User talk:JBW/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Lined topminnow

Common names of species are supposed to only have the first word capitalized. The problem with the redirect being there is that I can't rename the article to what it should be. I shouldn't have to start a discussion about what is common practice on Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so the proper tag is G6. SL93 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, the best way to deal with a situation like this is {{db-move|1=name of page to be moved|2=reason for move}}. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's good to know. I don't know how it happened, but I saw that other minnow articles have the wrong title as well. SL93 (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted page: The Choice Lab

Hi!

In regards of deleting the The Choice Lab page, we've recently added a statement at the end of our supposedly infringed page[1] that hopefully will allow it to be published after all. Please let me know if there's anything else we can do.

--Alexander.karlstad (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to deal with the copyright issue satisfactorily. However, there may be other problems. I don't know whether the subject satisfies English Wikipedia's notability guidelines or not. Not every topic is considered suitable as the subject of an article, as there needs to be evidence that the subject has received substantial attention in independent sources. If the subject does satisfy those guidelines, then it should be possible to have an article about it, but I think it only fair to let you know that over the years I have very often seen someone in your position spend time and trouble taking steps to deal with copyright issues, only to see the article deleted again for another reason, often for lack of notability. I strongly suggest having a look at the notability guidelines before doing anything else. The most relevant parts of the guidelines in this case are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of organisations. You may also find Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations helpful, though not all of it is relevant in your case. Since you are evidently closely involved in the subject you are writing about, you should also be aware of Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. The article must be written from a detached, third party, point of view, not an insider's point of view, and should certainly not use the word "we".

For the moment, I have "userfied" the article that you created. That is to say that I have restored the content of the article, and moved it to User:Alexander.karlstad/The Choice Lab. You can work on it there, and move it to The Choice Lab when it is ready. By far the most important thing, I think, is to check the notability guidelines. If the subject does satisfy those guidelines, then you need to add references to reliable independent sources that demonstrate that it does. If, on the other hand, it does not satisfy those guidelines, then you would be better off giving up the idea of having a Wikipedia article about it, as the article is likely to be deleted again, and any time and work you put into it will be wasted. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit of Silver Birch article

Hi. I note your recent removal of referenced material from the Silver Birch article. It leaves me wondering why a Canadian folk song which is actually about a different variety of birch, and is unreferenced, is deemed to be "of global significance and notability". If that rule is applied to all of the info in the Cultural Significance section, I think most of it should be removed, which would cetainly make Wikipedia less interesting. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As you say, the information about the Canadian folk song is about a different species, and does not belong in that article, so I have removed it. I don't, however, see any problem with the rest of the content of the section, except that one of the items is unreferenced. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Pls understand

Yohan Adhyayam Ondru was a shelved project, which is why I requested for its deletion, plus it was not well written. Same applies with Mankatha 2, except that it did not even enter development. Can they be renominated for deletion? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I do understand your point, but unfortunately neither of them satisfies any of the speedy deletion criteria, as far as I can see. You could try a PROD, but that would almost certainly be a waste of time, as Suraj Paul, who has removed speedy deletion tags from both articles, would no doubt contest any PROD too. I really think that your only realistic chance of getting the articles deleted is to take them to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Terry Ronald

Hello, I have been updating the Terry Ronald page as it needed to be updated with correct information. I have used references throughout. Please can you tell me what is wrong with my edits? The old version was not up to date, for example included no reference to Terry's career as a published author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.40.159 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The main problem that I saw was that some of your editing seemed to be phrased in promotional terms. Certainly updating is helpful, if content of the article is out of date, but try to be sure that what you write is written from a neutral point of view. Nobody should be able to tell whether the person who wrote the content thinks Terry Ronald is good or bad, or whether the person writing has no personal opinion about him whatever. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

One of your deletions has appeared at Deletion Review here. All the best—S Marshall T/C 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Dutch citizens

Hi,

I found that you locked the mentioned page after some spamming. That's fine with me, as I dislike spam as well. Anyway, there are a few changes I'd have liked to put in that page (visa requirements change continuously). I now put them in the discussion page. Could you be so kind to adjust the page? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhekoz (talk • contribs) 20:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a response on the talk page of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Improve my page of Vishwakarma Institute of Management

could you please take out time and improve my page of vishwakarma institute of management and please help in re-despamming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammybackinaction (talk • contribs) 13:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WHy is it Spam or advertising

Greetings James

I am having difficulties placing the Miss Multiverse Pageant and TV reality program.

You mention this is advertising, but then why is there 100 other pageants there? What makes them different then the Miss Multiverse?

Are they paying a fee?? how does this work, because there is no different from any of those pageants and Miss Multiverse, so i believe that if this is an open source Miss Multiverse should also be in it.

Further more there is this "Mr. Angelo De La Paz" deleting information and adding notes such as that the Miss Asia Pacific is a scam, when this pageant has existed for over 2 decades.

What makes him an authority in Wikipedia to delete, post as if he is some kind of Pageant Guru.

I would like some help on how this works

Thank you

--Gausachs (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Gausachs

PLEASE HELP

I am attempting to include the Miss Multiverse Pageant in this page

However, I am new here and feel completely harrassed by this person Angelo De La Paz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angelo_De_La_Paz

He is claiming that Miss Multiverse does not exist, i have no idea based on what he is making this claimes, there are dozens of videos, news papers etc.. with the existence of this pageant.

I now believe he is doing this as to annoy me or he has some other motive such as competition from another pageant.

I am barely learning how to use this and this person has just taken the task of follow my posts and actually even insult what we do.

Who is this person, does he work for Wikipedia, does he have authority for this???

What is going on????

PLEASE HELP

--Gausachs (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Gausachs

Protection Needed

Hi JamesBWatson!

Long time no talk! Hope all things are going well. I was wondering if you could help me put some protection on Yours Truly (Ariana Grande album). There is a lot of vandalism occurring now and it's going far too fast for me to deal with. I need some protection placed on it but no one has accepted my request yet. Thanks!

—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 00:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Apologies

Hi,

I'm a teacher at Sharnbrook Upper School and I see some of my pupils have been causing your problems. Please feel free to contact me if you have further problems originating from our school. That sort of behaviour is simply not acceptable. BedsBookworm (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

IP impersonating users

In April 2012 you blocked 221.244.40.2 (talk · contribs) for a year for impersonating users. He's back doing it again (see ANI) so I have blocked for another year. In your block notice, you mentioned a legal threat - where was that? I wonder if it has ever been retracted. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after more than 15 months I have no memory of the case, and I can only comment on what I can see by searching through the records now. However, I now see the following facts.

The forging of other users' signatures has happened a huge number of times, going back at least as far as June 2008: [2]. Other disruptive editing from the same editor goes back even further, and he/she has been receiving blocks on various IP addresses since at least as far back as November 2007: [3], [4], [5] etc.

The only things that I can find that might be considered as legal threats are numerous edits in April 2012, of which these are examples: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].

At first, copying other editors' signatures may have been an innocent accident, due to copying and pasting of comments without realising that they included signatures. However, if this ever was the case it very long ago ceased to be, and there are numerous edits where the editor quite clearly deliberately added another editor's signature. Here is just one example: [12].

In the early days, the editor used the IP address 219.23.5.48, but for a long time now all the activity that I am aware of is from a few IP addresses in IP range 221.244.0.0/17. Not all IP addresses in this range have forged signatures, but as far as I can see all of them look as though they have been used by the same disruptive editor, judging from other behavioural evidence. None of the IP addresses which have clearly been used by this editor seem to have also been used by anyone else. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether this editor has also used IP addresses in other ranges.

Considering that (1) the editor in question has been editing disruptively for many years, (2) blocks of various periods up to a year have not stopped the problem, and (2) it does not seem that blocks will cause any collateral damage, is it time for longer blocks on the IP addresses that have recently been used? (I do not such long blocks on the whole range, just on IPs known to have been involved.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've found the threat, or one of them, here. I don't really like IP blocks longer than a year, and /17 is a large range... I don't see anything better than keeping an eye on that range and blocking for a year any that do a fake signature again. Like you, I wondered if it was just a mistake copying a block including a signature, but by now it is clearly either trolling or a WP:CIR problem. JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Dog With a Blog UK etc.

I saw your talk page note(s) to the Dog With a Blog users, and thought you might want to add User:SamUK01 to your list. It was created within minutes of the first DWaB user. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 10:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Gladkov

Talking of rangeblocks, see this - have you also been a target? JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, no. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas

In regard to what you said here: [13], as well as the just closed thread at WP:ANI#Accusations at Talk:March Against Monsanto that need to be resolved, please take a look at User talk:Tryptofish#August 2013 and User talk:Viriditas#Regarding your accusations about paid editing. Perhaps you might want to communicate with Viriditas about the comments on my talk page. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for what I know must have been a burdensome task. I read your notice on his talk page very carefully, and I particularly appreciate that this was not something that you took any satisfaction in doing. I want you to know that I'm very grateful for your attention to the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is a user talk page to only be used for making unblock requests when an editor is blocked? I will note that during the last block, Viriditas used his talk page to coordinate edits and to continue to take part in discussions (including making several accusations about me). See [14] for example, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Manchester meetup

Hi James (or whatever your name is), because your name is on this notification list, I'm just letting you know that there will be a Manchester Wikimeet taking place on 25 August. Perhaps we'll see you there? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas

I just read this and am very unhappy. I made a comment and linked your username, but User:Viriditas just cleared the whole Talk page and I wanted to be sure you saw it. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to make a suggestion, which is to consider full-protecting Viriditas' user talk page for the duration of the block. I say this noting the suggestion in the section above about restricting Viriditas' own access to the talk page, but I think that this approach might be more helpful. Early on after the block, some users left messages that sounded to me like they were sort of egging Viriditas on, and he reverted them, indicating that those messages were unwelcome. A subsequent message was a constructive one, and Viriditas' reply included a clear statement that he intends to wait out the three months of the block (and thus will not be interested in using his talk page to contest the block), a clear statement that he would like other editors not to leave messages for him there (but rather to leave him alone), and unfortunately also a repeat of the unreasonable and un-evidenced accusations that played a large role in the block. Most recently, he has blanked the page. Overall, I think we are doing him and everyone else no favor by continuing talk on his page, and therefore I suggest full protection for the duration of the block period. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Europefan is back

Here he goes, on a new, slightly different IP. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Back again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the IP address, reverted those of its edits that other editors had not already reverted, and semi-protected the pages it edited. Please do tell me again if you see any more, and I will do the same to other pages if it seems necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Rybec's talk page.
Message added 11:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think you should check this too. Thanks, Iniciativass (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please say what connection you have to Xeon Wide Solution? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. But i'm sure is just interesting local dead project lately and have been shut.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyonzuken (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood

I'm new to wikipedia last time, clearly dind't understand how wikipedia works that time, i think its such a public blog XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyonzuken (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind if you undo it again, note to mention but i've been use it as my classifier and often watch the page, so i think it is valid after i checking the course existence from the internet.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_academic_disciplines&oldid=568224940&diff=prev

if it reverted again, i already add it to my classifier and will not adopt the deleted changes for my research. But also thanks to you, I somewhere notice that it should a course, not a subs. :) --}i{ (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

List of academic disciplines

I don't mind if you undo it again, note to mention but i've been use it as my classifier and often watch the page, so i think it is valid after i checking the course existence from the internet.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_academic_disciplines&oldid=568224940&diff=prev

if it reverted again, i already add it to my classifier and will not adopt the deleted changes for my research. But also thanks to you, I somewhere notice that it should a course, not a subs. :) --}i{ (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you my good man!

Your missive was much appreciated my good fellow! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW

I actually wanted this duplicate material removed. And to correct the record, I had stopped e-mailing new admins (on Sunday, other than you and Toddst1, I had e-mailed no more than two) before responses started flowing in, so Beeblebrox, though it is unlikely he acted with that intention in mind (not WP:AGF, but more aptly "don't assume ill faith"), in effect had acted to silence me. It is also disappointing that neither was there any explicit addressing of WP:TPG by Toddst1 and Beeblebrox nor did they bother (I cannot say why) to restore the comments that the former removed. I again thank you for your fairer treatment of this ordeal than the other two. GotR ^Talk 14:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your block of Viriditas

Hi, James. I was sorry to notice (belatedly today) that Viriditas had been blocked for three months. He's an editor I appreciate and feel warmly towards. But when I'd looked into it, and especially after reading your warning + block notice, I had to agree with your action. It's clear from your notices that you don't enjoy wading into these disputes ("I hate these disputes" — hear, hear), and don't enjoy blocking people either. I want to thank you for being conscientious and respectful about this block, and taking the time to write a full, well-reasoned block notice (+ ditto warning). Too many admins place long blocks with a mere template for a block message, or some throwaway line that is only too easy to read as "Take that, you bastard".

I thought of giving you a barnstar, but I guess that would look like making light of (or even celebrating) Viriditas' block, which I don't by any means want to do. But you're a good admin. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC).

• Agreeing with Bishonen's sentiments, although I feel compelled to note that Viriditas blanked everything, including the block message. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it prohibited to remove a block message whilst you're blocked? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it is. It's also not a very good idea to slam your office door after a disagreement with your wife, but I've done that in the past a couple of times, to my shame. I'll try not to do it if you're around, Luke, in case you feel 'compelled' to tell someone about it.

Venting will happen, and is normal. Bish says everything I could about this block, and more.

Her conclusion, that JBW is a good admin, is a sentiment I also share, and have often noticed. On a separate, but probably related note, James always, to my recollection, listens to comments about, and explains, his actions in a correct and sensitive manner, to newbies and experienced users alike, and without discrimination. He should hold a school on that rare skill, and attendance should probably be compulsory.

