User talk:JBW/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Swiss cheese

Hi James, Just a courtesy note that I changed your full protection to semi; I assume this wasn't intentionally full protection, as there has been only one autoconfirmed vandal in the last 6 months. But if there's something I'm missing please let me know (or just revert me if I'm not around). I left the indefinite duration in place, in case that's what you intended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi was what I intended. Thanks for putting it right. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed re-creation of Eidosmedia

Dear Mr Watson,

Shortly before Christmas an article that I had created on the software company EidosMedia was tagged for speedy deletion and then deleted. You left me a message saying that you were responsible for this decision. I now intend to recreate this article and I am writing to you for guidance in ensuring that it does not meet the fate of its predecessor.

The changes I intend to make are the following; • I will use the Talk page to declare my conflict of interest. I am an external consultant for the company in question. I think you will agree, however, that the neutrality and notability of an artcle should be judged from its content and not from its source. • I hope to establish the notability of the subject by detailing the wide use of the company’s products (leading supplier of editorial systems in France, use by Washington Post , Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal in the USA) and its important role in allowing quality print journalism to migrate successfully to digital media and mobile devices. • I will provide a list of references to specialist and general sources establishing the innovative nature of the company’s technology and it’s significance in the evolution of digital news media.

If you have any other suggestions for how the content of the article may be made to comply with Wikipedia publication standards, I shall be gald to receive them.

Yours sincerely,

David Baker Davidchbaker (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, yes I do agree that the neutrality and notability of an article should be judged from its content and not from its source. Very often, people with an involvement with a subject write in a biased way, but that is not always the case. Certainly declaring your possible conflict of interest on the article's talk page is a good idea. You may also like to create a user page at User:Davidchbaker, briefly saying what your situation is.

Wikipedia's notability guidelines are essentially based on there being substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. That is not the same thing as either "wide use of the company’s products" or "the innovative nature of the company’s technology". Naturally, if the company's products are widely used and generally considered to be highly innovative then there will probably be extensive coverage of the subject, so there is a connection between the two, but in order to establish notability your main focus should be on making sure that coverage is significant (not brief passing mentions) and from reliable independent sources, rather than on the coverage being glowing endorsement of the company. (Of course endorsement of the company is not a reason for excluding a reference, but I am trying to make it clear that that will not be a consideration in assessing notability.) One more piece of advice. Do sit back and try to see how your writing will look to an uninvolved reader. Even if your intention is to write in a neutral way, if your perspective is that of someone paid to publicise the subject, it can be difficult to see things neutrally, and I have known of editors who I am sure have been 100% certain they are writing neutrally, but who in fact have been producing what looks like advertising copy. There are others who are able to avoid that problem, and I hope you are one of them, but it is worth being on your guard. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I will create a new draft of the article in a sandbox over the next few days and ask you to review it before I publish it.

Thanks for your help,

David Baker Davidchbaker (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User Talk:Alemnur

The text on Alpha Phi Omega that was removed from Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines which got User:Alemnur blocked was readded in User Talk:Alemnur, I've commented out the categories, but I'm not sure whether the entire text can/should be deleted.Naraht (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I think the content should be removed, but I have asked the user on their talk page if they can justify keeping it. If no response, or no good response, is forthcoming soon then I think removing it would be fine. How soon is "soon"? Well, if the editor makes any edit at all without responding, then I think we can take it they have seen the message and chosen not to reply. Otherwise I would wait a couple of days or so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. My bet is that the person is a brother/sister of Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines. (I am a volunteer staff member for Alpha Phi Omega in the USA).Naraht (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with tutorial material

Dear JamesBWatson, please advise how i can learn and understand better wikipedia. Thank youTeddyV (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also if the reliable source is publication as an example Magazine which is printed and have also online version, how do i point this material as reliable sourceTeddyV (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Canidae

Hello JamesBWatson, I did edit Canidae, but for various reasons. Why do you call taking away evolutionary facts and replacing them with true Biblical facts vandalism. Can you actually prove to me that evolution did take place, and not Creation? If so, show me. JoJaEpp (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two points there. Firstly, it is impossible to prove anything to religious fundamentalists, because they are determined to stick to their existing beliefs, no matter what reasons are advanced against them. Secondly, Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by individuals removing large quantities of content just because they personally disagree with the content. Those who persist in doing so after being warned not to are blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments. I am not a religious fundamentalist. Creation is not a religion, it is a fact. Do you know that evolution actually was made up; it never existed. I think you should research it a bit more before stating such things. In fact, evolution has never been shown to be true. Charles Darwin when talking about the complexity of the human eye in his Origin of Species said," To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Another evolutionist and an anthropologist (Sir Arthur Keith)said,"Evolution is unproved and uprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." ( in fact, Creation is very provable and probable compared to evolution.)Think of the "Cambrian explosion"; it is a complete contradiction to the theory of evolution. According to evolution, cells were supposed to gradually multiply and diversify; however, there pretty much was an explosion of fossils in Cambrian layer while there is no sign of life in the Precambrian. These are just some of the false facts of evolution. Think of the diversity of the world and the universe; it is simply impossible every thing could happen by chance. Does it take more faith to believe in a Creator or in chance? Also you cannot block me as I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia, I am trying to further it by putting right info in it. Thank you. JoJaEpp (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) None of this can be cited, you're blatantly inserting your own opinion into the article. Continue to do so and you will be blocked. Calabe1992 02:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read "The Origin of Species". I have also read the defences of "creationism", and their refutations. I would not like to guess how many times I have read the gross misrepresentation of evolution as coming about by "chance", which you repeat above. I have heard and read scientists carefully and patiently explaining why that is a mistake, only to see and hear "creationists" continue to play "I didn't hear that". And so on and so on with all the other arguments advanced by "creationists". As for your belief that you can't be blocked because you are "not trying to disrupt Wikipedia", unfortunately you have seriously misunderstood Wikipedia's blocking policy. Perfectly good faith editors who believe that what they are doing is right can be blocked if they persist in editing in disruptive ways, such as persistently trying to force their views through against consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Then think of it this way. I think we all agree that no humans were around when the world was formed. That means we all have faith about how we believe this world was formed ( whether evolution or creation). So, explain how you think evolution ( which is the belief in complete chance), is more likely at happening than Creation ( which is the belief that everything was created by a Creator). If you don't want me to force my opinion then, fine, I won't because obviously it won't work. But I am personally asking you a question about what you think. JoJaEpp (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we don't have an opinion on it, because everything must be written from a WP:NPOV. Calabe1992 06:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, my opinion is irrelevant. As Calabe1992 has said, Wikipedia works from a neutral point of view, and I do not allow my own opinions to influence my editing. I revert edits and delete content if they are contrary to Wikipedia policy, whether I agree with it, disagree with it, or have no opinion. I could point you to a case in the last couple of weeks where I not only reverted edits that I agree with, but even semi-protected the article involved to prevent continuation of the same problem. This was because the edits in question were intended to plug a particular point of view. The fact that I myself agree with that point of view did not affect my decision.

There are plenty of sources where you can find answers to the sort of question you have raised about evolution, if you want to. One that springs to mind is Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker". I personally found the book a little slow and tedious at times, but it is clearly written, and does address most of the relevant questions.

