for a long time is an unattractive prospect, as a largely constructive editor will be lost, but if the editor never takes any notice whatever of talk page messages, and is not deterred by a short block, then there does not seem to be any other way of getting the editor to take notice. The one-week block was made in the hope that it would encourage the editor to respond, since talk page messages had failed to get any response. A week was rather a long time for a first block on a largely constructive editor, but I chose that length because he/she frequently has gaps of several days in his/her editing, so anything less might not have even been noticed. Also, in the block message I tried to encourage the editor to request an unblock, so that the block would end up being for much less than a week. I have blocked the account again, for a month, and again mentioned the possibility of an unblock. I hope that this time there will be a response, but who knows? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from and thought the initial block along with your explanation was fair, hence the request for you to follow up on the case. Fingers crossed the editor will respond positively after this. cheers. LRD NO (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Do you need an answer from me? I don't know what to say. It all seems like a distraction from the main issue which is the quality of that article and that due to the lack of attention it has been turned into an advert. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RE Brahma Kumaris and ANI report

Hi James, I was having concerns about a new editor and when I posted the ANI template on their talkpage I saw that you have already been looking into this. I thought it best to let you know about this. Hopefully it's not just a duplication of matters you've already investigated. Sorry, I haven't had a chance to read your thoughts on the matter. Regards Danh108 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jon Toral

Hi. The page for Jon Toral (a footballer) is protected from creation because it was created and deleted a number of times before he was notable, the most recent deletion being one of yours. Toral has passed the usual threshhold for notability today in that he made his professional debut as a player, so could you possibly unprotect it? There's a guy who's commented on the article's talk page saying that he's written an article to paste in, as have I, so between us we can probably get something reasonable together. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Want to link to the supposed draft? I think James (or anyone) would want to see it first the panda ₯’ 23:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am the "guy who's commented on the article's talk page", my proposed article is at User:Beatpoet/sandbox. Beatpoet (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you please un-SALT Jon Toral... see the article Talk page :) Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see there was an existing conversation about this. Could you please move Beatpoet's sandbox to this article. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Clicriffhard: @Beatpoet: @JMHamo: I have moved the draft from User:Beatpoet/sandbox to Jon Toral. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hi, I come to you as you were the blocking admin of Rizky Iconia (talk · contribs). He continued on inserting shirts/kits with on team article with logos (not allowed by law) and despite being blocked several times he kept on doing same thing so he is know serving 1 month block. Today I came across Rizky Shaimoery (talk · contribs) doing the exact same edits inserting kits with logos and account only exist since 28 August and seems very much like a sock. Thought I should bring it to you for appropriate handling of the case. QED237 (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking a look at all contributions not all of them are incorrect but some edits are inserting not allowed logos. QED237 (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Protections of NASCAR articles

I assume this was due to the "WikiContributor" accounts? If so, User:Wiki.Contributor110 is one that's not yet blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

James Rutka tag question

Hey James! An editor who was being paid to do so recently asked about removing the tags at James Rutka. Since you last removed information, nothing on the page appears to be non-neutral. I think it is purely factual and it is material that I would expect in a biography article. What's your opinion? Do you think the tags can be removed? It might also be good to keep an eye on the page, if it's not still on your watchlist, since the company or person in question is hiring people to edit the article. Ryan Vesey 00:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Ryan Vesey: I think those 2 sections should be sourced, James Rutka#Education and Training and James Rutka#Research and Clinical Interests, there will be no issues. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ryan Vesey: Hi, Ryan. I agree that nothing in the article is non-neutral, so a tag saying "... preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral ..." is inappropriate. However, there is still a lack of independent, third party, sources, which is a distinct disadvantage in any article. I will replace the "third-party" tag with a "primary sources" tag, which asks for third-party sources, but doesn't have the stuff about not being neutral. I would guess that there must be independent sources which could be added, in which case there will be no problem with removing the tag altogether. (For what it's worth, personally I don't like the wording of the "third-party" tag, and I would never use it on any article. It confuses together two quite different issues: reliance on primary sources, and non-neutrality. Obviously, the two problems often occur together, but they are not the same, which this tag seems to me to imply.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Why deletion of Bigboy Airlines from the USS bennington?

Why deletion of Bigboy Airlines from the USS Bennington? You make it difficult to post. If this persists, then good riddance. If you care to explain please do it in a manner that allows for an individual to do so, explain or defend, personally. Hiding deletions behind e-mails and in text messages is easy. Really a cop-out. Doing it in person or on the phone is more of a fair approach. Care to reach me please?

Juan Lopez-Bonilla E-5, US Navy 1966-1975 USS Bennington CVS-20 502-635-5711 Louisville, KY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.166.58 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia user page is for an editor who is actively engaged in work on building the encyclopaedia to provide some information about himself or herself in connection with work on the encyclopaedia. It is not a sort of free web space to host web pages unrelated to such work. I thought I had made that clear in the message I wrote on the talk page of the editor in question (you?); if not, I apologise. If the reason for deletion is still not clear enough, please let me know what is still unclear about it, and I will very happily try to explain. Any communication about editing of Wikipedia should be conducted openly, within sight of the whole Wikipedia community, unless there are reasons why issues being discussed need to be kept confidential, in which case emails may be appropriate. For several reasons, I don't think it would be advisable to start using telephone conversations as a means of conducting Wikipedia business; indeed, I very few Wikipedia administrators would be willing to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, there are some...

Moved from the section about "Bigboy Airlines"

@Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: are you willing to surprise JamesBWatson with regard to this point? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Demiurge1000, I was only saying that I would be surprised if the new, anonymous, editor found any, not that I would be surprised if a long-established experienced editor such as you could find one. After I wrote the message, and before I clicked on "Save", I thought "there are actually bound to be some", but I also thought "my basic point is valid, even if the exact way I said it is open to question, and it really isn't worth spending more time on thinking out exactly how to express this", so I left it as it was. Of course I should have known that someone would come along and pick me up on it, so that I would actually finish up spending far more time on it than if I had changed it in the first place. Anyway, I think as far as the new editor is concerned, leaving this discussion in place will be more likely to confuse the issue than to help, so I am moving it to its own section, and just to please you I am also rephrasing what I wrote above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I was in fact thinking of contact with very new editors, not necessarily of the more obvious examples like Arbcom or the WMF, who may have all sorts of methods of contact. It surprised me greatly at the time, but different admins do things different ways. And why not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

74.135.53.96 (talk · contribs)

Hello, JBW -- The above IP -- the guy/gal who makes dozens of mystifying edits without explanation or response to inquiries & warnings, currently under longterm block -- is at it again, using his 98.28.115.67 (talk · contribs) sock. Regards, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I have blocked 98.28.115.67 again. It seems that in the past the same editor has probably also used at least one other IP address, namely 98.30.67.79, so if that one suddenly comes back into use now, I will be willing to block that one too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello James, you deleted one page with information that I need to recover for personal purposes. I totally understand why you deleted, but I need you help to recover the information over there (User:Anothercountry/concerts). Because I am not a Admin, I don't have access to deleted pages, so I wonder how you can help me? do you want an email to send the information? Looking forward for your help. Thank you (Anothercountry (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC))

Actually, I didn't delete the page, I just started a discussion on whether it should be deleted. It was actually deleted by JohnCD: you may like to ask him about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Rewritig an article about Santam

Hi JamesBWatson,

I noticed your reviews of the Santam page and would like to ask you for a favour. I want to create a short article about this company, because I belive that it's notable enough to have its own wiki page. Santam was mentioned in dozens of independent articles published in major african bisness editions, including af.reuters.com (see User:Alexandra_Goncharik/sandbox#The_list_of_references_for_Santam).

If you don't mind me rewritig the old article in compliance with the rules, please copy the deleted text from the last version of the page to my sandbox here: User:Alexandra_Goncharik/sandbox#The old article about Santam. —Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 15:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWatson, could you please write a short comment on this matter: you have not sent me a copy of the deleted article about Santam, because you don't feel it needs to be included in the Wikipedia with my list of references or for any other reason. I hope to hear from you soon. —Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 09:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Alexandra Goncharik: My apologies for not responding to your previous post about this. When I saw it, I was short of time, and left it to deal with later, and then forgot about it. I would have restored the last incarnation of the deleted article (not earlier versions, which contained copyright infrignements) and moved it to your userspace. However, the article has now been re-created, and since there doesn't seem to be anything significant in the deleted version that is not also in the new article, so there doesn't seem to be much point in restoring it now. I have corrected a couple of grammatical mistakes in the new article. Apart from that, the most important thing needing to be done to the article, in my opinion, is checking the reference citations, and moving them to appropriate parts of the article, rather than all in a list at the end. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank you very much for your prompt reply with all these explanations. I have looked through the article and fully agree with you that inline citations must be added. I will add relevant links in this text as soon as possible. I hope to clean the page up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards within a few days. I will let you know when it is ready and would appreciate if you have a look at my final version. —Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 09:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sajo10

About a year ago, you blocked Sajo10 (talk · contribs) for repeated, inappropriate article creations, warning them that if at any time in the future it comes to my attention that you have returned to disruptive editing again, I will consider imposing an immediate block for much longer than a few months. They've done exactly that, creating unsourced articles on Mićo Kuzmanović and Edin Šehić, both of which also fail the relevant notability guidelines. In light of this, I think making good on your warning is called for. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: Thanks for drawing my attention to this: I had long ago stopped watching this editor's edits. You may see my response on Sajo10's talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Block Bonusballs

You Ready to Block User:Bonusballs right--My Little Minecraft (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Review Sunil Kanoria

Hi, JamesbWatson. You deleted the page Sunil Kanoria per G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The article was about Sunil Kanoria, one of India's leading business leader whose biography is of interest for media, management students, and public at large. I am not aware who created it in past and about the content of the same but I feel it needs to be included in the wikipedia. I am trying to create an article on him but I am due to repeated creation and deletion of the article. I will appreciate your help in sorting out the matter. Joysworld2014 (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a number of ideas which may be helpful to you. At present, I don't have time to think them out and set them down properly, but I will try to find time to come back to it soon. However, before I say anything at all about it, I would be grateful if you would tell me where you got the text you have used in the article you have created. There are several striking similarities to the text of earlier articles on the subject, the last of which was deleted in February 2013. The similarities are so close that the articles are unambiguously from the same origin. If you hadn't said that you are "not aware who created it in past", I would assume that you are either the same person or someone working with them, but in view of that statement you can't be. It therefore seems that you must have copied the content from somewhere, which raises the possibility of copyright infringement. I have searched on the internet, and cannot find the content, so you have probably copied it from somewhere offline. It is essential to know where you got the content, because if it infringes copyright then it cannot be accepted, and must be deleted. (Incidentally, the editors who created the previous versions of the same article clearly had a conflict of interest.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi James, Many thanks for your quick revert. I found a user page in wikipedia with the name Sunil Kanoria which I am sure must be a poor attempt by someone to create an article on Sunil Kanoria. Some of the content are definitely inspired by the User page content but as you rightly pointed out, there might be copyright issues which I need to address to adhere to the Wikipedia standards. But I dont have too many information on his personal life other than the content on the user page. The current page on Sunil kanoria is merely my attempt to create and look forward to the informative contributions from other users. I would be happy to work with you to start afresh an article on Sunil Kanoria (without modifying the uppercase of the surname)as I feel it may be useful for users to learn about a successful businessman who is currently known more because of his position as Vice President of ASSOCHAM than his position in any company. Joysworld2014 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The writing of the article seems reasonably OK to me, but it is not clear that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Almost all of the references are merely pages that list his directorship, one barely mentions Sunil Kanoria in passing, one is a brief announcement of a business appointment. The only one which gives substantial coverage about him is a page on a website which clearly exists to promote the reputations of businessmen of a particular ethnic background. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Asif Ali Laghari

Yes, the sockmaster Princeneil (talk · contribs) is back (apparently, AGF) as Maxiz7 (talk · contribs) and creating the 'same' page, now titled Asif Leghari instead of Laghari. Just FYI!--220 of ^Borg 13:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Medusa

User Paul August is saying that poet Ovid doesn't state rape about Medusa[13][14] but the source link[15], on Page 30 states

• "Poseidon also raped Medusa", "He raped her there as Athena turned her eyes away".