I doubt you enjoyed doing this at all, James, it can't have been easy - but it's the measure of a man that they are able and willing to do the right thing, in the right way, in difficult circumstances. I hope Viriditas wishes and is able to successfully appeal the block sooner rather than later, as his contributions are a big net positive. Begoon ^talk 16:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, I agree with all of the praise above. I just want to add that I agree that the detailed and sensitive explanation of the block seems to me to be a model of doing it the right way, a model that I think all admins would do well to emulate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Thanks for the comments. I do try to take the extra time and trouble to explain things to any editor who I think may honestly not realise what the issues are, but I don't always do as well as I would wish to: sometimes I slip into taking the easier way of just dropping a ready-made template, even when that is not the most helpful. Occasionally being told that there are at least some people around who appreciate my efforts does encourage me to make those efforts more consistently.
2. It is a bit equivocal whether blocked editors are allowed to remove block notices from their talk pages. It used to be accepted that they weren't, but some time ago someone removed the mention of that from the relevant policy page, saying that some years ago it was added without consensus. It always seemed to me that that was a spurious argument, because whether there had been consensus when it was added or not, consensus had grown since then, and it should have been raised for discussion, rather tahn summarily removed. There clearly is not consensus against the prohibition of removing block notices, as this discussion illustrates. Maybe it should be raised now. Having said all that, the reason why removing block notices may be considered unacceptable is that it is unhelpful when blocks are reviewed, but in this case it seems the editor is accepting the block and not planning to appeal, so I don't see any reason for restoring the block notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Nagwin

Hi,

I have added Nagwin to Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems. It seems to me a natural step as there are many similar software listed there. Maintainers of that page have an -un-official policy of removing all entries not listed in Wikipedia itself. I had tried to add Nagwin before and met a resistance of yours. In comparison to what others did, I think that it is unfair for not allowing me listing Nagwin. Would you mind now ?

Best regards, tevkar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevkar (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Like most of our articles, entries that do not have Wikipedia articles are not considered notable enough to even be added to the article ES&L 20:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

New articles

Hi JamesBWatson, Just checked your posting on my talk page. I agree to some extent of your views regarding the new article creation. I have some cotent to add in the article which I will do very soon. Currently, I was busy on some other pages so not able to find time for the same. I have already added content in Marathi film pages which you must have checked. I have already added content from the year 1950 to the year 1979. Pls. give me some time to contribute... Coolgama (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark H. Moore

I'm a little surprised at your PROD here. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is, as it says, an alternative to the GNG, not an additional requirement, . A person with a named professorship at a major university fully meets the requirements of WP:PROF criterion 5, And, as the guideline also says, there's no requirement for independent sources as there would be for the GNG, as long as there's reliable ones to meet WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Um Vichet (footballer)

I just wanted to let you know, that when you deleted this page, you forgot to delete the talk page. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Done now. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Caroline of Austria

I didn't say, that the archduchess has not lived (she did, her official name was archduchess Karolina Augusta of Austria(-Toscana). I just stated that anything besides her name and the dates was an invention of the original author. If you would check his other doings on Wikipedia, you had found one hoax and trolling in another article about a person of the high aristocracy. --88.67.109.132 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I was highly suspicious of most of the content of the article, which I have now removed. However, it was not such a blatant hoax as to justify speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

HighIntellectual

While I agree he was disruptive, there was no discussion /consensus for the block. You shouldprobably rescind that decision to block till there is consensus. That would help alleviate pressures on your arbitrqary abuse of power.(Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)).

You may like to clarify what you mean by "alleviate pressures on your arbitrqary abuse of power". If you have a reason for opposing the block, please say so, and I will consider your case. However, the absence of a discussion is not in itself a reason for unblocking: many blocks, my guess is most blocks, take place without such discussions. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have briefly checked the last 100 entries in the block log. I did not see any sign of a community discussion for any of them. Two of them, including the block that you referred to above, were reported to a noticeboard and then acted on directly by an individual administrator, and as far as I could see the other 98 were dealt with by an individual administrator acting alone. If there is anything to discuss, then a discussion can take place, but there is no earthly point in starting time-wasting discussions for straightforward and uncontroversial blocks. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reblocked HighIntellectual as a sockpuppet of DavidYork71. This is an editor who starts out making superficially reasonable edits but whose behaviour rapidly deteriorates. If you believe my change to your block is inappropriate, I am happy to discuss it here, or to restore the block to the original length while one of us begins a discussion at ANI.-gadfium 01:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't think the change was inappropriate at all. I thought it virtually certain that this account was a sockpuppet, but I didn't whose sockpuppet, never having come across DavidYork71, as far as I remember. I also think that, the way things were going, it was only a question of when rather than whether an indefinite block came. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Remaining civil war RFDs

Egyptian civil war has been deleted, but the other two synonym pages 2013 Egyptian civil war and Civil war in Egypt created by the same author with the exact same intent are still live and marked with RFD tags. 8ty3hree (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me. Done now. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This one is left. --SMS ^Talk 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That one's different, because referring to the event as a "massacre" is not at all the same as calling it a "civil war". You are, of course, free to nominate it for deletion if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok I thought the use of word "massacre" is also disputed by the regular editors of this topic area. Actually I directed all of these to same title as far as I remember but don't know how the other two got redirected to civil war titles. Anyways I will move on. Thanks --SMS ^Talk 20:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is disputed, I don't know. However, it is not so clear to me that it is contentious, and I have not seen evidence of clear consensus against it. However, the fact that I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and, as I said, you can nominate it for deletion if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Prajapati Trivedi

Can I just query the latest deletion of this article? To me it doesn't look like a clear case of copyright violation, although it's clear that a lot of it has been paraphrased from the Forbes article. That's why I didn't delete it myself. Are you seeing something I'm missing? Deb (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and he's just recreated it again using a different user name.Deb (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Either I am indeed seeing something that you are missing, or you have a very different idea of US copyright law than I have. There are numerous large chunks of text that are copied from various sources, either verbatim or with only trivial changes. For example:

The Wikipedia article said

On January 2, 2009, Dr Trivedi got a call from the Cabinet Secretary(India) to join the Indian Government. A reluctant World Bank was advising him to wait for the elections to get over before taking the plunge. He told them "I shouldn’t be thinking about election results if I am serious about what I want to do. I am going there for the country, not for the government ..."

http://forbesindia.com/printcontent/10202 says

On January 2, 2009, I got a call from the cabinet secretary if I would like to join. A reluctant World Bank was advising me to wait for the elections to get over before taking the plunge. I told them I shouldn’t be thinking about election results if I was serious about what I wanted to do. I was coming here for the country, not for the government ...

The Wikipedia article said

Based in the Cabinet Secretariat with responsibility for Performance Management, he reviews and reports to the Cabinet Secretary/Prime Minister on the performance of all government departments. In addition, he also heads the National Authority for Chemical Weapons Convention as its Chairman Trivedi worked for fourteen years (1994-2009) as a Senior Economist for the World Bank in Washington, DC, before joining the Government of India in the year 2009. He was previously Economic Adviser to Government of India from 1992 to 1994.

http://performance.gov.in/?q=secy-pm says

Based in the Cabinet Secretariat, he reviews and reports on the performance of all government departments to the Cabinet Secretary/Prime Minister. In addition, he is Chairman of the National Authority for Chemical Weapons Convention. Prior to joining the Government of India, Dr. Trivedi worked for the past fourteen years (1994-2009) as a Senior Economist for the World Bank in Washington, DC. This is his second stint in the Government. Dr. Trivedi was Economic Adviser to Government of India from 1992-94.

The Wikipedia article said

Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat was set up by the Government of India in January, 2009 under the able guidance of Dr. Prajapati Trivedi as Secretary (Performance Management) with a mandate to roll out the PMES. The PMES/RFD system in its first Phase covered 59 Departments in 2009-10. In its fourth year of implementation in 2012-13, the system presently extends to 80 Departments/ Ministries and some 800 Responsibility Centers (attached offices/ subordinate offices/ autonomous organizations) of the Central Government. Within its four years of implementation, PMES has established itself as a system that takes a comprehensive view of the Departmental performance by measuring all schemes projects (iconic and non-iconic) and all relevant aspects of expected departmental deliverables: financial, physical, quantitative, qualitative, static efficiency (short run) and dynamic efficiency. The systems aim to provide a unified and single view of Department’s overall performance.

http://performance.gov.in/?q=pmd-origin says

Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat was set up by the Government in January, 2009 with Dr. Prajapati Trivedi as Secretary (Performance Management) with a mandate to roll out the PMES. The PMES/RFD system in its first Phase covered 59 Departments in 2009-10. In its fourth year of implementation in 2012-13, the system presently extends to 80 Departments/ Ministries and some 800 Responsibility Centers (attached offices/ subordinate offices/ autonomous organizations) of the Central Government. Within its four years of implementation, PMES has established itself as a system that takes a comprehensive view of the Departmental performance by measuring all schemes projects (iconic and non-iconic) and all relevant aspects of expected departmental deliverables: financial, physical, quantitative, qualitative, static efficiency (short run) and dynamic efficiency. The systems aim to provide a unified and single view of Department’s overall performance.

... and so on. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

The user User:Thomas ivan has changed information in article religion in Nigeria identical to the previous by Estonian1 an rajputnhatti. I think he is a sock.Pablo iscobar (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)(UTC) I have reverted his editPablo iscobar (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)(UTC)

big violation from a user

just wanted to let you know that there's a user who is constantly abusing his rollback privileges as seen here and here (and has edit warred for several edits on that article). He also has been removing talk page threads by other users as seen here (despite the fact they're made to improve the article). Could you may please stop this user at once? He's being highly disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.152.217 (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Loop

As the blocking admin of Viriditas, just to keep you in the loop so you are not under the false impression that Viriditas has truly taken a break: [15]. Viriditas is still active, just not on-wiki, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Elementary Watson!

Hi remember I was blocked a few months ago and I got myself unblocked. I told you that I would explain how I got unblocked. Should we go over that now? $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 08:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't remember, but I have now checked my talk page archives and refreshed my memory. You are welcome to tell me about your experience if you like, and I may well find it interesting. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For helping me out! $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 08:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hui Cambrelen page you deleted

I will try to redo the page under Sandbox for help from writers just wanted to note that This persons importance is as a Pioneer in Msrtial Arts both for his accomplishments and as being a first non Chinese in traditional Chinese Martial Arts. Also he is referenced on many other martial artists pages who are on Wikipedia. I will try again second time around to establish more notability for the subject. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgm1420j (talk • contribs) 01:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Money as Debt for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 09:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Shadow2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow2 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hui Cambrelen page you deleted

I will try to redo the page under Sandbox for help from writers just wanted to note that This persons importance is as a Pioneer in Msrtial Arts both for his accomplishments and as being a first non Chinese in traditional Chinese Martial Arts. Also he is referenced on many other martial artists pages who are on Wikipedia. I will try again second time around to establish more notability for the subject. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgm1420j (talk • contribs) 01:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of J.O. Patterson Sr.

I am a member of COGIC and would like to know why you deleted this page, March 2013, of one of the greater bishops of this denomination. Please, explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.86.155 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you give the exact title of the article, so that I can find its history? There has never been an article entitled either J.O. Patterson Sr. or J.O. Patterson Sr, and the deletion log shows that I did not delete any page with "Patterson" anywhere in its title in March 2013. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand. Why you deleted "Baryo Hakshur"

I do not understand. Why you deleted "Baryo Hakshur" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.146.156 (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What is unclear about the reason given in the deletion log? Also, how did you know that Dom497 had edited the article? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and...

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.

--Technopat (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

KlickEx

Back in November 2012 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		for your protection of Kathryn Calder and Are You My Mother? (album) and using common sense over rigid procedure CutOffTies (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimanfree

I'm gonna need your help again. Wikimanfree has falsely tagged my Hyundai Eon photo for deletion, citing as his source a blog that was created six months after I uploaded the pic. - Areaseven (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly a bad faith nomination, and the deletion reason is completely spurious. I have recorded my opinion on the commons deletion discussion page. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Michael Bustamante

I've responded on my talk page. deathgripz 12:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Deprod of Ann Kobayashi

Greetings! Just a courtesy note that a removed the prod tag from Ann Kobayashi. The intro and body of the article clearly state she served 14 years as a state senator; election to a state legislature does meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN. —C.Fred (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Michael Bustamante 2

Hey mate, I recently saw that you deleted the page for Michael Bustamante due to it being a page that was already deleted via AfD (at least that is what I read). However, looking at the AfD, since then things have changed and he has gone on to now pass WP:NFOOTY as he has played in two Major League Soccer matches. Now I did not see the page that was just deleted so I do not know if it was proven that he played or not and I also noticed that either you or someone else salted the article. I guess what I am asking is that you un-salt the page name and I can recreate (or if you restore it, I could update and revamp it) the article and prove that he has played. Look forward to hearing from you. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I long ago gave up trying to understand how it should be determined which teams are considered notable enough. However, looking back the article, I do see a difference in wording which does seem to suggest a possible change in notability, so I will restore the article. Thanks for pointing this out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Also on Marius Obekop, I proved that he is notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that one, too. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction

Add references, or remove references but do not change the URL in an existing citation. That reference had a name and was reused in various places in the article. -- 109.76.238.157 (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't simply "change the URL in an existing citation", I restored a URL which had been removed in an edit which, to judge by the edit summary, appeared to be a mistake, made without seeing the full relevant editing history. Incidentally, I will also offer a word of advice. You may find that many editors will be more receptive to your messages if you phrase them as suggestions, advice, requests, or explanations, rather than as commands. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It is as a politeness that I make any comment at all, to reduce time wasting of further reverts.

