Jump to content

User talk:JBW/Archive 74

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76→Archive 80

Robert Stewart block

About a year ago you blocked diff an editor named Professorreason, who was Robert Stewart (saxophonist) and 'editing' the article that is about him. There may have been one or more IPs blocked at the same time. He's now back diff. As a non-admin, I'd prefer not to get involved in all of this with him again (his COI, abuse, self-promotion, lack of understanding of sourcing requirements, etc etc), all of which is shown in Talk:Robert Stewart (saxophonist)/Archive 1 and the article edit history. Is it definitely the same person? All of the previous edits by the IP listed here were to add info about... Robert Stewart. Normally with an edit like the "he's now back" one I linked to, I'd just revert, but this could be a more complex situation, so I'll follow the course of action that you or other admins recommend. EddieHugh (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: The IP has been used since June 2016, and the sole purpose of its editing has been promoting Robert Stewart, in various articles, in very much the same way as Professorreason. The talk page post is also rather reminiscent of Professorreason's talk page posts. I think it's pretty clear that it's him, and in any case persistent promotional editing, refusal to accept consensus and Wikipedia policies, etc, would be enough to justify blocking. I have blocked the IP address and reverted its recent edits. I wondered about protecting the article, but I decided that is not justified unless he comes back and evades blocks again with another IP address or another account. (Incidentally, in answer to your comment "There may have been one or more IPs blocked at the same time", I didn't place any other blocks on the same day that I blocked Professorreason, and I can't see any IP blocks that seem connected.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. EddieHugh (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stewart_(saxophonist)

Robert Stewart is going "public" (every known news organization) with this biased organization's purposeful attempt to downplay his contribution to the jazz idiom. Your group has "citation bombed" the page simply for "spite." New upload gives some 80 citations & the kids there simply erase them, and revert back to the citation bombed page; not even reviewing the information. Suing isn't worth the time, but he will not rest until justice is served. He will send a video deposition to news outlets. People need to know how Muslim musicians are treated by Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B05D:1896:1A18:7051:C91F:4009 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Rogue IP

Hi James. You might want to have a look at this one, whose only intent seems to be to disrupt Wikipedia: User contributions: 92.68.248.155, User talk:92.68.248.155. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Forgot password

James, I have forgotten my wikipedia password. However, I am still logged in on my mobile and so I am asking you this question with the same account here. Please tell me how to add my email address to my existing Wikipedia account so as to recover my password. Thank you!-Karumari (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Karumari: At the top of the page there is a link to your "preferences". Click on that. There are many options you can change there, including changing your password. I don't actually remember whether you have to re-enter your existing password, even though you are already logged in, but if not then you can reset your password there. If you can't do that then there is also an option to add an email address. Even if you can change your password from your mobile login, it would be a good idea to add an email in case you have similar problems in the future. Best of luck with getting it sorted out. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
JamesBWatson,It is asking me to login first with my existing password which I don't remember, please tell me what to do. Thanks!—Karumari (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Karumari: Is it asking you to log in with your old password both if you try to change your password and if you try to add an email address to your account? I have just changed my password, and then changed it back, and neither time did it ask for my old password. If it did ask you for yours then the only explanation I can think of is that I had recently logged in, so it didn't ask me to log in again, whereas obviously you have not recently logged in, so it needed confirmation. I haven't tried changing my email address, so I don't know whether it would ask me to log in again or not. Unfortunately if you have tried both changing your password and adding an email address and neither is possible, then I think there is probably nothing you can do about it. However, you could try asking at Wikipedia:Help desk, in the hope that there just may possibly be someone there who can offer another idea. If you can't get password access back, then create a new account, and say on its user page that it's a new account of Karumari, because otherwise if anyone realises that it is and you haven't said so, you may find yourself accused of sockpuppetry and your new account blocked, which would obviously be pretty frustrating, to say the least. Also, it may be a good idea to give the new account a name that shows the connection to your old account, such as "Karumari 2" or something. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It is asking for my old password, so I will ask at the helpdesk!-Karumari (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

3DVHS draft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:3DVHS the article in its current stage has already been rejected several times and i have already been reminded several times of Wiki policy and guidelines as its author. I don't understand the comment you left most recently; all subject matter written in the article is empirically, physically true. Text and style guidelines aside, I'm already seeking 3rd party intervention to improve notability and reliability measures. Please clarify the comment. Reminder- 1. Direct rudeness ... (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap") Adames1983 (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Adames1983:
You say that you "don't understand the comment [I] left most recently", so I will try to clarify it, in the hope that I can help you to understand it. It appears from things you have said in your editing that you have been writing in connection with a person who is either you or someone connected to you. Experience over the years has shown that in that situation editors often find it difficult to retain a neutral point of view. Because of that, and other concerns, there is a Wikipedia guideline on editing on subjects where one has a personal involvement. The message I posted summarised some of the essential points of that guideline, in the hope of helping you by making sure you are aware of the provisions of the guideline, so that you are able to make sure that you comply with it. I hope that has made the meaning of my message clearer, but you may read the full details at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you would like to.
You say that you "have already been reminded several times of Wiki policy and guidelines", but if that includes being informed of the guideline on conflict of interest then I had no way of knowing you had been informed of it; there was no message on your talk page about it. If you had, in fact, already been told about that guideline then of course I didn't need to tell you again, but it obviously does no harm to make sure.
I don't know what about the message I posted you regard as "direct rudeness". Perhaps you can tell me, so that I can avoid doing the same again. Likewise with "belittling a fellow editor".
I never made any "accusations of impropriety", ill-considered or otherwise. I merely informed you of a guideline, so that you would be aware of it and could make sure that you comply with it. I did not suggest there was any impropriety in your editing. All of us when we start editing Wikipedia do so without a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and most of us (including myself) therefore make mistakes early in our editing career. Trying to help an editor by informing him or her of relevant facts does not in any way imply any sort of criticism of him or her, and certainly not accusations of impropriety.
The edit summary I used in my post to you was "Warning on conflict of interest". I don't think that remotely resembles either "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen" or "snipped crap". Although you and I both know that I never said anything like either of those, other editors reading this page might think you were quoting from my edit summaries, which would give them a very false impression of my editing. In order to avoid causing such misunderstandings in future, please be careful about posting such quotations, and make sure that you give enough context to make it clear that you are not accusing anyone who has never used such language of doing so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

--- no problems James, sorry but that snip-snip text coming out there, give me sometime to legitimize this article thanks. Adames1983 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JamesBWatson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

WEECE

Hi James, Hope you are doing well! WECCE is the first article I am publishing and I may need help. I add 2 more references that I hope can help.

WECCE is an organization I worked with in Tanzania.

I appreciate your help, Kind regards Paulo Pjaoliveira (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Paulo: The kind of evidence of notability required is described in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Unfortunately in my opinion Wikipedia has far too many guidelines and policies, and most of them are far too long, which can make it difficult and confusing for new editors, but the most relevant guidelines in this case are the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You should also have at least a quick look at the guide to reliable sources. Sources are no use for the purpose of showing notability of an organisation if they are not independent of that organisation, so for example the organisation's own web site, any web site of an organisation associated with it or working with it, or a web site which passes on content submitted by the organisation do nothing towards showing notability. Sites such as YouTube and FaceBook are rarely if ever any use, as anyone can post anything to such sites, making them unreliable sources. Also there should be sources which give significant coverage of the organisation: a brief mention in a couple of sentences is not enough, nor is a page which merely lists statistics and data very relevant. I did a Google search for '"Women's Education and Economic Center"' and got 29 hits. A quick check of a sample of those did not provide any sources that would give significant evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Another point is that since you say that you have worked with the organisation, you should have a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest.
My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

216.205.224.10 & William H. McRaven

Looks awfully like someone at Fox News has been whitewashing. What do you think, James? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_H._McRaven&curid=18262913&action=history –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Sorry I didn't answer earlier. I did look at this shortly after you posted the message, and intended to keep an eye on it for a day or so, but then it got lost in the midst of other things. I agree with you, but I don't think there's anything to be done now, especially since there has been no activity now for a few days. If you see the same thing start up again feel welcome to let me know and I'll consider whether to semi-protect the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

162.208.44.53

Hi, JamesB. Giving you a heads-up regarding this new IP editor who isn't fitting in. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


79.168.178.29

Giving you a heads-up regarding this IP, which has a history of making questionable edits then almost immediately reverting said edits. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

By the time I got here, the IP address had already been blocked for a week. I would have blocked for longer, in view of the time scale over which the editing has happened, and the fact that a short block in the past failed to put an end to it, but we'll see how it goes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
That one apparently has moved to 193.236.57.105, which is also blocked. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

mention the year??

Vijay(actor) article Naan sigappu manithan (1985) mention the year like this in the child artist section--Hjkl12345 (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hjkl12345: Yes, that seems reasonable. Why don't you go ahead and do it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
its showing view source for me cannot edit dont know why--Hjkl12345 (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Hjkl12345: OK, I didn't notice that thee article was protected. I'll make the change for now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

Hi JamesB, 

I am a bit concerned and puzzled by your comment on my talk page regarding conflict of interest. I have had no affiliation or connection with the companies for whom I have created or edited pages. I always post on the talk page when I have been paid to create or edit pages, and also add them to the lists on my own page. Can you help me by clarifying why you believe that I have a conflict of interest? Thanks for your help and insights. Tlvernon (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tlvernon: You "have had no affiliation or connection" to companies that have paid you to write for them? What on earth do you think would be "affiliation or connection" if being paid to do work for them isn't? It is my turn to be "puzzled".
As for "why [I] believe that [you] have a conflict of interest", I suggest that you read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest if you haven't already. That will make it clear what the expression "conflict of interest" is used to mean in connection with Wikipedia editing.
Please do edit within the conflict of interest guideline, including abstaining from editing or creating articles about businesses that are paying you, and instead sticking to proposing changes on talk pages and using the "articles for creation" process.
You are right to disclose when you are paid to edit, but doing so does not absolve you of the duty to follow Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, including the conflict of interest guidelines and the policy on promotional editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Block-evading IP hopper