Page 89 stays

• "Both were children of Poseidon, engendered when the god had lond ago raped Medusa"

Page 344 stays

• "Poseidon's rape of"

There a few different versions to her story, but Ovid is very well stating rape [16][17]. User Paul August was told this back in May 2014‎, but now he's changed his mind.68.75.20.100 (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see where Paul August was told this in May, but I have posted a message to his talk page emphasising the need to follow reliable sources, and citing several sources that do explicitly refer to rape. Please feel welcome to contact me again if this does not clear up the disagreement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of promotional user page about Michelle Reid

The page exited before the edit so why was the whole page deleted and not just the edited information?

I have seen Authors pages in here and their still there? I am not understanding why the page was completely deleted..

Is there some kind of amount of books you have to sell to be listed?

The messaged seemed a little rude and unkind.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle Reid~Hawley (talk • contribs) 10:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Michelle Reid~Hawley: I am sincerely sorry, Michelle, that my message to you came over as "rude and unkind". I actually put some time and effort into trying to write a reasonably friendly message, when it would have been much easier to have just posted a standard ready-made templated message. Evidently I failed.

I am not sure what I can add to what I have already told you about the reason for the deletion. Use of a Wikipedia-user page to host a personal page unrelated to work on the encyclopaedia is unacceptable, and posting promotional material anywhere on Wikipedia is unacceptable. Either one of those would have been sufficient reason for deletion, and the two together were abundant reason. Both of those apply to any page about anyone, no matter how many books they have published or whatever else they may have done: if Barack Obama created a Wikipedia account and used it only to post a self-promotional page then it would be deleted. Also, the page had promotional content (including an attempt to attract readers to your web site) from the start, not just from the edit you made with your present account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Akın Altay

I don't agree with your speedy of this article...I had already declined an A7 and G11 the day before. In my opinion the article indicates significance of the subject through who he interviewed and the statement that he has received awards in Turkey, and to me the article does not sound unambiguously promotional. Would you be willing to overturn this deletion? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: You are probably right about the claim of significance, and it was a mistake on my part to cite that as a reason for deletion. However, if you sincerely don't see the article as promotional then you must have a very different idea as to what constitutes promotion than I have. Nevertheless, I have restored the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieve INPAQ

Dear JamesBwatson,The article INPAQ is simpliy introduction for its corporation business in Taiwan. Meanwhile, article is with news column to support its related information for reference. If this article could not exist, would you help how to understand why "Murata" can exist in Wikipedia. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hboatwiki (talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeff blocked user appears to have returned

James, I'm not sure how I missed this before now, but User:Ibsiadkgneoeb, who you blocked due to a clear name violation, and soon thereafter reappeared as User:SeatF22, who you gave a block evasion to, appears to have returned as User:Asbeto4 (contributions).

Once again, he only edited London Bus articles, and continued a campaign to restore non-notable bus articles... but only on September 6. (He restored 34 of them, and I have to check them all to be sure they remain non-notable before reverting to redirect.) Still, it remains a block evasion, and he's never been willing to appeal his block by you after he was caught in a lie in a prior block appeal. I'm hoping you'll block his latest sockpuppet as well—for that matter, you suspected the name-violation account was a sock. Thanks for your assistance. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, while I suspect User:Delboy18 is also this same editor, there's only the one edit to go by from back in August. Still, one edit only makes it look like a WP:DUCK to me. Incidentally, I've completed all the reversions to redirect. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I took the liberty of adding the same sockpuppet notice that you added to the other user pages to the Abetos4 page. I hope that was okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Perfectly okay. I was going to do it myself, but I ran out of time and had to go offline. I was also in the middle of fully protecting the articles edited by the sockpuppets when I went offline: I will do some more of them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Hi there, as a recent editor of the page in question, you may wish to contribute to the discussions: ==Merge discussion for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority ==

An article that you have been involved in editing, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority , 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. prat (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC) prat (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Pratyeka: Informing substantial recent contributors to an article of a discussion is reasonable, but it is not clear that informing everyone who once made a trivial edit many months ago is useful. I once made a small edit to the article, well over a year ago, making the description "a recent editor of the page in question" questionable. I see that several other people you have informed also edited the article substantially over a year ago. I also see that you have not informed several much more recent editors, including three of the last ten editors to edit the article (not counting yourself and a bot). I have not examined the edits of the various editors concerned, so I don't know whether there is any common factor distinguishing the editors you have informed from those you haven't, but you should be aware that selectively informing some editors and not others could run the risk of looking like canvassing. Combine this with the fact that the discussion in question is an attempt by you to re-open a question which you raised before, which was discussed, with every single editor in the discussion apart from yourself being opposed to the merge proposal. Also, both of your merge proposals are effectively further attempts to get the article removed after two separate deletion discussions were both closed as "keep", making this rather like forum shopping, although you did not start the deletion discussions. You may like to think carefully about how clear it needs to be made to you that consensus is in favour of keeping the article before you decide to drop the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Pratyeka, going off of what James said, there is no reason to ever canvass editors who have made one edit to the page. Oftentimes, many of us do not care what the article is about if we've made one edit. Other than the edit I performed today reverting your merge template, the only other edit I performed on that page was when I replaced a link with AutoWikiBrowser. That hardly is the edit pattern of someone who cares enough to participate in a merge discussion and appears to be blatant canvassing on your part. Furthermore, not notifying any of the recent contributors is in bad taste and your continued use of trying to remove the article in question will probably get you blocked if you do it again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case I just took the first two pages of the history of both pages in question, and contacted the editors. I don't think time is that relevant. I think this approach is reasonable. Rather than threatening me with ridiculous policy interpretations, perhaps you would like to enlighten yourself as to the fact that merger proposal process does actually encourage going and contacting people ... something I spent significant time and effort to do to enhance the chance of getting an open discussion with multiple points of view. As for reverting my proposal, I would like you to explain your reasoning as to why you feel you have the right to single-handedly make such changes? In this case I believe perhaps you midjudged the previous mergeer proposal as equivalent, in which case I understand fully. Please continue discussion on the talk page.. prat (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between notifying everyone, and notifying persons who have made meaningful contributions to the page. I changed one link, and was notified of a discussion on a page I couldn't care less about. Meanwhile, others who made recent changes were ignored. The policy does encourage notifying people, but you also don't need to identify everyone. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the Texas Rangers vandal

My only concern is that you may not have reverted back far enough. I reverted one particular edit, but the guy had been editing long before that. Someone may need to cross-check the records on the page with the Rangers' actual records in the seasons he touched. If you look into the page history, he probably had over a hundred edits there---how he wasn't caught beforehand is beyond me. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple of queries

Hi James, there were a couple of things that I didn't understand with some of the assessments made about the current happenings on the Brahma Kumaris article. I see you've had a good look and looks to me like you would find your way around Wiki in your sleep no trouble, but do have any time to clarify a couple of things? (I see some admins are just so busy.....and it's only getting more demanding....). Cheers Danh108 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

ok

i understood thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya pujari sagar (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Rizky Iconia

I'm a bit confused by the length of his block. His original ban for disruptive editing was for a period of one month[18]. He was then found abusing multiple accounts, for which he was apparently blocked indefinitely.[19] but his current status is block-free. Some clarification would be nice. Thank you. LRD 00:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@LRD NO: I told the editor on the talk page of his/her sockpuppet account (User talk:Rizky Shaimoery) that he/she would be blocked indefinitely, and placed notices saying so on both user pages, but then forgot to actually put the indef block in place. Thanks for pointing this out, so that I have been able to correct my mistake. However, I am disappointed that the editor has not requested an unblock by now, as they had the potential to be a useful contributor, is only they would be willing to accept consensus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Further to this, I believe Germany2014 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Rizky Iconia based on their editing behaviour... I will file an SPI shortly, maybe a CU would be worthwhile. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@JMHamo: @LRD NO: Germany2014 is a totally obvious sockpuppet account, and I have blocked the account. No SPI is needed for such a WP:DUCK case. There may be a case for a CheckUser in case of sleepers, but the SPI queue is currently severely backlogged, with 70 cases waiting for attention, including one that was filed about five weeks ago and is waiting for a CheckUser report, so it may not be worth doing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I had a look at SPI queue and what a queue it is... I will keep an eye out for further Rizky Iconia socks. Cheers! JMHamo (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the persistent sock and nature of edits that the editor has no intention to accept consensus. If someone is so stubborn as to create multiple alternate accounts to evade wikipedia policy, an indef block is more than validated in this case. It's rather ridiculous that he doesn't realise that those edits are so easily sussed out. LRD 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for looking into my matters. Its really nice to have a third opinion on things, it has helped me deal the annoyance I felt in the situation. All your hard work is not unappreciated. Mrjulesd (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop Islamization of America‎

Thanks for your cleaning up, but did you really mean to leave it in it's current state? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: It took me a while to figure out what was going on: I removed the speedy deletion tag, but another copy of the speedy deletion notice kept showing up where none was to be found in the source text of the article, which was also the case in dozens of other articles. Eventually I realised it was because the articles all transcluded Template:Islamophobia, which contained a copy of the speedy deletion tag. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

wow, I have no idea what transcluded means - I suppose I've been here long enough to actually know by now. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically, Roxy, if a page is "transcluded", it means that another page has a link to it, which has the result that the page where the link is shows a complete copy of the transcluded page. This is useful where the same content is to be shown on a number of different pages: instead of having loads of different copies of the same content, and having to try to make sure that every copy is updated when necessary, we have just one copy, and when that one copy is edited, the changes automatically appear on all the different pages where it is transcluded. For example, if you look at the article Quran desecration, part way down the right hand side you will see a box labelled "Part of a series on Islamophobia". That box is, in fact, a transclusion of Template:Islamophobia, and it is there because the link {{islamophobia}} is included in the source text of the article. Some hours ago, someone put a speedy deletion tag on that template, with the result that the speedy deletion tag was transcluded on 21 different pages where the template is transcluded. (Above, I said "dozens", which was just a guess, but it seems I wasn't far out.) If you are interested, you can read more at Wikipedia:Transclusion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the first explanation of "transclusion" that has got through to me, and I have also skimmed the WP:transclusion page too. Thanks for taking the time to explain. best. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Good afternoon. You will certainly recall 74.135.53.96 (talk · contribs), otherwise known as 98.28.115.67 (talk · contribs) and various other IP's. His/her newest incarnation is 184.57.49.33 (talk · contribs), as evidenced by its geolocation to the same spot in central Ohio, and the same unsourced/unexplained/unexplainable edits on some of the same articles. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the IP address, and rolled back outstanding edits. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, as always -- I hope this guy throws in the towel so I don't have to keep pestering you about him. I only recently discovered the "rollback" feature -- is that something only available to admins, or can regular editors request it, and if so, how? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please disregard the above -- I just answered my own question -- Twinkle gives me essentially the same function as rollback. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Links to another page with the same name

Perhaps you could explain to me or to user Wee Curry Monster about what's so wrong about having a link to another page that not only has the same name, but to someone that's also a porn star actress?[20] Now that page is up for deletion[21], but user Wee Curry Monster's problem with it seems to be just because to goes to a page to a person who does short sex films, is that really a reason to not to have a This article is about so and so, For the so and so, see link???68.75.24.68 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can't see for yourself why linking from an article about a children's cartoon character to an article about a pornographic performer is inappropriate, then I am not sure where to start explaining to you. (Wee Curry Monster has already said that that is the reason.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, James. There's now a discussion about this on AN, here. Bishonen | talk 00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