I was reverting back to a known good state. I was ready to make a good faith effort in my next edit to incorporate the other editors changes in a way that did not modify the Box Office Mojo reference until it became clear that the BoxOffice.com figures were only projections. -- 109.76.238.157 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimeet

Hi James - hope you're still planning on coming to the meetup today. There's been a change if plan though. We're now in the Wetherspoons on Princess Street. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to let me know, but I didn't see this message until I got back home. Believe it or not, I was actually in that Wetherspoons pub, and left it to go to the Wikimeet, only to find it nowhere to be found, so I went back to Wetherspoons to rejoin the people I had left there. Oh well... JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, sorry! Hopefully we'll see you next time. There's a Liverpool meetup on 8 September, and the next Manchester one will be sometime in November. I'll try to let you know. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Prajapati Trivedi (2)

Hi James, today a new user (must be a sock) has created Prajapati Trivedi (Economist). I tried to move it to Prajapati Trivedi, but found that probably the article is deleted several times by you and other admins under name Prajapati Trivedi so the target name is locked. Reason for deleting previously was mainly copyright violations. To me the present version does not appear to be copyright violations and the subject also seems notable. Can you have a look at it and if it is okay, can you unlock the target "Prajapati Trivedi" . --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion above after posting this. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The new article was virtually identical to previous versions, and contained exactly the same copyright infringements, as well being somewhat promotional. (I see that the last deletion under the original title was for being promotional.) I have deleted it. The person may well be notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, but this is not that article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RevDel on my User page

Thanks, but I never saw it - could you email the offending content to me please? I'm amused to know what it said :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Cosplay photos

Are Cosplay photos allowed here on Wikipedia?[16] User Niemti has done this before.68.75.28.196 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any reason why not. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Russians

Dear James, I appreciated your hard-work for blocking some articles to avoid vandalism from sockpuppet accounts of Rajputbhatti. Now it's happening again with article of Russians.

User:Americanluck was edited this articl before (decreased number of Russian Orthodox Christians down to only 40% [17]) and I reverted his deletion ([18]). And now an unknown editor from Pakistan reverted it back to the version of blocked User:Americanluck ([19], [20]).

I think we should better block this article too. Thank you.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• dear James I have editing articles for a long time and never met person named americanluck. I am not decreasing the numbers, i am stating the right information.This is just co-incidence go to article Religion in Russia, read it carefully and get the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.124.29.6 (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, the anonymous editor has indeed been editing articles for a fairly long time: I see edits which are unmistakably from the same person going back at least as far as January of this year.
2. The editor has clearly been trying to influence the representation of certain religions and ethnic groups to support their own preferences.
3. Some of their edits have been supported by sources, some have been unambiguously contradicted by cited sources. To all appearances, it's a question of "use sources to support my case when I can find sources that do so, and ignore sources when they don't."
4. The sockpuppetry issue is complex and confused. There certainly has been use of sockpuppets in this topic area, but it seems unlikely to me that Americanluck is one of Rajputbhatti's sockpuppets. Has this IP user also used sockpuppet accounts? I'm not sure. (If the answer is "yes", then Americanluck is far more likely than Rajputbhatti.)
5. Actually, it doesn't matter whether the IP editor has been using sockpuppets, because he or she has certainly been editing disruptively for a long time, and I will block on that basis.
6. As far as this particular dispute at Russians is concerned, the IP editor does seem to have been adding valid sourced content, and I see no good reason for removing it. Also, another source giving higher figures for Orthodox Christianity seems to be referring mainly to how people identify their family background, not to what they declare their own religious belief or practice to be, so the figure preferred by the IP editor does seem to me to be the better one to use in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• User:JamesBWatson - I asked you to block that article, and let's see what's happening now, many new IP edits are now attacking it (see its recent history). Thanks.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for RevisionDelete

Hello, James. There appears to be a fairly new user (new to English Wikipedia, at least) who has been blanking, overwriting and importing highly biased tracts from RU wikipedia into controversial EN wikipedia pages. As he/she has done this over several edits, I am unable to simply 'undo' the edits and would prefer that a record of the activity remain. This has taken place on the Name of Ukraine article and I'd like it reverted to the this version. I'd be very grateful if you could assist me on this matter. Note that I have left the same request on User:FT2's talk page but am uncertain as to when/if anyone will get around to responding. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've replied on FT2's talk page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Kind Ref: Plancess

Dear JamesBWatson,

My name's Vivek Fernandes, I am the designated content writer for Plancess EduSolutions Pvt Ltd located at

824, Nirmal Corporate Centre, 8th Floor, Near Nirmal LifeStyle, LBS Marg, Mulund (West) Mumbai - 400080, India Office Number: 022-41237015

http://www.plancessiit.com/

In reference to the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plancess&action=edit&redlink=1

I'd appreciate if we could discuss, your contributions and other details, about posting any content on behalf of Plancess EduSolutions Pvt Ltd.

I can be reached on vivekf.plancess@gmail.com between 10:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. IST +5:30 GMT I can also be reached on +91 9920455136 at your convenience.

Thanks & Regards,

Vivek Fernandes|Content Writer|Team Plancess

+91 9920455136

vivekf.plancess@gmail.com Test626 (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

1. If there is something which must be kept confidential, then please let me know, and I will consider communicating by email. Otherwise, it will be better to say anything that needs saying on talk pages, such as this one, so that all members of the community can see what is being said. Generally, openness is an essential part of the way Wikipedia works. I never conduct Wikipedia-related business by telephone.
2. Generally speaking, posting content "on behalf of" a business is not encouraged. Wikipedia is not a free publicity service, or a medium for a business to post its own preferred view of itself: that is what your company's own web site is for. A Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral, third party, point of view, and Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest discourages editing about a subject in which have a close involvement, such as a company you work for.
3. Are you the person who previously edited under the username "Plancessiit"? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear James, Thanks for the reply, I'm sure we can talk openly here. Unfortunately I'm not the one who previously edited under username "Plancessiit." I understand Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. I have a sample draft ready and would appreciate if you could take a look at it and share your insights. Can I send the data via e-mail? or can I continue and post it here? There is some content that is company sensitive and I'd appreciate some confidentiality. 08:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test626 (talk • contribs)

You are perfectly welcome to send me the draft by email if you like (though I find it difficult to understand how there can be "content that is company sensitive" in a draft for a page that you plan to post publicly on Wikipedia). However, I don't post my email address publicly, so you will need to use Wikipedia's email service. To do this, look at the top of the page, and, provided yo are logged into your account, you will see a link labelled "Preference". Click on that link, and you can set an email address for your account. Once you have done that, when you are on this talk page check the "Toolbox" at the left of the page, and you will find a link "Email this user", which you can use to send me an email. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

Test626 (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have looked at the email, and what I saw was straight marketing copy. If you really sincerely did not see what you wrote as promotional,then I can only assume that you work in marketing/advertising/PR/whatever-else-you-may-call-it, and are so used to marketing speak that you have become desensitised to it, and can't see it when it is staring you in the face. I would quote examples to illustrate what you mean, but since I have no way of knowing which parts you regard as "company sensitive" I won't. JamesBWatson (talk)

Dear James, thanks for the eye opener! I'm mailing you a second draft and I hope this passes through. Thank you once again!

Test626 (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

Your latest version certainly does not read like such blatant advertising as the earlier versions. However, it does not give any indication that the subject is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about just anything, but requires articles to be on subjects that have evidence of satisfying certain notability standards. I strongly recommend checking whether your business satisfies those standards before you spend any more time at all on preparing the article. This is because, while many faults with an article can be corrected by rewriting, no amount of rewriting an article can ever change the notability of the subject of that article. Over the years I have seen innumerable people in your situation writing and rewriting an article, trying to address each objection that is raised, when it is perfectly clear that no article on the subject they are writing about has any chance of surviving, as the subject simply does not satisfy the notability guidelines. As you can no doubt imagine, that can be a very frustrating and time-wasting experience, and it is to avoid the risk that you may waste time and effort in that way that I recommend considering Wikipedia's notability guidelines before deciding whether to spend more time on this. I will also say that I have done some searching online, and my impression is that your business almost certainly does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but of course you are free to check for yourself.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has, in my opinion, far too many policies and guidelines, which can be confusing and unhelpful for new editors. I believe it would be better to have a much simpler set up. However, I think a good starting point is to look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, if you haven't already done so. This is not an official Wikipedia guideline or policy, but rather an attempt by some experienced editors to collect together some of the points that are most relevant for anyone wanting to write an article about a business or organisation. It gives brief summaries of many points, including the most relevant parts of the notability guidelines. If you want to know in more detail what those guidelines are, the ones most relevant to your case are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of organisations and companies. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

Test626 (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Recheck Veron (media player) article

Please re-check my article. I hope now there is no copy of text from my blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal6545 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Check article

Can you check my article? Article's name is Veron (Software). Is this article satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal6545 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've taken care of this (posted on multiple users' talk pages including my own). Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Sockpuppet investigations/Justme78783)

Look i could open a new account , or 10 multiple , or even 100 multiple accounts . It is not a problem for me . What the problem is , that u did take action only against me . Yes i am disruptive . BUT WHY ? Did you bother to even look at it ?! Did you bother to look the history of both of the accounts ?! Am i the one going to wikipedia main articles about other countries and writing things that would suit my agenta ?! NO !!! ABSOLUTELY NOT . In fact i challenge you , to find me a single edit , that has to do with greece for example , or any other country . You will find NONE ... 0 , nada !

So i kindly ask from you , to look this matter a bit further . I do strongly believe , that the facts are facts , so if you would take a bit of time , and if you would concider yourself non-biased , you would understand that it was not only my behaviour disruptive , but also DR.K's behaviour , and may i add a lot more than mine.

Please devode some minutes , since you decided to ban me , to check this matter a bit further .

1) Go to the talk page of ' Albania' article - You will see multiple complains from different users , that are saying that the percentage is highly exagerated , without any credible source . 2) Furthemore , the sources already provided , by DR.K were showing a Maximum 3 % , so if the sources that they do provide are showing only 3 % ... which is ironical , why am i at blame for changing it from 3-6 % , to 3 % , when even 3 % is a highly exagarated number since the census of 2011 did show a 0,89 % . 3) The population of albania now is 103 % .... please do the math 4) I did change the number after a concensus was made in the talk page . I did politely ask from Dr.K to bring some sourced credible information , of which we got NONE . 5) Dr.K has vandalized the sources , please go to the history page , and you will understand 6) Dr.K opened this investigation , after i informed him , that i would seek for arbitration .

There is a lot more , and more . Just take some time , verify the sources , verify the talk page , the history etc.etc of this matter . Please , i am not here to make propaganda . I am just here , to write the truth as it is .

So i am not asking you to un-ban me . I am just asking you to look at this matter . Make this right , please .

The rules should apply for both of us . Thank you , and i would apreciate any answer , or any investigation . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.75 (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

1. You have been told how to request an unblock, and you are free to do so.
2. Threatening to create yet more sockpuppet accounts to evade your block will not help your case.
3. Posting rants about how unreasonable you think other people are will not help your case.
4. In every case involving the infantile disorder known as "nationalism", the problem is that all the nationalist editors, on both sides of the dispute, firmly believe that their opinion is THE TRUTH, so the idea that we should not block anyone who says "I am just telling the truth" would not help at all in such cases. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

All protection needs to be lifted from the Colin Lamont article as it is an abuse of your editing due to your clear personal prejudice and grudge against the subject going back many years in collusion with another Editor with whom you are in constant contact. You require to be banned for constant and consistent disruptive editing and vandalism against this particular subject which weakens Wikipedia considerably as all edits were made in good faith. You are constantly attempting to out other editors which is against the pillars of Wikipedia. Your petty performance is very poor and shabby and you need to give up Editing and 'PEACOCKING' as you said you were going to so that standards may again rise again. You need to STOP OWN UP & 'DROP THE STICK' or give up editing with immediate effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.26.165 (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Europefan is back

He took a little break and now User:Europefan is a back using 178.11.188.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), working on pages that weren't protected. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• And again, at 92.72.102.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Now on 178.11.188.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting edit reasoning

Let's see, I state an electronics-computing fact 'A code is just a number' explaining why a witch hunt is a witch hunt, in response to a POV statement you are struggling to justify, to balance the article, and you question the knowledge of my five degrees in the field and experience base since I first earned an associates in the early '70s. Professional grade job there. Did you stop to consider the ignorance of anyone concerned with such a issue, their sanity for example, and how someone is supposed to interpret the information so that it actually would invade their privacy? Did you balance whether the uncited statement even belongs in the lead? Great editing there Watson,

1. Just like reverting the article:
   1. instead of editing around the warrantable change (removing the stupid tag, and editorial disagreement—imho you should have cured by adding citation templates if you were actually editing as an editor instead of COMPLAINING about others editing—which is all tag hanging consists of. One takes time and effort, the other is imho, something one is honor bound to add to a TO-DO list, and solve on a day when time permits... or stay shut up about it!)
   2. Sniffling like a four year old, you also excise the very material which was missing in the article, the importance of RFID technology in shipping goods, or just bought groceries you benefit from such applications directly, most likely dozens of times a day. If you ever purchased something by overnight delivery, several RFID routed shipping decisions were likely involved, others were by bar codes, both just a number—a meaningless number without an entry in a database that gives it context and meaning.
2. So are you going to fix it right, or do I have to do what you should have done in the first place. (Yeah, you'll actually have to edit to interleave material, and look past citations and take some time to invest... in a better product. Imagine that!)