You seem to have overlooked, or not fully understood, what I said above about "chance", so I will elaborate a little.. Evolution is not about anything that happened by "chance": it is about a very systematic process. The stuff about "chance" is a Straw man argument: an irrelevant refutation of a position that one's opponent has not proposed. "Creationists" time and again come up with this irrelevant argument about "chance", despite the fact that that misconception has been answered time and again in numerous sources. There seem to be several reasons for the persistence of this misunderstanding. One such reason is an assumption that nothing systematic can happen without a conscious mind planning it, therefore the alternative to a conscious "creator" must be random chance. Another reason is a confusion between the process of evolution and the variation which is a prerequisite for that evolution. Which genes a particular organism receives from the available gene pool is largely a matter of chance, but which of the combinations of genes will more often survive and reproduce is not a matter of chance at all: genes that increase the chance of survival will be passed into future generations in greater numbers than those that increase that chance. Chance determines what genes an individual has, and chance plays a partial role in determining which individuals survive, but it does not determine which genes survive in large numbers, and which survive in small numbers, or not at all. Another reason is that many "creationists" have never heard or read the arguments for evolution, and base their views of it on accounts of it from other creationists.

No, we don't "all have faith about how we believe this world was formed". I have no faith in the matter at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, how is Evolution a neutral point of view? It has not been proved a fact, therefore it is still a theory. That means you cannot throw out Creation as some strong bias. Evolution is the same way, it also cannot be proved as something that actually took place. I agree with you that believing there is a Creator takes faith, but believing evolution took place also takes faith. The reason for this is just as I said before. No one was around to see how the earth was formed. Do you know what faith is? It is believing in something you can't see or for sure know that it happened. Therefore if you're so strongly arguing in favour of evolution, how can you say that you have no faith in the matter at all? I have heard talks on the subject by evolutionists who became Creationists just because of the sheer evidence against evolution. Did you read what I said about Charles Darwin? He himself agreed that evolution has a very small chance that it possibly could have happened. That Special Creation took place is a quite a bit more likely. Have you ever read the Bible? In it is the account of the world wide flood. There are many evidences like that of the Grand Canyon which favour it. The theory of Evolution says that the rock layers should show themselves in the right order with the fossils in their right places within the rock strata. However, there has never been one place that has this right order throughout the whole earth. Evolution also says that transitional forms should take place between different organisms as they evolve. This has also been proved wrong as there has never been one found. What do you think? Both Evolution and Creation are not proved facts, but which is the more likely? JoJaEpp (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

If I wished to argue about these issues I would look for an online forum or blog that deals with the subject: I am sure there must be some. That is not the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page. If you are really interesting in knowing what the answers to your points are, then, as I have already pointed out, there are plenty of published accounts you may read. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I know the answers to my points; I am seeing if you know the answers. Do you wish to argue about these issues? If so, what would be an appropriate website? JoJaEpp (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I've got many better things to spend my time on than arguing just for the sake of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing for the sake of it. These are reasonable facts, and Wikipedia cannot just accept evolution, when there are facts to prove Creation very probably happened. However, if you do not want to debate about this, then that is your choice, but remember that evolution is not a proved fact. JoJaEpp (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get listed ANYWHERE!

Sorry I am so dull about all this. Does this mean that I cannot add any mention of my blog, even if not naming it? I notice that elsewhere on Wikipedia there is mention of a blog calling itself "Iraq Inquiry Digest". This is privately owned and by an individual who is not necessariy neutral. In fact he is well-known to be very anti the Iraq war. He writes anti articles at The Guardian. There seems to be plenty of links on Wikipedia to such opinions, and few at all in support ot Tony Blair and his decisions. My blog, btw, is not centred around the Iraq war, though I do occasionally write on it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlairSupporter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I see four issues here.

1. The very fact that you use such expressions as "Trying to get listed ANYWHERE!" indicate that your intention is to get publicity for your blog. If I add a mention of a blog to an article because the existence of the blog conveys relevant information about the subject of the article that is one thing, but if I add mention of it because I want the blog to receive mentions in Wikipedia, then that is another thing entirely. Unfortunately many people mistake "anyone can contribute to Wikipedia" as meaning "anyone can contribute anything they like to Wikipedia", but that is not so. There are certain things which are not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies, one of which is any editing with the purpose of promotion. Inserting links to or mentions of your blog in order to make people aware of its existence is editing to promote your blog, and is unacceptable.
2. I know nothing about the "Iraq Inquiry Digest". However, if it is written by a prominent Guardian journalist then it is likely that it has received widespread attention, and that substantial coverage of it in reliable third party sources exists. If so, then it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If I were to set up a blog today it would not satisfy those guidelines, and would not merit mention in Wikipedia. Also, you have not said how or in what contexts the "Iraq Inquiry Digest" is mentioned. It may be that you are referring to use of it as citation as a source in articles. If so, a column written by a prominent journalist on an established and respected newspaper is likely to be regarded as a reliable source, whether or not the column is prevented in blog format. That is a very different matter from a blog that any member of the public sets up on blogspot or somewhere of the sort. Anyone can set up such a blog and write any crap they like, so we cannot accept such blogs as reliable sources.
3. Even if a particular blog is suitable for mention in Wikipedia articles, the owner of that blog is not the right person to decide to include it. You have a clear conflict of interest, and should avoid such actions as adding mentions of, or links to, your own blog.
4. It is clear that your whole purpose in editing Wikipedia, or at least a substantial proportion of it, is to increase coverage of a particular point of view. Editing to promote a point of view is contrary to Wikipedia policy. It seems from what you say that you think that there is significant coverage of a point of view contrary to yours, and that you wish to "redress the balance". The trouble with that approach, is that everyone with strong political views sees Wikipedia as biased in the other direction. If you really want to see this in action, spend a while looking at the history of a few articles related in any way to the Arab-Israel conflict, and then look at a few samples of coverage of the same topic on administrators' noticeboards, requests for comments, talk pages of editors who have been blocked in relation to editing on that subject, etc etc. You will find no end of muslim editors who clearly sincerely believe that Wikipedia is run by a gang of militant zionist extremists, and you will also find any number of jewish editors convinced that Wikipedia is dominated by a racist clique of antisemites. You will find the same thing on a smaller scale if you look at India/Pakistan, Serbia/Croatia, Irish republicanism/unionism, etc etc. You will find the same thing on a still smaller, but by no means negligible, scale in areas concerning more moderate political areas, such as the issues concerning Tony Blair. Supporters of one political line will quite sincerely perceive the present coverage of a topic as biased, and see a need to redress the balance, but others with a different view will equally sincerely see a need for shifting the balance in the opposite direction. So, in that situation, how do we determine what is the right balance? We do not have some sort of ruler of Wikipedia, or ruling council, to impose their own view. We take the line that the right balance is that which reflects coverage in reliable sources. If there is far more critical coverage of Blair in reliable sources than supportive coverage, then to attempt to present the matter in Wikipedia articles as evenly balanced between the two would be to misrepresent the coverage. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks the coverage out there in the real world is unbalanced is not the point: Wikipedia seeks to reflect what is out there, not what people with a particular political view think should be out there. If you wish to try to shift the balance of coverage of Blair then you are, of course, perfectly free to do so, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Use of Wikipedia to promote or publicise a particular point of view is contrary to policy. Many people come here in all innocence, believing in good faith that doing that is a legitimate use of Wikipedia, but that is a misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

__________

OK, James. I think I get the message. Thank you. I'll go away now.