Debian Kit

I'm confused as to your deletion reason of Debian Kit. Can you elaborate? Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid the limited space available in a deletion log entry made it difficult to explain fully, but I'll try to make it clearer now. Up to the last edit but one, the article was an unambiguous copyright infringement. I considered deleting all but that last revision, but that last revision consisted almost entirely of a list that was already in the earlier versions, so leaving that revision without the earlier revisions would have failed to give copyright attribution, and would have wrongly attributed it to you. It was a very small amount of content, and in such situations it is quite common to just leave the article as it is, but that is not fully satisfactory, as making copyright infringing text available does not somehow become legal and OK because a reader has to first go to a page labelled "Revision history" in order to reach the illegal content. Eventually, I decided that the article in its final version, after you had removed most of its content, had so little in it that it would be easy enough to re-create a substantially similar article, if you want to, and so the simplest way to deal with the problem would be to delete it, and let you re-create it if you wanted to. I intended to come to your talk page and explain my reasons to you, but I got distracted and forgot to do so, for which I apologise. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Since attribution only requires that the author be indicated, couldn't you restore all of the revisions and then use RevDel to hide the text of the infringing ones while keeping the authors' names? Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for help understanding procedure

Hi James, I saw the change you made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Covenant_Ministries_International replacing the "admin help" tags with "help" tags. Thanks for doing that. Please, help me understand what the right procedure I should have taken to address the problems with the page. I looked at the page and saw that there was a systemic problem with the way the page was being edited by the majority editor. Almost 2/3 of the edits had been done by that editor and along with many other problems with the page there were many edits that had been done that were strong indications of bias. I talked extensively with that editor about specific problems and about the systemic problems and made little progress, in fact, I found a lot of resistance. After not being able to address the really egregious problems with the editor I wrote the two posts in the NCMI talk page outlining one of the problems (the CIFS quote and the systemic problem). I assumed, it seems wrongly, that I needed to communicate this to administration. I eventually brought the COI to the COI noticeboard. Please explain briefly or point me to a page (so that I will know what to do in the future) why the two posts I put on the NCMI talk page addressed to administrators should have gone to the regular help page. And what should I have done when I was running into protracted discussions and not getting anywhere on the really significant problems with the page? thanks...MuzickMaker (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your action

Hi JBW,

Thanks for your diligent and intelligent assessment at Mrjulesd and DissidentAggressor .

You said "I have looked at a number of the articles in question, and having some knowledge of linguistics, I am able to say that most of the deleted content that I saw was not by any stretch of the imagination original research, or in any way controversial or doubtful. Much of it is stuff that I first read in reliable standard textbooks in the 1960s, and some of it has certainly been accepted fact since the nineteenth century." well I think what upset me about his actions, that fact that he was claiming WP:OR when it was obvious that he was wrong. Also that he wrote "I don't know crap about languages", how on earth can he claim WP:OR when he has no knowledge of languages? I am convinced that any perceived lack of citations does not automatically create the presumption that it is WP:OR.

You are right in your assessment " I have no way of knowing whether Mrjulesd has access to suitable sources or not, and even if he or she has, searching through them to find references for every statement removed from all the articles involved could be a very large task." Well I'm a he. I will try my best, but it will be difficult to find sources as most of the content was not written by me. I just noticed that he had blanked my work on Western Romance languages, despite the information being more or less that of the info box at the bottom. I then noticed that he had done the same to a large number of articles on linguistics and other subjects. Surely he should discuss it on the talk pages before doing this, at the very least?

Anyway, thanks again. --Mrjulesd (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, would you mind addressing this? It seems that even my removal of misplaced bold is not acceptable to Mrjulesd and I am not entitled to follow your suggestion to ask for more citations. The Dissident Aggressor 18:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DissidentAggressor, I have already provided six references. If you checked them you would realise that my work is correctly sourced and verifiable. Please can stop harrassing my edits. I have reverted Western Romance languages as there was already a http://glottolog.org/ reference that, if you had checked it, would have provided ample evidence of properly sourced work. Please read WP:DE and try to fit in with the WP community. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

More edit warring

JamesB, in addition to the diff above, and despite your admonishment about continued reversions being edit warring, MrJules has continued to revert my edits. I still can't figure out what was wrong with the removal of bold formatting he reverted. Perhaps you could intervene here? The Dissident Aggressor 04:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Why on earth are you continuing with your disruptive editing? I've been looking at your edits, and most of them are deletions of content that is correctly sourced and verifiable, sometimes with a sustantial list of references. But you totally ignore all the provided references, and pretend that the content is WP:OR, you never check any of the references provided. I shall continue reversing your edits if they are completely unjustified. --Mrjulesd (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Over the last couple of days I have spent some time looking at the relevant editing history. I will mention a few of the things I saw that suggest that there is room for both of you to give a little more thought about editing.

• Mrjulesd, did you really mean to do what you did in this edit? Your edit summary, which is about references, seems to have no connection with what the edit actually did, which was almost entirely restoring bold text to various parts of the article. I can only assume that you thought you were doing something else, and did not check clearly enough what your edit was doing. Also,while I personally have no opinion about most of the bits of bolding (and don't understand why anyone would care enough to bother to either remove them or restore them once they were removed), there are a few bits which really don't seem appropriate. For example, do you really think that restoring the bold text in "Some other Romance languages are spoken in North Italy, but are not included in the Northern Italian Dialects" was an improvement? On a different issue, in one or two of your talk page edits, you seem (if I understand you correctly) to be suggesting that an unsourced statement is OK because there are sources cited on a different Wikipedia page, and the reader can find them by following links from the article in question. For example, that is the best sense I can make of your comment at Talk:Western Romance languages concerning a template. Unfortunately, there are at least two problems with that approach. (1) It is unrealistic to expect a reader wanting to see a source for a statement to guess that there may be sources cited in other pages, guess which links to follow, and spend a lot of time trying to find the right one. In fact, most Wikipedia readers (as opposed to editors) don't know anything at all about such things as Wikipedia templates, and therefore are unlikely to have any idea that they may contain sources. (2) The content may at some time be removed from the other page, or that other page may even be deleted. For those reasons, and perhaps others, contents of an article should be referenced directly, in that article, and we should not rely on "the information is given on another page".

• The Dissident Aggressor On more than one page where you removed content because it was not sourced, I found that less than a minute on Google produced far more than enough sources. Yes, I know that by policy the burden is not on you to find sources, but while it would be unreasonable to expect you to do extensive searching through academic texts not readily available, it is not unreasonable to suggest that nobody should ever remove content merely because it is unsourced when a minute's work would enable anyone at all to find sources. Bear in mind that the ultimate objective is to improve the encyclopaedia, not to follow some set of rules, and it does not improve the encyclopaedia to remove good content, just because nobody has added a reference which can easily be added. I also saw cases where you removed a sentence which was tagged for sources, but left intact other sentences in the same article which included the same claims, sometimes without references, but sometimes with references, which served perfectly well as sources which you removed. It looks rather as though your only criterion was "someone tagged this statement for sources a while ago", rather than "someone tagged this statement for sources a while ago and I have made a careful assessment, and concluded that it is indeed true that there is no reference in the article for this statement, that it is not easy to find any, and that the content is sufficiently dubious that it is, on the whole, better to leave it out of the article". It may be helpful to reconsider your approach to dealing with "citation needed" tags. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• JamesBWatson: the edit that I reversed on Italo-Dalmatian languages was not the edit I intended to revert. He made several edits in close succesion, which confused me. The actual edit I intended to revert was the one accusing me of not properly sourcing the article. Now if The Dissident Aggressor had looked at the bottom of the article he would have found perfectly adequate sources for the article. So I felt that being accused of not properly sourcing the article was wrong. He gave me no grounds for his assertion. He had earlier tagged the article as being essay-like, and contained original research, which are ridiculous. I think he was trying to get back at me for accusing him of vandalism.

As for my comments of the talk page at Western Romance languages, you're right, just pointing out the infobox supported me was probably not a great argument for accuracy. But I later pointed out that there was also already a glottolog reference that supported my views on classification, which he had failed to investigate. Only after pointing out that did I revert his edit. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you could weigh in here (especially the latter parts), it would be appreciated. I've taken the discussion about as far as I can. The Dissident Aggressor 23:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for not replying earlier. However, here are some of my thoughts on the disagreements between the two of you, DissidentAggressor and Mrjulesd.

What I see is two editors, both acting in good faith, both largely constructive, but both making some mistakes in dealing with other editors. It is clear that the two of you have very different approaches, and different strengths and weaknesses as Wikipedia editors. It seems that there may be an unfortunate clash between the strengths and weaknesses on each side, with each of you seeing faults in the other editor in areas where you yourself do not have similar faults, with the result that the other's faults seem to you very large, while you possibly don't see your own faults. I have looked at Talk:Italo-Western languages, where both of you have commented, and it seems to me that there I see a microcosm of the interactions between you that I have seen elsewhere, so I will make some observations on what I saw there, and, for what it's worth, offer some advice.

Mrjulesd, I am far from being an expert on Italo-Western languages, but I have enough knowledge of the subject to be convinced that on the issues concerning the content of the article you are perfectly right: the Gallo-Italic languages and Venetian can be regarded as either Western Romance or Italo-Romance. I can understand your frustration at trying to deal with an editor who denies that, and who simply fails or refuses (it's difficult to say which) to understand the reasons you give. However, you seem not to see a fact which seems to me very obvious, and which I guess would seem equally obvious to most outside observers. That is the fact that the methods you use to try to get your point across are likely to be heavily counterproductive. For example, saying to someone you disagree with "You are either a vandal or just ignorant" is very unlikely to get them to take notice of what you are trying to explain to them. Saying things like that is unhelpful, even if it is true. You may remember that the reason I came into contact with you and DissidentAggressor in the first place was that I assessed a report you made at Administrator intervention against vandalism, and that I decided that although there were problems, there was no vandalism. If you accuse people who are acting in good faith (even if mistakenly) of "vandalism", the only things you will achieve are antagonising other editors, making them less likely to take notice of any valid points you may have, and possibly eventually getting yourself blocked, because continually throwing unjustified accusations around is disruptive. Another one of your faults is one that I can fully sympathise with, because I know that it is a fault that I suffer from too. That is writing at excessive length. The mistake which I make, and which it seems to me that you make too, is to try to say everything that is relevant, rather than just giving a summary of the main points. Writing a huge wall of text is counterproductive, because nobody will read it all, people may therefore miss important points that are buried among the minor points, and they take less notice of what you say, because they see you as ranting. Quite often, when I have written a talk page post, before clicking "Save page", I re-read it, and cut out a large of it. Probably I should do that more than I do, and I suggest you may like to think about it.

DissidentAggressor, I agree with much of the substance of what you say. For example, you say "there really hasn't been any discussion. I've seen walls of text thrown around, accusations of vandalism and incompetence, acts of passive aggression and dismissal", and that is exactly the way I see it. However, I wonder whether you saying that is likely to be helpful. As I have already indicated in my comments above to Mrjulesd, even if something is true, it is not always helpful to say it. I have no problem with the substance of what you said on that talk page, but there may be a problem with the way you said it, and perhaps a bigger problem with the fact that it was you that said it. You intervened in an argument on a talk page which you had never edited before, relating to an article that you have never edited at all. Your first comment there was "So anyone who disagrees with you is either a vandal or ignorant and should stop editing pages that you are interested in? Right", and that comment was addressed to an editor you had previously been in conflict with, in connection with other articles. I have two suggestions to make about that. (1) I have already indicated above that I think accusing everybody one disagrees with of such things as "vandalism" and "ignorance" is unhelpful, but the way you said it was unlikely, I think, to get the person it was addressed to on your side. Indeed, it could possibly be considered an example of the very "passive aggression" that you yourself criticised on the same page. (2) Going to pages where you have never before had any involvement, but where an editor with whom you have a history of conflict is in a dispute, and making critical remarks about that editor, could well be seen as stalking and harassing that editor. If there seems to be a pattern of such following around of an editor to make negative comments, it could even lead to your being blocked.