Way to go pro! Great demonstration of emotional decision making. // FrankB 15:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If you would care to rephrase your questions in a more civil way, I will answer them. If you like, I will also explain why several of the assumptions included in your rant are mistaken. Please let me know if you would like me to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Baby Boomer Page Lock

Why did you lock the page?172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Because of persistent vandalism. E.g. [21] [22] [23] [24]. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please unlock it. There has only been three or four attempts at vandalism since April 2013 (that's a 6 months time frame). Locking it until November is an over-reach. Please shorten the time or we should go to an admin hearing about it. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You must have a different idea of what constitutes vandalism than I have if you can see only three or for examples: I can see distinctly more. Also, quoting number of cases since April is cherry-picking, as there was a lull in vandalism between late April and late June, so choosing either a later or an earlier cut off point would give a higher rate per month. I tend to think that, when vandalism has been going on over a period of months, protection for anything less than a few months is unlikely to be effective. Nevertheless, I have tried reducing the length of the protection time: it will now expire two weeks from today, and we will see how that goes. Finally, why don't you create an account, so that you will not be affected by semi-protection of articles? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

I didn't know it was considered a "war" to relist a link in a template when it had been decided that the article had good enough references. I haven't seen the current suggestion to delete the page before today, that suggestion was obviously made later. Knot at All (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Sajo10

About six months ago you left rather stern warning on this user's talk page, warning him that if he continued creating non-notable articles he would be subject to an extended block. Well, he's gone ahead done exactly that. He recreated articles on Srđan Grahovac and Adnan Kovačević, both which still fails the same notability guidelines that they did back in March. I'm not sure what, if anything, you want to do about. I just figured you aught to know. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am dubious about the editor's latest creations. However, the articles do make some claim of significance, so they are not obviously inappropriate, and since the previous incarnations of the articles were only deleted by PROD, re-creating them effectively amounts to very belatedly contesting the PRODs, which any editor has the right to do. Consequently, I don't think that blocking at this stage could be justified. However, if the latest creations by this editor turn out to be the opening of a new phase of creating unsuitable articles, then I will be willing to reconsider that assessment. If there is any re-creation of articles deleted at AfD then there will be no need for assessment: the editor has been adequately warned about that, and, even though it was over six months ago, no further warning is necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Re:Elementary Watson

Sorry had to go on a break because of my exams. I am back now so here it is -

I was using Google DNS 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 . When I saw the Open proxy block I went to control panel, network and sharing center, clicked on ethernet properties, again properties, TCP/IPV4 properties and blanked it. Thats how I solved it. Sohambanerjee1998 16:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest & Disruptive Editing by Spammer

Hello JamesBWatson: I've been gone for a few weeks due to business & medical. When I returned I was notified of a conflict of interest and spam situation which I am going to ask you for your help and expertise. We have been working on the Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_Mouse

IP address 99.151.22.177 is the owner of changes made below and has a clear conflict of interest: 1. added their product's name 2. removed images uploaded to Commons

http://myip.ms/view/ip_addresses/1670845952/99.151.22.0_99.151.22.255

The owner of WarmMe Warm Mouse is trying to SPAM this article for self serving purposes. The owner resides in Ventura California. New user (99.151.22.177) making two changes only to that page to include the name of the product they sell online and it is not mentioned at all in any of the references listed on the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.151.22.177

Can we monitor this page a little more closely so it does not turn into a disruptive situation? I also added this info to the article's Talk page. As you know, I am fairly new here and am turning to you because of your level of expertise in this area.

Thank you for your guidance and support. Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you, 301man (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Left mail for you on the wrong page

Oops, this page stalking had me responding to you (plus leaving another query for you) on FT2's page. I hope you can get back to me in the issue soon as, against my better judgement, I ended up responding to the issue at hand on the relevant talk page. Thank you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

When a conversation on one user's talk page develops in a direction which is more relevant to another user, there is always a need to make a judgement about the balance between (a) moving to the other user's talk page, where it is more relevant, and (b) keeping the discussion together in one place, making it easier to follow. I tend to give higher priority to (b).

I have no intention of getting involved in the content dispute here. I have very little knowledge of the subject, and am in no position to assess the relative merits of the different views, and I also have no taste at all for getting into any disputes involving any shade or form of nationalism, which it seems is involved here. If reversions continue to the stage where they amount to an edit war, then I will be willing to take administrative action. Other than that, I'm afraid the best advice I can offer is to try to initiate discussions, with a view to trying to arrive at an agreed version which mentions both points of view, and does not give priority to either. If that doesn't work, you can look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which you may or may not find helpful. I am sorry that I can't offer anything more definite than that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. My apologies for involving you. I certainly don't want anyone to feel that they're being strong-armed into being a Third Party as I, personally, wouldn't want to touch these disputes with a 10 foot pole. As it is, I work on these pages despite my better judgement. Basically, I'm a moronic masochist who actually tries to make sense of the thousand variants on the same theme obfuscated under alternative titles (anyone googling for info comes out with a completely different understanding dependent on which page they land on).

Your response covers as much I anticipated without your becoming personally involved. I suspect that I really just wanted some sort of assurance that I was following established protocols as reasonably and constructively as is possible. While I feel a little self-conscious about cluttering up the article talk pages, by the same token I find them to be underused on the 'topical' Slavic articles (read as ALL Slavic content related pages). Being greeted by exasperated heckling because this or that aspect has purportedly been extensively debated (although these debates have either been deleted or archived with no links to the archive) is of no use to other contributors, nor is trying to follow via cold trails ending on long-defunct user talk pages. For the moment, I've collapsed a lengthy parsing of the issues at hand so that it remains on record.

Most irritating of all is the number of contributions, deletions and reversions made without any edit comments: not even generic ones. These pages have been subjected to so much hit and run editing without citations, warnings (clarification needed, etc.) and overwriting of relevant material that the reference lists look impressive but have long since ceased to reflect the reality of what is to be found in actual content. Categories (both hidden and visible) are completely out of date and in need of being cleaned up and there are virtually no English language references or, where appropriate, even lip service paid to translating relevant excerpts.

I'm not actually interested in using user pages as midnight catfight alley haunts. If I'm questioning the reliability of sources, the overwriting of valid information and the plonking of awkwardly translated tractats drawn directly from Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia or even Belarus Wikipedia (which comes in two flavours with disparate information), I'm addressing the content -- the person responsible for it is of secondary interest to me. If they don't respond/answer, or respond with hyperbole and/or personal taunts and attacks rather than responding to valid questions and criticisms, I deem it to be appropriate to continue on the article's talk page until a satisfactory response is elicited or evasive responses or silences leave enough information for other parties to make an evaluation of the merits of both sides of issues being addressed. Experience has taught me that people are more likely to proscribe any predisposition for emotive arguments and stay on track in a public forum.

No doubt, you'll be seeing my moniker bobbing around in disputes as I'm not going to win any popularity contests once I start pulling out the 'same subject, different name with antithetical views' pages & pushing for their being merged.

In the meantime, I'm just letting the heated tempers subside for another week or so before I start changing weasel words and weeding out jingoistic nonsense and blatantly spurious generalisations from all sides. Should a dispute arise, I simply need to cover my back(side) by ensuring that I've left ample coherent arguments for evaluating the case and, it stands to reason, that any continued warring should be pursued via Dispute resolution, meaning that I am prepared to be criticised & banned should it be considered that I was the antagonist.

Phew. Sorry about the spiel, Chief. Thanks, again, for your patience in hearing me out on the matter! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No apologies required. I actually found reading your account interesting. Unlike many posts of such length on such topics, it did not read like the impassioned rant of someone whose basic point could have been summed up in the single sentence "My point of view is THE TRUTH, and everyone who disagrees with me is part of an evil conspiracy." I fully sympathise with you, and my general feeling is that you are probably substantially right in what you say. Many years ago I had a tolerably usable reading knowledge of Russian, but years of disuse have led to its withering away, so the effort it would take me to check the places where content was copied from would now be excessive. The Wikipedia system depends heavily on the assumption that most editors are willing to collaborate, and there are adequate (albeit very imperfect) methods of dealing with occasional uncooperative editors. However, in topics which attract a larger number of editors with a nationalist point of view to push than of neutral editors, this approach fails. You only have to look for a little while at the history of anything related to India/Pakistan, or Northern Ireland, or Greece/Macedonia, or the Balkans, or Gibraltar, etc etc, to see good-faith, constructive editors throwing huge amounts of time and effort into a bottomless pit and achieving very little. (And as for Israel/Palestine, that doesn't bear thinking of.) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is well-intentioned, but it always seems to me that its content divides into two parts: (1) the basic "be prepared to discuss things" kind of stuff which works only in cases where all participants are basically reasonable, and (2) the "take it to the notice boards, arbcom, etc" kind of stuff, which in many cases creates so much drama and endless bickering that in my opinion it's not worth it. I have the greatest admiration for those who patiently try to keep the POV-warriors at bay, and are willing to put in the time and effort required, but I don't have the temperament for it myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't seriously consider Wikipedia articles on the subject matter you've listed as a resource for my own use. They're all completely mad. A good assortment of independent and credible journalists who ARE allowed to opine (coupled with my own wits) are my sole resource for such matters however, as so many people seem to use Wikipedia as a starting guide for information, I'll keep chipping away at the bits I know about. As I say, I just want to make certain I'm working as honestly and clearly as possible within Wikipedia policy & guidelines. My temperament isn't truly suited: I just happen to have spent much of my working life within the world of academia & having to keep my noodle de-noodled while explaining the same things time and time again to the same kinds of people. I'd rather be dabbling in the fine arts section tidying up information surrounding Carl Spitzweg but, being a stickler for ordering the universe, I'll probably keep going until I drop. I'm content to do my own 'arbitrating'. Good thing I've got skin like a rhino. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hibernian Rifles

Dear JamesBWatson, I am concerned about a few things, including your restoring text in the section "Origins" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernian_Rifles

You stated that "Restoring text the removal of which destroyed the context of the following sentence" was your reason for restoring my previous edit. Firstly, I believe this entire paragraph is flawed, however I previously only edited and removed the most glaring anti-Catholic bigotry. the sentence I removed accused the AOH of being anti-Semetic. This is problematic on numerous accounts, not the least of which it does not say weather it was AOH in America, or the Hibernian rifles, or the AOH board or Erin, or all three. Or was it just "the Hibernian"? Moreover, how many magazines and trade papers over the past 150 years have had the title "the Hibernian"? I can tell you there have been more than one. Because it is not hot-linked or sourced to an actual real or defunct magazine, how can we know which publication we are talking about here? This section needs sources or citation, otherwise it is nothin more than anti-Catholic defamation (very common on Wikipedia). The sentences in the section are also written so poorly, so that it is not clear which group of Irish Catholics are using "the Hibernian" to promote all this alleged antisemitism. Furthermore, how is the lecture "Treason in Ireland", a speech in opposition to the brutality of British Colonial rule in Ireland related to the alleged antisemitic nature of this (group or groups or magazine) as a state directly above? Why is the reference to this speech even here in this section on "origins"?

I find your revisions back to a version with unsupported and un-cited defamation of Catholics, does not match the "context of the following sentence" reason you gave. So I a reverting this section back and fixing the paragraph. thank you for your time, and all the hard work you do here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P.Mothoin (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I confess that, reading it now, I don't understand why I said that it "destroyed the context of the following sentence." More than 7 months after the event, I have no memory of the edit, and don't know what I had in mind, but it certainly looks like some sort of mistake. The best explanation I can think of is that I must have accidentally reverted the wrong edit. In any case, I agree that you were right to revert my revert. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Black Dragon user page edits.

Is this more block evasion? It seems somewhat Ducky to me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

About as ducky as they come. In addition, the IP address has a long history of vandalism, over a period of many years, so a block seems obvious. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk Back

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

Replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

New Message

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

Seen. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

82.24.188.86 is back again

Hi there! It seems like 82.24.188.86 is back to their old tricks again - they resumed vandalism immediately after the last block expired, causing someone else to block them, but that has now expired and their long lists of made-up DVD releases are once again being sprayed over otherwise innocent articles. Wish I understood what motivates people like this… Anyway, you asked me to let you know if they returned. :) Bonusballs (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thanks for telling me. I have given a much longer block, as I told the vandal I would if this nonsense continued. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Seen. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:BannedMeansBanned

Hello, JamesBWatson! While I do agree that protection is necessary to prevent disruption to this template, I don't think it needs to be full-protected (i.e. only editable by admins). Looking through the edit history, only one disruptive user was (auto)confirmed; that user was a sockpuppet and quickly blocked as well. The rest of the disruptive edits have been from IPs. Do you think it would be worth lowering the protection to allow autoconfirmed users? Thanks in advance, Heymid (contribs) 16:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done I fully accept what you say. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That's appreciated. . Cheers, Heymid (contribs) 20:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive page stalking, failing to read or understand, and making misleading comments