Hi, JamesB. Seems someone at UCB has a beef regarding Aleksandr Dugin; check out edits from 169.229.11.164, 169.229.202.229, and 128.32.241.126. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address that has done most of the editing for three months, and semi-protected the article for two weeks. If the disruption returns via other IP addresses after the two weeks then I'll protect for longer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Caught another one: 207.163.0.0/16. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

found this in vijay talk page so upgrade

http://www.forbesindia.com/lists/2018-celebrity-100/1735/3 he is ranked 26 in 2018 Vijay(actor) upgrade thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12qwertyui (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

changing User:Secondststudio to User:Singingthebleu ‎

Hello! Just curious why you would change the username of an indef blocked user? It seems to muddy things if anything.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: The block is for two reasons: the user name and promotional editing. Since the editor has expressed a wish to have his or her user name changed to one which is in line with Wikipedia's user name policy, that issue can be dealt with, and the other issue can be considered. That is common practice: to see just one more example you may go to User talk:Tetianapronikova if you like, and see that the editor has been renamed by Boing! said Zebedee in the same situation. It would be easy to find many more. Why does it "muddy" things? Anyone reading the user's talk page can see that the user name has been changed, and what it has been changed from, as can anyone who looks at the history of that talk page. There may be some advantage in keeping a user name which is forbidden by Wikipedia's user name policy unless and until the block is lifted, but if so I can't see what the advantage would be, while I can see three disadvantages: (1) It would mean more delay and more taking up of time that could be better used on other work for the renamer who would have to investigate and review the request, probably without already being acquainted with the case. (2) If the editor is eventually unblocked it will mean more delay in his or her being able to return to editing. (3) Back in the days when it was usual practice to leave the user name until after the unblock it sometimes happened that the unblocked editor would just carry on editing with the original user name after being unblocked (sometimes in defiance, but probably more often due to innocent misunderstanding) which led to another block, another unblock request, argy-bargy about whether this time the editor really would request a user name if unblocked, perhaps a new unblock, a request for a change of user name... More taking up of time that could have been better spent, more conflict. That happened in a minority of cases, but it was far from rare. If you know of advantages in doing it that way that you think are important enough to outweigh those disadvantages then I will be very interested to hear what they are, but I actually can't think of any. 09:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Vijay(actor) is an indian international actor

Vijay(actor) is a dual citizen married to a britisher and son also british citizen and he has won a international award so obviously he is an indian international actor can you make this change in the artcle thanks--Hjkl12345 (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC) https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/indian-cinema/vijay-wins-best-international-actor-award-for-mersal

Vijay seems to be a major interest for you, but he isn't for me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

RadhaKrishná (TV series)

This article is recreated again, Will you please check is this the same you deletd Radha Krishn (2018 TV series) or some other topic? Regards SitaraShah (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 09:48:23, 12 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Gibl kolkata


I really think that its not an advertisement rather it is what we are informing our public to do so. I have found numerous websites which openly advertises on wikipedia but are kept like that. We are trying to publish this page since long but it seems that the reasons stated for disapproval is quite ambiguous. Gibl kolkata (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

:@Gibl kolkata:

If the content of the draft you created doesn't read to you as promotional then I can only assume that you work in marketing, PR, or some related field, and are so used to dealing with marketing-speak day after day that you have become desensitised to it; that commonly happens with people working in such fields, who can genuinely think they are writing neutrally while writing what seems to others to be promotional. Referring to someone as "a leading contributor" and saying that he "has surely benefited the rising market startups" is expressing a view, and is written to give the reader a good impression of him: it is not neutral reporting of objective facts. In a Wikipedia article it should be impossible to tell what opinion, if any, the writer personally has of the subject of the article: good, bad, or indifferent.
Unfortunately you are right: there are many businesses that use Wikipedia for blatant advertising. They are dealt with as and when they are spotted either by an administrator or by an editor who is willing to put in the necessary work, but with over 5 and three quarter million articles it is not possible to keep on top of them all. If you can mention any specific examples you know of then that will be very helpful.
You say that you "are trying to publish this page since long" but your account has not done any more editing. Can you tell me what other accounts have been used, and also if possible the titles of pages where other attempts to write about this have been posted?
Before doing any more editing about your business you should read the guideline on conflict of interest. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gibl kolkata: Forget all that. I have now found that you have been evading a block on another account, so I shall block your current account too, and just delete the spam page that you created. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2019!

Hi JBW, Sending you a warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Kuda188 conflict of interest warning

Hi there. I know its been a little over a year, but I was wondering if you happen to remember why you posted the conflict of interest warning on Kuda188's talk page in September of 2017? In case your wondering its Revision as of 12:12, 5 September 2017 (edit) (undo). I ask because he subsequently deleted the warning, along with warnings by other people about it by other people, including myself and it seems like he is still editing pages for the same company in the same ways that come off as advertisements. Also, I did an internet search for his screen name and there where more then a few links to social media accounts that he maintains full of stuff related to Bethel Music. Therefore, I think there is clearly a conflict of interest going on there that should be dealt with. The fact that he deletes questions about it instead of just saying he doesn't is a red flag also. I'm interested to know what your thoughts on it are or if you think further action should be taken in light of his editing behavior not changing since then. Thanks --Adamant1 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Adamant1: No, I don't remember from September 2017, but I will look into it when I get time, which unfortunately is not likely to be for at least a couple of days. However, I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back to very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. If I haven't got back to you by Tuesday at the latest then please feel welcome to remind me if you would like to: I will regard it as help, not harassment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello JamesBWatson,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 01:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Bankset

we wait for your position for the enclosed as you seem to be obsessively mamanging there on this web site we consult and request your feed back more references from all over the world for this company now valued at 4 billion dollars .

--Sunlinestar (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sunlinestar:
Your message here is about as incomprehensible as I seem to remember some of your earlier posts have been. I have no idea what "mamanging" is, but whatever it is I'm not sure how I can be doing it "obsessively", since I have, so far as I know, only once ever made any action relating to Bankset, apart from responding to messages that you keep sending me, and that once was almost seven weeks ago, and I had completely forgotten it until you reminded me. Nor do I know what you mean by my "position". As for the extensive list links that you posted here, did you intend me to read all of the linked web pages? If so, what did you want me to look for in them? I am certainly not going to read all forty-odd of them on the off chance that in the course of doing so I may manage to guess what it is about them that you want me to notice. If there is something specific you want me to do, or a specific question you want me to answer, then please tell me what it is, rather than continually posting cryptic messages and leaving me to guess what you want.
In November, I wrote a long answer to one of your earlier incomprehensible posts, attempting to clarify things, and also asking you for clarification of a couple o points. You never responded to that attempt to help you. In that message I wrote "There seems to be a severe difficulty in communicating with you in English, but I will try just once more."" Well, I am now trying yet another time, but that is all. Either you are capable of writing a comprehensible message in English in answer to a comprehensible message in English, in which case please do so, or you aren't, in which case trying to communicate with you in English is a waste of time, and I have already wasted enough time on this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


appologies nothing personal I am to busy to look after you and read above please edit and progress the articles based on the references see you in 7 weeks no problem at all i politely send you 55 references for an article., initially you said there is no reference and you deleted all the previous references now we bring you again the 55 references up to wikipedia its not a big deal dont have time to argue with you please let me know if the references are good for an article otherwise we forget about it no problem at all . wikipedia is no big deal. lots of junck we wanted to help wikipedia. as you dont seem to understand lets make it simple please respon point by point 1) did you review the 55 references the only thing that matters to progress 2) do you want to do an article about the bankset based on the references 3) do you want TO bring a text for this product i am interested in WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT DO YOU WANT ? YOU ARE A MATH TEACHER ????? PLEASE RESPOND AFTER EACH POINT ABOVE 123 WITH A SHORT RESPONSE 5 WORDS MAX

cheers --Sunlinestar (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Mr. Warren Bolphazky‎

You might want to revoke their talk page access. —RainFall 06:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac incivility

JBW, once again I'm concerned with Legacypac's incivility directed towards me. The editor's recent talk page comments are, in my view, totally uncalled for. This is more of the same bad faith, stooge of the NRA type stuff. In particular I'm thinking of these edits [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. It's not like I'm the only one complaining. LP was just infront of an ANI a few weeks back for civility issues. I'm ok with disagreements but not the constant accusations and personal attacks. Thanks for any suggestions Springee (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

JBW, I also think LP's attempt to campaign for sanctions against me is very much a CIVIL issue [[5]]. Springee (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Sorry for not responding to your messages earlier. There were various reasons for that, including the fact that I really don't know what to say that could be useful. In many ways Legacypac is an excellent editor. (I have very recently encountered several edits from Legacypac that I regarded as helpful.) Unfortunately, though, when he encounters an editor that he strongly disagrees with, there is far too much readiness to jump in with attacks and accusations. You are perfectly right to say that you are the only one complaining: a look through the ANI archives makes that abundantly clear. I have known editors to be indefinitely blocked for a small fraction of what Legacypac has done, but unfortunately we are up against the perennial "editors who do a lot of good editing can be allowed to get away with more or less any kind of behaviour towards other editors", which means that it is very difficult to get anything done about such editors. In my opinion the long-term persistent unsubstantiated accusations against you in relation to the NRA are totally unacceptable, but, as you know, when I tried blocking him/her because of that kind of thing, the block was overturned. Much as I sympathise with you, I really really don't know what else to say about this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
JBW, thanks for the feedback. Things seem to have died down so I'm going to ignore it for the moment. If LP continues with the incivility I will ask for a firearms or NRA topic block simply because that is the area where the problem exists. It would side step the problem without impacting LP's ability to help with new article reviews. Thanks. Springee (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Request to recover the content of a sandbox page

Dear James, I'm writing to you in the name of my father (67 years old, he is new to Wikipedia). He mistakenly used his sandbox page to create an article which does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines. The contents of the page are very important to him and he had been working on it for a long time (he is currently hospitalized and it is his only hobby). I understand why you deleted the page, but ask you to please provide him with the last content of the page so that he can back it up and use it somewhere else. I can guarantee that he won't reuse the sandbox page in this way. The page URL is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thezamirs/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1 Thank you Thezamirs (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I have answered at User talk:Thezamirs. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

are you watching my page ?

- Yes The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please visit my talk page, want to ask you something. Eatcha (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

And Happy Christmas Eatcha (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Eatcha, and the same to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Somebody has a morbid fascination with police departments in Southern California

Hi, JamesB. Giving you a heads-up regarding this newly registered editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peggyterry –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

2600:1012:B162:4D12:74F1:A8CA:CB07:A0C5 has got to be the same person. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Remov[ing] derogatory remarks about minors to protect said minors - in accordance with current press practice and UK law?