My advice to both of you would be to keep away from one another, since the history of your interactions makes it likely that it will be difficult for you to collaborate without problems. (It seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult for you to keep apart, since you mostly edit in different areas, and had no contact with one another until 23 September, when DissidentAggressor suddenly started editing numerous linguistic articles which Mrjulesd had already been editing, some of them over a long time period.) Of course, that is just my advice, and it is entirely up to the two of you whether you choose to follow it. As you know, I first came upon the dispute between you in the course of assessing reports at "Administrator intervention against vandalism", and I still view myself as acting here as an administrator. However, being an administrator gives me no more ability to resolve disputes than any other experienced editor, nor does it give my advice any more authority. What being an administrator does do is give me the ability to perform certain actions, such as deleting pages and blocking editors. I don't wish to perform any of those actions, because it seems to me that, despite the various difficulties you both experience, you are both good-faith editors who both do a lot of good for the encyclopaedia. However, both of you, in different ways, have been doing things which are unhelpful, and which could be considered disruptive, and if you do continue, it is far from being out of the question that one or both of you may eventually be blocked, so I do urge you both to think carefully about what I have suggested. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

JamesBWatson: Thanks again for your comments, which always seem to be logical and fair. Also, your recent edits that I've noticed seem admirable. I was hoping that you wouldn't need to comment any more on these issues, as I know you have far more important work in your fight against vandalism, and quite possibly in real life.

My dealings with The Dissident Aggressor: you're right, the best thing for me to do is to try to ignore him, and stay away from him as much as I possibly can. Any contact I have with him is never enjoyable, the more contact I have with him, the less I enjoy Wikipedia. He doesn't seem to have done any mass deletions recently, which suggests to me that maybe some good will come out of all this. So I've just got to try to ignore his remarks, which can irritate me, as they generally seem to be counter-productive.

My dealings with JorisvS: again this has been challenging for me. It started when he deleted most of my work from Italo-Dalmatian languages with a “rv” tag, work that I thought was extremely accurate and important. I reverted, but he reverted it again. Not wanting an edit war, I tried to question his edits on the talk page, which didn't progress very well. Then he did a similar edit on Italo-Western languages, which again annoyed me since I felt we hadn't finished our discussions on Italo-Dalmatian. But you're right, some comments I made may have been unhelpful.

Anyway, I've got a question about about dealing with disputes amongst editors. Obviously, to avoid an edit war, it best to try to sort out your differences on the Talk Pages. But when you've discussed issues thoroughly, and yet your differences remain, what recourse have you got? What is the best way to appeal against differences? In this case it was not obvious vandalism, it just seemed like lack of understanding, or possibly JorisvS didn't want to lose face. --Mrjulesd (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Mrjulesd, that in my opinion "what recourse have you got" when you have tried to discuss things and got nowhere is one of the questions which Wikipedia just doesn't have an adequate answer to. There are various suggestions at WP:Dispute resolution, and you may find one of them helpful, but in my experience most of them often tend to be just further ways of dragging out the dispute, very often without settling anything. Personally, I hate getting into unpleasant scenes so much that if I find a disagreement with another editor just isn't getting anywhere, I tend to just drop the matter and move on to editing somewhere else, but that solution doesn't suit everyone. Of course, that would not be an answer if I ever found myself dealing with an editor who just wouldn't let me go, and kept pestering me after I had dropped the matter, but in that case I would consult an administrator, asking him or her if he or she would block the offending editor. As an administrator, if I received a request of that kind, I would certainly be willing to block any editor who, after being told to stop pestering another editor, still did so, no matter how right or wrong I felt each of them was in the original dispute. However, you may find it worthwhile to have a look at WP:Dispute resolution, if you haven't done so already: the fact that my experience suggests that it often isn't helpful doesn't mean that it is never helpful.

One other point: my personal view is that taking such a case to one of the admin noticeboards would be an absolute last resort. Sometimes they can be helpful, but I find all too often they just create yet more unpleasantness and bad feeling, dragging out the dispute for even longer, and settling nothing. Of course, that is just my opinion, and you may feel differently. (The one striking exception is WP:AIV, which very often does deal with things, and even when it doesn't, it usually doesn't start up an endless argument and make things even worse.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks again JamesBWatson. I was reading Wikipedia:GETOVERIT, and I think that it is probably good advice in some situations. Even if you "win" in certain situations it can be an unpleasant experience, and there is no telling whether the same thing will happen again, which kind of happened to me to some degree. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

BigShowandKane

That user BigShowandKane64 is back, this time as 75.146.18.113 (talk · contribs). Isn't it time to get a range block on him? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sjones23: Thanks for telling me. I have blocked the IP address, but I haven't found any other edits from IP addresses in a range that are obviously from the same editor. If you know of any, please let me know, and I will consider whether a range block is suitable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"New" Editor

Excuse me, JBW, I wish I could spare your time, but I thought you might be interested in looking at [this account] that suddenly appeared with the exact same arguments of Jan18/TITOR. His first edit was in may 2014 reverting to the exact same version of the article Jan18 kept, and now he is apparently ranting at User talk:EdJohnston. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and there are other aspects of the account's editing which look suspicious, too. I am close to blocking the account as a duck, but I would be a little happier if I had CheckUser input. Since there is a horrendous backlog of cases at WP:SPI, I will try asking an individual CU directly if he will be willing to have a look. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, a user also seems to have opened an [SPI] shortly after I opened this thread. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The new account has now started reverting the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University article to TITOR's preferred version. --McGeddon (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The accumulation of evidence is now enough, without waiting for a CheckUser, so I have blocked the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that this user has been banned and the article is being chattily tidied up two SPA editors (one with a COI, and the other unwilling to say whether or not they have a COI), can I ask where things now stand with your statement from last month that "If I were to block the account "Truth is the only religion" then there is at least one other account on the other side that I would certainly block too"? --McGeddon (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Oh dear. I have to say that I am no longer as clear about that as I was. I am still as sure as ever that the activity of various SPAs is unhelpful to the project, and that blocking an editor on one side without blocking any on the other may have downsides, but I am no longer as sure as I was that there is any one account that I can confidently say is a sockpuppet. It is possible that when I wrote the message you refer to, I was aware of definite evidence that I don't recall at the moment. I will try to find time to look into it again, but unfortunately I am very unlikely to be able to give it the time that will be required to do the job properly until at least Tuesday. Meanwhile, if you have any information that you think might help, please let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No rush. And not much to add: User:Danh108 has stated having a connection to the group and a strong opposition to the Wikipedia edits of a "negative advocacy group", but doesn't feel that this is an actual COI. I made two posts about this at COIN to get a second opinion, but got no response; Danh108 took this as there being "no consensus" for my reading of COI and has continued to edit the article directly. User:GreyWinterOwl would rather not say whether he or she also has a connection. I don't share TITOR's conviction that the two editors are part of some closely coordinated Brahma Kumaris group, but I'm a little concerned that (since all of TITOR's edits were messy reverts) the article may now be largely in the hands of two COI editors who think it's okay for them to make edits because they're good people and they mean well. --McGeddon (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I do get the concern about the possibility of COI editors being left alone on the page and messaged McGeddon about this. JBW, it would be really good to get your opinion on whether my COI is apparent or potential (I say the former, McGeddon is concerned it could be the latter). It's just not true that I said "no consensus" and went on editing. Even though it was McGeddon's beef and there were no responses to his COIN, I messaged Adjwilley to try and get a respected opinion - basically having to run McGeddon's case for him (not bagging McG, but I think he has erred in suggesting my guilt is assumed and innocence had to be proven). Unfortunately Adjwilley didn't pass comment on this, but he did come to contribute to the article.

I think I should be judged on my editing, the fact that I am responsive to any feedback you give and willing to compromise with people's different views on how the article should be written. Otherwise it's more like I'm being judged based on one troll who spreads doubt, conspiracy and suspicion on anyone who gets in the way of his rigid editing agenda and I have been targeted by him because I got him blocked for outing me and smelt the rat (along with a few) with Marriage of Convenience and his other sock/s.

The sympathy you expressed in your block comments to Marriage of Convenience is the same thing that got me started editing Wikipedia, not an ambition to create a POV laden or promotional article, and I don't think there is any evidence of this (though I have done some things out of ignorance like make a 'linkfarm' for their retreat centres). Other 'promotional content' deleted was directly from RS and other encyclopedia's, so they were legitimate, but I respect there are a range of ways to write the article up.

Thanks for your time and efforts so far in clearing things up. Much appreciated. Danh108 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If you allow me I would like to add some things. First I am not in Wikipedia to promote Brahma Kumaris. I´m sure you won´t find a diff where I add any promotional content. I am not a single purpose account either. Half of my article edits were to articles not related to BK. And 95% of the edits I made to the BK related articles were to remove OR and fringe POV added by Januarythe18th. But that doesn´t mean I want to promote the subject. I do recognize that the article right now is promotional and I have declared support for all edits by McGeddon and Adjwilley to remove the promotional tone/content, and bring the article to neutrality. After the latest Jan18 socks were blocked, I thought McGeddon and Adjwilley would continue to remove the promotional content, but instead I am shocked to see McGeddon is accusing me and suggesting that I be insta-blocked?

I apologize if I had not opposed Danh108´s edits that added promotional content. At first I thought they were ok, because the user used RS and I saw it as a restoration of the article from its previous state when owned by Jan18. But now I do agree it´s too flowery and I offer myself to support the removal of anything you guys perceive as advert, and I hope this can demonstrate my good faith. I have said before and will repeat: I don´t work with Danh, I don´t share whatever is his POV, I don´t know who he is (except what Jan18 disclosed about him, if it´s true) and I never spoke to him, or anyone else off-wiki except JBW to share evidence and John Carter who provided me some RS.

McGeddon and Adjwilley made many edits which I consider to have significantly improved the quality of the article, and I never reverted a single one of them. For many months I don´t do any edit on this article except small grammar corrections, so clearly I am not even remotely owning the article. I hope this has made things clear about my intentions, and please let´s work to remove the promotional content of the article and then we will see whether Danh will accept our edits or oppose them. I personally don´t think he is ill-intended, he is just trying to make a good article, but has exaggerated it at many points, but he too hasn´t reverted McGeddon and Adjwilley and said he wants more independent eyes on it. Does that sound like owning?