Hi! I would like an apology for your disruptive editing. I asked an intelligent and well informed checkuser to help me. You decided you knew better, deleted my message, [[25]] and rejected my appeal with the totally false claim "You have been given instructions below on how to appeal this checkuser block" when it was not a checkuser block. This led directly to me being blocked from editing for 2 extra weeks. If you are prepared to read my talk page thoroughly and apologise for your behaviour, I will not make further complaints about this.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): Blackmailing an admin, not a smart move, one that will get you nowhere but another block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The block log said that you were under a checkuser block. You were blocked by a checkuser, who stated that you were subject to a checkuser block. There was also a statement on your talk page stating that you were subject to a checkuser block, and telling you how to appeal a checkuser block. You now tell me that it was not a checkuser block. I you weren't in fact under a checkuser block then the mistake was not mine, since I can only go on information on record, in this case in the block log.
2. You say that I "deleted [your] message", and you give a diff for an edit where I removed a post by an IP editor made while your account was blocked. By referring to it as your edit, you are confirming that it was a block-evading edit, which was precisely the reason I gave in my edit summary. Thus, you are showing clearly that what I did was no mistake. If an editor is blocked, then they are not allowed to edit, apart from making unblock requests, whether or not they believe that the block is justified.
3. Thank you for telling me about your concerns, and informing me that you thought I had made mistakes. It is always helpful when other editors drop me civil and courteous notes telling me they think that I have made a mistake. When I have made a mistake, it is helpful to be informed, so that I can correct my mistake, or, if that is not possible, at least apologise, and try to avoid similar mistakes in future. On the other hand, when, as in this case, I have made no mistake, it is helpful because it enables me to help the other person by explaining why they are mistaken. Please don't feel too bad about your mistake, as it is the sort of mistake that anyone could make if they acted hastily, without due consideration, and I fully forgive you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely correct that you followed the rules to the letter and made proper decisions based on what you knew at the time, and therefore you LOdm no apology on the basis of actions you took as individual. As a part of a larger community which incorrectly blocked an editor who did nothing wrong, the classy thing to do would be to apologize anyway. You know, like how you tell someone you're sorry if they're ill, even though you didn't cause the illness? Since you claim to welcome feedback, your first two paragraphs above are well done per the standard in adminaccount. The third is, of course, within the bounds of what's allowable on Wikipedia but, in a larger humanity context, is pretty acting like an smart aleck ass. (and inconsistent with the quality I've observed in your prior edits). NE Ent 01:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. After I had gone off line I regretted that last bit, but I didn't have a chance to come back and change it until now. I responded while I felt irritated by L'Origine du monde's rather aggressive tone, but, now that I have thought about it further, I can fully sympathise with an editor who, under the circumstances, was understandably annoyed by the situation, and wrote in a way that was not as civil and helpful as might have been ideal. I am retracting the last couple of sentences of my post above, I offer my apologies to L'Origine du monde for them, and I hope that he/she can accept that we both acted with less than perfect civility when we both felt aggrieved at the way we felt we had been treated by other editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Appologies for anger, and thanks for you apology for above rudeness! That said, if I correctly understand what you say above, you interrupted my attempt to communicate with THE checkuser who had blocked the IP I was supposed to be evading, using a totally different IP from that. You do not explain why you would want to do this (I understand that technically you can). You repeatedly say you can only go on the information given. Could you explain why you could not read what I had written, and think about it? The checkuser whose page you stalk had clearly stated that the IP was blocked because of logged in use - do you understand what that means? It took over 2 weeks to get a reply from that email - telling me to email another one! I am quite aware that I may be a special case, but if you read my talk page there is not a statement saying "There was also a statement on your talk page stating that you were subject to a checkuser block, and telling you how to appeal a checkuser block." - the statement says that I have been blocked for block evasion, and to email to get that block lifted. I agree that Eternal Reaper used very misleading language, and will communicate your misunderstanding to him. That said, please carefully read what he wrote, and my appeal, and I think you will see that you made a mistake. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 21:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, because non-checkusers cannot unblock editors who are subject to checkuser blocks, of course. That's why you must e-mail in order to have the block lifted - any unblock requests you place are automatically declined as procedurally inappropriate ES&L 21:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read my talk page, then you will see that, although it is confusing, there was never a checkuser block on me, rather I was missassociated with a checkuser block !!!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 22:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(and the fact that this Admin wrongly described it as a checkuser block made it worse! )♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 22:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your block log says otherwise. Because of what it says in your BLOCK LOG, regular admins CANNOT under any circumstance act, even if you FEEL it was a mistake, or even if it comes out LATER that it was a mistake. Seriously, drop the stick ... you're heading for a competence is required block, which WILL be wholly earned/deserved ES&L 22:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't you have a talk page of you own to go to ? ;) Block log said evading checkuser block. Didn't say it was a checkuser block. Might be hard to understand, but it is different.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 22:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It makes no difference in the English language, nor on Wikipedia. You arguing otherwise will not make that change. As I have said elsewhere, it's well-past time to drop it - you're now proving that a block was needed, where what you should be doing is distancing yourself from it. The block cannot be expunged (we have admins who have been blocked in the past) but it will fade - the more you harp on it, however, the more cemented it becomes ES&L 08:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• There seem to me to be several issues in what you have been saying, L'Origine du monde.

1. There is the issue of declining the block with the comment about having been told how to appeal a checkuser block. The block had been placed by a checkuser, and its block log entry referred to a checkuser block. Later, a change to your block conditions was made, and the corresponding log entry stated "You are under a checkuser block". Under the circumstances, I really do not see how I could possibly have done anything other than accept what those two block log entries said. That being so, I could not accept the unblock request, and leaving it unanswered would not have been doing you any favour, because it would have just meant that I was leaving you to wait for a response, knowing that the response would virtually certainly be a decline of the request. To let you know that you were not going to get anywhere through that unblock request, and draw your attention to the fact that there were other methods of trying to be unblocked, was, as far as I can see, more likely to be helpful to you. (Although the block log entry just says "Same as checkuser-blocked 93.96.148.42", rather than "This block is a checkuser block", that still appeared to indicate that it was a checkuser block, because how else, other than by checkuser, did Reaper Eternal, who blocked you, associate you with the IP address in question? OK, I think I now know the answer to that question, but I didn't at the time. Of course, the information was available for me had I looked in the right place, but I did read a lot of stuff related to the case, including following up posts on talk pages, such as the one where you say I was "stalking", and to be realistic there is a limit to how much moving around from page to page, searching through edit histories for anything that might possibly be relevant, that one can do, and unfortunately the relevant post is not one that I saw.)
2. You take issue with my saying "There was also a statement on your talk page stating that you were subject to a checkuser block, and telling you how to appeal a checkuser block". Looking carefully, I see that the statement in question (posted by Reaper Eternal at 14:50 on 17 August) did not actually state that you were subject to a checkuser block, but it referred to checkuser in relation to the block, and it tells you how to appeal such a block. Perhaps a more accurate thing for me to have written would have been "There was also a statement on your talk page which referred to a checkuser block, and told you how to appeal the block, and the instructions it gave followed the procedure for appealling a checkuser block." Sorry that my wording was imprecise, but, no matter what the exact wording, the point was simply that there was a message on your talk page which treated your block as a checkuser block.
3. There is the issue of removing the talk page comment that you posted as an IP editor. If I understand you correctly, your point about that is that I could have read the various things you had written, realised that, if you what you said was right, the block was a mistake, and, although technically you were evading your block, under the circumstances it was reasonable to ignore all rules and let you do so. Yes, I could have taken that line. I did read what you had written, and I did realise that what you said might be true. However, there were some considerations that discouraged me from taking that line. Firstly, there was the fact that, while what you said might be true, it also might not. Unfortunately, there are very many persistently disruptive editors who try to lie their way out of a block by claims of the kind that you were making. Secondly, there were other methods you could have used to pursue the same end, such as emailing the checkuser concerned instead of posting to his talk page. You now tell me that it took over 2 weeks to get a reply to your email, and I can well imagine how you must have felt about that, but I had no way of knowing that you wouldn't get a more timely response. Ignoring all rules is justifiable when there is no reasonable alternative, or no alternative that is not in some way substantially more inconvenient, but to ignore the rules on the grounds that an editor might be subject to a mistaken block, while as far as I knew he/she might not, when there was a perfectly easy method for him/her to address the issue within the rules, did not seem to me to be justifiable.

• As I have already said, I can fully understand how frustrating and annoying you must have found the situation you found yourself in, and I have also already said that I am unhappy that I unwittingly took part in adding to that frustration and annoyance. However, I acted entirely in good faith, and as far as I can see so did everyone else involved, and it seems to me that the best thing to do now is to accept that, unpleasant though it was, the whole thing was an unfortunate accident, that nothing more can be done now to undo the past damage, and leave it and move on. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You're next movie edit

James before you accuse someone of vandalism you should perhaps actually read the edit to determine if it is valid. My edit was a correction not an attempt at vandalism. I also see someone came behind me and made the same changes I did and those have remained intact. Next time pay more attention before you start sending false accusations, or I may just have to report you for abuse of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebozz411 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to the similar message on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a diff, or a link to the page in question so we can see if there is a problem.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 06:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

James, could you provide a diff - there is not one in your warning, so I have no idea what this is about, as he doesnt seem to have edited that page.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 06:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Found it - but you really should include a diff in your warning - but can't see any reason to suspect that particular edit was vandalism. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 06:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No diff was needed, as it referred to all the editing the user had done at the time, so he/she knew what was being referred to. Since the editor had at the time made a grand total of one edit, I don't understand how there could be any difficulty in finding it, and as for the attempted edits blocked by an edit filter, there would have been no point in giving the user diffs, as only administrators would have been able to see the diffs anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry :) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 22:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Irony

Hello James. Welcome back to irony. It's been quiet for a while, but we have a new keen editor. You might also check out sarcasm. Myrvin (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

How to anonymously report a vandal?

Hi James. I went to the admin notice board and saw your name. I thought I'd write and ask a question. Occasionally I come across an editor who has outright vandalized an article. I don't feel comfortable sending them a warning, or even reverting their edit. This morning I looked through my watchlist and came across user:118.148.173.243. Please have a look at the edit on "Lawrence A. Rainey" (I'm not wikilinking to the article, so I don't show up in its "what links here"). What should I do when I come across an edit like this? Thanks. Richard Apple (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's rarely appropriate to anonymously report anything. Much of Wikipedia's vandalism comes from WP:IGNORANCE - every editor has a job to guide people - even ANI/AN filings are required to be non-anonymous, and they insist that you have tried to resolve it beforehand ES&L 23:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about possible evasion of a block that you made

I want to let you know about WP:AN#Bot use by blocked users, because it involves your block of Viriditas. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Jajadelera

Over the past year, a group of editors - including myself - have been dealing with Jajadelera and his countless sockpuppets. Jajadelera is notorious for posting hoaxes about certain cars being manufactured in the Philippines or certain Philippine actresses being spokespersons of car manufacturers. In addition, he displays piss-poor grammar on his edits. While his accounts have been blocked here on Wikipedia, his Commons account and several of his sockpuppets remain open, and he uses them to upload copyrighted images. Is there a way to have his Commons accounts blocked? - Areaseven (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have come across several IP addresses specialising in vandalism in hoaxes about cars in relationship to the Philippines, but I didn't know about the accounts. I suggest that you either try posting at commons::Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections or else ask an individual commons administrator. There is a full list of commons administrators at commons::Commons:Administrators. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Just posted my report - Areaseven (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Cam Newton redirect

This is a poor redirect imho because it is targeted away from the primary topic which actually happens to be an American football player. This is why the redirect should be deleted imho.Hoops gza (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's a poor redirect, but it doesn't qualify under the speedy deletion criterion that was given, namely that it was a redirect to a nonexistent page. You can take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if you like. However, it is not clear to me that leaving it as it is does any harm: the worst that can happen is that nobody ever uses it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Sajo10

About six months ago you left rather stern warning on this user's talk page, warning him that if he continued creating non-notable articles he would be subject to an extended block. Well, he's gone ahead done exactly that. He recreated articles on Srđan Grahovac and Adnan Kovačević, both which still fails the same notability guidelines that they did back in March. I'm not sure what, if anything, you want to do about. I just figured you aught to know. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am dubious about the editor's latest creations. However, the articles do make some claim of significance, so they are not obviously inappropriate, and since the previous incarnations of the articles were only deleted by PROD, re-creating them effectively amounts to very belatedly contesting the PRODs, which any editor has the right to do. Consequently, I don't think that blocking at this stage could be justified. However, if the latest creations by this editor turn out to be the opening of a new phase of creating unsuitable articles, then I will be willing to reconsider that assessment. If there is any re-creation of articles deleted at AfD then there will be no need for assessment: the editor has been adequately warned about that, and, even though it was over six months ago, no further warning is necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, he's just done exactly that in recreating an article Armin Hodžić. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the editor for three months. That is something of a compromise, as I think the amount of disruptive editing over a period of several years would be enough to justify an indefinite block, if it weren't for the fact that the user has previously had only one short block. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

InfoBeans Systems

Hi James,

Kindly let me know how I can create my company's page here on wiki. Please let me know the sequence for doing so. I assure that the content of this page will be generic & informative. But how can i include my business location & other details? Normally how can any organisation be registered on wiki if its not so well known?

Thanks & Regards, Pratibha — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoBeans Systems (talk • contribs) 11:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to publicise themselves: that is what advertising businesses are for. Wikipedia seeks to hold neutral, third party, accounts of subjects which have received enough coverage in reliable third party sources to satisfy our notability guidelines, and if a business is "not so well known" then it almost certainly does not satisfy those guidelines. Also, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage writing about a subject to which you have a close personal connection, such as your company. You are, of course, welcome to contribute to the encyclopaedia on other subjects, where you have no personal involvement, but if your only interest is using Wikipedia to publicise your company, then Wikipedia is the wrong place to do it. If you really want to know more about this, you may like to read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, but my advice is that it would be a waste of your time, because my investigations make it clear that your company comes nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Check that again?

I am confused by this CSD refusal. That page had existed for less than three minutes when I tagged it, not for three years. Take a look at the history. I created it; I made a typo; I promptly fixed the typo and sent the resulting redirect off to CSD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You confused me by moving the page three times in rapid succession, with the result that it is necessary to follow through the logs of several page titles in succession to trace the history. It looked to me as though the original title of the article was "Disabilities affecting intellect activities", but further searching reveals that it was in fact "Intellectual disability". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The page was briefly moved to that name and then moved away; I think the redirect is eligible.