Hey, James, what do you think of this? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Another clone/sock of Weathereditor back again

Few days ago you blocked @Weathereditor44 because he was a sock of weathereditor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Weathereditor) with dozens of confirmed clones.

He is back under the name of @Weathereditor46 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Weathereditor46

Can you ban this guy's IP too? He is going way too far, his number of clones is approaching 100. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.224.18 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, James!

I hope you enjoy it! Foxnpichu (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Job ticket

Hi, You have just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Job ticket as Delete, despite both the Nom Doric Loon and the only other participant (me) in the AfD suggesting a disambiguation page, saying "but I don't see any justification for that, as the term is not mentioned in either of the suggested target articles (except in one case as a redirect to this article) and in any case is not in common use in English in either meaning." There is abundant evidence that the term is in common use in British, Australian and US English (see for example the freely available digitised Australian newspapers, etc, on Trove [6]). The Work order article was incorrectly linked to this now deleted article. A disambiguation page could have links to the Work order article and the Season ticket article, with a brief explanation that it is an English term used with that sense only in German. There is also another meaning, synonymous with Meal ticket, and a disambiguation page could have a link to the Wiktionary entry for that. Please could you reopen this AfD and undelete the page, so that the Nom and I have access to the article in order to create the disambiguation page? RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You are free to create a disambiguation page if you think it is worth doing so, but why on earth would you need the deleted article restored in order to do so? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shafiqul Islam Masud (2nd nomination)

Hello again, The result was certainly delete. As I was the only one who supported keeping the article, when you said "Much of what is said by the one editor to support keeping has little connection with policies or guidelines" it obviously refers to me. I always attempt to apply policies and guidelines, in this case WP:POLOUTCOMES, which I clearly stated. Unfortunately, I copied the text of that from the previous AfD, and did not notice that Wikipedia has changed the wording since that AfD. I don't know why you note that with interest - clearly I should check the wording of policies and guidelines every time, in case changes have been made, but I did not intentionally either change the wording or choose the older wording over the new one. I do not know why you felt it necessary to say any of this, nor why you feel that votes that show no attempt at all to do WP:BEFORE are in line with policies and guidelines, whereas I attempted to show that it WP:HASREFS. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@RebeccaGreen: I will try to answer the points you raise.
Sorry that I mentioned the change in wording in a way which you evidently saw as critical. When I saw that you had given a quote from a page which differed from what the page actually said I was puzzled. It didn't seem at all likely that you were trying to mislead anyone, but at first I couldn't think of any other explanation. Then it occurred to me that you might be quoting from an earlier version of the page, so I checked the history, and found that was true. I did wonder how you came to do that, but it didn't seem important, so I didn't follow it up. However, in order to avoid the risk of anyone reading the deletion discussion getting a mistaken impression, I mentioned the difference in wording. Evidently the wording I used in doing so gave you an impression that I did not intend, and I apologise for that.
I can't say to what extent the other participants in the discussion did a "BEFORE" check, though the mention of not having "received significant press coverage" suggests that at least one editor may have looked for such coverage. However, whether they did or not, the reasons given were entirely about issues which are covered by notability guidelines, which is what I meant by saying that they "do relate to guidelines". A significant part of your comments, on the other hand, were about issues that do not in themselves confer notability under Wikipedia's guidelines, such as the fact that he is the leader of a party, and the fact that he has been arrested and imprisoned. You did also mention the references. You indicated that they exist, and that some of them are and some aren't independent. However, you did not give any coverage to the quality and content of those references; in fact most of them merely mention him very briefly, and one doesn't mention him at all. You also mentioned a couple of other things which are not relevant to the question of notability, such as the fact that elections are "suspiciously close to the date of the AfD". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

IP hopper from Riga

Hi, JamesB. All major removal of content in the past month here has got to be from the same person. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes. It goes back to early November, in fact, on several articles, and the editor has a blocked account at Ricardsmartinsons. I have placed a few range blocks for a while. A couple of articles have been protected by another administrator for a fairly short time, but I won't be surprised if we need longer protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Block-evading IP hopper with a pair of socks

Here. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I have forwarded the email you sent me to the arbitration committee for review, at their request. GoldenRing (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Date vandal is back

Hi, the date vandalising anon is back - 2001:e68:60ee:b401:1dfb:6a47:26f0:3c0f. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Yes, and not only dates either. I've blocked the /32 for 3 months and the /44 (where there has been no editing by anyone else since April 2017) for a year. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, although all this business about the extent of range blocks tends to go over my head. The figure that RexxS gave on Bish's talk page a couple of days ago was mind-boggling. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is a little joke that RexxS likes to bring up from time to time. The point is that IP version 6 provides an absurdly vast number of IP addresses, so it is possible to be really extravagant with them. It is very common for ISPs to allocate a block of 264 IP addresses (i.e. about 18845000000000000000 of them) to an individual customer, and sometimes they allocate even more than that. I guess that the reason is that it means that the ISP's routers need to process only the first half of the IP address, completely ignoring the second half, thus reducing storage usage and computing time, but RexxS can no doubt tell us if there's another reason that I don't know about. Anyway, whatever the reason, it means that administrators quite often place blocks on astronomically large blocks of IP v6 addresses, giving people who don't know how IP v6 works the impression that we are irresponsibly blocking huge numbers of people from editing, when in fact it's just one person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please have a look at this one

Hi James, please have a look at this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/One_dead_Coke_sucker

I don't want to have to work my way through all his nonsense... the user account has been set up for complete vandalism. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No need now... someone has just jumped on him. Acabashi (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

December 2018: Talk:Microwave_auditory_effect

On December 6 2018, you levied a baseless accusation against an account of being my sock puppet. Such baseless accusations are against wikipedia policy. If such an egregious violation happens again, I will report you for harassment. --PaulGosar (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Please explain this Paul. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 01:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@PaulGosar: On December 6 2018 I made 14 actions on Wikipedia: 13 edits and one page protection. I have checked every one of them. None of them suggests that you have used sockpuppets; in fact none of them even mentions you at all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Request against deletion of page

Hello James,

I had created a page with the name of SKIDOS on 30th July, which got deleted by you. I would request you to guide me further as i would like to recreate another page for this topic. I have got only 1 recommendation: To link the reference link with the same content. Can I recreate the page with the mentioned changes?

I am waiting for your guidance

Thanks

--Adi skidos (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Nuclear Power

Hi James, It's been awhile! At Nuclear power I may have got close or crossed 3RR recently. I was already close to the line and talk page discussion asked me to restore some of my work on citaitons, so I did that, and then I quit editing the page for a spell. Meanwhile, another editor continues their barrage. Please take a peek, and if you agree, could you please drop a cautionary note on BL's user talk ? Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: A quick look indicates that it is going to take some time to read through everything and see what's going on, and I don't have the time now. I'll try to get back to it soon, maybe tomorrow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. I'm taking a break there myself for a couple more days anyway. Enjoy your day. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: It turns out that recently I have had less time than usual for Wikipedia, and after a week I have not got round to dealing with this. My apologies for that. I may manage to find time to look at it soon, if it's not already too late to be of any use, but I'm afraid I can't make any promises about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
No worries... why not just disregard for now? Good luck on your other endeavors NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Request against vandalism

Hello! I ask combat vandalism of user TJRS on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theresa_May&action=history (vandalism against relevant information in personal life (May loves different music). Thank you! Yellow Man 1000 (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yellow Man 1000: Thank you for alerting me to the fact that there is an editor causing disruption on that article, and also other articles. I shall certainly keep an eye on the disruptive editor for some time, and if the same kind of problem continues then before long he will be blocked for far more than just 48 hours. You may also find it interesting, and perhaps even useful, to read WP:BOOMERANG The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Return of the editor/reverter

Hi, JamesB. Giving you a heads-up about this and this. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Found another one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/42.110.154.80 –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

What are they trying to hide?

IP insists upon having a blank talk page. Not even templates allowed. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You deleted an article on a D.W. Waterson, as A7. Could you look at it, and deterine whether it covers the same individual as D. W. Waterson?

If so, could you merge the histories, and that of the talk pages?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It does seem to be the same person, but is there any reason to restore the deleted history? It is not normal to restore history of a deleted article just because another article on the same subject is subsequently created. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Rev Del request at sea level rise

Hi James, Per RevDel reason 2 S(smears BLP etc) please redact edit sum in this diff as it smears climate scientists in general impugning them of at least unethical if not criminal conduct. Thanks for thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, but I don't see this as covered by the criterion you refer to. The policy clearly states, in more than one place, that "RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments" (and similar wording elsewhere). This is a very ordinary kind of comment form climate change deniers, and not the grossly offensive material referred to in the policy. If it referred to individual scientist by name and accused them of what you describe as "at least unethical if not criminal conduct" then I would take a different view, but I don't think such a general and non-specific statement is the sort of thing which the rev-del criterion in question is intended to cover. Both the spirit of the revision deletion policy and my personal view are that in almost all cases edits, even objectionable ones, should remain in the history so that all editors can be aware of what has been done, with removal only in cases so extreme that the mere presence of a record in the history is seriously unacceptable. I think that if the same editor edits in unacceptable ways again it will be more helpful for other editors, such as yourself, to be able to see his history, so as to be better placed to make a judgement as to what action, if any, should be taken. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
OK... I was sad when the edit sum max length was extended. Good thinkers could make do and the add length invites pontifications of this sort, but well.... ok NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: Yes. When there is a legitimate need for more explanation of an edit than a brief comment, a long edit summary is rarely a good way of doing it, a talk page post being much more helpful, but the ability to use long edit summaries is a godsend to the kind of editors who want to make a point or post propaganda. But we're stuck with it... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

More strange edits from Fox IPs

[7] [8] I've already reverted the second given the unreliability of the source. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Karumari

Hi JBW. A couple of months ago, you warned Karumari about ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, and the consequences of advocating a certain POV. Their latest edits make me believe a topic-ban is now necessary; see this, this, this and this. I'm involved on those pages, and so cannot impose a sanction; would you be willing to take a look? Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde: A quick look suggests you are right, but I don't have time to deal with it right now. I will try to get back onto it as soon as I can, but for family reasons there is a possibility that may not be for a day or two. (However, I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back to very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. If I haven't got back to you on this within a a couple of days please remind me: I will regard it as help, not harassment.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I will do so. They are not particularly prolific, just completely unable to understand how Wikipedia works; I don't think a couple of days' delay will make any difference. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
A gentle nudge about this, JamesBWatson. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde: Thanks. It turns out that I have had even less time available recently than I expected, but I have now placed a 6-month topic ban on all editing relating to India and Pakistan. Unfortunately I am not confident that a topic ban will turn out to be enough, but we can hope so, and watch. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I never enjoy placing restrictions, but it's an unpleasant necessity sometimes. I'm not sure that a t-ban will be sufficient, but it seems to me the logical step to take; a more severe sanction may be necessary, but it's not yet warranted. Thanks for handling this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I found a proxy