Blair Supporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlairSupporter (talk • contribs) 23:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I give up.

Now - how do I delete the coversations on here between us?

Thank you. BlairSupporter (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't ... every contribution is effectively permanent. At some point, James' archiving will kick in, and they'll be moved automagically (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tat will be one week after the last post to this section. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

--Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:JohnDavidsonLA

Hey, you just now blocked User:JohnDavidsonLA, but I think this was in error. Reviewing the history of the edits, it looks as though there wasn't any vandalism at all in the users edits at all. The edits were not vandalism, insofar as it looks like the user was genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia, but being a newb, was going about it wrong. Instead of being helped, it looks like Mattythewhite simply decided for himself it was vandalism, warned the shit out of him, and reported him. However, this edit clearly shows that he's trying to do something, but having trouble. Matty appears to have ignored this, and warned and then reported him. I don't see any obvious vandalism in these edits at all, and was in the process of explaining this at WP:AIV, when I noticed you had already blocked him. Could you please review and reconsider, or explain what about this user's edits you found to be vandalism, if I am misreading this situation? Thanks! --Jayron32 15:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you I am correct in my interpretation that this user's edits are straight and simple vandalism. His additions are completely ficticious, which he himself implied in one of the abusive messages he left on my TP. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I missed that. I apologize for following policy regarding new editors. I won't be doing that again. --Jayron32 15:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Just in case Jayron32 misattributed the reply, that was not James who replied. Syrthiss (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• I took some time writing a reply to the post that started this section. There were several edit conflicts, and by the time they were over, somehow or other my browser had lost my message. I can't be bothered rewriting the whole thing, but I did find abundant sources to support Nedum Onuoha, whom the editor was removing without explanation, and I did not find sources for the information that was added. Add to that the edit that Mattythewhite has linked to, and the situation seemed clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) sorry for the ec's. Syrthiss (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

HELP! me

why do you critisize and not help? english is my second language, i know i am abrupt but it is how i was raised and i cant not and i will not help that. I Believe that inserting penis size by RACE is important for a wikipedia encyclopedia as it is the TRUTH. If you disagree that penis size is the same for every race i will show you evidence but surely you are no innocent child all you have to do is watch a pornographic movie and you will see. Please Help Me insert this data bestly into wikipedia?124.180.159.192 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I criticise because I see things that seem to me to be worthy of criticism.
2. Your claims are not supported by reliable sources. Such sources are the basis on which we decide what to include and what not to include, not some anonymous person's claim that it is "the truth". (And claiming instead that it is "the TRUTH" will if anything reduce the likelihood that anyone will take you seriously.)
3. Even if your claims are valid and can be supported by reliable sources, that does not justify placing them in any page you happen to choose, irrespective of how relevant they are to that page.
4. It is a gross misrepresentation of your editing to claim that all you have been doing is inserting information which you believe is true. You have made highly contentious statements, misused Wikipedia to post bragging and other irrelevance, made numerous racist attacks, made personal attacks, made unsupported accusations of criminal activity against (to my knowledge) at least one living person, and blatantly vandalised articles. I see that, within a period of ten days, you were blocked three times, and that on each occasion you subsequently had talk page access revoked, because of abuse of such access. I think it is very likely that, if I had checked your block log, I would have blocked you again instead of warning you. If you continue with your disruptive editing then you can expect a substantially longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

oh wow i ask for help and I am called, a racsit? thankyou very much mister james b waston, do you want to rip out my heart and soul out while you are at it? if the 'person' you are refering to is tommy robinson, then you should be ashamed for defending such a disgusting piece of pig filth. educate yourself on youtube about his views, he is racist. i digress, i have not been in here long, and i may be young but i am well respected within the Islamic community but i want to become a part of the wikipedia australia community, pleeeeeeeease help me, i believe you to be an intelligent forthright person and there are not enough Islamic editors =) Peace124.180.159.192 (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello, 124.180.159.192. I understand that you are upset. I understand why you are upset. How you wrote about this may possibly not the best way to go about expressing your feelings. It might possibly be interpreted as something that attacks JamesBWatson himself instead of his actions. I understand that you are new to Wikipedia. I've added a message on your talk page explaining more. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killingussoftly (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 January 2012‎

Absurd edit warning when rightly trying to remove false information.

I am half Spanish and fluent in Spanish. I can easily see if an source is reliable or not. In the case of SeaBoy (which BTW is an banned user that has reappeared with an different username, he admitted so on his talk page) recent edits on the Real Madrid page and his inclusion of the false claim of Real Madrid being the most successful in terms of domestic and international trophies, is an absurd action considering the fact that such a claim has no reason on earth.

First of all the sources are unreliable blogs/football pages that are free for all to participate in. I happen to know a writer on that page (blachereport). His name is Manuel Traquente and he is not even 18 years old. The two blogs do not include the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup which is officially recognized by FIFA and UEFA as being the predecessor of the UEFA Cup nor do they include the Copa Eva Duarte trophy, founded and organized by RFEF and regarded as the predecessor of the current Spanish Super Cup. Therefore it should not be valid as a source.

Moreover this is a wrong statement as FC Barcelona have more domestic and international trophies. And I only include trophies recognized by either RFEF (The Royal Spanish Football Federation), UEFA and FIFA.

For further explanation and proof of me being right, see the Real Madrid discussion page or the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages of FC Barcelona. Both versions are using reliable sources from one of the biggest Spanish sportpapapers.

It is an untrue and biased statement that can not be proven by reliable sources therefore it must be removed--Crashwheelx (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

All that may or may not be true: I have no idea. however, it does not address the contents of my message to you, which was about (1) inserting comments about editing an article into the article itself, and (2) edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mail

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

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Restoraion request

Can you please restore User:JuniusThaddeus and revert whatever vandalism caused you to delete it? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have now restored the original version that you made, without the subsequent vandalism by a user who has since been indefinitely blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

This is a disambiguation page. It is not needed because the mainspace article is "Stupid in Love". Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a disambiguation page, it is a redirect. It seems plausible to me that someone looking for this might type in "Stupid In Love", in which case they will find the redirect useful. Does keeping the redirect do any harm? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please see: [1] and [2], and this also: [3]. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You must unblock IP address

You must unblock IP address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.73.110.128 , because this is result of your mistake only. Exists discussion of the important issues, but not something bad. Dinamic IP is not sin. You watched to the name of the topic, you wrongly understood the situation because of this (copy from OTRS). All the issues already resolved with good result. Only details are discussed now, to be free of mistakes and so on. - 2.94.180.4 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

With the continued stupidity that came related to those Beatles stuff, I'd keep it blocked - it was done according to policy, and should remain so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Elnaz Rezaei

why did you delete my page in wikipedia?

Elnaz Rezaei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whearezeb (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing what additional information you want beyond what has already been said on your talk page, in the deletion log, and in the deletion discussion. If you tell me what needs clarifying I will try to answer. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

At first you published my page in wikipedia and there was no problem about being this page, but there were jealous people that they deleted my page more times because of editing and after it my page went to the section of the articles for deletin I tried many times to recreate my page but you delete my page every time because my page's name is in black list of deletation. Dear Watson whole of the my information are real and I dont like you to delete my page evey time because of my sick enemies that they have deleted my page for showing my page as an empty contect.