04:27, 12 September 2013 WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) moved page Disabilities affecting intellect activities to Disabilities affecting intellect abilities (Perhaps this is a better name) (revert)

04:23, 12 September 2013 WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) moved page Intellectual disability to Disabilities affecting intellect activities (Make room for another article with a stronger claim to this name (feel free to pick a better name)) (revert)

Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic Ban Removal Request". Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Interspersing

You wrote: "Interspersing replies amidst a talk page comment is generally frowned upon,and with good reason: it makes discussions hard to follow, and can sometimes mislead readers as to who wrote what and when." A careful look would reveal that I copied your signature after each of your four numbered comments, before replying to the first. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I did notice that, and that is much better than interrupting another editor's comments with replies without repeating the signature, which many new editors do. Also, if I remember correctly, you took care to keep the numbering of my points, which would give a clue as to how the thing was written. For those reasons, I did consider making an exception, and allowing your editing to stand. However, it can still be unhelpful to break up what was written as a whole into separate fragments, and, since it is perfectly easy in a reply at the end of the original message to make it clear which point is being replied to, I don't see that anything is lost by doing it that way. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:SaidMuqaffa

Hello. Sorry if I'm in the wrong forum to ask this, but it's best to consult an admin who has experience.

I've already put two of the articles created by SaidMuqaffa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Bang Habib and Eri Satria, into AfD because I feel that the two articles are dubious, since there are no valid links to prove these two "TV stations" in existence. In fact, the Bang Habib article has the logo of TV3 Sweden (a possible copypasta of the infobox from the TV3 article). I've already notified the users in Wikiproject Indonesia and Wikipedia Asia about the AfD.

I'm also equally concerned about this user's generally behavior of putting possibly unsourced edits into several articles.

So can you investigate on this user? Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear that many, if not all, of this editor's actions are vandalism. I have deleted the apparent hoax articles, reverted vandalism in an article, and given the editor a message. My advice is that in future, if you see a case like this, post a warning message on the editor's talk page. If you are unsure whether the edits are vandalism, then, rather than make accusations, you can post a friendly message saying something to the effect "I was not sure about your edits, which looked very dubious, so please explain what you are doing in future to avoid any risk that it may look like vandalism." There are at least three advantages in warning as soon as possible: (1) if the editor is editing in good faith, it may encourage them to make that fact clear, so that misunderstandings can be avoided; (2) if they are vandalising, it may prompt them to think again, and stop; (3) if they are vandalising and don't stop, then sooner or later an administrator will think "here is a vandal who has been warned and has not stopped: time to take action", rather than "here is a vandal who has not been warned at all: let's wait and see." JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Once again, this user is still doing his vandalism, especially with his "FreeView Arabia" thing. He has been warned several times, including yours, but it seems he never heeded those messages and proceeded to do his thing again. He just came out of a previous block that expired around four days ago. So does he now warrant the indefinite block tag? Thanks! - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he does, and I have blocked the user indefinitely. Thanks for pointing this out, so that I could deal with it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Wee Curry Monster talk 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Dear, I will again request, if you can be kind enough to "edit" the contribution in question on Defence Day to make it neutral instead of a blanket revert. Thank you Desert brook (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rosie and Jim may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• pp-vandalism|small=yes}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment at ANI

I find your comment at ANI terribly unfair and I've posted a reply. I'd be grateful if you could give some honest answers to my questions because at the moment I'm finding it very difficult to assume good faith from you. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi James. I just read your comment and at this point I have to tell you I'm baffled. I have no idea what could possibly be interpreted as "aggressive and confrontational" from that, seriously I don't. You know what was my mood at the time of writing that comment? Amazement. Not angry (at all) but actually amazed to see how many admins could look the other way to what I see as 100% blockable offenses if it was me the one doing them (I'm pretty sure you know this better than I). Leaving that aside, it is not my intention to continue discussing Wee's request in your talk page. I truly would like to ask you for advise as to how I could have made the points I did in that comment without sounding "aggressive and confrontational"? Is it my use of bolded/italic/underlined words? Did the wording of my questions come off as aggressive? All those questions (as those I'm writing here now) were honest questions. I did not intend for them to sound rhetoric (in case they did) and I certainly did not intend for them to sound either aggressive or confrontational. If you have some specific comments on how I should avoid coming off the way I do (to you at least) I would really appreciate it. I am a real person with a real interest in building a better, open and more complete WP. If my intentions would be to just muck around I would not have given my real life identity to you at the time. If anything, I think that at least shows true commitment with the project. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I no longer expect an answer but thanks anyway. Gaba ^(talk) 03:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Note

I see that you protected Template:BannedMeansBanned and template:Locked global account. Would you mind creating template sandboxes for them so that we non-admins can experiment and not ruin the templates? 76.226.129.184 (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No, because they have been used by a long-term disruptive editor, who, by a funny coincidence, has a habit of editing from IP addresses in the same range that you are using. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert to Category:Baseball foods

Thanks for this revert ...I was working on Category:Baseball foods because it's up for deletion at CfD and was looking for similar categories for other sports. I can't remember why I added that category but it was clearly a mistake. Thanks for correcting this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit at Atheism

I'd like to ask you about this edit: [26]. I'm confused about why you made it. I wonder whether you actually intended to revert the changes that had been made about the recent history of the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Rejection of concepts which cannot be falsified" seems to me to be more natural English than "Rejection of concepts that cannot be falsified", and at the very least it is no worse. I don't feel strongly about it, but I tend to take the line that wording shouldn't be changed unless there is at least some advantage in the new wording, and I don't see any in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Actually, it wasn't longstanding language. The phrase had just been added within the last day or so by another editor, and I thought that I was correcting the grammar. I think I'm correct about it, but I could be wrong. It's such a small thing that I'm not going to worry about it, and I'll leave it as you edited it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Strange goings-on

Hi JBW, I picked you at random for this. I was poking through the new user edits, and found some strange edits. To me it looks like they're using Wikipedia as a dump for customer records. Over seven edits, the user adds a bunch of names, some codes (confirmation #s?) and in some cases UPS tracking numbers. At the bottom of the article is a strand of digits, which are sometimes accompanied by some websites [27]. After dancing around my living room convinced that I uncovered a spy ring, I found a link to Edgeconnect Replacement Process - 4Shared (can't direct link as site is on WP blocklist), which seems to indicate that these are related to ATT tech support. The only other contributor to the page is an IP user with a slew of warnings on their page: 167.1.160.20 Looks like a WP:NOTHERE at least, and the user is stashing their customers' personal information on our servers, which is probably bad. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. At the least, this is a misuse of the Wikipedia servers, and at the worst it may be illegal publishing of personal information. I have deleted the page, and posted a message to the editor, explaining why it was unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(tps) I went ahead and suppressed the page.

However, I came here to let you know that I unblocked an IP you had blocked for a month because CU tells me that the sockmaster has moved on to two or more addresses since then. :-\ ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

dr Jovan Jovicic

Hello James, you deleted the article about my favorite composer. Do you still have the deleted text? I would like to learn more about him, but without knowledge of serbo-croatian (nowadays: 'serbian') hopeless.

Kamariotissa (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Squeezed coherent state

I noticed that you deleted a well working link from the article mentioned above. The reason posted was it being "self promotional". I am very sorry to hear that. Let me explain. After having worked for years in this field I was one of the main contributors to the Wikipedia article. Since a Wiki-article doesn't allow the depth of a Review article I wrote a well known tutorial. Still researchers and students from all over use it and write emails, our main common connection being the Wikipedia, search for knowledge. I do not profit neither commercially nor academically by it. The tutorial is well understandable and well usable for university and high school students as well. The other link for instance is by far less informative and links directly to a particular research institution with definite commercial interests, building up a very specific (indeed truly exciting) experiment. This is a contradiction. Being one of the very early contributors in the build up of the german Wikipedia and still through university and high school teaching involved in non-commercial online tutorials I reentered the link and urge you to have a close look at it in terms of usefulness and "foundational spirit" of the Wikipedia. Thank You --Gerd Breitenbach (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of informing me of this. Since it relates to an edit I made in April 2012, it is very unlikely I would have ever noticed your reversion if you had not told me about it. The link is probably appropriate, but you clearly have a conflict of interest, and should avoid adding links or references to your own work. If you think that such a link is desirable, it is much better to post a message on the article's talk page suggesting that someone else add the link, rather than adding it yourself. You can add a {{Request edit}} tag to the a talk page to call attention to your request. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right, thank You for the explanation. Gerd Breitenbach (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The New Jersey Winnie-the-Pooh Gibberish Vandal

Thanks for your help with this. I believe that one of the IPs used by this kid appears to trace to a special-needs school in New Jersey, so on the one hand I feel badly, but on the other hand, the stuff they are contributing is awful. Anyhow, thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I feel a bit uncomfortable in such cases, too. However, our priority has to be what helps to make Wikipedia better, and we have to remember that competence is required to edit the encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not therapy. I have semi-protected some of the affected articles, for time periods from a month up, depending on how much affected they are. In the course of doing so, I discovered that some of them were protected a couple of years ago for similar reasons, so I wonder if indefinite semi-protection is needed, but I really regard indefinite protection as a last resort, to be avoided unless it seems totally necessary, so i have not done that. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My revision at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Hi James, I was a bit puzzled to see you revert my change at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, because what I wrote was simply factual. SineBot does a good job of catching recent unsigned comments, but it doesn't go back and catch old ones. If you just objected to the wording, surely that's something that can be worked out. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to your adding the word "recent". My real purpose in reverting was to restore "however" to the beginning of the sentence, which seems to me to be more natural English, and I think the removal of "recent" was probably unintentional (unless I had some reason at the time that I have now forgotten), so I have restored that word. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Curious what you mean

[28] You say my edit did not reflect "existing practice."

Due to mine preassuming too many things, some of the following may actually be different than existing practice, but I think other assumptions are uncontested (common sense assumptions)

Which of the following implicit assumptions do not reflect "existing practice?"

• Entire discussions which goes off topic should be brought back on track rather than closed. Only discussions off topic to being with should be closed
• Personal conversation can be copied to the author's talk page
• What makes a comment a rant is it only declares a personal opinion and doesn't attempt swaying the consensus on how to edit neutrally
• There is a much lesser urgency to delete off topic posts
• A consensus needs to be reached before a discussion can be considered off topic
• It is relatively of very minor importance to remove off topic posts

Thanks DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit attempted to make substantial changes, which differed in several ways from established practice. Here are some of the ways in which it did so:

1. You replaced content saying "If a discussion goes off-topic ... the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates" with "If a discussion was off-topic to begin with, the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates." In my experience this is not so. The use of these collapsing templates is common in such places as administrators' noticeboards, but it is nothing like so common in talk pages, and in article talk pages it is quite rare. Completely off-topic sections are often simply ignored, and left in talk pages for years, but when they are dealt with, the commonest method is simply to remove them. I have seen this done many times, far more often than any use of "collapse" templates in talk pages. The original wording referred to what happens when a discussion "goes off-topic", which is a very different matter, since in that case there is some relevant content there, so that simply removing the section would be unhelpful.
2. On the rare occasions when "collapse" templates are used in article talk pages, it is almost always in a long section, where only part of the section's content is collapsed, because most of the discussion is on topic, and only part of it goes off topic: the exact opposite of the change that you made from saying this happens when a discussion "goes off-topic" to saying that it happens when a discussion "was off-topic to begin with".
3. You replaced content referring to what happens to "rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)" with something about "useless rants which do not attempt to influence the consensus on how the article should appear". This was a substantial change. In the original, this passage made it clear that what was being referred to was use of a talk page as a general forum about the subject which the article deals with, as opposed to using it to discuss the editing of the article. Your wording, however, removed the indication that it is relevant whether the talk page content in question is about editing the article or simply about the article's subject, and replaced that criterion with the two highly subjective criteria of whether the content is "useless", and whether it attempts to influence consensus.
4. You say "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic", which is of course trivially true, but you then go on to say "be sure to err on the side of caution. While we should delete offensive posts in a hurry, we should not extend this habit to delete off topic discussion too fast." This reads like a statement that when there is disagreement as to whether content should be included, for some reason the person wishing to include it gets priority. I am not aware of any accepted principle that there is a default preference for inclusion of doubtful content, as though somehow inclusionists get priority.