A Kenyan IP calling Trump "our President"? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes, it certainly looks like that. However, I can't find any direct evidence that it's a proxy. It is possible there is some other explanation (such as a US emigrant living in Kenya) and I don't think I should take action without anything more definite. On the other hand, though, there are certainly other problems with the editing from that person, and maybe I'll drop a warning of a likely block on their talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have appealed my topic ban

I have appealed my topic ban. Please see this: (Mobile link to appeal)-Karumari (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Karumari: Thank you for letting me know. I have now commented there.
For convenience of future reference, here is a (Non-mobile link to appeal). (For myself, for anyone else not using a mobile device, and for anyone using a mobile device but (like me) finding Wikipedia's mobile interface awkward and unhelpful for any purpose other than reading articles.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a courtesy notice. You and I are on the same side. I wish that there weren't sides. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Manchester meetup 36 - 9 June 2019

As you attended one of the previous two Manchester meetups and/or expressed an interest in being notified about future ones, this is a heads-up that I have started organising a meetup in Manchester on 9 June 2019 - details are at m:Meetup/Manchester/36. Please feel free to invite others with an interest in Wikimedia/Wikipedia to join us. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Major problem on Dubai's article

There is an excessive editor called Musicfan122 who has completely made up climate normals for Dubai that are absolutely ridiculously wrong and reverted my fix even when I told the person that making up unverified numbers are wholly unacceptable. For example, Abu Dhabi at a similar elevation and nearby has 24/13 normals for January, while this person claims Dubai has "19.7/11.0" in spite of having a largely identical climate to Abu Dhabi. I simply restored the sourced weatherbox that has always been the case for the Dubai, used since way back (I can date it back to 2012-13), which someone else also had done prior to me. Then this Musicfan122 user immediately eliminated my restoration in order to put the absolutely erroneous numbers up once more. This person has completely hijacked Dubai's article so far this year, making hundreds of edits going by the revision history (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dubai&offset=&limit=250&action=history). It is in my opinion high time to sanction this vandal before the Dubai article becomes something akin to their personal blog or something... Us serious weather editors can not be everywhere simultaneously so it is important to get help in that regard. I would be very thankful if I could get your help in doing something about this. Best wishes and cheers// Lommaren (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Very active block-evading IP hopper from Lancashire

[9][10] [11] –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I see you already caught one of their ranges. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Iniced/Archive. Favonian (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Long-term edit war at Little Aston

Hi, JamesB. I would report this to the noticeboard but I'm at work and don't have time to find the earliest good version. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: When I saw your message about this I was short of time, so I didn't check the history very far back, but I protected the article for a short while and blocked recently used IP addresses. However, I have now checked further back, and found that there has been problematic editing for a longer time than I had realised, and further action may be needed. A total clean up of the article would need quite a bit of work, but as far as I can see the version of 20:26, 18 July 2018, edited by Davetherave765 is reasonably good, except that it would need the edit of 13:37, 21 December 2018 by BabelStone to be repeated, because that edit removed vandalism. However, I do not intend to do any reverting myself, because doing so in conjunction with the admin actions I have taken might be seen as putting me in conflict with WP:INVOLVED. (Incidentally, the article is about a place not far from where I lived in my childhood, though I don't know Little Aston itself.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted to the last goodish version before the IP warring, and have added the page to my watch list. (Incidentally, I used to live just the other side of Little Aston). BabelStone (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac... again

JBW, I don't know what to do about this but I figured I would at least post it here so I can find it later. ARE related to firearms. LP chimes in [[12]]. I replied to LP's accusations. The reply was a posting on my talk page accusing me of lying. LP has yet to back the accusation. Anyway, my concern is this is yet another example of LP throwing out accusations of bad faith and claims of COI without any substance. [[13]] When is enough enough? Thanks. Springee (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mohammad Ali Taheri

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mohammad Ali Taheri. 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. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Request to unblock

The article in question is The Myth of the Negro Past. There are more than enough reliable sources to warrant its existence (see Google books here and Google scholar here). Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. I deleted an article of that title over 8 years ago because it was totally promotional. That has no bearing whatever on the possibility of creating another, non-promotional, article on the same subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I meant to write "Request to undelete". I understand the content was promotional. I was hoping I could salvage something from it. Is it possible to undelete it? Or, retrieve the content so I can see what was written. Mitchumch (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mitchumch: Personally I don't see anything there that's worth using, and in my opinion you may as well just create a new article from scratch, but to allow you to make your own judgement I have restored the page, and moved it to User:JamesBWatson/The Myth of the Negro Past. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The writing is not encyclopedic, but there is content worth using. My personal preference is to restore the content to retain attribution then edit it to Wikipedia standards. The book is noteworthy as I've shown with the Google books and scholar links above. It's your call. Mitchumch (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mitchumch: OK. I wouldn't have kept any of the existing content, but if you think it's worth doing so then that's up to you. If the page is going to be kept and made back into an article then there is no need for it to be in my user space, so I have moved it to Draft:The Myth of the Negro Past. I also unthinkingly added an AfC draft notice, just out of habit, though an editor of your experience can obviously deal with it yourself, without the AfC process. However, it does no harm. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Since you added the AfC, then please be kind enough to review the article. Remember, it's only a stub. Mitchumch (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like someone beat you to it. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you blocked IPs: [14] [15] [16] [17] per “Block evasion by a long-blocked editor.” There’s a recent edit here [18] made by an IP which geo-locates to the same location as the blocked IPs and appears to be from the user [19]. The same interest in the Generation-related articles, same editing patterns, same spelling and grammar, and same type of agenda editing made me suspicious that these are all made by the same user User:Aboutbo2000. The contributions from the editor and the IPs show that the editor is not here to collaborate with other users and improve the articles, but to push their POV against reliable source by trimming down or removing reliable sources, misrepresenting what the sources state, adding unreliable sources that match their POV, and reverting changes that they disagree with. Could you look into this please? Thanks for your time, Someone963852 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Someone963852: Thank you for that. You have provided the essential ink which definitely confirms what I strongly suspected. I shall block the IP address and the account that you mentioned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I highly appreciate it and the quick response time. Someone963852 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


Since you are a third-party, uninvolved administrator, could I request your thoughts on an issue that has been going on for a long time now regarding a certain editor? There is currently a discussion going on at the Millennials talk page Talk:Millennials#Date_Range_Sources regarding the reliability and accuracy of the sources in the ‘Date and age range definitions’ section. The current article states that the “United States Census Bureau defines the millennial generation as those born from 1982–2000,” but as stated by the topic starter, this is inaccurate and untrue. The editor provided two sources, including one from the official 2017 US Census Bureau [20], which states differently and proposes that the current source used in the article be updated.

But as expected, User:DynaGirl who thinks they own the generation-related articles and has misrepresented and misled sources in the past to push their non-neutral POV replied by ignoring the discussion topic at hand and misrepresents the RfC conclusion [21] (the RfC was about changing the lead of the Millennials article and nothing about the reliability of sources or the current discussion at hand) in an attempt to stifle the discussion because updating the sources wouldn't match their non-neutral POV.

I learned from this comment [22] that the User:DynaGirl’s long-term, problematic and disruptive behavior of editing fits exactly into what is called Civil POV Pushing.

Locality - They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme. The user mainly edits the generation-related articles, such as Xennials, Millennials, Generation Z, Generation X, Baby Boomers, the Generations sidebar, etc and stated that they have a specific interest in the generation-related articles [23]. They've formed their own opinions and conclusions on what the generation-related articles should be, so they try to push their POV onto the articles regardless of collaboration or what reliable sources have to say.

Neutrality - They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV The user trimmed down the Pew source [24] and added a "disclaimer" at the end of it despite objections on the talk page because they personally disagreed with the Pew's date ranges. The user tried to disclaim the main Pew source on a different article [25] by misrepresenting a different source [26]. The user added “An earlier 2014 publication from Pew Research described the cohort as born after the year 2000” after the main Pew source using [27] as a reference. But the reference used is not the views of Pew nor is it a report by Pew (which the changes inaccurately implies and misleads the reader to thinking it is); it’s a book interview with Paul Taylor, the author of the book, and the author's views on the date ranges. The user is misrepresenting sources under the guise of "tweaking" to mislead readers and push their POV. give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. The user stated in a discussion that the outdated Neil and Howe Strauss source “stands the test of time” and gives undue weight to it just because the source matches their POV and uses it to disregard the other more reliable, relevant and up-to-date sources which disagree with the date ranges. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in." The user tried to add [28] sources that closely match and support their POV, even though those sources are not defining or researching the Millennial date ranges in any way but uses them for categorical purposes. Even the Chamber of Commerce source that the user added [29] states that "Sources, though, are inconsistent, with as many as 21 different birth spans referenced." When they are unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research. The user is accusing [30] another editor of original research because they personally disagree with it.

Editing They revert war over such edits. The user has edit warred on generation-related articles [31][32] and was giving a warning that they will be blocked by an administrator [33]. They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets. [34] Interaction with the blocked IP who shares the same POV as the user.

Discussions They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view. Looking through the talk pages and archives of the Millennials [35], Generation Z [36], Xennials [37], and other generation related talk pages, if any discussion crops up that the user disagrees with, they'll be there to push their POV until the conclusion ends in their favor or until the other editors eventually relent and leave. There is absolutely no collaboration taking place. The most recent example here [38] where the user opposed the article move [39] by lying and claiming that "it seems at odds with multiple discussions and concerns raised on the above talk page." But looking through the Talk:The_Greatest_Generation and Talk:G.I._Generation and its archive, the only one discussion about the move was [40] which was started by the same user and which the user moved the page against objections from another editor. Here is an example [41] of an editor pointing out the user’s disruptive behavior on a different article. They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors. The most recent one was [42] [43] and I wouldn't be surprised if the user requested an RfC for the current issue or any other new issue that crops up that disagrees with their personal opinions. They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions. An editor pointed out that the user has misrepresented them and an administrator [44].