Elnaz Rezaei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.193.105 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have any serious, meaningful, question about the deletion then I will attempt to answer it. If you simply wish to attack people who have acted in ways you don't like, and express your paranoid conspiracy theory about them, then there is nothing to say that will be any help. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with Mr. ATWA

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

From this, it's obvious this guy's an SPA, so you might as well just indef him. I'd recommend blocking 96.233.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a few hours to get rid of his socking. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. I always thought it was almost certainly just a matter of time before the user was indef-blocked, but I thought there was no harm in giving him/her a chance to prove the case one way or the other. The user's persistent personal attacks, vandalism, etc etc have now settled the matter without any further room for doubt. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Elnaz Rezaei

Be polite dear B Watson.You have to be patient infront of the people that they Have been a misunderstanding.I forgive your aggretion.Good Luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whearezeb (talk • contribs) 13:06, 30 January 2012

I always do try to be polite. If I have failed to do so, please tell me when and where, so that I can learn from my mistakes. What is "aggretion"? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Autistican

Looks familiar, see their "new" article, List of Tinga Tinga Tales episodes. "New" user, started with the proper template for under construction, same interests, same methods. Still early, but I would bet next week's lunch money on it even at this stage. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow, SPI requested. Calabe1992 01:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

To enter P.K. Banerjee into the top scorer list

Sir. I request you please to enter the valid information of P.K. Banerjee's goal scoring record as the highest goal scorer by an Indian player. He had scored 65 goals in 84 international games which he played during his career according to WIKIPEDIA.

Check using the link " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pradip_Kumar_Banerjee "

As your site's page is about top all-time male goal scorer for each national football team where the top scorer has a minimum 20 goals in official international matches for his country. Players who are currently active at international level are indicated in bold type. This list is not an all-time top international goal scorers list, as some country's second top scorer could have scored more than another country's top scorer. It only lists the top scorer for each country. So I request to register his name please.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.136.196.157 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hacker T. Dog

You seem to have protected Hacker T. Dog from creation, which makes sense given the number of times that it's been taken down. However, there is now an at-least-defensible article at Hacker the Dog. Judging from Google searches, Hacker T. Dog is the more common name for this character (and the one that's linked in CBBC); can we remove the creation protection so that the article can be moved to that title? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk)

Mr. Curious is back...

Yeah, he's back again under another IP, see the SPI. Calabe1992 04:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And Calabe1992 has proposed that this guy get banned, and I support it.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Would have written that myself, but do not want to appear to taint the vote myself... Calabe1992 04:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've supported the ban too FYI. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Me too. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandal alert.

Hello. Sorry if I have to tell you this on short notice, but can you block 121.1.11.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Repeat vandal. Please provide action ASAP. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Madhu.k93

Hi James,

You placed a final warning on this user's talkpage a couple of days ago, saying: "The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." I've just tagged their article Tamkeen Center For Legal Aid & Human Rights for G11 (and G12) violations. I'm ambivalent as to whether they get blocked or not, but thought I'd best raise the issue with you since G11 indicates promotional endeavours. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

teelt

who are you to say i have made an act of vandalism trying to make a teelt page ????

is it a joke ...?????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisoneisnotused (talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was tagged for speedy deletion as having no context, and looking at it I decided it was nonsense, so I deleted it as vandalism. However, I may have been mistaken: it may have been intended in good faith but just written in a way that didn't make its meaning clear. I will restore the article, but I would not bet any money on its surviving very long. I see no evidence that the subject has any notability at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

Hi. Remember me?? You'd shocked me few days ago by suddenly deleting 7 of my created pages. Anyways, it was my mistake. I understand that i'd copied the materials and i'll recreate those articles later which will NOT b copied material. I just wanted to appericiate your efforts in removing the things that r violating the policies. One advise for u: 'b litle more kind to neophytes'. Still, u do a excellent job. U DESERVE THIS BARNSTAR!! Yasht101 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with page move

Someone - probably User:Tony00142 - has moved Idukki district to Idukki God's Own District. It needs to be moved back but I cannot do it. Can you assist please? - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done I am also checking the editor's other edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So am I. The Bisonvalley one is odd but doubtless is a transliteration thing. The only source is a deadlink, even at Wayback. I think that we have a competence issue here. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on other users

The user who was just blocked for calling others "cunts" repeatedly is now referring to others as "Nazis" on his user talk page (User talk:Spitfire3000). I find that highly offensive. Could this be removed/stopped, and does it merit an extended block? Tataral (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have extended the block and removed talk page access. As for removing the existing attacks, yes, that could be done, but I prefer to leave it there so that others can (a) see how stupidly the editor has behaved, and (b) understand what the others who have responded are referring to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that seems reasonable. Thanks. Tataral (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

JS Group

Nice work - was just about to get started, but you beat me to it. – ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverts of edits by IP 97.87.29.188

Is there a specific reason why you have reverted talk page edits referring to SciAm sources added by the recently blocked IP 97.87.29.188? These edits don't look like vandalism to me, and they are relevant to the article. They don't seem to be promotional, either. Thanks, Nageh (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I see that the IP has been adding such links all over. Not sure on which grounds they should be reverted but simply posting links and nothing else certainly isn't very useful either. Just let me know why you think reverting is the right response. Nageh (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't look like vandalism. Whether they are promotional is open to debate. However, the history of edits from this and related IP addresses has led various editors to think that the edits are not directly related to editing the relevant articles, which has raised questions in various discussions, and led to reports at admin boards. Nevertheless, since you have questioned this, I will leave them for now. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Arthur Rubin/IP list lists a few IPs who are obviously the same editor. IP 97.87.29.188 is one of the few stable IPs, but should I bring the socks to the attention of an uninvolved editor if they appear (and I notice them while they are still editing)? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what's going on. Thanks for pointing that out! Nageh (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, I understand the sentiment. No strong opinion on the reverts, though I certainly agree that at the very least one can expect the IP to stop simply dumping links when asked so. After all, talk pages are meant for discussing on how to improve an article. Thanks for the reply, Nageh (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest in the issue. FYI, pursuant to WP:VANDALISM, "Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially. (Italics added) For any possible violation, this means we have to get into the poster's mind a bit in order to tell if their posts are (A) legitimate external link(s) or (B) external link spam vandalism. How do we gain such insight? That's simple.... you look at their track record. In this case,

• over 45 out of the IP's 50 latest talk page posts at time of my test were external links and nothing more
• these were posted in less than 48 hours
• the behavior continued after warnings from two different editors
• not a single one of them was on the talk page for the last 50 articles this IP had actually edited (and to find 50 unique articles you have to go back to May 2011)