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:JammesBoxShotSNES.jpg

It had already existed for two years, the banned user only uploaded a new version. Peter James (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite true. There were numerous images affected by the same sockpuppet. For most of them I simply deleted the new uploads, restoring the images to their pre-sockpuppet state, and that is what I intended to do with this one, but evidently among them all I made a slip with this one. I've put it right now. thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Mister World 2010

After three years of protection, is lowering its protection appropriate right now? --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. However, the sockpuppeteer who made the protection necessary has continued to be active on other articles from time to time during those three years, with the last activity that I know of being four months ago, so there is a significant possibility that the trouble on this article will start up again if it is unprotected. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Is "Pending changes" useless? --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't tend to use "pending changes", because in my experience it usually has very limited usefulness. However, that is because very commonly it is used on articles where most of the editing consists of IP vandalism followed by reverting of that vandalism, and while pending changes may prevent the vandalism from being publicly visible, it does nothing at all to reduce the amount of editor time wasted on reverting the vandalism. However, this is a very different situation, and pending changes may well be helpful, so I'll give it a try. Thanks for suggesting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryan-Zico Black

Hi JamesBWatson, can I query your deletion of Ryan-Zico Black? I don't think G4 should have applied (it was a substantially improved version) and made a note to that effect on the talk page. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

All you said on the talk page was that the new version of the article was longer, and that it had more references. Neither of those points goes anywhere towards addressing the reasons advanced in the deletion discussion. (Incidentally, you were also mistaken in saying that the new version was "twice as long as deleted version". It was somewhat longer, but nowhere near twice as long.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The deleted version was a one line stub with two references whereas my improved version has six paragraphs of sourced prose with 11 references! You may feel that notability is still in question despite the additional new material, but I don't see how G4 can apply, because the article is not identical. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The version at http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/ that you link to dates from July 2012, as you will see if you look near the bottom of the page, and it is not remotely similar to the version which was discussed at the deletion discussion in June and July 2013. The re-created version, however, is essentially similar to the version that was discussed and deleted. Speedy deletion criterion G4 refers to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved". i always feel that that wording is inadequate, because it is not clear what "sufficiently" identical means. However, it seems to me that an article which has substantially the same information, and which does not address the issues which led to the original deletion, is essentially a re-creation of the article. If you think that is an unreasonable interpretation of the criterion, then you are perfectly free to take it to deletion review, if you think it worth doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for taking a look, I've done that now.

Deletion review for Ryan-Zico Black

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ryan-Zico Black. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Capital Line

Please reconsider your deletion of this template.

I feel that at best the result should have been “no consensus”, as there was only one more vote for deletion than keeping it. (And of the other two votes, one was from the TfD nominator and the other was from the creator: myself.) If you take a look at the other deletion nominations that were made of related templates ([29], [30] and [31]) you will see that they were all closed with no consensus.

Thank you. Useddenim (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not decided on the basis of a count of the numbers of people on each side of the debate: they are decided on the basis of the strength of reasoning on the respective sides. Here, the only reason given for keeping was that it "will be a supplement" to another template, and when clarification of what "supplement" meant was requested, you said that the other template "should only show the basic layout", but you gave no explanation of what the criterion was whereby it "should". On the other side of the debate, it was pointed out, correctly, that the template is unused, and that its content is entirely a duplicate of content of another template. The other discussions you mention are irrelevant, because they contain very different arguments. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it should be relevant that the reason “the template is unused” was because the nominator was the one who removed it from the article! [32] Additionally, the smaller details (road crossings adjacent lines, etc.) should be on this template (rather than Template:ETS LRT route—the source of the “duplicate content”) because the nominator kept disruptively reverting my edits as I tried to rationalize the set of templates. Useddenim (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The removal of the template that you link to followed your adding it to the article 8 days after the nomination. At the time of the nomination, which described the template as unused, it had not been added to the article, nor, as far as I can see, to any other article.
2. If there are facts which you regard as relevant to a deletion discussion, then it makes sense to mention them in that discussion. You can't expect a reviewing administrator to search through the editing history of everyone who takes part in the discussion, in case there is anything there which is relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, mea culpa in not acting in as timely a manner as I probably should have. (But there is a real world outside of Wikipedia that I have to live in, and I was likely hoping that the “cavalry” would ride in as they did with the other TfDs.) However, IIRC, Gingeroscar (talk · contribs)—who was the page’s creator—also objected, but being an inexperienced editor, did so on the Template’s Talk page rather than at the TfD discussion. If you don’t want me to bother you about this any more, I can just request a formal Deletion Review. Useddenim (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Gingeroscar did not post anything on the article's talk relating to the TfD discussion. He/she had previously quite correctly posted a message contesting an earlier speedy deletion nomination as a hoax, but that was totally unrelated to the reasons advanced at TfD. You are, of course, free to take this to deletion review, but I can't see any way that it could reasonably be seen as fitting any of the criteria listed as the purposes of deletion review. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit of Hidden Mickey

RE: Hello, You asked me to please stop what you labeled as disruptive editing to Hidden Mickey, and apologize if you felt it was disruptive, it was not intended to be such. I was simply trying to follow your lead in the deletion of what you labeled as references to book promotions. My edits yesterday did indeed remove a number of references, but I thought I gave meaningful explanation for those deletions, similar to the explanation you gave for your edit. It was in no way a retaliation for removal of content that I added. Your statement on my talk page was "using Wikipedia for any sort of promotion of anything is contrary to Wikipedia policy" so with that statement I looked closely at Hidden Mickey and noted references to hiddenmickey.square.com, hiddenmickeyears.com, hiddenmickeys.org, hiddenmickeyguy.com, and findingmickey.com, were all in violation of the rule in that Wikipedia policy. Please look at the right column on hiddenmickey.square.com and you will see an Amazon offer for a Hidden Mickey book, and would fall under the category of "using Wikipedia for any sort of promotion." On the site hiddenmickeyears.com these are formations of the iconic head and ears that have been spotted in nature or even on animals, but they are not Hidden Mickeys, therefore would not be a good reference to real Hidden Mickeys. The general rule is: "Not associated with Disney, not a Hidden Mickey," and add to that they have a store promoting their T-Shirt. Now looking at the bottom of the page on hiddenmickeys.org you will see obvious links to Disney Toys | Disney Books | Disney Music... etc., all of which are promotional and would fall under the category of "using Wikipedia for any sort of promotion." The hiddenmickeyguy.com site is an obvious book promotion site, selling everything from this author's books to Disneyland tickets, again falling under the category of "using Wikipedia for any sort of promotion." Hopefully you will see that I was merely following your lead in cleansing Wiki of promotion of anything is contrary to Wikipedia policy. I apologize for my several edits, this was because I hadn't noticed them all at the same time. I see they did appear to be disruptive editing, and hopefully you can now understand that it was not my intention. Since you did the original edit taking out several book listings and links to other authors, I would appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to verify my findings and undo your edit to keep Wiki unbiased to uphold Wikipedia policy. Rrodrigue (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Paymenex Deletion

Talkback|Fulginic (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your help Fulginic (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and thanks for the beer. Luckily, I am a beer drinker. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Note

I have partially reverted some of your edits to Centrifugal fan. I actually fixed some of the errors that you put back. Please check the edits to make sure that you're not reverting removal of errors. 216.11.222.27 (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Steven Clark at AFD

It has been recreated. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Vanilla Sky edit

Twitter may not always be a reliable source but in this case I think it is. Cameron Crowe has a verified twitter account. https://twitter.com/CameronCrowe Hover your mouse over the light blue tick.

I can also provide you with the link of the twitter interactions, main reason I didn't want to for the reference was because it contains my name. https://twitter.com/CameronCrowe/status/376221220506574848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.166.156 (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you please change it back now? 101.166.166.156 (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The message I posted to your talk page was based on the assumption that you actually sourced the content to Twitter. I now see that you sourced it only to an image stored at img812.imageshack.us, which appears to be a modified image of a Twitter message. Whether an actual link to the Twitter post would be a reliable source or not, this image clearly isn't. However, despite your covering up the name, I found no difficulty at all in finding the original post. Nevertheless, I am doubtful whether a brief "coming up" to an individual's request on Twitter can really be taken as a definite announcement: it could be just a vague expression of hope that it will happen, which would be entirely consistent with things that Cameron Crowe has said elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper, so desperate to be first with striking news that getting in quick is more important than getting it right. Is there any harm in waiting until a definite announcement is made? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think its reliable enough, but if wikipedia has to be entirely about 100 million % confirmed information, then there's no harm waiting.101.166.166.156 (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Colin Rolfe

I just noticed there was a G4 tagged on Colin Rolfe's page a couple months ago over the discussion back in April 2012. He appeared in a US Open Cup match for the Houston Dynamo back in May 29, 2012, against the San Antonio Scorpions which meats WP:NFOOTBALL because the Open Cup is a Competitive Cup Tournament and both clubs were fully pro. Apologies if there wasn't any info regarding his appearance on the page prior to it being deleted (and I'm pretty sure there was), but he did meet WP:NFOOTBALL so I don't think a G4 was necessary. – Michael (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

S.Krishnan

Dear Sir

My Name Is S.Krishnan. I am Studying B.COM. I created "Muni 3 (film)" Please Protect That Article. SEMI-PROTECTED .Thankyou Sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.247.128.212 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think it should be protected? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hello! I want a help! Is there any procedure to suspend an edit history in my own talk page? If so, can you please tell me how to? Thanks in advance. --    L o g  X   20:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "suspend an edit history"? Do you mean remove an entry from the history, so that it can't be seen? If so, it can be done by an administrator, but only in a limited number of special circumstances: it can't be done jsut because you feel you don't like an edit. (It's called "revision deletion", or "revdel" for short.) If you let me know more precisely what you have in mind, i can see whether I can help you. If you don't want to publicly call attention to whatever it is, you can email me. However, unfortunately I will have to go offline very soon, so I may not be able to answer you for some hours. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, REVDEL! Thank you so much! It didn't hit my mind for these time! I made a change of my user name 3 months back. So, in my talk page history, the renaming process has been mentioned by an admin. It has my name. So, i would like it to be deleted! That's what i would like to do. Can you help on this? --    L o g  X   20:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've found an edit which I think must be the one you mean, and removed its edit summary. i hope that's OK. I have to go offline now, but if there are any problems drop a note here & I'll look at it as soon as I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks alot man! You got it! Thank you very much! --    L o g  X   21:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you so much for clearing the edit summary! --    L o g  X   21:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

About the map.

The map is ALSO completely wrong, take a look how much it shows that Armenian and Luri is spread and instead of saying Kurdish language it calls it for Kurdistan, the same thing goes with the Lurs which is called Luristan, this is about languages. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, you are now giving reasons for removing the map, rather than just "I don't like it". However, in at least one respect you have missed the point. The map does not have names of languages, it has names of countries and regions, while the colouring is keyed to language families. Thus, for example, it says "France", but not "French". There are problems with the map, though, such as listing individual Indo-Iranian languages, in contrast to other languages which are treated in families, and I have corrected that. I don't know about the geographical extent of Armenian: if I can find a reliable source for that then I will edit that, or you can do so. Improving the map is more helpful than simply removing it, especially without a proper explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kelty Hearts F.C.

Hello JamesBWatson, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kelty Hearts F.C., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Lolwat JBW? Afd candidate for sure, but an A7? . You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "Lolwat" means, beyond a vague impression that it is probably meant to be a contemptuous dismissal, but it would have been more helpful if you had explained why you think the article is not an A7 candidate. Alternatively, if you had nothing constructive to say then you did not have to say anything. "Reviewing" the speedy deletion criteria does not help, because they say nothing more than I already knew them to say. CSD A7 is "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", but what is a sufficient indication is undefined, and so some judgement is required. In far more than 90% of cases, it is perfectly clear that an article does or does not make a claim of significance, but there are cases where it is not so clear-cut. If I had thought the article was clearly an A7 candidate I would have deleted it. Since I was in some doubt, I tagged it, to get a second opinion. I have now received a second opinion, for which I am grateful, but the manner in which you informed me of that second opinion left much to be desired. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your protection of British Rail Class 465‎, etc.

Hi, I see that you've put a six-month semi-prot on British Rail Class 142‎, First Hull Trains‎, Southern (train operating company)‎, First Great Western‎, Arriva Trains Wales‎, South West Trains‎, Gatwick Express‎, London Midland‎, British Rail Class 455‎, British Rail Class 350‎, Northern Rail‎, British Rail Class 456‎, First TransPennine Express‎, British Rail Class 458‎ and British Rail Class 465‎. I was avoiding doing that, because it won't stop him. So long as these articles remained unprotected, the vandal stayed in the same general area, and was spotted and dealt with quickly. When we last tried a semi-prot of some of these, the vandal switched to a different set of articles and wasn't rediscovered for several days. See WT:UKRAIL#Why isn't IP 86.158.105.73 blocked yet?. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've unprotected them. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Posts by block-invading vandal

I'm just letting you know that I undid your revision to Electric motor because it didn't appear constructive. 76.226.50.72 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I was correcting the terminology on Centrifugal fan - nothing extra. See for yourself. 76.226.56.180 (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You left something on 217.177.78.0's page

Hey James, Thanks for blocking User talk:217.177.78.0. You seemed to have left the text 'Template:Repeatvandl' on the talk page, I am assuming this was not intentional? I decided to ask first before I thought about removing it as I thought you might have needed it. Thanks :) Sandshark23 11:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandshark23 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. A careless typing slip, now corrected. I always mean to check my edits before clicking "save", but sometimes I don't. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Always here to help :) Sandshark23 11:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Promotional article about Frederic Francis

hello James,

Could you kindly inform us why you had to delete the page Frederic Francis Francis Landscapes and how can we go about removing the message from the Wikipedia page and replace it with a page for Frederic Francis Landscape Architect or Francis Landscapes?