About McGeddon´s accusations, I think they consist in trying to remove people affiliated to a religion from editing the religion´s article, but the problem is that I think most, if not all religious articles on WP have respective adherents edting them. I don´t want to disclose my religious affiliation because it´s a personal information I wish to keep private and don´t think it´s necessary to reveal it. I hope my support to removing anything promotional will be enough to demonstrate my good faith. I apologize for any mistake I may have done. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice job on the Jacob Abrian AfD

But...the sockpuppets said they were from different places, and you can't lie on Wikipedia! Right? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Origamite, there are some very amusing things I could say about this, but I won't, because telling sockpuppeteers how they give themselves away is too helpful to them. I did think of posting to the one who claims to speak Italian in Italian, and seeing if I can get someone who speaks Arabic to write a message to the one who claims to speak Arabic, and see what response (if any) we got. However, I decided it just wasn't worth it . The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remove talk access from User:MickeyMouseTheCoolGuy46

Hello James,
Please remove talk page access from this user. He is repeatedly blanking the page and replacing it with insults. Thanks, --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, WritingEnthusiast. As it happens, Jpgordon got there before me, but I would certainly have removed talk page access if I had been online when you posted your message to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

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

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

Edge Legal (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, at Talk:QuisLex, where I have replied. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Your winged words

You may not remember them, but a long time ago I made a note of some winged words of yours and have used them from time to time, e.g. just now at User talk:Almighty phate#Electrolube. Thanks for putting it so clearly, and apologies for not giving the required CC-BY-SA attribution! JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Nice to know something I have done is appreciated by someone. I have used variations on that wording many times since the first time I posted something to that effect, and someone (it may well have been you I don't remember) expressed approval. Incidentally, there is at least one other of my contributions that you make frequent use of, John, though you may not know it. Back in January 2012 I created Template:bio-warn-deletion as a more concise and to-the-point version of Template:nn-warn-deletion. Since then, you have used that template far more often than everyone else put together (including me). So evidently you have a habit of picking up things I write and using them. As for the lack of CC-BY-SA attribution, well, I was going to say that I would sue you for copyright infringement, but I don't want you to indef-block me for legal threats, so instead I hereby release the words you quoted from me into the public domain. There, that should settle everything. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sock of Rizky Iconia

Seems like he has created another sock account editing football kits and ignoring warnings not to add copyright images.

Btw, yellow on pink in your edit notice doesn't quite work. cheers. LRD 00:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@LRD NO: Thanks for letting me know about the Rizky sock. I have blocked the account, and reverted all the edits that hadn't already been reverted. I shall also semi-protect the articles for a while, because even though I know full well he is likely to just move to other articles, it just may help to get the message across. As for yellow and pink, you are probably right, but the idea was that it would be such an unexpected colour combination that it would be totally eye-catching and wouldn't be missed. I will try to remember to re-think the colour scheme next time I use it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Manchester Wikipedia's ambassadors to other nations

Category:Manchester Wikipedia's ambassadors to other nations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Begin again

Dear JamesBWatson I would like to be given the chance to begin again with the page I created Planet Earth Institute which at the time you deemed too self promotional. They are a UK-based charity and NGO fighting for the worthy cause of scientific independence in Africa and are well connected and referenced from their trustees Wikipedia pages. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timaldiss (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Timaldiss: I suggest that as a first step you decide whether the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If it doesn't, then any article about it is likely to be deleted, so any time and effort put into creating one is likely to be wasted. It may also be helpful to you to have a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, if you haven't already done so. If it seems that the subject is suitable to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, then I suggest that you start it as a draft, perhaps at User:Timaldiss/Planet Earth Institute. That way, it can be assessed for suitability, and if it is thought to be unsuitable then you are likely to be given time to address whatever problems there are, whereas if you launch it directly as an article it may simply be deleted.

Whether the institute is or is not fighting for a "worthy cause" is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not exist in order to promote organisations because they are considered by someone or other to be good causes. Indeed, the very fact that you mention that you think it is a "good cause" serves to confirm that your intention is likely to be promotional. The fact that the subject is "referenced from their trustees Wikipedia pages" is no guarantee of notability: many highly un-notable subjects are mentioned in Wikipedia articles.

You say that you created the article, but you did not do so from the same account that you used to post this message to me. The article has, in fact, been created three times, once by an account called PlanetEarthInstitute, and twice by an account called Eser83. Were both of those you, and if not then which one was? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Many thanks. Will do. I work with "PlanetEarthInstitue" but was unaware of their attempt to also create the page. Not sure who that other user is.

IP blocking

You recently blocked 203.144.93.254 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. Could you do the same to 203.144.93.81 (talk · contribs)? The IP's only edits so far have to reinstate edits made by the two most recently blocked sockpuppets of 089baby (talk · contribs). Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I have blocked the new IP address, and reverted all its edits. I have also found eight more IP addresses in the range 203.144.93.0/24 (that is to say addresses of the form 203.144.93.xxx) that have clearly been used by the same editor. There I would like to put a long range block in place, to prevent the editor from just shifting to other IP addresses in the same range, but there have very occasionally been edits from the IP range that look as though they may not be from the same editor, so I have compromised, by placing a relatively short range block. Unfortunately, the risk of collateral damage is not zero, but it is small, as the overwhelming majority of edits from the range have been from 089baby. Please feel very welcome to let me know if (or perhaps I should say "when") you see more block evasion from this editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblocks

Hi James, I just came across some of your rangeblocks and wanted to mention something. It's usually worth using {{anonblock}} (or {{schoolblock}} as there are generally unintended targets of the blocks for which those templates are less accusatory and provide information on where they can go. If you want to add more information to the block log you can do it inside html tags as that isn't rendered when they try and edit. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This essay seems problematic

Wikipedia:Blocks_are_not_fun_for_both_parties is an essay by User:Happy Attack Dog. The incorrect advice on WP:Sock#Legit worries me, as does the blatant assertion that new admins can/will be "dictators". The whole point of RfA is to ensure that the community trusts the person not to abuse the tools! Should anything be done about the user or essay? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 12:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Origamite: I totally agree. I shall post to the editor's talk page, suggesting that the page is inappropriate, and see what response I get. If there is no response, or an unsatisfactory one, WP:MfD may be the next step. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

How to apply for unblock

I was wondering from which account I should apply for the unblock, the cyrillic one User:Иронгрон, or my original one User:Irongron, as I have done lots of edits on both and actually it's the edits on the cyrillic one that I would like to restore, pending any unblocking. I really did improve the articles and rectified most of the references that were needed and corrected many inaccuracies. I do note that out of maybe up to a dozen articles that were reverted, you kept 2 intact, my edits for Convair_F-106_Delta_Dart and the edit in the Rescue section in Rocket#Rescue. This is surely indicative that my edits, setting the sock puttetry aside, were good contributions. It would be a shame to waste them. So for the sake of accuracy and the integrity of wikipedia I would like to apply for an unblock on the relevant account, but I would like to be guaranteed the right to revert all the outstanding articles and if need be manually add in any intermediate edits so as not to trash other peoples contributions. Maybe you could reply by email ? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.147.35 (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you look at?

[[22]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

089baby IP's

You said the other day that I should report further 089baby sock IP's to you. Well, I've got one for you: 203.144.92.154 (talk · contribs). Like the last one, this IP has reinstated a bunch of edits from blocked IP's and accounts. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

... Sigh ... @Sir Sputnik: I have blocked the IP address, reverted its edits, and semi-protected recently affected articles for a while. It won't get rid of the nuisance, but it will hinder him a bit. I would like to consider the possibility of a range block covering the latest IP address, but the tool for checking edits from an IP range is not working, and I don't block a range without first checking to see how much (if any) constructive editing comes from the range. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Sir Sputnik: Update: by the tedious process of checking each IP address one by one, I have found a fairly large range of IP addresses where every single edit ever made has clearly been from this editor, and including 203.144.92.154, so I have blocked that range for a year. That will not stop him, but it will make it a little more difficult for him to find new IP addresses when others are blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm less convinced that these steps will be as ineffective as you think. After all, last March a well placed rangeblock lead him to actually interact for the first time after two years of disruptive editing. I guess time will tell. For future reference, there is a new range contribution tool here. It's not nearly as good as the old one, and it's horribly slow, but it's better than nothing. Finally, I have to object a little to the semi-protection of Thiago Cunha. He's edited the article just once, and it's outside his usual area of interest (best I can tell, Mr. Cunha has no connection to Cambodia). Feel free to disagree with me on this, but I think semi-protecting this page will to slightly more harm than good. Thanks again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Trouble in the world of Wiki

Greetings James. Can you help me with this user (talk)? He / She has accused me of being dishonest, a duck and either a sock puppet or a meat puppet. He / She seems to have a very personal issue with me / or the company so he / she is taking that out on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMH_Records page. The edits are disruptive and the user has been warned about his / her behavior from a Wiki Admin (I'm assuming it's an Admin) recently for something unrelated to me. He / She was "warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions" according to his/her history. Would be helpful for a third party to look at the page SMH Records.Sowhatchawant (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Kakinada Rural (Assembly constituency)

I saw the message that a page with the above name was deleted, I want to create the page. I do not know what the other user wrote, but I have good references.--Vin09 (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: The full and complete text of the deleted article was "hello sir.." I am very willing to believe you can create a better one than that, so please go ahead! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh is it! Fine, I'll write a good article. Thanks James.--Vin09 (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Worm That Turned's talk page.
Message added 08:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC) X2 Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please restore Hou Sui Underground Civilization (Hou Sui Chao)

Please restore "Hou Sui Underground Civilization (Hou Sui Chao)" article. It is contained cites from legal chinese text and references.

Will you review at least the article? It is different from another.

Please read the original text at the ctext.org so you known that sources is legal and authentics. So the article can appear again.

Thanks, this is my problems and world problems.

"Hou Sui Underground Civilization (Hou Sui Chao)" is made from article wizard too.

Please restore the page. ADHZ07111989 (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Soapboxing/Deleted Page

Hello I am Pharo Starr. All the information I presented as well as companied linked to my wiki were all 100 percent true. I do not understand how to put valid information about myself without being deleted. Please help. Writerofsongz (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Writerofsongz: The page was not deleted because of doubts about its truth, it was deleted because it was promotional. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopaedia, not a social network site, a host for personal web pages, or a medium for posting self-promotional pages. There are many web sites where you can post a personal web page telling the world all about yourself and your work, but Wikipedia is not one of them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok I understand my error. I didn't know that linking websites was a no go. Thank you for the information. Is there a way to get the information I presented put back up there. I can take the website links off.

Writerofsongz (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on user-reported administrator board

Thanks for your feedback on the user-reported administrator board. To your point on Boonchong chua acting in good (but misguided) faith vs. vandalism: I have previously tried to help this user on Talk:Agoda.com by explaining actions and linking to relevant guidelines. The user has since been going through the page deleting blocks of entries.

When contributions from user Boonchong chua are reduced to simply deleting any new entries I'm not clear on what further action is available. I would like to be able to maintain this page as I believe it's particularly relevant to readers with an interest in multi-national businesses that are based in Asia.

Any help and advice is much appreciated.

Reykcollider (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Reykcollider: OK, I didn't see your messages at Talk:Agoda.com, but I saw that nobody had explained to the editor on his or her talk page what the problems were. It might have been a good idea to mention the article talk page messages in your AIV report. It still wouldn't really have been vandalism, but sometimes I deal with problems even if they are reported in the wrong place. Having said that, though, I see on looking back that Boonchong chua has not edited since 12 October, nine days ago, so there is no point in doing anything now. Obviously, if and when he/she comes back, that can be reconsidered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Happy Attack Dog's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sayyid Ahsanullah Qadri

I saw that you deleted this page, Sayyid Ahsanullah Qadri, from the Userspace, but the User recreated it in article space. Thought you might like to know. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 16:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also the user has now added a redirect under a different spelling. Speedy tagged article. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wtwilson3: Thanks for letting me know. I have decided that the editor's endless attempts to use Wikipedia for promotion (possibly, despite his denials, self-promotion) have gone on long enough, and I have indefinitely blocked the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply

All right. I'll calm it down :) Razorflame 17:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Prajyot mahajan

Hi,

Myself Fredrick Ellifsen, i am the manager of Prajyot mahajan. The page Prajyot Mahajan is not unambiguously promotional also it is not an autobiography, it is a user page made by myself and i made this page with the name of my artist prajyot mahajan , because... the people in india must know about the biography of artist prajyot mahajan. He is an musician and we have legal information :

1. official facebook fan page account i.e www.facebook.com/mahajan.prajyot

2. official website i.e www.prajyotmahajan.in

3. twitter account www.twitter.com/prajyotmahajan

4. Reverbnation www.reverbnation.com/prajyotmahajan

also refer news articles page :

http://www.deshdoot.com/detail_archive_news.php?type=region&id=4318241&region=Deshdoot Times&month=5&year=2014&cid=

We are not at all promoting any bussiness, its just we are helping this artist to get on internet, as people look on internet for finding information and history about prajyot mahajan

Please do look after it and cancel the page deletion. either you people make the Profile, i will provide the matter or let me do the same.