Clearly, these posts were "mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially". Therefore, they are not just external links but external link spam, which is defined as a form of WP:VANDALISM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Probable sock is editing right now. See this NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I initially took action under the clear impression that this was linkspam. When Nageh made the post which started this section, I thought I had better reconsider the matter carefully before continuing, in case I was mistaken. (Note that I said "I will leave them for now", i.e. until I have reconsidered the matter.) Having reconsidered it, I have decided that I was right: it is linkspam. I now see that, while I was offline, others have also expressed the same opinion. I shall feel free to continue taking relevant steps against this spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. This editor has long annoyed some of us climate change editors but until now no admin has taken any real interest in attempting to reform their behavior. And for the record, it is my goal to convert the IP from spammer into an editor, and not to just drive them away. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can do that, it will be great. I don't think the user has any ill intention, but rather does not understand some aspects of how Wikipedia works, and so far has not been willing to take on board what others say about the issues. There is potential for improvement there. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another kalamazoo IP... 99.19.44.50 is online now, editing the same batch of climate articles. This time, for the most part they are just making wikilinks and external links out of existing article text but are not editing that text. I find this less annoying than the link spam, except for the (suspected) block evasion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the links placed by this editor, both via this latest IP address and via other IPs, are of questionable value, but they are not actually doing any significant harm. Nevertheless, I think a user who has been blocked, but who intends to edit in ways that do not continue the reasons for the block, should be prepared to say so and ask to be unblocked, rather than just evading the block, so I have blocked the new IP too. However, I have tried to encourage the user to request an unblock, since the current evidence suggests they may be prepared to avoid the kind of editing that led to the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done, and hope springs eternal.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Antoinette Kirkwood

Is there a discussion about this AfD somewhere? She is listed in the Norton/Grove encyclopedia, which is sufficient evidence of notability. Pkeets (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that I can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You posted an AfD notice on her article at my talk page. Is this not going to happen? Pkeets (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, a PROD, not an AfD. I will explain the difference on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I guess my experience with editors that post PRODs had been that they go on to pursue AfD. Again, Kirkwood is listed in other encyclopedias. That's a slam dunk for notability. Pkeets (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

National Hispanic Media Coalition

Is the current version similar to the many versions that have previously been speedy deleted? Being a lowly editor, I'm not privy to prior versions. I don't have a horse in this race, I just have it in my watch list from tagging a long time ago on new page watch. It has been speedy deleted 4 times, however, so I thought it was worth looking at. Not sure if it should have been speedied or AFDed before, I thought it was always borderline on notability, but not as strongly as previous admins who speedied it. Anyway, a fresh set of eyes on it may be warranted. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The current version is substantially less promotional than previous versions. Others were unambiguously promotional, though perhaps debatable as to whether enough so for speedy deletion, as opposed to clean up. My feeling is that they were borderline on promotion and borderline on notability, so perhaps the two together justified speedy deletion. However, the present version, while less promotional, does nothing at all to show notability. A quick look at the results of a Google search indicate plenty of hits for this organisation, but all or almost all of the first page or so of hits are not independent sources, not reliable sources, or both. In my opinion the article at present qualifies for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7 (an article about an organization that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant), and obviously you are free to nominate it for speedy deletion under that criterion if you like. However, I doubt that there would be any point in speedy-deleting it, since the history of the article suggests that it would just be re-created yet again. Taking it to AfD would be better, I think, to definitely settle the matter one way or the other. My own impression is based on a very quick check of potential sources, and I can't be certain there aren't better ones somewhere, but for what it's worth my guess is that it would more likely than not be deleted at AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Message from Jones7224

I have deleted a previously posted message. I had sent this message to you and another administrator Jayjg (talk), who is now helping me with my issue. Thanks, Jones (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

IPA

Hello! We had a lenghty discussion (maybe you know abt it) for Indic scripts and IPA related to Indian articles here. The result was to include IPA for all biographical articles so that non-Indians can read the name. It took me a long time to write that cluster of words. Can you please try reading [dʒɡdʒiːt̪ sɪnɡʱ] as per Wikipedia:IPA for Hindi and Urdu and see if it really helps? And i doubt anyone would ever find any source for this. Editors would just have to add it as per their interpretation and incase of dispute, discuss it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect we won't be using IPA right away. The first task is to remove the scripts, IPA takes a lot of time to implement, and it comes only after scripts are removed. Lynch7 14:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Does it really begin with the consonant cluster [dʒɡdʒ]? Doesn't the "a" represent some vowel sound or other? If you say it really is pronounced like that then perhaps you are right, but I would be surprised. There are three considerations which make this reading seem, on the face of it, improbable. (1) As I said in my edit summary, it is very difficult to imagine such an awkward consonant cluster being used, particularly at the beginning of a word. (2) Why is the word transcribed into the Roman alphabet with an "a" if there is no vowel sound there in the original? (3) I have searched, and can find no mention of such awkward consonant clusters anywhere. For a language to use such a cluster, especially initially, would be so unusual and striking that I would expect the fact to be given considerable prominence. You say that you "doubt anyone would ever find any source for this", but that seems very odd to me. We are talking about a major language, with plenty written about it in many places. I have found it very easy to find numerous sources for many aspects of the pronunciation of the language, but not one of them mentions this particular feature. Note that I am not asking for a source giving the exact pronunciation of the whole name, just for the existence of this initial consonant cluster in the language. If you had given the pronunciation as, for example, [dʒaːɡdʒiːt̪] or [dʒəɡdʒiːt̪] I wouldn't have given it a moment's thought, but [dʒɡdʒiːt̪] looked very much like a typing error. It is clear from what you say that it was no typing error and, rightly or wrongly, you really did intend to type that strange transcription. As I said above, you may be right, but, for the reasons I have given, I would be very surprised. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@MikeLynch: Thats okay! I am not taking this task. I just wanted to try it out. (Actually, i doubt i will be doing much of it again.)

@JamesBWatson: My Mistake!!! Sorry! [dʒəɡdʒiːt̪] sounds much appropriate. I overlooked "ə" in the IPA guide. Hence presumed that it must be pronounced somehow. Btw, does anyone by any chance knows of some site which would read these IPAs and produce sound? That would be of great help. & yes, i thought that you expected a source that tells how Jagjit Singh is pronounced. Sorry for that too. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Critical Incident Stress Foundation

Hello James... I am not to sure how this wikipedia thing works... I am trying to make a page for an organization that really helped my father out while he was suffering from post tramatic stress... I tried mimicing the page of the heart and stress foundation but even tho the content is extremely similar you guys keep saying i am trying to promote this organization. I just think this organization deserves recognization within in the enclcyopedic world. PLease let me know what i can do to make this page work..

thank you so much

(Kelsey pitt (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Kelsey Pitt)

Thank you very much James! I have alot of information about PTSD and this foundation. I am just not sure how to present it without seeming like I am working for the company or anything like that. Any advice you can give me to work on it would be great!!

(Kelsey pitt (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Kelsey Pitt)

Hi James... Me again.. Can u have a look at my page to see if it is getting any better.. I am trying to reference sources and stuff but before iw aste anymore time i want to be assured im heading in the right direction....