Sources They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature. The fact that the user is opposed to the recent discussion [45] on making sure that the sources in the article are accurate and reliable says a lot about the user, their uncollaborative nature, and their attempts to make the article fit their POV. An editor provided sources for their proposed changes [46], but the user accused them of original research or synthesis [47] because they personally disagree with the changes.

These are just some few examples that I can remember off the top of my head. Is there anything that can be done about User:DynaGirl and their long-term pattern of problematic and disruptive behavior in the form of Civil POV Pushing? Could you give me your thoughts please? It seems like any edits or changes to the generation-related articles will have to go through that user's approval first or the changes will be reverted then discussed extensively on the talk page to meet that user's POV before any changes can be made.

Thank you for your time and for reading this, Someone963852 (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And of course, right when I was about to publish this, the user emails you [48] out of the blue after their POV pushing friend got blocked. Someone963852 (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
User:JamesBWatson, did you get a chance to read through the above? Or is there a different place that I should be bringing this issue to? Someone963852 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Someone963852: Yes, I have read it, and also emails relating to this from two editors (including the email that you mentioned above). I have also fairly extensively read editing history relating to the issues. Unfortunately the whole thing is very complicated; as well as the complexities of the actual editing, there have been accusations of sockpuppetry, accusations of a Joe Job with an editor trying to give the impression of sockpuppetry by another editor, and so on, and there has certainly been a sockpuppeteer involved in the past, who may or may not still be using sockpuppets. Because of the complexity of the thing, combined with the fact that when I received the various messages about it I had less time available for Wikipedia than usual, I left it, intending to come back to it when I had more time. I apologise for not telling you I was doing that. There certainly is a problem, and you have pointed out some aspects of the problem, but what, if any, administrative action should be taken is not obvious. I'll try to come back to this as soon as I can, probably tomorrow or the following day, and make a decision about it. Sorry to have to ask you to bear with me for another day or two, but considering that the editor you refer to has been editing generation articles in much the same way for almost three years, perhaps one or two days more is not too much. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response JamesBWatson. The user has accused me of being a sockpuppet in the past, particularly of this user: [49] just because we share the same opinion about the date ranges and had opposing views to the user (but so do many on the talk pages). I noticed the IP posted again on the Millennials talk page [50] and geolocates to the same IP as the blocked socks the user accused me of being. Since you are an administrator, I believe you have the ability to check my IP and editing history to know that I'm not the same person or a sock of that user (or anyone) at all. As you said, the user has been editing the same way for three years on the generation-related articles and will continue to do so with the same disruptive editing and Civil POV Pushing, and will bring up bogus accusations of sockpuppetry to get opposing editors blocked, unless an action is taken. I look forward to your response. Someone963852 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Someone963852, DynaGirl, and Kolya Butternut: I have now had emails from all of you, as well as the talk page messages above. I have looked at numerous links you have given me, and checked large amounts of editing history. I have pretty well decided what my conclusions are, but to explain those conclusions properly will take a little while, which I don't have at present. I am therefore asking you to wait a little longer, but I will get back onto this hen I have time, and let you know what I have decided. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
JamesBWatson, just to clarify, but did you say you received an email from me? Because I've never used the Wikipedia email system before besides a few times back in 2012 [51], but have since deleted the email option shortly after. I added it back last year when I got a notification that someone had tried logging into my account, but have never used the email system, even when asked [52]. All of my messages to you or any other editors are all on here. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Someone963852 (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Someone963852: My apologies. I knew I had received emails about this from three different email accounts, and thought they were the three people I named above, but I now see that they weren't, and none of the emails was from you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


  • @Someone963852, DynaGirl, and Kolya Butternut: OK, here at last are some of my thoughts on this, which I hope may be of some help to some or (better still) all of you. I don't think what I say will give any of you exactly what you would like, but if it is of at least some help to one or more of you then that will be good.
  • Several points have been raised, but essentially I think they come down to two issues. Firstly, accusations of disruptive and uncooperative editing of various kinds, such as the comments above from Someone963852 about DynaGirl's editing. Secondly, accusations of sockpuppetry.
  • I first came across problems with editing on this topic issue some years ago. If I hadn't seen all this on Wikipedia I would probably never have known either of the following two facts: (1) There are so many terms that have been used to refer to "generations" in recent times. (I have come across "millenials", which is in very common use, and "baby boomers", but I am not sure I have ever seen any of the other terms in actual use.) (2) There are so many people who care so strongly about exactly how each of those terms should be used and defined that they are willing to put so much time and effort into arguing about it.
  • At least one of the editors with an interest in this issue have certainly resorted to sockpuppetry, both by using one or more sockpuppet accounts and by mixing account editing with IP editing. I have blocked a sockpuppet account and some IP ranges because of that.
  • I have received suggestions that sockpuppetry is still going on, by more than one editor. I have also received a suggestion that someone is deliberately using IP editing in a way designed to give the misleading impression that he or she is using IP sockpuppetry, to get him or her blocked ( a "joe job"). I have found enough connection between the editing of the account and the IP addresses involved to suggest that one of those may well be true, but the issue is not at present clear enough to justify any action. However, I will keep an eye on it. More evidence may emerge.
  • All three of you have provided me with useful information which has helped me to confirm sockpuppetry, whether you have given it here or in emails. Thanks to all of you for that. However, some of the information I have been given has been less helpful. I have received a large number of links relating to editing histories of various accounts and IP addresses. Some of the information that I have been given relates to IP addresses and accounts that have not edited for several years, without any obvious relevance to anything current now. In one case I have been given a link to an IP editor which has not only not edited for several years, but also never edited anywhere on the "generation" topic, and did not edit in ways which bear any resemblance that I can see to any editor who has edited on that topic. Giving me such a large amount of information which is at best only distantly relevant is counter-productive, because looking amongst all that irrelevant or barely relevant stuff I am likely to miss relevant details which I would have seen if I had had only the information which was likely to be most helpful. If any of you decide to send me more information then I suggest taking note of that point.
  • At a fairly early stage in my recent investigation of this matter I did think that there might be a good case for blocking one or more of the editors involved for disruptive editing, but having looked further into the matter I wonder if it may be more helpful at this stage to just offer some comments on how this looks to an uninvolved outsider, in the hope that may help you to stand back and see the whole thing in perspective. Perhaps that may help to avoid it reaching the stage where blocks are necessary.
  • I offer you an independent outsider's view on two aspects of the arguments which have gone on about all this. Seeing this from an outsider's perspective may help you to deal with disagreements in a better way. These two are just given as examples, and similar remarks would apply to other aspects of the discussions.
  1. On one talk page there is a discussion running to well over 2000 words about such issues as whether the article should say "people born during", "a cross-over generation of people", "the micro-generation of people", or "a demographic cohort representing". Does anyone really think that the exact phrasing matters enough to the average reader of the encyclopaedia to be worth putting in that much discussion? (And remember that the whole purpose of our work here is to serve the average reader of the encyclopaedia; anything that doesn't sere that purpose is pointless.)
  2. An issue which has been hotly debated at times is the exact definition of these "generations", with disagreements as to the start and end dates to use. As an outsider, without any involvement in this at all, and without any personal preference for one version or another, I think the best comment on all this is one from an IP editor at Talk:Millennials#Is there ever going to be consensus dates for Millennials? where the editor wrote "People talk about Millennials constantly these days yet there's 30235034534654 million date ranges used for them, which makes it hard to tell exactly who people are talking about when they mention Millennials. This usually leads to arguing on social media sites, with people posting sources and saying "Hey look, these are Millennials!" *links another source that says different* "No that's wrong, THESE are Millennials." " I think that summarises a problem that we have here on Wikipedia, as well as on the social media referred to in that quote. A word or expression means what it is used to mean, nothing more or less, and if it is used in a variety of meanings then it has a variety of meanings. That being so, the only correct way to describe the account is to say that it has a range of meanings. It might be easier to avoid bad feeling, time sunk in futile discussion, edit-warring, and other problems if people were more willing to accept that where there is disagreement what is best may be something which is not tied down to any editor's preferences, but broadly covers all possibilities.
  • Remember that the purpose of our editing is to provide information for the average person who sees or hears something about (say) "Xennials", and wants to know about that subject. What goes int the article should be what is helpful to that typical reader. The substantial majority of the content of the arguments about this over the years has been about issues which will not help the typical reader, in many cases (as in my second example) because it absolutely doesn't matter to the typical reader. Bear in mind that what you are debating so hotly is a small niche topic, which you are clearly interested in but most of the population of the world doesn't regard as significant. (Indeed, as one of you mentioned on a talk page, most of the population of the world has never even heard of most of these terms.) Most readers of the articles in question will probably just want some fairly general idea of what is involved, and you may find it helpful to consider how much it matters that another editor thinks some small detail of an article on a fairly minor topic should be handled differently from how you think it should be.
  • If you can all see things in that sort of way, it may help you to work together more smoothly. Even if you are convinced that your view is better than another editor's, if you can see that in most cases you are dealing with disagreements over fairly small aspects of a fairly minor topic, and exactly how it is handled probably doesn't matter much if at all to most of the readers of the encyclopaedia, you may find it easier to be more relaxed about the disagreement, and that may make it easier to work together, and to find agreements or compromises; also, at times when you can't reach an agreement or a compromise it may help you to accept that if you see it as not really mattering much.
  • Certainly there has been uncooperative and unhelpful editing at times, and when I started investigating this I thought my main focus would be on deciding whether to block anyone for disruptive editing. However, as I read through the history I decided that making the kind of suggestion I am making here might be more constructive. I hope it may be of some help.
  • My final comment is that there have been faults on both sides, and I suggest that all concerned may benefit from stopping and thinking about that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

IP hopping vandal at The Big Year

Hi, JamesB. Just letting you know that The Big Year and other pages have been victims of an IP hopping vandal (66.41.0.0/16 range) since at least September. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. SuttonPlaceLimited (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Master Sock

I confess, I am a master sock, I started off on this account then ended up getting block, so I created many accounts. Some other accounts I have created included FetchFan21, 1mikie19, MikeySalinas17, BeeBliss16 and Bigteddy1. Currently I own CaptainDanger25 where I set up many accounts to get blocked that included WP Editor 2012 and many other accounts that were part of the May 2018 case. Like some of my other accounts I reported accounts to chase admins using CaptainDanger25. I even threw off admins to let them believe Bigteddy1 was being attacked when it was just me along.