Contact Email id : mahajan.prajyot2@gmail.com

Regards,

Fredrick Ellifsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prajyotmahajan (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Myself Fredrick Ellifsen i am the manager of Prajyot mahajan. The page Prajyot Mahajan is not unambiguously promotional also it is not an autobiography, it is a user page made by myself and i made this page with the name of my artist prajyot mahajan , because... the people in india must know about the biography of artist prajyot mahajan. He is an musician and we have legal information :

1. official facebook fan page account i.e '''www.facebook.com/mahajan.prajyot''' 2. official website i.e '''www.prajyotmahajan.in''' 3. twitter account '''www.twitter.com/prajyotmahajan''' 4. Reverbnation '''www.reverbnation.com/prajyotmahajan'''

also refer news articles page :

We are not at all promoting any bussiness, its just we are helping this artist to get on internet, as people look on internet for finding information and history about prajyot mahajan

Please do look after it and cancel the page deletion. either you people make the Profile, i will provide the matter or let me do the same.

Contact Email id : mahajan.prajyot2@gmail.com

Regards, Fredrick Ellifsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredrickEllifsen (talk • contribs) 02:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

hello,

i want to know that without violating any rights why are you people deleting the page. the page is not a promotional/self/bio/advert . please do undelete the page name with article "Prajyot Mahajan" Regards Fredrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredrickEllifsen (talk • contribs) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI: this was also raised at REFUND and I have given some advice at WP:REFUND#prajyot mahajan. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: that'll teach me to AGF! It turns out that the article was largely copied from another, and on investigation I find no RS for any of the glowing claims. FredrickEllifsen blocked as a hoaxer. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Hmm. well, you have saved me the time and trouble of writing a message to the editor explaining in detail what the problems with the article were, which I was going to do once I found time. Of course, it's so much less work to copy someone else's article and edit it a bit than to write one's own article from scratch. I was also totally unconvinced by the "I'm not Prajyot Mahajan" line. I've seen it so many times before: you use your own name to create a promotional article about yourself, then you receive a message telling you that autobiographies are discouraged, so you claim that you are not you at all, and just used the name of the person you were writing about as a username. Sometimes, that may be true, and I can't be 100% sure it wasn't this time, but I got a definite feeling that it wasn't. All along, I thought it was almost certainly only a matter of time before the editor got indef-blocked for one reason or another (promotion, persistently re-creating an unsuitable page, refusal to accept consensus, NOTHERE, or whatever) so probably it's just as well that it happened sooner rather than later, so that less time was wasted by all concerned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and when Google shows up strings of social-media entries but nothing substantial, that indicates another hopeful wannabe who thinks the way to fame is to spread himself all over the internet, rather than to work at actually achieving something. JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

at October 2014

Reply to this.

Why is it not contructive? I only requested to remove previously draft to make new face build of the article. I am also using article wizard too.

The Later Sui Underground Civilization (Hou Sui) is made of legal text and authentic historical text. Please reconsider and restore the article. Please remove the previous of previous deletion submission of draft: Later Sui Empire since not valid for current draft.

It is stated that the Later Sui Empire need more references. So, I already add more cite and references at current version and also improved sentences.

Please help me and let's corporate with me. The solution is clear and I am uses more cites and sources of more books and also legally historical authentic chinese text as appear at online sources just like ctext.org.

If any question I would try the best to answer about my built articles. Please give me the permission to make the article.

ADHZ07111989 (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If, as you claim, this is authentic history, why did you source it to wiki on "alternative history"? Also, why is it that when I search for the title of the page you created, I find nothing that is not clearly derived from your postings on Wikipedia? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet another sock

Good afternoon. Here we go again with 74.135.53.96 (talk · contribs), otherwise known as 98.28.115.67 (talk · contribs) and various other IP's, most recently 184.57.49.33 (talk · contribs). Today, he's back as 75.180.5.197 (talk · contribs) -- same geolocation to central Ohio, same nonsense edits, same articles. He's nothing if not persistent. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: Thanks. WP:RBI implemented. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Talk:Ariel Fernandez.
Message added 16:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Richard Yin (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for unblocking me. I have submitted a request for name change already.

You probably don't know how distressing it is to be blocked. You should do some role playing. One way to do it is to agree with an administrator to role play. Then that other administrator will agree and find a 3rd administrator (whose name you don't know) to role play. That 3rd administrator would then block you for vandalism (the same charge against me). That would occur at least a month after your agreement to role play so that it appears sudden to you. The 3rd administrator would then give you no hint that it is a role play and be slow to respond to a 4th administrator inquiring about unblocking you.

Thank you for your reading this.

EatingPoopIsBad (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that other administrator, Alexf, would probably benefit from that kind of role playing than you. EatingPoopIsBad (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@EatingGlassIsBad: You say that I don't know how distressing it is to be blocked. Up to a point you are right, because I have never been blocked on Wikipedia, but I have been banned from another web site, because I was wrongly accused of doing something which I had not been doing, so I do have a good idea what it is like. In your case, not only were you blocked, but you were also accused of being here only to vandalise Wikipedia, which is clearly not true, and that must add significantly to the distress. I really do hope that you will now be able to edit without any further problems. Feel free to remove all the stuff about the block from your talk page, if you like. Also, please feel very welcome to come back to this page if you have any questions or need help. I don't promise to always be able to give you whatever help you need, but I will do my best. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Jonas

My only reservation is the 'Official' - I didn't take the LT seriously. He may have a point about the reverting - the creator of the article seems to me (without a detailed examination) to have a possible COI and a case of OWN as well. There have been a few SPAs trying to add new things, but being firmly knocked back, possibly with justification, but possibly not. This is why I pinged TG and PK - both fairminded and not involved. (I often ask MelanieN to look at things, which she seems to enjoy doing, but I think she's away at the moment.) Peridon (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In another direction, reading further above being a nosy sod, I've never been blocked or banned from a website - yet... With some friends, I once found I was banned from a travelling fair. Which didn't distress us, 'cos we just went straight to the pub with a bit more money than we would have had otherwise, but we were puzzled. We couldn't remember having been in the fair at all to do anything to get banned for. Or getting drunk that night either (I couldn't - had to drive home). Odd. Takes a bit of doing, getting banned from a fair. They want the money. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Peridon, thank you. That story absolutely made my week. Banned from a fair with no recollection as to why? Have wonderfully curious! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It was the night before we went that whatever it was was supposed to have happened. They wouldn't even tell us what it was. I mean, six of us couldn't all have forgotten it if it was that bad. Peridon (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Large Rangeblock

I have noticed that you have blocked the entire range of 64.26.64.0-64.26.127.255, which comprises 16382 IP addresses covering all public libraries in the entire state of Maryland. Is it now policy to block all public-access computers, including blocking of account creation? You mention on your user page that you first created your account because you were trying to edit from a blocked computer; however, if account-creation had been blocked, would you have been able to create your account? Even if the answer be “yes,” there is a digital divide and not everybody is as lucky as I to have access to a home computer. What I suggest is any one of three possible compromises,

• Shorten the block so that it is only for 1 year instead of 4 years;
• Reduce the size of the block, so that it covers only those /24's that have actually originated vandalism; or
• enable account creation, unless Wikipedia:CheckUser has revealed that people in this block of IPs have been socking;

or a combination of the above. Of course, if it is official policy to block all public-access computers, then please feel free to disregard my comments. Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bwrs: I fully understand your concerns. Any range block must run the risk of causing collateral damage, and should, in my opinion, be used only following a very careful consideration of all the circumstances, including a thorough check of the editing history of the whole range. Unfortunately, there is some problem with the wmf labs, and none of the range-checking tools is running, so I can't check the history at present, and since the block dates from a year ago, I don't remember the details. I will try to check the history as soon as I can, and consider your suggestions. However, I will give you such answers to your points as I can in the absence of the historical details.

I never block any IP range without first extensively checking the editing history of the range. When I placed that block, my immediately previous activity on Wikipedia had been dealing with some open proxies, with my last action having taken place 18 minutes before I placed the block. I think it is highly likely that all of those 18 minutes were spent checking the history of that IP range. I would almost certainly not have made such a block unless (1) there was an extensive history of vandalism or other disruptive editing from the range, (2) there was very little if any constructive editing from the range, and (3) the disruptive editing was spread substantially over the range, rather than being limited to one or two small subranges. I can certainly check, once the range-checking tools are back online, whether the problems were restricted to a limited number of smaller ranges, such as the /24 ranges that you suggest, and if so then obviously it will be better to restrict the blocks to those smaller ranges.

In the block notice which is displayed to anyone who tries to edit from this range, the following sentence appears: "If account creation is disabled and you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by filling out this form", and the words "this form" link to https://accounts.wmflabs.org/ . This means that it is possible for anyone without access to a computer elsewhere (e.g. at home) to create an account. Obviously, it is more trouble to do so, and causing such extra trouble for innocent editors is undesirable, but it is a matter of balancing that disadvantage against the advantages of stopping vandalism.

Blocking IP addresses and not blocking account creation is normally reserved for username blocks, where the editor is encouraged to shift to a new username. It is difficult to think of a situation where an IP block that didn't block account creation would be useful, as it would simply enable any vandal to immediately get round the block, and so would achieve nothing. If anything, that would make things worse rather than better, as instead of an identifiable IP range where we know there is likely to be vandalism, so we can watch out for it, there would be an unknown number of accounts, with no way of linking them together or of knowing which of the vast number of registered accounts might be involved.

Of course there are constructive edits from public libraries, but in the majority of public library systems they are vastly outnumbered by vandalism edits. In fact public libraries are second only to schools in terms of how large a majority of edits are vandalism. Suppose there have been thousands of vandalism edits from a particular public library over the course of many years, and a few tens of constructive edits in the same time. (That is a perfectly realistic and typical situation). Let us suppose that, in response to that vandalism, a range block is placed for a short time. As a result, for a short time we lose a significant amount of vandalism that we would otherwise have had, and we may or may not also lose a few constructive edits. After the short time, the vandalism starts up again. Very probably the vandalism from any one IP address is sporadic, with significant gaps between short bursts of vandalism. Some of these bursts may be accompanied by warnings on the IP talk pages, some may not. Nobody sees the overall pattern of continual vandalism from the whole range, so for most of the time nobody reports the vandalism to AIV, and so nothing is done to prevent the vandalism. Occasionally, when the level of vandalism on one particular IP address gets particularly high, that IP address may be blocked, but probably for only a very short time, as only a small fraction of the total vandalism is seen as coming from that IP address. The result is that for many years there are thousands of vandalism edits from the IP range, just as there were before the block, so the block stopped only a tiny fraction of the vandalism. As I have already said, at present I can't check the editing history of this range, but it is very likely that what I have just described is exactly what happened; certainly there was a short-term block on the range a couple of years before I placed the longer block, and certainly I have seen many cases which happened exactly as I have described. For any IP block on any public library which has been the source of almost entirely vandalism for years, when the block expires the result is that the flood of vandalism restarts. At best, the block is restored very soon, so that the vandalism continues for only a short while, at worst we get the situation I have just described, where the vandalism continues unchecked for years. In either case, the net effect on the project is to allow vandalism that could easily have been avoided. There may or may not also be loss of a handful of constructive edits, but any IP block on a public IP address risks losing some constructive edits, and there is no reason to suppose that the ratio of constructive edits lost to disruptive edits avoided will be higher for a longer block than for a shorter one. This is a totally different situation from that which exists for a block on a dynamic address, where it is perfectly likely that the address will very soon be allocated to someone completely different from the vandal, so that any block for more than a very short time is unlikely to do more good than a short block, and may well do more harm than good, so that any more than a fairly short block is rarely justifiable.