Kindly advise Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.154.218 (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The main reason for deletion was that the article was unambiguous promotion, telling us in glowing terms how wonderful you think Frederic Francis is. Wikipedia is not a free advertising or PR service, and articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. Another reason was that the article did nothing to show that Frederic Francis is significant enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. As for how you can create a new article, there are two obstacles to your doing so. Firstly, as you are clearly working on behalf of Frederic Francis, you are not a neutral contributor, and you have a conflict of interest in writing on the subject. As such, you are not the right person to be doing so. Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage us from creating or editing articles on subjects that we have a close personal connection to, as it can be very difficult to write neutrally on such a subject (quite apart from the fact that the nature of the deleted article makes it seem doubtful that you wish to write neutrally). Secondly, there is the issue of whether Francis satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards, and my impression is that he probably does not. I have searched for information about him, and I have found innumerable pages about him on what appear to be sites that exist for the purpose of publicising architects, landscape artists, and the like, and promoting their work, and I have also found francislandscapes.com, Linkedin, and Wikipedia. However, I have failed to find anything that can be regarded as the kind of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If he does not satisfy those guidelines, then any time and effort put into writing an article about him will be likely to be wasted time and effort, as the article is likely to simply be deleted again. No amount of re-writing an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. If, however, contrary to appearances, he does satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then it is very probable that some uninvolved third party will sooner or later write an article about him, so you will not have to concern yourself with doing so, and that will, of course, avoid any problems over conflict of interest. Finally, if your remark about "removing the message from the Wikipedia page" indicates a concern about the deletion notice appearing in web searches, the best way to deal with that is to just leave it, and before very long it will drop out of search engines' listings. On the other hand, re-creating the article and having it deleted again will simply restore the page's search engine ranking, and increase the time taken for the deletion notice to disappear from sight. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement

Thanks for your encouragement, you are a great teacher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulginic (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Gomu Yumi

Hi James, just noticed you deleted the page I created Gomu Yumi. I missed the discussion on the AFD page, as I am also active on there - can you please post a link to it? Just wanted to see what was said about its deletion by the AFD people. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There was no AFD, just a PROD, with the reason given as "Unreferenced with no attempt to establish notability". The article had previously been tagged by Fram for lack of sources, and by PRehse for possibly not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Both of those issues had been tagged before the last time that you edited the article, so you may have seen them. If you disagree with the reason given for deletion, let me know, and I will restore the article, though obviously there will be nothing to stop it being taken to AFD if anyone still thinks it should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Hello, can you please semi-protect the Tapulous page in five years, if unregistered contributors or contributors would vandalism that always keep adding fake name Tyler McGowen in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.199 (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that there is a problem, but with only five edits to the article in the last six months I am not sure that there is enough disruption to justify semi-protection. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Viriditas

Recently user:Viriditas appears to be trying to edit Wikipedia through proxy. While pointing out certain errors or gross vandalism seems completely appropriate and admirable as he did when he pointed out a BLP vandalism? On his Talk Page.

He is now making requests to edit content disputes on a topics he has been known to edit in if not those specific pages as he did with the “Problem with reliable sources” or asking specific users to look at a specific edit that is involved in a content dispute on a page he has edited as he did with “Question for Anna Frodesiak” in addition to claiming someone has a conflict of interest. And finally as he did with the Marco Rubio request on “Question for Grayfell”.

Sorry I am not very good at linking to specific areas in the article. It seems to be pretty straight forward to me that he is at least trying to skirt his block. He was notified by both User:Tryptofish and user:Jerem43 that he appeared to be crossing the line from being helpful and finding vandalism and typos to trying to edit disputed content that he has been involved in. Thank you, VViking_TalkEdits 12:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Viewmont in regards to this issue, Viritas is using other editors as proxies/meat puppets to edit articles that he has been involved in. Further, he has made request to other editors to lobby on his behalf on other pages including the Signpost regarding his block. This is becoming a bit over the top and is a concerted effort on his part to skirt his block. Would it be appropriate to bring this matter to the attention of the blocking administrator? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a message about this on Viriditas's talk page. Let's see if that has any effect. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I should have done that. VViking_TalkEdits 20:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the edit history of Colleen Davis

There is a difference of opinion between me and another editor on whether the article (and similar articles) contain WP:RS sources and whether they need to in order to avid a BLPPROD notice being placed on them. That difference of opinion seems capable of escalation, something I am anxious to avoid.

I wonder if you would take a look at the latest item on my talk page and offer a view. I have not chosen you at random. I have chosen you because you have edited Colleen Davis. I am not, however, seeking in any way to influence any opinion you may offer on the matter. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thanks for notifying me about this discussion. GiantSnowman 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

GS, it is simply that I had and have no intention of falling out with you. I did not wish to give this more importance that I felt it had. I trusted that you would see any reply on my talk page anyway. JBW, thank you for a clear explanation of the peculiar circumstances. I have made a fuller reply on my talk page. Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect of T Capricorni

Hi, I've undone your redirect of the T Capricorni page to Tau Capricorni. These are actually two completely different stars, and therefore the redirect actually does more harm than good, misleading readers that T Capricorni is Tau Capricorni, which it isn't. Therefore, the article should either be deleted, or turned into a set index disambiguation page, if it has to be kept at all. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistake, and for the courtesy of telling me. I have deleted the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Viriditias

Hi JamesBWatson

I had commented on User:Viriditas's talk page, supporting the block you did and saying all is not well in Denmark. V removed it in this dif, with an edit note continuing the kind of accusatory behavior for which you blocked him. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and I have included a link to that edit in the message I have sent to another administrator, asking for a review of the case. I think that removing an edit supporting the block, while keeping edits that are critical of it, could well be considered to be questionable, to say the least. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, it's refreshing to see in the heading to this section that I am not the only one who tends to type "Viriditias" instead of "Viriditas". I have had to correct that slip several times in my own editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Graphogame page deleted

Hi there,

I just started a new Wikipedia page titled Graphogame, for a a fellow researcher who did not know how to create a new page. But now that I provided her the link to continue writing about the concept of Grapholearning, its research, and societal impact and all, she writes me back that page is already gone. May it be so because I created the "placeholder" page by simply copy-pasting a short paragraph from a dedicate web site ? Thank you for clarifying, and potentially restoring the page.

Kind regards, puhuuu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puhuuu (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for removing all the disgusting material off my page. No one needs to see it. WadeSimMiser (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Jisteele

Hello James. I see that Jisteele has added more unverified material to articles related to Southern California. A warning was posted on Jisteele's talk page. Is this enough to achieve a block or is some other action required? (Noting that you reverted many of the edits, I think I'll go back as well and rollback the other edits.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason I didn't block last time is that I didn't feel that the editor had been suitably warned, as nobody had really made it clear that lack of sourcing was the issue. Now that that has been explained, and the same kind of editing has continued, I think a block is justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I see the block has been emplaced. And i've rolled back x 1 the other edits made by Jisteele. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

You can drink this with a shot of something else in case User:Jisteele begins disrupting again . . . Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 06:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

I thank you for accepting it i have learned my lesson. And My edits to James Harden and steph curry i put singer because James Harden released a song called harden soul this summer and so did steph so i thought it was nessesary. They are not known as singers so it was reverted which i can accept. Thank you(Mathgenious989 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC))

Request

A couple days ago, an editor added "(currently unavailable due to federal government shutdown)", in text, to the {{TVQ}} template (which goes to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) page for a specific TV station. A really good idea so general editors don't waste time clicking on that link.

I was wondering if you could do the same beside the FCC links on the {{FMQ}}, {{AMQ}}, {{FM station data}}, and {{AM station data}} templates. At least until the government shutdown is over....whenever that is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This won't be needed now that the guv'ment is back up and running....at least until February. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Prestigiouzman

I was thinking, since he is a puppet of another master, whether talk page rights for 'him' as Prestigiouzman ought to be curtailed? Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Could do, but usual practice is not to remove talk page access except for users who have made disruptive use of their talk page access while blocked. I don't see any compelling need to make an exception in this case, but of course that opinion can be reconsidered if disruptive talk page editing takes place. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hyperdunk

An Article I Created Was Recently Deleted Today. The Article Was Nike Hyperdunk. It Was A Good Article But It Had A Few Flaws. It Was Unfairly Deleted And It Took Me A While To Create. I would Like For You To Put It Back Up So I Can Improve It. Thank You (Mathgenious989 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

I don't know what about it you regarded as making it a "good article", or why you think the deletion was unfair. It gave no indication whatever of notability of its subject, which is necessary for any Wikipedia article. You should look at the notability guidelines. I can't restore it as an article, because it was deleted as a result of consensus at a deletion discussion, and no individual editor has the right to decide to ignore such a consensus and go against it. However, I have userfied it, which means that I have restored it and moved it to User:Mathgenious989/Nike Hyperdunk. However, it is important to realise an important fact about userfication. Userfication is a short-term process to give you time to work on the article. It is not a way of getting round deletion and indefinitely keeping a page which would be unsuitable as an article. If it does not become suitable as an article reasonably soon, then it is likely to be deleted again.

A couple of small points about editing. First, don't start a line with a space, as it causes the Wikimedia software to format your text as all one long line, and unless that line is fairly short, it is likely to run off the edge of the page. If you want a space to appear at the start of a line, then you need to put a colon (:) at the start of the line, and the software will replace that with a space. Secondly, don't start every word with a capital letter. It looks odd, and can be very distracting. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok will do i think im going to give up on it because everyone is saying its not notable so i guess its not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cousin Terio

I recently made an article called cousin terio and i would like you to review. I also need help with the refrences as i put them but it said wrongfont. Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A link removal

Hello, On the Joel Zifkin Wikipedia page, I see that you have removed the ext. link to official Facebook page and left the official Myspace link. I understand your edit but was wondering if only one of the two links is deemed acceptable, could it be the other way around; as the Facebook link is kept more current and is updated more diligently than the Myspace page. Thanks for any further help , All the best. 184.162.110.55 (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about which one should be kept, and if you are right in saying that the Facebook date is kept more up to date, then that would probably be the better one to keep. Go ahead and change it, if you think it best to do so. JamesBWatson (talk)

Thanks for the advice and help184.162.110.55 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Manchester meetup

Newsflash! The location of this weekend's Manchester meetup has been moved back to Wetherspoons on Princess Street - the Ducie Arms isn't open on Sundays! Can you believe that?! Bazonka (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you know, I think it must be at least 40 years since I last encountered a pub in England that didn't open on Sundays. Even in Wales, pubs being closed on Sundays largely died out god knows how many years ago. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Thanks for the advice and I will take a break from creating articles. I will however continue to edit articles that i can contribute to positivly. I will look in to the area of shoes and continue to help there. Thank you,(Mathgenious989 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

Help needed

Hi JamesBWatson, as you are already aware of the personal attacks at my talk-page by a certain user, I like to suppress those revisions, and get those edit summaries removed. As an administrator will you please do it? The revisions are as follows:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Thanks. -AsceticRosé 15:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with those problematic revisions! -AsceticRosé 04:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply on apparent off-topic posts

Hi, JamesBWatson! I have noticed your message on one of my talk page! Although it may seem otherwise, my posts are concerned only with the content of the article. However in the activity of suggestion additions to that article it appears that some editors keep opposing the improvement of the article by misconceived appeal to some wikipolicies (OR and RS) in order to ignore some sources which they do not like or they are in opposition to their preferred POV. To be able to make valid assertions concerning the reliability/usability of some sources in some cases it is necessary that the respective editors should have proven (from their past edits) the understanding of some concepts which influences the making of proper assessement of sources . So, although is not my intention to criticise other users edits, it appears tangentially that some editors do not have the understanding necessary to make proper assertions regarding the reliability of sources and thus they affect the quality of the article by opposing and reverting certain edits to the article. Persistence in this edit pattern means tendentious editing.

Regarding the remote possibility of (range) block, this is absolutely not justified and even to consider such possibility could mean a subtle threat to not point out the non-constructive edit pattern of some users who interferes with the improvement of the article in the way mentioned above.--5.15.210.255 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman's talk page

This page just will not die. Tumbleman had some friends, and some people thought he was badly treated, but he's gone. I propose to move everything remaining on the page, except (maybe) the block notice, to the Archive. I could maybe leave a note that everything is up there, along with a link people could follow to see it. Then we would have a world of Tumbleman stuff, all archived away, and nothing to talk about on the talk page. Does that seem reasonable/OK to you? Lou Sander (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you could do that if you like. However, it's been a fairly large number of hours since the last time one of the "friends" you refer to edited the page, and it's just possible that what you suggest might actually provoke more editing. There may be a case for leaving it, to see if any more edits come, keeping your suggestion in reserve, to be used if the problem continues. However, that's just a suggestion, and I won't complain if you decide to go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Good thinking. Maybe the time to tidy up the room is after everybody has gone home. I'll wait a while. Lou Sander (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander, I think archiving is fine but recently an indef'd Editor had both their User Page and Talk Page blanked and a big template placed on both pages saying the user was BLOCKED. It looked like a "This property is condemned" sign on a house. Luckily, that action was reverted. I hope Tumbleman can at least get his Talk Page access back. And an indefinite block isn't an infinite block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz: I didn't like "this property is condemned", either. I, too, am hopeful that Tumbleman will get his talk page access back. In the meantime, there was a huge amount of really verobose stuff on that page, most of it archived by somebody who didn't leave a link to the archive. I put in the link and an 'archivebox', which I hope was helpful. I'm thinking that it would also be helpful to put the rest of the Tumbletalk into the archive. That would put it all in one place, where thoughtful people could sort it out if they wanted to. Whatever is best for all responsible editors, including Tumbleman (whether he's a responsible editor or not), that's what I want to do. Lou Sander (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like the best course of action, Lou Sander. I'm just against blanking Talk Pages or having Page Protection for blocked users. As long as messages are archived, I think it's a matter of clean-up. Thanks for seeing to this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Void

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

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th is editing my post on his talk page

I'm really sorry to bother you, but the user Januarythe18th, recently indef blocked, is editing my post on his talk page, despite I asked him not to do it, and even editwarring over it [33]. He recently turned a part of my post into bold[34], and after I reverted [35], he turned the same part into bold again [36] and highlighted with yellow [37]. He also changed my signature, adding "BK" before my username. I think this is troubling, because it misrepresents who I am and changes what I have said. If you could help somehow, I'd appreciate very much. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise for bothering me. I have removed talk page access. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. My posts were being relocated by this editor to the bottom of the page/section (though I probably should have backed off earlier...). Regards Danh108 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)