I have many ip's to chase admins away. I have even submitted socks cases wait other simulation 12 socks

Ip's include

  • 72.178.214.79
  • 2605:6000:A507:A300:795F:B003:F097:D073
  • 2605:6000:A507:A300:E9A5:4697:CC9F:40CE
  • 24.170.90.146

Plus many more174.255.7.252 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Promotional editing

Hello James. Thankyou for looking into my article but James I think you mistook the content of it. IT's purely not for advertising or a promotion of any product or service. As i read the terms of wikipedia. i created that article since it has to be on wikipedia since its major for history of srilanka. As thr oldest and the largest production company of srilanka. That is some information that has to be here. Please look into my matter and consider. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshen Ratnaraja (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Roshen Ratnaraja: I'm not sure what you would think would be promotional, if you think a page full of language such as "the most innovative & creative entertainment provider in Sri Lanka", "has made history and will keep striving for success", and so on and so on, wasn't. Every single non-talk page edit you have made has been chock full of blatant marketing-speak. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

1949-50 Macedonian Republic League

Hello JamesBWatson,

I'm about to create an article 1949-50 Macedonian Republic league, but I have noticed that you moved or deleted a page with the same name back in 2014 and you have left a notice reg creating a new page, I'm not sure what content you have moved or deleted, but I want to create a page same as 1954-55 Macedonian Republic League which I did it few hours ago, will that be sufficient enough? Kind Regards, F00700I (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@F00700I: That should be fine. The deleted article was created by a highly offensive editor who was blocked because of serious threats of real-life attacks on another editor, and the deletion was to try to persuade him that evading the block by using sockpuppets would not achieve anything. There is no problem at all with you creating a new 1949-50 article similar to the 1954-55 one which you mention. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: That's great, thank you. F00700I (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

reflist in the wrong place

Sorry. Thanks for the edit Buffs (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: It took me a couple of minutes to work out what you were talking about, but eventually I got there: the reliable sources noticeboard. Looking back at it now I am rather ashamed of my edit summary, which was much less friendly than it could have been. My apologies for that: I think I was tired at the time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
*tips his hat* Buffs (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Since you’re familiar with the sockpuppetry that has happened over on the Generation related articles (most recently with User:Aboutbo2000), could you let me know if I’m not alone in being suspicious of a "new" user that has recently popped up?

There’s a "new" editor (User:Carfree82) editing on Generation related articles that I’m suspecting is a sock… It just seems a bit suspicious to me that User:Carfree82 was created two months ago, made minor edits on a few random articles, then made this edit: [53] and exactly 2 minutes later, went on a different Generation related article’s talk page [54], being their first time editing on an article’s talk page and attempting to get editors blocked.

User:Carfree82 then made random small edits to random articles possibly to not make sockpuppetry obvious, then made a talk page comment 13 minutes later on a different Generation related article [55] stating almost the exact same thing as another user [56], trying to use the RfC outcome to shut down discussion about changing the lead or ranges. It also seems suspicious that this editor of two months knows what an “RfC” is and that they went back to the archives to dig it up.

Let me know if I’m not the only one that’s a bit suspicious about this possible sockpuppetry... Thanks, Someone963852 (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of page about Vidyut Kale

I am from India and found the article page through Google only to see that it was deleted and read the page for why it was deleted.

I think this deletion was political vandalism. Vidyut Kale is a public figure on digital rights in India and has participated in internet rights movements in the country. She is something of a lone wolf and polymath supporting many campaigns in public interest, but there won't be significant organization related coverage of her because she is careful to stay independent of organizations and political parties. Being a woman, and opposing ruling party that controls most media, you will not find coverage for activists opposing government.

She opposes the ruling BJP in India with a notorious IT cell and is the subject of several targeted attacks from them. They have organized workers on all social media as well as Wikipedia. Some of the delete recommendations are by users whose history reveals edits of interest to the ruling party.

Some of the analysis of references is also not correct. You can verify for yourself.

For example, this article, that is analyzed as only mentioning her is interviewing her as among the early founders of the group intending to form a Pirate Party in India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Activists-bemoan-absence-of-active-Pirate-Party-in-India/articleshow/34542968.cms

This article is analyzed as her being mentioned in a "non-substantive, transitory sense" while discussing laws used for censorship in India. This is not correct, her case is being analyzed because she got defamation notices due to an expose of a scam. https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/VViKHUnyEZzuxOSQumBhEL/Free-Speech--Virtual-empowerment.html Another user calls it an advocacy piece because its sources include three major digital rights related organizations in India!

This article in an award winning publication with its own Wikipedia page (as pointed out by another user) is called an unreliable source in the analysis https://www.thefridaytimes.com/peace-after-pathankot/ what is important here is that this is a Pakistani newspaper quoting her on a subject of tension between India and Pakistan.

I contacted her before messaging and she is not interested in pursuing this, but as administrator, you should care that Wikipedia is being used to refuse credibility to dissenters by the fascist party in rule.

~ Preethi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.197.197 (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Block-evading IP hopper at Six Flags Great Adventure & Disney's Animal Kingdom

Hi, JamesB. Looks like all edits from IPs starting with 73. are acting on behalf of 173.61.138.18, which has been blocked until 20 June. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah has already blocked the most recent vandal. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: I've semiprotected the articles for a month. They have both been protected several times in the past, and it may be that long term protection is needed, but let's see how that works for now.
You may have noticed that I am not responding to your messages anywhere near as promptly as I used to at one time. That is because I am doing much less editing than I used to. You are still perfectly free to post messages to me, but just warning you that messages may hang around for quite a while before I get round to them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Zebodee Fielder and IP 91.196.28.2

Hi James, Zebodee Fielder, set up today, appears likely to be opened by an IP specifically for disruption... see link where I have detailed this. The IP and Zebodee Fielder, and Mhe123456 who has also disrupted Bexhill High earlier this year, might of course be doing this from the school. The IP centres on East Sussex County Council in Eastbourne, next door to Bexhill, so the school's IPs could well come under the council. There may be a case for stamping on this before it becomes a more serious problem. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Acabashi: Thanks for telling me. Not only that IP address, but all IP addresses in a small range including that one have been doing nothing but vandalism for a long time, and it looks very much like vandalism from one or more schools. Also, several of the IP addresses in the range are either now blocked for vandalism or else have been in the past. I have therefore blocked the range for two years. Zebodee Fielder is very likely from the same school, as you suggest, but he has so far made only one vandalism edit, and you have warned him since then, so for now I am leaving him, but if he comes back with any more vandalism I will be willing to block, so do feel welcome to let me know if you see any more. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Vidyut Kale at WP:DRV

Drawing your attention to the discussion on the AFD closure of Vidyut Kale at deletion review. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of page Kanthi D Suresh

Hey! I saw that you deleted a page I created. Yes, this page was indeed deleted in past as well and I had carefully read the deletion discussion and researched on subject. After that, I saw that there were many relevant references which were not present when the page was created and deleted in past. I used those references and created the page again. I feel that you didn't notice that the page was created absolutely fresh with all relevant citations. I don't remember if we have a rule where a page that was deleted in past can not be created again. I think I have created one or two and they were okay. I read G4,

"It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies,"

The reason for deletion were no sources and relevant citations which is no longer applicable. Hence, I think, G4 should not apply. Would it be possible for you to check the new page that I had created and see the difference from the previously deleted draft? I am sure you will see why I thought that the page should be created. Thanks for your time!

Alivenkicking (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alivenkicking: There is considerable disagreement as to exactly how similar a deleted page and a re-created version of it must be to fall under the description "substantially identical to the deleted version". I have my own view on that question, but experience over the years has convinced me that there is rarely anything to be gained by discussing the issue, so if you persist in asking me to restore the article then I will do so and immediately take it to a second deletion discussion. If that happens, the following points may be worth taking note of. Although the re-created article is not identical to the deleted versions, it has unmistakable similarity, both in terms of the structure of the article and in terms of its wording. (Indeed, there is sufficient similarity to leave me in no doubt that you had access to a copy of an earlier, deleted, version when you created it.) You have provided new references, but they are little if any better than the old ones. They include sources which are certainly not independent of the person who is the subject of the article (including one which is by her, not about her), sources which are so promotional in tone as to appear to also not be genuinely independent, and sources which do not give her substantial coverage. If a new deletion discussion should lead to deletion again, which is likely, then it would achieve nothing apart from wasting time for you, me, and everyone else who would take part. I also get the impression from your editing history that promotion or advertising may be your principal, or even only, purpose in editing Wikipedia. I see that you have already received messages informing you of the situation regarding promotional editing, conflict of interest, and paid editing, so I will not repeat that information here, but you should take note that you are likely to be blocked from editing if you continue to edit in ways that appear to be promotional, whether you regard it as promotional or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: Thanks for your response on this! If you do feel that the subject doesn't cross the notability mark and doesn't have enough relevant citations that it can be on Wikipedia, I definitely don't see a point of restoring it. I have absolutely no intentions of wasting anyone's time on anything that has no future. On your comment on my access to content, it was publicly available on a different encyclopedia website : https://wikimili.com/en/Kanthi_D._Suresh
I believe they copied and created it when the page was alive in past. Nonetheless, I truly appreciate your time in clarifying on the matters of this page and I will further take care to ensure that my edits aren't perceived promotional.
Alivenkicking (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Pair of socks (at least)?

Whenever you have time, you should look into 273 & 283. There might be more. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've blocked those two, and I haven't found any more. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Abbyjadali (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)== Deletion of MONQ Aromatherapy ==

MONQ

Hello! I saw that you deleted a page that I created about MONQ Aromatherapy portable diffusers. I can understand why it was deleted, it did seem a little like an ad, and I didn't realize that I couldn't use the companies website as a source. I was wondering if I could re-create this page to make it much more neutral to just talk about the company and their mission? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbyjadali (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I will answer this on your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sami Yusuf Talk Page

Could you please tell me why you are remove our texts from talk page!? How can we open conversation then!? How we can contact and request! This is unbelievable, please bring back changes.

Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Yusuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.126.244.245 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As long as you are blocked you do not have permission to edit anywhere except on the talk page of your original account. See that page for my comments. If I see you evading your block again I shall revert all edits that you have made while evading it, including the one above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

POV-pusher dismissing references not in English

Hi, JamesB. Mind stopping by here when you get a chance? There are no reliable English references, only the likes of Facebook and YouTube, simply because the person in question isn't known by other names in English. There are, however, plenty of reliable references in Persian but the pusher dismisses those as "fake". –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that accounts and IP addresses used by the uncooperative editor have been blocked, and the article is on pending changes. To that, I have added semi-protection to the talk page for 10 days. Maybe that will be enough to deter the person in question. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hoping you, as a disinterested observer, weigh in on the issue of English vs. Persian references. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: Originally I didn't bother to do that because the editor's history looks very much like that of many editors who just never get the point when people explain things that they don't like, and experience over the years has taught me that another person coming along and explaining yet again virtually never works any better. However, since you have asked, and since it is just possible that this will be one of the rare exceptions, I have posted two messages on the article talk page, the first one supporting your view that non-English sources are acceptable, and the other mentioning a few other points about sources, and I have posted a much longer message to the talk page of the original account, about the block and related issues. Maybe that will do some good, but I am not holding my breath. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess not. That editor is coming off as quite paranoid. For the record, I have been a civilian employee of the United States government for the past 25 years; my only interest here is keeping Wikipedia factual. Declaring facts "fake" is too much like the behavior of the current administration. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: Yes, absolutely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It occurred to me that Mjahangir777 posted his email address on HistoryofIran's talk page so I looked it up. Turns out that address is associated with a Twitter account, also "Mjahangir777", who is from Iran. Why would an Iranian be feigning ignorance of the Persian language? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: That's an interesting point. I had thought that the comments about not understanding the Persian sources looked a bit dubious, but I had not noticed anything like such clear evidence as that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: Here's even more definite proof. Mjahangir777 has made 12 edits to Persian Wikipedia, as you can see here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I ran his contributions there through Google Translate; all pertain to his client. In October of 2014, he removed content from his client's article but didn't bother to remove the birth name, which is what started this kerfuffle. [57] –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought of running the contributions there through Google Translate, but decided not to bother, because there is enough there to prove that he has been lying to us, and that, on top of the rest that we already know about, was enough, in my opinion. However, the fascinating fact about the edit which you have linked to (via Google Translate) is that he added the statement that Sami Yusuf's father is Iranian, whereas on English Wikipedia he has denied that Sami Yusuf's ethnic background is Iranian. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I've put Mjahangir777 on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: My mistake, I have posted three messages to the article talk page, not two. Also, see the section below this one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Refund request

Assuming no one else as requested this and with reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyut Kale and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 3 where I said I might work on this if no one else would. I make the WP:BOLD move and request WP:REFUND of Vidyut Kale + talk page to my userspace. The final two edits (excluding any added by the temp undelete) and will to be reverted as a COI edit however those version indicate possible errors corrections particularly around the so I would like to consider them. My impression is I would like to rework most of the article from scratch so I will probably revert to near original contest, consolidate and examine references on a workpage and slowly build from there. It's a technique I've used before on WP:RESCUEs but I don't normally if ever to live bios. The result may or may not be suitable for mainspace ... it may end up being not able to progress beyond draft. Apart from an initial tear apart work on this may progress slowly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the article, but rather than moving it to your user space I have put it at Draft:Vidyut Kale, so that others may contribute. Of course others could edit the page if it were in your user space, but experience shows that some editors are inhibited from doing so, thinking of it as a private page. If for any reason you disagree with that decision, please let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou for the refund. A couple of points:
  • first can you also restore the talk page as well (I assume it had one ... let me know if it didn't. Thanks.
  • The reason I requested user space is I may well have started by editing the article done to the bare essentials, possibly prior to any Britishfinance edit ... carefully go over what left ... and then rebuilding up slowly from sources to try to avoid any claims of advertising etc ... ie a strip down then rebuild up. I'm more inclined to do that in user space rather than draft space. I can also take control of some techniques that are useful in rescues ... and particular concentrating on WP:THREE. A big criticism on the AfD and DRV from memory was excessive use of lesser quality resource quality resources. Anyway this is a community choice. For your information a rename to Vidyut Gore will be almost inevitable and if done it will not be for the purposes of subverting AfD or DRV. But perhaps as you have chosen draft that is what I should work with. I am somewhat concerned there is a higher risk of disruption in user space rather than draft space and all hell has broken out in nearby places and userspace can be less prominent. Overall I am somewhat affeared fourthree times the effort will be required to prepared the article for mainspace as opposed to userspace->draftspace->mainspace. Anyway I guess we'll try draft. Maybe someone else will do all the work! The talk page is important ASAP though. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark: I had thought that draft space was better, but I see you do have some reasons for preferring user space. Most probably it won't really make much difference either way, but apart from what I said above it also seems to me that putting a page created and substantially edited by other editors into the user space of one editor is not totally natural. As for the talk page, I had forgotten that, but I have restored it now. Thank you for reminding me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the talk page. We are talking Vidyut and Britishfinance. Nothing might be normal. I'll work in draft. Wish me luck. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Soapboxing?

This looks like a violation of WP:SOAP to me. What do you think, James? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes, it does look that way. Why don't you drop the editor a note about it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
That might not be necessary; the editor has toned it down. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:CSD

Please don't make WP policies more readable/understandable. It's disruptive!--Bbb23 (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yeah? Well what are you going to do about it? Block me? Report me to ArbCom? Start an ANI thread about me? I'll be as disruptive as I damned well want to, and you won't stop me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Bolding is the last resort of the legalese-challenged. Whereas you have (a) trampled on lawyer's inalienable rights to promote opacity, (b) removed sacred words like "thereto" from clauses where they clearly, uneqivocally, and incontrovertibly belonged, and (c) otherwise acted contrary to the wishes, desires, dreams, aspirations, and hopes of all Wikipedians; be it resolved that you are forthwith hereby declared null and void. Warmest regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblocking

Thank you for sorting out my editing block! --Redlentil (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Redlentil: You are more than welcome. Unblocking is by far the administrative task that I enjoy doing most, but opportunities to do it are fairly uncommon, partly because most blocks are fully justified, and partly because when I think an editor should be unblocked I often find myself obstructed by other administrators who are more block-inclined than I am, and don't agree with my wish to unblock. In your case it was easy, and obviously the right thing to do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Duplicated piece

You might like to know there is a partial duplicate in this contribution. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis: Thanks for pointing that out. I had a browser crash in the middle of posting, and when I got it going again I posted the whole passage, but I think the browser must have given me a cached version of the page, with part of my edit in it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

Hi, colleague. Can you look on Talk:Qizilbash#Qizilbash Turcoman. Two years ago there was a discussion with me involved. Several other involved users put forward their arguments, but then I left the English Wikipedia for a long time. Now, I have returned and put forward (or rather reinstated my older ones) my arguments, and these are without any answer for several weeks. What should be done, according to the protocol of mediation. Can I already call for 3O or what? John Francis Templeson (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Normally I answer talk page messages on the page on which they are posted, to avoid fragmenting discussions. However, on this occasion I think it will be beneficial to have a record of what I said in the history of your talk page, so I am copying your recent message on my talk page to your talk page, and answering it there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I need your help

Hi JamesBWatson,

I have a problem :-( Some Wikipedian reverted my 7 consecutive edits, then restored only one. These edits took me a lot of time and effort. Were they all wrong? Really? Could you please take a look at them? Vikom talk 03:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Quote on Kudpung's userpage

I had a good laugh reading your revelation, I'll admit not having pressed the diff link but it's almost as if the quote has come full circle. Regardless of the thread or the issue at hand, I do agree with the statement. It is how it is. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

JamesBWatson is one of the admins for whom I have the greatest respect. If he were to read this diff I'm sure he will understand what I was implying. There was no hint of a threat, but your response was inappropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries, @Kudpung: I was simply talking about how the quote was related to Legacypac (I was not aware it was, just like James) and the entire mess at AN that is also about him. I do not imply this being any more on you than the threat you made previously. To clarify, I posted this only because I had a good laugh, and that is it. As for my response, you are more than welcome to continue at the PA section you posted on my the talk page, no point taking it out on poor James here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@QEDK and Kudpung: Oh dear. I seem to have sparked off more than I intended. I just thought it a little amusing to see what seemed to me to be a small element of irony in the relationship between the context in which the quote was originally made and the context in which it was pointed out in the recent discussion. There are all sorts of reasons why such a contrast could legitimately arise, such as that the two discussions, despite being about the same person, were in different contexts, and Kudpung thought that different considerations prevail in those different contexts. Perhaps it would have been better if I had either not mentioned it, or else, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, phrased my comment in a way which was obviously a joke. However, I thought, rightly or wrongly, that I knew Kudpung well enough to be confident he would not take it amiss, and that therefore I didn't need to make it so explicitly humourous. (If that was a misjudgement on my part, then my apologies, Kudpung.) Looking beyond that comment of mine, I see QEDK making strongly worded criticism of Kudpung, and indeed expressing his thoughts in a way that I wouldn't have done, but I would not go so far as to describe it as a personal attack. (Of course, that is based on the assumption that the comments here don't refer to something somewhere else that I haven't seen.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that was my only interation with Kudpung in a long time, I do agree it was indeed a strong criticism, I am a believer in critique myself, and I strongly despise personal attacks, which is why I might have gone overboard with having Kudpung (whom I respect) condoning it. Either way, maybe we did get off on the wrong foot @Kudpung: and fwiw, I unreservedly apologize if you construed what I said as personal attack. I still disagree with you but maybe I'll get better at explaining myself. And indeed it was a funny bit of irony. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. I realise now that there has probably been some misunderstand all round. I think we can consider this matter closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Stuart Angel

I just read an old discussion, where you wrote "However ... Is the film notable?"

Good question, so I looked it up on imdb. The film earned over a million bucks, on its opening weekend. So, not a blockbuster, but a very substantial return, for a documentary. So, is that enough to satisfy your notability concern? Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Very unfair action, equate me with a sock puppet, so as to avoid the discussion. Now that my previous IP was blocked, I was forced to sign up. My criticism was justified. I hope you think again and open the discussion. The other user is constantly looking for excuses to avoid criticism. I hope you check it again.[58] Megekono (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Clara Reeve

Thank you for sorting out the Smithies problem. Yes, the rest of us are singularly short of intelligence. I'll try to get a brain transplant some time. Bmcln1 (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bmcln1: Oh dear. I see that my edit summary was rather sarcastic and unfriendly. That was unnecessary and unconstructive, and I apologise. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
No problem at all. Bmcln1 (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hey, you just deleted my sandbos for advertising, which I understand. I have no intention of publishing the article (I apologize if I did by submitting what I did) and I'm only writing it because writing a basic page on wikipedia is a requirement for one of my courses. Is there any way you could undo the delete, if only for long enough for me to get what I wrote up back?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaka1999 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jaka1999: I have temporarily restored the page, but blanked its content from view. The content you posted is still in the editing history, and you can see it here. I will delete it again when you have had time to retrieve the content. However, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a web host for storing content unrelated to contributing to the encycloapedia, whether it is for a course you are taking or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: Thank you for understanding. Is there any way that I can keep my sandbox completely private so that this doesn't become a problem again? I'm new to editing wikipedia.