Those are the sort of considerations which I take into account when considering a possible block such as the one you mention. Having said all that, though, I am willing to try ending the block and seeing what happens. If the range-edit checking tools were working, I would be willing to unblock now, with the understanding that I could keep an eye on any editing from the range for a while, but since those tools are not available, I am reluctant to unblock, which would leave no way of knowing whether the problematic editing had restarted. That being so, I shall keep checking, and when one or more of those tools becomes available I shall unblock. If a lot of vandalism starts up when the block is lifted, then obviously it will be possible to consider what if any new blocks to put in place. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bwrs: The wmflabs rangecontribs tool is back online, and I have tried unblocking the range. Also, the wmflabs tool gives more information than the older toolserver tool, so it should be easier to tell whether any disruptive editing can be conveniently localised to smaller subranges. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You can always reblock it if it revandalizes, and I did not fully consider the fact that a person without a home computer can request a username. In the past, all of Montgomery County edited from one single IP in that range, but that changed; I still think that the county would be a /24 or less. It is true that the entire range belongs to Maryland's public libraries, but in the past the "Sailor" system actually functioned as a cheap ISP. (I think that, for individuals outside the actual libraries, they provide dial-up only, though, and nobody uses dial-up any more .)

Also, thank you for explaining the significance of the difference between a library IP range and an ISP's dynamic-IP range. Although it should have been obvious, I didn't think that part of it through. Nevertheless, there is a huge difference between a range of 16,382 IP addresses and a smaller range of, say, 254 or even 1,024 IP addresses.

Finally, if the Maryland public libraries actually want to be blocked... feel free to put the whole block back, just mindful the larger block belongs to the whole state and there are smaller blocks administered by individual counties. Come to think of it... maybe the larger range block is merited, as counties have demographic characteristics and a block of an entire state's public libraries is probably fairer than a block of a county or group of counties that may be rich/poor/black/white/Hispanic/etc. Bwrs (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MAJOR EDITOR IS NOT ACQUAINTED TO SUBJECT - RESPONSE TO JAMES B WATSON

MAJOR EDITOR IS NOT ACQUAINTED TO SUBJECT - RESPONSE TO JAMES B WATSON

Dear James B Watson and Wikipedia audience,

This is Ariel Fernandez. It has been brought to my attention that a sign indicating an alleged connection between a major contributor to this article and myself, the subject, has been posted on my article. This is not correct, I am not aware of any such connection and I must request its immediate removal as it infringes BLP regulations. It is puzzling to me how you have made this inference, but it is simply not correct.

I have gone through the list of contributors to my article indicated in its history. I am not personally acquainted with any of them. I don´t know Jydog, James Watson (unless he is the double helix discoverer), Heidi Belkin (Hayde Belinky?) or any other person whose name is indicated in the history. I don´t understand how do you infer such connections or what you are trying to do. I recall having met Heidi way back on a legal matter.

While vastly incomplete, the article on me as it now stands seems fair, objective and accurate as far as I can see. It sems to be fairly well documented and seems to have been taken from verifiable sources including websites that I have edited myself.

I must ask you to please refrain from publishing such inferences. As far as I know, anybody is free to contribute to Wikipedia provided the subject is notable, the info is accurate and well documented and the tone is fair and balanced.

Should you have further questions, I would be happy to discuss them. My personal mail is ariel@afinnovation.com

Feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Ariel Fernandez, Ph. D. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.28.74.127 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What about requesting a check user? Bwrs (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Advertising

Before I go any further, I want to ask your opinion about advertising on Wikipedia.

There are some articles which have sections that really smacks of advertising. For example, in the United Airlines article, there is detailed mention of the different kinds of cabins, like BusinessFirst.

How about this quote as an example....

Food and snacks are available for purchase on domestic, Caribbean, and some Latin America flights. Meals are complimentary on all other international flights. Shortly after takeoff, passengers are served cocktail snacks and free non-alcoholic drinks. Alcoholic drinks are not complimentary for economy passengers on international flights.

Or....

The United Global First Suite is 6.5 ft (2.0 m) long and when reclined it creates a fully flat bed. All seats are equipped with a personal LCD television with Audio-Video-on-Demand (AVOD), an adjustable headrest, an iPod adapter, a US-style 120-volt power outlet, a large tray table, and other amenities

EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Compare the above to Pan American World Airways. No advertising about seating in that article. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Some may say to leave sleeping dogs lie and just let advertising exists. I am not going to fight with anyone but want to bring up this point. Also know that politicians and companies routinely (according to a newspaper article) pay people to edit in Wikipedia and some even are so sophisticated that they attack and block those who stand in their way. This is particularly true with politicians and their supporters. Note, I have no conflict of interest disclosures to make such as no relationship to United, no beef against them, etc. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It's amusing that "EatingGlassIsBad" compared the United Airlines article to the Pan American World Airways article, an airline that has been out of business for many years...no seats or cabin services are available at this time to compare to. Why not compare to American Airlines where you will find the same advertising? Do you plan to remove the advertising from the American Airlines article? If not, it would appear that some editors do have "a beef against" United Airlines. Postoak (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Postoak: I think you are jumping to conclusions there. It is absurd to assume that someone has "a beef against" the subject of an article just because they mention problems with that article, and don't mention problems on one of the other four and a half million articles on English Wikipedia. EatingGlassIsBad may not have seen the article American Airlines. If he or she has seen it, he or she may think that there is advertising there too, but just mentioned one example, rather than every example he/she has seen. Assuming bad faith on his/her part without evidence is unconstructive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@EatingGlassIsBad: You asked for my opinion about advertising on Wikipedia. I'll give you my opinion, but before I do I'll point out, in case you don't already know, that it is Wikipedia policy, and not just my opinion, that advertising is unacceptable, as you can see at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. There is also Wikipedia:Spam, which is officially a "guideline" rather than a policy, but the difference is not very significant.

OK, so advertising is not considered acceptable. However, there is enormous variation among different editors about what counts as advertising. I personally am well towards the intolerant end of the spectrum, in other words I often see something as unacceptably promotional where some other people think it's OK. (And when I say "some other people", I mean some other perfectly good-faith Wikipedia editors, not just the people who are only here to use Wikipedia for advertising.) However, the examples you have given are absolutely blatant advertising, and even people far more tolerant of slightly promotional content would find them unacceptable. I have removed the two sections where the quotes you gave come from. Some people might criticise me for removing the whole sections, rather than editing them down to make them less promotional, but I think (1) the whole sections were clearly written as promotional copy, (2) they really did not contain anything substantial of interest to the general reader of an encyclopaedia, as opposed to a potential customer, and (3) even if there were a few details that were worth keeping, the amount of time and work that it would have taken to find them and edit them could have been much more usefully spent on other work for the encyclopaedia. I have not read the whole article, I just looked at the two sections that you quoted from. If there is more of the same in other parts of the article, then please feel very free to remove it.

Any page which seems to be essentially nothing but an advertisement, or any other sort of promotion or propaganda, can be deleted without notice, under Wikipedia's criterion for speedy deletion G11. If you see any page which you think qualifies for deletion under that criterion, you can put {{db-promo}} or {{db-spam}} at the top of an article, to ask an administrator to look at it and decide whether it should be deleted.

It is certainly true that politicians and companies pay people to spam advertisements and propaganda into Wikipedia for them, and it is certainly true that some of them attack editors who who try to defend Wikipedia against them. It is sometimes said that they block other editors, which means that they have infiltrated Wikipedia and become administrators, but I don't actually know of any cases where that has been shown to be true, so it may be an unsubstantiated rumour. My personal opinion, since you asked for it, is editing Wikipedia for pay to promote businesses, politicians, or anything else, is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia, those who do it are contemptible, and Wikipedia should have no tolerance for them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and opinion. True, the American Airlines article has similar advertising. If I edit anything out, I should examine similar articles (United, American, Delta). I might not seek out every airline since that might seem like an opinionated mission. However, in the U.S., there are just 3 big airlines, maybe 4 if you count Southwest. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where to begin!

It's not just the airlines, but look at cars.

Lexus IS Marketing

As part of the 2014 Lexus IS sport sedan launch in the US, Lexus and the Tony Hawk Foundation will be asking their fans and supporters to be part of a fan based decal that will be featured on the Lexus IS F CCS-R race car competing in Pikes Peak International Hill Climb. Fans will be able to enter their names via a response to a Lexus Facebook post, a Lexus Google+ post, a comment to a Lexus YouTube IS F CCS-R video and through Twitter and Instagram using #Lexus14K.[87]

As part of the 2014 Lexus IS sport sedan launch in the US, 2 new television ads (Crowd, Color Shift) were produced by Lexus' agency of record, Team One, with Original music from Devo's Mark Mothersbaugh, and directed by Jonas Åkerlund. The 'Crowd' ad emphasizes that things designed to draw a crowd are good, but leaving the crowd behind is more rewarding. The 'Color Shift' ad shows it's more fun and exciting to blend out than blend in. The [88] Two additional ads (This is Your Move, Intense) were created by Lexus' multicultural agency, Walton Isaacson, as part of the campaign. 'This is Your Move' was geared to the African-American audience, features Los Angeles Dodgers center fielder Matt Kemp as he searches for something that matches his ambitious and driven personality. 'Intense' is targeted to the Hispanic audience and follows a young couple as they experience the thrills of driving the redesigned IS 250.[89]

That's just two paragraphs! There's more. And not just Lexus. Look at Chrysler and VW.

I want to add things to Wikipedia, which I have, but there is so much that really shouldn't be part of an encyclopedia. If it were Wiki-reviews/Wiki-ads then it would be ok, but it's Wikipedia. To balance things, I plan to not just take away text, but also to add as good content as possible and not to choose (pick on) one company/nationality but to do several. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@EatingGlassIsBad: You are absolutely right. Trying to rid Wikipedia of advertising is a never-ending task. The best you can do is make some improvements in some places where you can. Realise that whatever any one person can do is going to be tiny in proportion to the amount of crap mixed in among the millions of articles on English Wikipedia, but at least you can know that you have made some improvements, and that Wikipedia is a little better because of your efforts. The answer to "I don't know where to begin" is " No, but just start somewhere, and get a little bit done." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

deletion opinion

Because I was blocked recently, I want to play it safe.

I was thinking of submitting Krave (cereal) for deletion (AFD). The reason is that it is not notable. I can find no really strong references. It's merely a cereal brand.