(Kelsey pitt (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Kelsey Pitt)

PS!! i just read your message fully and i think you may be right... the slow steady pace may be better for me... if this doesnt work this time around i am just going to start the old fashion way and work my way up. :)Thank you for all your help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsey pitt (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look in the next couple of days or so. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot

Hello JameBWatson want to help me create a bot can.--BrunoHe (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be asking me to help you create a bot. If so, I'm afraid I have no experience of bot creation, and wouldn't be able to give you much help. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Jones7224's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jones (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

about a page...

hi i was wondering why the page KuzzNshazziie was closed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzznshazziie , how do is not indicate the significance of the subject? thanks! (92.21.78.214 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Most of the claims made in the article were given fake "references" which were links to web pages having nothing to do with KuzzNshazziie. When those were taken away, what was left told us that he was an internet reviewer and musician, and nothing else. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Gagra Choli

The website is recognized by wikipedia as CC http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Indianetzone Including http://www.4to40.com/history/index.asp?p=Gupta_Period_Early_Fourth_to_Mid-Eighth_Centuary_A.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead URLs.please check.WikiMan88 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I assume you mean that you copied the information from indianetzone, which releases its content under a free Creative Commons license. I found the content on a page at http://www.4to40.com, with a copyright notice saying "all rights reserved". However, even if the material is validly published at indianetzone, as you seem to be implying, that site licenses article content under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's use of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Create protection on Christopher Tsai

Hi James; there's an Articles for Creation submission in which I think addressed the issues in the AfD debate. However, it appears that you have create-protected the page. If you think the submission is o.k. for article space, could you please release the protection? Thanks and regards, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the new version has "addressed the issues in the AfD debate". I have carefully read the very detailed summing up by the admin who closed that discussion, and it seems to me that the comments there about the references still apply to the current references. At a glance, the new draft looks impressively sourced: 32 references. However, closer examination reveals a different story. Quite a few of the references are duplicates, in most cases giving the same URL, but sometimes different URLs that link either to the same page or to another page with the same content (compare http://www.nysun.com/business/tsai-method-of-selection-stick-to-the-fundamentals/17304/ with http://www.pranaygupte.com/article.php?index=329). Then we have "references" to pages that don't actually mention Christopher Tsai, and ones that mention him briefly in passing. (e.g. an obituary of his father with such mentions as "The cause was multiple organ failure, said his son Christopher", "Besides Christopher, he is survived by two other children..." and " 'He loved doing transactions' Christopher said.") In fact, three quarters of the apparent "references" can be pruned out as either non-references or duplicates. What that leaves us with is a handful of references which are much the same in character as those which were present at the time of the AfD, and to which the closing remarks in that AfD still seem to apply. To me, this looks not so much like a new draft of the article which addresses the issues in the old article, more like a very professional job of making it look superficially more like an article on a notable subject. Christopher Tsai is a businessman who has accumulated a lot of money. That seems to be the substantial claim of significance in the article. We are also given extraneous information, such as that he commissioned an architect to build him a house, which lots of very rich people do, and that the house has achieved some attention, which may be evidence of notability of the house, but it certainly isn't evidence of notability of its owner. The draft article also contains such information as "Between 2000 and 2005, investors in Tsai Capital saw a cumulative return of 71% on their investments, far out-performing both Standard & Poor’s and Russell’s 1000 Growth Index, which saw loses over the same period". That looks to me rather like promotion. In summary, I see no reason at all to reverse the decision reached at AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon James

Thanks for your comments, would like to take the opportunity to address them if I may? And may I also apologise for making you go over old ground - I've only recently become aware that someone has tried to create this page before.

I completely agree that there are a general lack of external references, and that some of those references are brief to say the least. However, I feel that it is better to quote apparently insignificant (but indisputable) sources than leave potentially 'interesting' facts unestablished. E.g. By referencing the article on the death of Gerald Tsai, I'm merely establishing the fact that his father was reasonably famous - nothing more, nothing less. (In the same way, I was only trying to establish his notability as a successful fund manager when I compared his company's performance to S&P; on reflection, I see your point about 'promotion' and shall of course amend.)

As I said to Bryce, my interest in Christopher Tsai starts and ends with his activities as an art collector - I added details on his business dealings later because it seemed helpful, but they're of no personal interest to me. (Ironic how 'extraneous' detail depends on perspective!)

Even though many of the sources I've referenced are brief and widespread, I have no reason to doubt their veracity. I hope to demonstrate that Christopher Tsai is a notable figure and, for the following reasons, would like you to consider overturning the AfD:

His art collection

Over the past decade Christopher Tsai and his partner have acquired an extensive art collection, comprising of works from many popular contemporary Chinese artists - the collection is so large in fact that it requires its own custom building. He has loaned pieces to the V&A and some of his collection is even currently on a world tour.

Relationship to Ai Weiwei

You're right to say that many rich men have built their own houses, but Christopher Tsai didn't just hire an architect - he hired the man that designed an Olympic Stadium for a government that would later imprison him. Furthermore, the building that came out of that collaboration later won a major national design award, and was nominated for another.

(Given the amount of press coverage received by Ai Weiwei in the press, I am very surprised that more attention has not been paid to Tsai, as one of Ai's more prominent Western supporters.)

Precedents

If pages for Yves Arman, Paul R. Jones and Malouf Abraham, Jr. are allowed, why isn't this? All are fine fellows in their field, but their main claims to fame are their art collections.

Business

Tsai has clearly experienced some success as a fund manager and, whilst this may not warrant a page for that reason alone, it surely reinforces the argument when added to the reasons detailed above.

Thanks again for your time, I look forward to hearing your decision.

Coffeelover1979 (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how famous, notable, or significant the architect of Tsai's house is. Notability is not inherited by association with someone else who is notable. For the same reason, evidence that "his father was reasonably famous" does nothing to establish notability of his son. My father in law is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, but I would not dream of using that as a reason to write an article about my wife, who is not notable. You say "Given the amount of press coverage received by Ai Weiwei in the press, I am very surprised that more attention has not been paid to Tsai". However, whether you are surprised or not, if Tsai has not received substantial coverage then he has not received substantial coverage, which is what is required to establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. The fact that Tsai is a successful businessman does not make him satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards: nowhere in the notability guidelines is there anything that could be read that way. Nor does buying a lot of works of art make someone satisfy the notability guidelines. It is, of course, natural for anyone new to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles to get an idea of what is acceptable. However, unfortunately, it is not a reliable guide, as among the three million and more articles on English Wikipedia there are many that should not be there. You may find it helpful to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. A quick look at the articles you mention suggests that Yves Arman almost certainly does not qualify for inclusion, and I shall look at it more carefully to decide whether to propose it for deletion. Thank you for pointing it out. I am less sure, at a quick glance, about the other two, but if I find time I may have a closer look at them too. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sensory, Inc

Why was the Sensory, Inc entry deleted? What specifically is promotional or advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavius SV (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire article. See also WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Bryce is right. There was no particular sentence which screamed out "this is spam", but the overall tone of the article as a whole was promotional. It read more like part of a company's marketing materials than like an article in an encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's Was Me

So My computer has been laggy and I thought it was just me being weird but then I started seeing all these links in "my computer so I followed them .... But I deduced was a project to profile people based on there web history etc... And as i dug a little deeper into the 12 internet connections in my window list .. I only have one... I was brought to Wikipedia... I'm sorry for all the trouble I caused ... but some of you's should be the sorry ones ... I was only tryin to figure out what was goin on and I was bein threatened " I am grateful for what AMA has done for me, can I help?