I don't ask for your opinion, especially since administrators can decide on AFDs. Instead, I let you have a chance to notify me if you think my proposal is either disruptive or really wacky. If you think so, I won't submit an AFD. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@EatingGlassIsBad: I'll answer your question, but I'll also say some other things about this. I had never heard of "Krave" until I read your message. The article has no references except a page on a Kellogg's web site, which does nothing at all to suggest notability. I have done a Google search, and the early hits I saw were: pages on the Kellogg's web sites about Krave; pages on web sites of businesses selling Krave; a page at www.marketingmagazine.co.uk; Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. None of those are the sort of sources needed to establish notability, as they are either not independent sources or not reliable sources. That means that I saw nothing to indicate notability by Wikipedia standards. On the other hand, I can see various reasons why at AfD peole would argue that it si notable. Krave is produced by a very prominent big business, and at AfD there are likely to be people who would argue that it must therefore be notable, although the notability guidelines don't aupport that as evidence of notability. Google got 1,230,000 hits for Krave, and there would be likely to be people who would say that shows policy, but there are several reasons why the number of Google hits is not a reliable measure of notability, including the fact that those 1,230,000 hits include uses of the word "Krave" that have nothing to do with the cereal, such as this this this this and this, not to mention things like this. Looking at later pages of hits, rather than the first few pages, I found that in fact most of the hits have nothing to do with the cereal. The long and the short of it all is that I have not seen evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but for a product of a major company there would be likely to be people claiming that it is notable, and it is perfectly likely that among the 1230000 google hits somewhere there are hits that really do show notability. To answer your question, no I don't think that your proposal is either disruptive or really wacky, but I wouldn't be surprised if the AfD finished as "keep". Personally, I won't bother to nominate it for deletion, but if you are inclined to do so then feel free to go ahead. I ahve seen many nominations for deletion taht have had much less going for them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

089baby again

So much for my assertion last week that the latest round of blocks and salting would help stop this guy's sockpuppetry. Could you please have a look at 118hehe‎ (talk · contribs)? Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of a page

Hi James

I noticed that the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ankur_Warikoo#Ankur_Warikoo was deleted by you on 11th October 2014. Can you please specify the reasons, so that I resubmit making sure it gets approved this time around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.193.10 (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The page had no content at all except for the title "Ankur Warikoo". The editor who created it had still made no attempt to add any content more than five months after creating the page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Kelvin Wu

The reason I contested the PROD was that the article had already been nominated for speedy deletion and the nomination was withdrawn after the nominator agreed there appeared to be enough sources for GNG. You also placed a COI tag after I had already rewritten the article, removing everything that was written by the original poster. We do need people like you patrolling new articles, but you could look before you go spamming procedural stuff. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. I also accept it was poor judgement on my part to put a COI tag on, and I should have thought a bit more before doing so. However, do you think that "spamming" is a good word to use? I don't regard what I did as spam, and even if you do, telling an editor that he or she is "spamming" is unlikely to encourage a cooperative attitude: in many cases it may just serve to antagonise the editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my liberal use of that colloquialism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: That's OK, no apology needed. I understood perfectly well what you meant, and I wasn't bothered about it, but I thought it might help to draw your attention to the fact that use of such words could be counterproductive with some editors, particularly new editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

How to avoid the deletion of page for a company

hello JamesBWatson,

Please provide me the necessary details to avoid the page deletion and also i need this to launch now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathpartner (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Pathpartner. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What I have to do?

I want to move Thermomass Theory to Thermomass theory, because this is the standard title, but I don't know the procedure to follow. If you know it, can you please tell me how to do it, so the next time I will do by myself? Thank you. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your explanation. Now I understood. Sometimes it happens that I don't understand the rules here in en.wikipedia because I am thinking to the way it.wikipedia works. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

COI

Good morning. Sorry to bother you again, hope you can help me with another issue: User:Cornelia cefai identifies herself on her page as "Director, Business Development, Immuron Ltd". Immuron is an Australian company that makes a product called Travelan, an OTC medication for traveler's diarrhea. A few months ago, she began adding promotional material on her product to the Travelan and traveler's diarrhea articles. (You will note that every one of her 50 or so edits have been to those two articles, with the exception of a couple of notes on my talk page and one spam edit of colostrum.) I left a polite, detailed note on her talk page explaining what WP:COI is, and why she cannot edit the pages that she's editing, particularly with the promotional content that she's adding. She ignored it. I've modified her entries for neutrality, and to reflect what her one cited source actually says, and reminded her repeatedly in edit summaries that she's not supposed to be editing these articles at all. A couple of months ago she desisted and I thought I had finally gotten through to her, but last night she began again, announcing the introduction of her product in Canada, citing a press release as a source.[23] She won't listen to me; perhaps she'll listen to you? Thanks in advance, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 06:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Joe. I have looked at her editing history, and I think it would not be totally out of the question to block right now, as a promotion-only account. However, except under very exceptional circumstances, I don't like blocking good-faith editors who have never been given any warning that a block may be possible, so instead I have given her a fairly long message explaining what I see as wrong with her editing, and why she may be blocked if she continues. After that, if she does any more promotional editing I will be willing to block. (Incidentally, some people would no doubt take issue with my description of her as a "good faith" editor. However, I have no reason to doubt that she is editing in perfectly good faith. Very large numbers of people come to edit Wikipedia sincerely thinking that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can edit Wikipedia in any way they like, including using it to promote their business/club/book/band/whatever", and honestly do not think they are doing anything wrong in using Wikipedia for promotion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you -- I've been trying to AGF as well -- but it's getting progressively more difficult. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no response to your note (nor to mine), and the new tactic is to trash her competitor, using a 10-year-old FDA source that's not really relevant.[24] At least she's forcing me to improve the article by updating the source material; but if she were really editing in good faith, wouldn't she have at least answered your note? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: Yes. Clever. She avoids editing in a way which is openly promotional of her company's product, but without even mentioning that product she makes edits which she hopes will have the practical effect of promoting it. Clever, but not clever enough, because in conjunction with her other editing it confirms that she is here only for promotional purposes. Following the warnings she has been given about conflict of interest and promotion, that is enough, especially considering that the statements she makes are not actually in the source she cites, but are her own inference from what the source says. (The inference may or may not be correct, but that is not the point.) I have indefinitely blocked the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello James. At User talk:Cornelia cefai your block notice appears unsigned because you did not use enough tildes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, Ed. Although it doesn't make any difference, for what it's worth I did include enough tildes, but two of them were in "include only" tags. That is because I copied and edited a message designed for transcluding, and forgot to remove the "include only" tags. Anyway, thanks to you, it is done now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks one last time for handling this. Not to beat a dead horse, but I found it moderately amusing that she was trying to imply that bismuth subsalicylate isn't a TD preventative and her product is, when there is ample real-world evidence to support the former and zero, so far, for the latter. On top of that, the TGA (Australian version of the FDA) specifically prohibits using the words "prevents" or "protects" in the marketing of products like hers. In the immortal words of Leslie Nielson, "Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes." Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please put a semi-protect on 2014–15 S.S.C. Napoli season article

Hey, I need your help. The Napoli article has been the target recently of vandalism and persistent sockpuppetry. I want to have it semi-protected but I either am unable or don't know how. If you could explain how or do it yourself I would be grateful. Italia2006 (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Italia2006: You can't do it yourself, because only Wikipedia administrators can protect pages. If you can tell me what editing you think is vandalism and why, and what accounts you think are sockpuppets, I will consider whether to protect the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Essentially every IP address user for the past two days keeps switching around the article format to apparently suit their liking. They keep reverting all my edits (not reverting per say, but getting rid of). If you look at the history you'll see. I'm trying to maintain consistency across the Italian football project. This person apparently believes their version is better. I know it's sock puppetry because several different IP addresses keep making the exact same changes. Exactly the same. I have a feeling it's a certain named user. Italia2006 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Italia2006:

1. One editor may often legitimately use a number of IP addresses without it being sockpuppetry, for at least two reason: they may edit from a dynamic IP connection, where the IP address is changed from time to time by the ISP, and they may edit from different places, such as at home, at work, and at a public library.
2. You say "This person apparently believes their version is better", which means that it can't be vandalism. Vandalism is deliberately unconstructive editing, not good faith editing which you happen to disagree with.
3. You say that the editor is "switching around the article format to apparently suit their liking", but presumably you switch it to suit your liking. Your opinion does not automatically take precedence over the other editor's opinion, and we don't protect pages in order to let one editor get his or her way in a dispute. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've explained the situation well enough, but so be it. I'm talking about direct violations of the MOS. Forget the request. It's not to "get my way", it's to maintain absolute consistency over articles. Italia2006 (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Response

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

Kandreyev (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev

Request for undeletion

I have created this page 2 times on "Nitesh Estates". I am new in article writing on Wikipedia.You said that my content was promotional, which in my accordance was not because Nitesh Estates is a well established real estate organisation and their is a Wikipedia page of its Chairman Nitesh Shetty. According to me there should be a Wikipedia page for Nitesh Estates like other real estate companies. If I am wrong somewhere in writing the the correct article then help me out or edit it by yourself instead of deleting it. I am new to this and I expect help from your side, rather then just deleting my articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratipaw34 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand how anyone can write whole pages of such stuff as "Nitesh Estates is considered to be providing state-of-the-art Premium Condominiums, Luxury Residences, Hotels, A-grade Office Buildings and Shopping Malls" and "Driven by its self-motivated management, Nitesh Estates has to its credit a series of firsts..." and say that their writing is not promotional. That is the sort of language that is used in marketing an PR, and nowhere else. The fact that there is a Wikipedia article about the chairman of a business does not automatically mean that the business is suitable to be the subject of an article, for two reasons: (1) a subject is not automatically notable because it is associated with a notable subject, and each subject has to have evidence of notability in its own right; (2) the fact that someone has written an article about the chairman does not guarantee that he is suitable to be the subject of an article, and it may be that that article should be deleted. However, the question of whether Nitesh Estates is suitable to be the subject of a Wikipedia article is quite separate from the question of whether the particular article that you wrote is suitable, which it certainly isn't, as it reads from start to finish like a piece of marketing copy, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy.

If you are here because you like the idea of contributing to a voluntary collaborative project to build an encyclopaedia, and just happened to choose Nitesh Estates as a first step, then My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. If, on the other hand, you are here for the purpose of using Wikipedia to publicise a business that you have a connection to, and are not interesting in doing other work for Wikipedia, then you should read the guidelines on conflict of interest, and you probably should not be creating an article about that business. For further information about writing articles about businesses, I think the best way to start is to look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. It gives general information and advice about various issues that are likely to be relevant, and also has links to various other pages with more detail on particular issues. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager

Given that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Opbeith/Archive concludes with you essentially corroborating that this was a meaningless action by User:UrbanVillager, and that myself and another sysop, User:Ricky81682, proposed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive857#Two editors collaborating on biased degrading of Wikipedia articles that this single-purpose account is banned from editing their pet topic, would you mind applying WP:BOOMERANG against them by applying such a ban or something similar? I think it's abundantly clear at this point that they're the protagonist in making this topic area toxic, but I have previously had acrimonious interactions with them, so based on your strict criteria my hands are tied. Please apply some strict criteria in this case, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that I can get punished for reporting someone for what I believed (and still believe) was sockpuppetry. If this is how Wikipedia works, I apologize for reporting anyone. But as far as Malagurski-related articles are concerned, I'm not the one making the topic area "toxic", I edited and cooperated with many users just fine until Opbeith, Pincrete and Bobrayner appeared, openly attacking Malagurski and his work and not really having as a goal the quality of the articles, but imposing only negative POV about the topic and blocking anything neutral or positive through canvassing, even though everything I proposed to be added to the articles was well-referenced, while they've even used blogs as sources several times. I know Malagurski's films are apparently not popular (and even hated) among many Wikipedia editors, including Joy, so if that's reason enough to punish me for trying to be neutral (I've always been fine with well-referenced criticism, this can easily be checked), then by all means, punish me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the full background, and the AN/I section you link to is a first-class example of the kind of long, tedious, and often acrimonious stuff that is largely responsible for my usually avoiding the admin noticeboards like the plague. I certainly don't wish to read and assess it all, and I am unwilling to take any action on the basis of a quick superficial skim. The SPI report was based on enough similarity that it was not unreasonable to be suspicious, even though I think it was mistaken. I don't know what was the purpose of reporting it two years after the event. It may have been malicious, or it may have just been misguided. Unfortunately, Joy, although your request is a perfectly reasonable one, there are too many aspects of the case that I just don't know enough about for me to be comfortable in taking any action. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to come out of left field but I got notified about this and decided to propose a topic ban here. I hope that satisfies all the parties here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)