You can make a donation to Wikimedia or volunteer in some fashion that helps the Wikipedian

community. There are many ways to get involved; you might even want to start your own

voluntary association in Wikipedia around some issue or concern that you have. We are a

virtual community, anything is possible, just remember "If you do not want your writing to

be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it."4:45 PM 2/5/2012" This is completely un American You's should be ashamed ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.169.27 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 February 2012‎

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks

I greatly appreciate your prompt action against the aggressive IP user 118.127.68.110. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mail

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

Calabe1992 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I am the subject of scrutiny. Give me the chance and I will amend for my past mistakes. Unlike others, i will own up to my past sins. Because I care. Cigaro Pizarro (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to give you a second chance. Let me know if you have any questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright thanks :). I am sure you know I am willing to subject myself to scrutiny corect? Thank you sir for your fairness. Your confidence will be rewarded :). Cigaro Pizarro (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Maritime incidents in 2012

Hi, would you mind undoing the removal of this category from all articles you removed it from please? Although this particular category was created by a banned user, was it really doing any harm to leave it alone? You could have deleted the category and then re-created it yourself if you felt that strongly about it, but deleting the category and then removing it from all articles was, albeit unintentionally, disruptive. The "Maritime incidents in (year)" categories are well established as part of WP:SHIPS categorisation. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I do understand your point. At one time I used to fairly freely restore pages deleted as created by block-evading or ban-evading editors on request, but for various reasons I am now less willing to do so. However, there is nothing to stop you from re-creating the category. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Treatment

Said good. FPAS is idiot comparing to you. Cheers. 79.191.251.232 (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Another page move

Can you assist me with another page move, please? Thomas Cope (1827-1884) needs to be moved to Thomas Cope now that I have correctly named the latter as Thomas Cope (disambiguation). - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that the primary meaning of "Thomas Cope"? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm. The only other "Thomas Cope" that has an article is Thomas D. Cope. The one to which I am referring was involved with Cope Bros & Co, a tobacco company based in Liverpool. There are a series of related new articles that I am trying to fix. I have the feeling that, Yanks being Yanks, they will actually refer to Thomas D. Cope as "Thomas D. Cope" (and any possible successors as "Thomas D. Cope II" etc).

If it concerns you, then would Thomas Cope (manufacturer) be a better title? What is certain (to me!) is that the dates in the current title are not helpful. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I certainly agree that the dates in the title are not good. I've moved it to Thomas Cope. It can always be moved again to Thomas Cope (manufacturer) or something of the sort if anyone objects. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just realised that the article on his brother has a similarly awkward title - George Cope (1822-1888). This one, however, is more problematic because George Cope is already being used for "George A. Cope". George was also involved with the tobacco factory, so perhaps "manufacturer" is the solution here? Or do we create George A. Cope etc? Life should not be this complicated, and probably would not be if we all had names such as Zowie Bowie and Moon Unit Zappa. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved George Cope (1822-1888) to George Cope (Tobacco products manufacturer), which I admit is a bit cumbersome. Perhaps just "manufacturer" would be better: I'm not sure. I've also moved the old George Cope to George A. Cope and made George Cope into a disambig page. However, I'm about to go offline, so if you find Edward Cope (1963-2004) or Simon Cope (1263-1309) or Æþelstan Cope (907-954) then you'll have to get someone else to move it for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll, erm, cope. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For trying to make Wikipedia a better place through the acts of banning and cleaning up Wikipedia. I am a new user here attempting to make a difference and it is people like you who make my life easier. Thanks again, and have a nice day. TheSandwhichWriter (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you banned my ip adress but then I logged in and I realise I was'nt banned. Cheers. This is'nt spam, right? hope it is'nt. I'm just trying to show some respect to you. You deserve it, really. TheSandwhichWriter (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Which IP address was that? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not complaining but if you really want to know, I could log out again and check my IP address. TheSandwhichWriter (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Seton School

Dear Mr. Watson,

I am Ferdinand Alido, a Director of Elizabeth Seton School, Philippines. I am writing to you because it seems you have deleted the article about our school. I have corresponded with Ms. Sarah Ewart regarding this and she mentioned that the deletion was requested by the author, apparently a student. She also mentioned that the article was only edited once by the same author. I cannot agree to this because I myself edited some details of the article.

Wikipedia discourages people who have associations to the topic from contributing which leads me here. We would like to request the article to be uploaded again, if possible. In case this request is not possible, I am requesting permission to author a new article. As a professional educator myself, I am bound to follow your guidelines on encyclopedic writing using a neutral tone. I will also provide sufficient verifiable sources which should fit with Wikipedia standards. I understand that Wikipedia discourages this but please understand that we cannot expect an outsider to know more about our organization.

Hoping for your kindest considerations.

Thank you.

Ferdinand Alido Director - Finance Elizabeth Seton School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdalido (talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me jumping in here, but the only substantive edits made to the Elizabeth Seton School article were by ImbaSeton36 (talk · contribs). The only other edits were some categorization and some link repair.

That said, there's nothing preventing a new article from being created, Pdalido. It's even possible for you to create it yourself, although be sure to cite secondary sources whenever possible, and don't be surprised if the article is flagged because of your conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that, by the time I read your message, you had already re-created the article. However, there are a few things that I think may be worth mentioning.

1. The original article had a few minor edits (such as adding a category tag and removing a "new unreviewed article" tag) by Vrenator and Kudpung, who are both well established and active editors, and I am sure you are neither of those. Other than that, the only edits were by the account which created the article. Therefore, if you are right in saying that you edited the article but were not the original author, then you and another person both used the same account. Wikipedia policy is that an account is for one person, and must not be shared, so please make sure that from now on you avoid sharing an account.
2. You are right in saying that Wikipedia discourages people from editing on subjects to which they have a personal connection. However, you are clearly aware of the need to edit neutrally, which is fine. However, some aspects of the article you have written do seem somewhat promotional. In particular, it is difficult to see the sections "Vision" and "Mission statement" in any other light than to promote the school's view of itself. Use of such language as "Scool [sic] programs that build on their strengths" also seems promotional.
3. Some of the details in the latter part of the article seem to be the sort of thing that might be more appropriate in a school prospectus than in an article in an encyclopaedia.
4. As you wrote it, the article did not actually tell us what or where the school is. We cannot assume that everyone who looks at a Wikipedia article already knows the basic background about its topic. I have added an initial sentence to correct this.
5. The problem I have just mentioned is one which commonly arises when an article is written by a person closely involved in its subject. If you are closely involved, it may seem so obvious to you what you have in mind that it doesn't occur to you to specify it. Likewise, to someone involved in a school, details of the curriculum and organisation of the school will seem large, whereas to someone looking at the school from a more distant perspective they may seem like minor details, so that from an outsider's point of view inclusion of such details may seem to give that aspect of the school disproportionate weight. Again, such aspects as what the school calls its "mission statement" may seem to an insider like central facts, but to an outsider they are likely to look like what the school says about itself to make itself look good. These are, in fact, some of the reasons why writing an article on a subject to which you have a close connection is discouraged: even if you have every intention of editing neutrally, if you are looking at the subject from close up it may be difficult to realise how your writing will look to someone who sees it from a more distant perspective.
6. As I have already said, I have written an opening sentence to say briefly where and what the school is. I have also corrected one small typographical error. For now I have made no other edits to the article, but I do think more editing is needed, to make the article more like an article to be published in an objective encyclopaedia, and less like an excerpt from a school prospectus. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Censorship on user discs is contraproductive, rediculous and useless

Hi, please don't bother with childish games. Thank you. --Brutus Brummfuß (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are trying to tell me something then I suggest you give me more context, so that I can understand your point. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrongful use of your administration resposibilities/abuse of your role due to wrongful opinion

Hello "James",

I have looked thorugh the relevent dispute resolution process so this is my first attempt to contact you before I proceed further. As recommeded I will take your edit as a resonably good hearted intention, however if you continue to remove my edit, whereby all I am doing is siting a known and relevent method for said subject and also backing it up with a reference/s, then I will continue my resolution process and deem your editing as malicious and subordinate when I inform Wikipedia admin (or whoever may be concerned) of the intended abuse of your role.

There was no advertisement in what I said, before you edit my edits again, read the references and prove me wrong by way of a polite discussion.

I am lead to believe you know very little on this subject by way of how you are acting, yet you are ok to leave in subjects and references to said page in relation to "exercises" whom have NO scientific proof or basis, this speaks volumes and I would love for you to be able to change my mind, after all, I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Sincerely,

Dr Mothvam on behalf of Andromedical S.L - Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Mothvam (talk • contribs) 09:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• You describe yourself as acting "on behalf of Andromedical S.L". Your edits introduced content relating to claims about somehing called "Andropenis Gold", and you sourced your edits to aedvertising pages at www.andropenisgold.com.au. You clearly at best have a conflict of interest in this editing, and I think you would have a hard time sustaining your claim that your editing was not promotional. I also suggest that you carefully consider the tone of any future talk page messages you may post. The above message reads rather like an attempt to intimidate me into giving way, under threat of unspecified further action. I hope that is not what you intended, but it could easily look that way. If you think my edit was mistaken, you are welcome to explain why. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• You think of yourself as an admin, yet you are an opinionated fool. Your edits imply you do not even know the product in which I have written about, nor the site to which I reference that information from. How is it advertising when all I am doing is backing up what I have written with a site in which the information can be corroborated on and whom is authoritive in relation to the claims and/or products in which I am referencing? I think you would have a hard time sustaining your claim of advertisement when all I was doing was adding information to a page that was clearly in need of some. There is nothing of intimidation in this or previous posts, and if you take it that way maybe you should ask yourself why? You don't even have even backbone to include a real name for the purpose of an admin account in which you actively delete others work all in the name of your very narrow viewpoint.

Shall I take it as though my first attempt at communicating with you resulted in an all but a self opinionated response on behalf of the "Admin" that decided to remove relevant and substantiated information ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Mothvam (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 February 2012‎

I am sorry that I am "an opinionated fool". I have been making a sincere attempt to do my best. Perhaps, if you think I am a fool, you could try to help me to understand better. Even if someone is a fool, it is unlikely to be helpful to tell them so. What is more, doing so is likely to be seen as a personal attack. Personal attacks of any sort are contrary to Wikipedia policy, and if you are seen to have made one then that will not help your case if you do take the further action which you indicate you are considering. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• A fair statement I suppose and I did not intend it as a personal attack, my apologies if you took it that way. I do understand there are other avenues I can take however I will exhaust all others to give you the benefit of the doubt before I do that, I do see you have made many contributions to Wikipedia and I have found much useful information on here in the past and I suppose it is thanks to people such as yourself. It just really got under my skin when you seemed to claim you were knowledgeable about said subject by way of implying I was advertising rather than referencing, in any event how can we work together to amend the page so that more accurate information can be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Mothvam (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (chuckle) Doc talk 09:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:) Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Redact information

Hi... I just reverted the addition of malicious content. Normally just a revert and warning, but this one contained a phone number and name and I'd like to get it redacted. What's the best route to take to get that done? Here's the diff Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've revision-deleted the IP's edits to that article. I'll also have a look at other edits from the same IP. Thanks for telling me about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Just didn't want the number left out there.. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

... for all your efforts on WP. Glrx (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Tom Reedy

Tom's page happens to be on my watchlist, so I saw your comment. The mistake is not his. He reported ip 64.238.233.58 [4]. 218.. was reported by User:Dcshank [5]. Paul B (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistake?

No, I didn't report that one; I reported the one you blocked. And thanks for taking care of it. I'm pretty sure it's from a computer in a middle school library. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't take it as an accusation, merely a clarification. Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Dcshank's talk page.
Message added 20:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:- ) DCS 20:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note

Legal threat at my talk page. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 08:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly uncivil, but I don't see any threat of legal action. Also, I think describing the edits as "vandalism" probably was a mistake, as it looks to me more like a case of someone editing in good faith, though perhaps making some mistakes due to lack of experience of how Wikipedia works. In such a case I think the first approach should be a friendly explanation of what is wrong with the edits, and advice on how to do better. If the problem persists after that then a different approach may be needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Grapefruit drug interactions

An anon user keeps making changes to the article that I feel drastically change the scope. He adds "and related citrus flavorings" or previously "and other citrus products with bergamottin such as Earl Grey Tea" to the article, essentially saying that bergamottin is the only thing that causes the potential reactions with drugs and grapefruit juice. Since this wasn't added before, I keep trying to convince him that a citation IS required, as you now basically changing the article from saying "Grapefruit juice can cause interactions with drugs" to "anything with bergamottin, including Earl Grey tea, can cause reactions with drugs." There is another chemically similar drug, 6’,7’-dihydroxybergamottin, which together cause the "grapefruit effect", not just the one, but regardless, a change like this *must* have a citation to stay, should it not? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Again, my concern isn't the accuracy, it is that making such a large claim requires citation. We have been reverting back and forth for a while, I keep asking him to provide a cite, he basically says I have to provide a cite to prove him wrong (dont get me started...). His faith is good, but his methods aren't. Any help or input would be swell. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You are 100% right, Dennis. If an unsourced statement is challenged, then the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. That is to say that the statement must be removed unless a reliable source is provided. It is not the case that the editor wishing to remove the statement has to provide sources to show that it is not valid. Indeed, it would be impossible to operate on such a policy: anyone would be able to make a claim so unheard of that nobody has ever considered it before, and clearly it would be impossible to find a source saying that the claim is false. I have posted a message about this on talk pages of two IP addresses used by the editor in question, and also on the article's talk page. That may well deal with the problem, but if not then I suggest giving a warning about edit warring. If it still continues after that then feel welcome to contact me again, but I hope the present messages will be enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought so (but I don't assume). It had gotten to the point that I needed a 3rd opinion, and WP:3RD seemed overkill for what appeared to be a cut and dry issue with an IP. If there are other issues, I will let you know. Hopefully he will either leave it alone or provide a reference. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• • [6] It would appear he wasn't impressed. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a couple more messages to the IP talk page. If the problem continues then let me know. I think the matter has now been made clear enough to the person in question. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He's back. I don't think he really cares what you or I think, he has an agenda (originally that Earl Grey tea caused the reaction, oddly enough) and it appears regular methods aren't going to work. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and now the other IP has vandalized the talk page for the article. The IPs resolve to two different states, so either meatpuppeting or socking through a proxy, I have no idea, but the timing is too close for coincidence. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I have blocked the IP address for a couple of days, and posted a message to the IP talk page, attempting to explain why the source is not acceptable. I hope that the editor will read and understand that, and realise why the changes he/she has been making are unacceptable. If, however, that turns out not to be the case, please contact me again.

The IP address that vandalised the talk page is an unrelated IP that has never edited before. The two IPs that have been involved in the edit war in the article do both resolve to very close together in the same state, as you can see here and here. I think the talk page vandalism is just an irrelevant act of vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)