Draft:Jonathan Wax

Hey, JamesB,

I deleted this draft and was looking at the log history and its recent history of deletion and restoration. I was going to protect the page since it has been repeatedly recreated by paid editors but since you've restored this article (twice), I thought maybe a decent article was possible. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. The short answer is "the fact that I restored the article does not mean that I think it was worth keeping." The longer (perhaps TLDR) answer is as follows. The reason for the first time I restored the article was that earlier revisions had been moved by a disruptive editor to a user talk page, and I moved it to merge its history with the existing version, which deletes the old version to make way for the move, so it has to be restored. The reason for the second tie I restored it was that the first time I made a mistake, restoring only the revision which consisted of my moving the old version, so I had to do it again. So as far as that is concerned, there is no reason at all why you shouldn't protect the title from re-creation. However, Personally I don't tend to create-protect in this situation, because it doesn't stop anyone from re-creating the page: it just forces them to use a different title if they do so, which makes it more difficult for us to deal with, as we can watch an existing title, but not every possible new title that someone may dream up. However, if you decide to go head with protecting it, I won't quarrel with you. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Cultural neuroscience

Hello User:JamesBWatson, you just deleted my Sandbox page. We are a group of master students at the University of Padova working on a Wikipedia project: [[59]] Could you kindly inform me the exactly URL of the original webpage of the supposed copyviolation and please, re-check because we didn’t make any copyright violation. Could you please also check if the copyviolation was present in the article prior to our contribution. If it is possible, please, undelete our revision in the article [[60]] We just put together some scientific facts of the topic and we didn’t advocate any opinion. Thank you in advance --Anastadi (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anastadi: I don't have time to give you a full answer now, but I have restored the page, and I will try to explain what happened when I have more time. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

user:JamesBWatson, Thank you for restoring my sandbox. Could it be possible to restore our changes on the article Cultural neuroscience as well? If not please give us an explanation. Thank you Anastadi (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Usually when I am replying to a talk page message I do so on the page on which that message was posted, to avoid fragmenting conversations and making them difficult to follow. On this occasion, however, I think it may be helpful to have a record of what I say on the talk page of your account, so I shall reply there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Always nice when sockmasters announce themselves.

[61] –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Shailendra mohan

Hi James. This user appears only to have set up (in March 2011) a Wikipedia user page as vanity spam. He has contributed absolutely nothing to the project; his pictures from Wikimedia are pure selfies. Does this constitute any infringement of Wikipedia protocols? Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Acabashi: Yes, it goes against two Wikipedia policies: (1) use of a user page as a web host for content unrelated to work for the encyclopaedia, and (2) self-promotion, which, like any kind of promotion, is not permitted. I have deleted the page, but most likely after eight years he has almost forgotten he ever made the page, and will never know that it's gone. In my experience pages like this either get caught by editors on new page patrol within minutes of being created, or else they go unnoticed for years, as this one did. Just as a matter of interest, how did you find it? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: I found it through Wikimedia. When I see photos that look like selfie spam I check to see if they are linked to any Wikipedia page before delete nomming them. Sometimes they link to user pages like this one, and I check to see what kind of Wikipedia editing is evident. Thanks for that. Acabashi (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request: 157.246.0.0/16

Springfield, Oregon, is evidently full of bored students. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Revdel request

I posted a link to the diffs at RFPP before realising they likely qualify for revdel and I should have asked for that first. Anyway, in between point A and point B, there was some stuff added which seems to cross the line of BLP. Would you please take a look? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: I've done the revdel, and I've also imposed pending changes for a month. If that turns out not to be enough, please feel welcome to contact me again. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

More ranges to look at for blocking

Hi, JamesB. I just happened to run across these from Italy:

151.68.0.0/16
151.36.0.0/16
151.38.0.0/16
151.18.0.0/16
151.82.0.0/16
151.34.0.0/16

–Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Most of those ranges have quite a variety of edits, apparently from many different editors, and some of the edits are perfectly constructive. That means that range blocks are not really acceptable. I have semi-protected a few articles, but I just looked for a common theme among the IP ranges you offered, and then looked at articles which, on the basis of their titles, seemed to fit that theme, so I may have missed some (or perhaps even all) of what you had in mind, so please tell me if there are other articles you think I should consider. (I don't intend to check every fairly recent edit from every IP address in every one of those ranges.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Proofreading invitation

Hi!

I've pinged you on the talk page of an article which you have discussed some details with me in the last year.

Not sure if you have received the notice, so I posted here again to bring it up.

If you have already noticed that and decide not to respond, then please excuse me for bothering you again in your talk page.

Best Regards

Tomskyhaha (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Schrödinger's Gattoso

I know you might think it is a joke, but it is not. It is a true and serious article about that theorie. I thought that a good place to begin with by letting people know about it would be Wikipedia. However, if after this, you still think it is inopportune, there is no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of the Universe 322 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Master of the Universe 322: So let's get this straight. You say that the "mental experiment" that you described "revolutionized modern physics as the first concrete proof of the theory of quantum superposition". And you say that was not a joke, i.e. there really has been a revolution in physics as a result of the publication of the story, and that the story really was a "concrete proof of the theory of quantum superposition". Need I say more? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

You have deleted my userpage while I was building, I used a template provided in the user page section called John and was busy deleting non relevant information. User:AdriaanBuys (User talk:AdriaanBuys) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdriaanBuys (talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@AdriaanBuys:
  • Using another editor's user page as a template to create you own is possibly not a good idea, but if you do so then you must state that you are doing so. The first time, you probably didn't realise that when you copy content from a Wikipedia page you must say where you copied it from, for copyright reasons. However, you did the same thing again after I had explained the situation to you.
  • You have now put a copy of John's user page in a sandbox. I suggest you edit it there, and then when you have made it suitable as a user page for yourself copy its contents to your user page, stating in your edit summary that it contains content copied from John's user page.
  • I still stand by what I said on your talk page about spending a lot of time on user page editing before you have made any contributions to articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles you deleted per G5

Three articles that you deleted per G5 (Washington nickel, States two thousand-dollar bill, and Roanoke Island, North Carolina half dollar) were previously deleted per the same criteria, but undeleted by User:Bbb23 as they were notable currency articles. Could you undelete them again? Also, is there any way to avoid this misunderstanding in the future? - ZLEA T\C 16:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

When I deleted the articles I did not know that Bbb23 had deleted them and then changed his mind and restored them, but knowing that does not change the situation. Wikipedia policy is that any page which was created by an editor in violation of a block or ban and which has no substantial contributions from others can be deleted. That is also a policy with which I agree, but I try to uphold policies anyway, even where I personally disagree with them. I have known cases where stubbornly persistent multiple-block-evading sockuppeteers have eventually given up only when it has been made clear to them that in the future anything they do is likely to be reverted or deleted, so they will achieve nothing by creating more sockpuppets. Of course that is not guaranteed to succeed, but it is the one thing which does have a reasonable chance of success for the type of editor involved. There is nothing to prevent any other editor, such as you, from creating a totally new article on the subject of one which has been deleted, but I do not think it would be helpful to restore the articles, conveying to the person who created them that his or her sockpuppet creations do have a reasonable success of surviving after all. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. Would it be possible to get the sources from the deleted articles for use in the new articles? - ZLEA T\C 18:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@ZLEA: Yes, certainly.

Stalking

Guy, if there is some problem with me, then explain it, or just go and report it to any venue necessary. Don’t shadow me, disrupting my work. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: Thank you for expressing your concerns. As far as I recall, the full history of my interactions with you, before you posted to this page, was as follows. You made a criticism of a comment of mine on another editor's talk page, I relied to your criticisim, you made another criticism, and I replied to it. I reverted two of your edits that I thought were mistakes; for one of those I realised that you were right and I was mistaken, so I restord your version, with an edit summary that said "silly me". I don't see how that can be described as stalking. I am also not at all sure why, on the basis of that history, you think that I thought there was "some problem" with you. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The staking itself manifests in visible intervention to three articles recently edited by me during a short timespan – in fact, less than one hour. But it is not stalking itself that annoys me. The case of Hermitian matrix can be dismissed as an unfortunate mistake, but as for compact star I have now to take part in a pointless argument, or concede that a drive-by editor without experience with the topic (astrophysics) may “fix” after my edits. Certainly I am not grateful for it, as otherwise could spend my time better. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: OK, I forgot that you had edited RG color space before I did, but since the edit I made did not relate to the one you made, I don't see any "stalking". As for your comments about editing at Compact star, I suggest you read WP:BRD. You make an edit, another editor disagrees with it and reverts it, so you go to the talk page to discuss the disagreement and try to reach agreement. That is how Wikipedia works, as an editor with your amount of experience must know, and if you choose to edit Wikipedia then you choose to work within that framework. As to "could spend my time better", why is posting here to complain about how I edit a better use of your time than explaining why you think that I am mistaken in thinking that not all stars with small radii are called "compact stars"? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Wasn’t [62] related to the edit immediately preceding it? Not hounding, certainly, but hopefully the “did not relate” claim above is not to be considered seriously. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: You, quite rightly, removed irrelevant content from an article. I then removed some other, unrelated, irrelevant content. Certainly I had seen your edit before I removed mine, and it is very likely that I was motivated to look for more irrelevance by seeing your edit. (I don't remember, because I have got many better things to do than memorise every detail of the thought process that leads to every edit I make.) In that sense there was a connection between my editing and yours, but the content I removed was totally unrelated to the content you had removed, the change I made did not revert, modify, or in any way relate to the change you made beyond the fact that we both removed irrelevant content. If that falls under your understanding of the word "stalking" then in your sense of the word I was stalking you, but I cannot see any reason on earth why you should find it in any way objectionable. I also do not think most English speaking people would call it "stalking".
I shall now answer another point which you asked me to answer before, but which I didn't, because at the time I thought doing so would not be helpful. You wrote "if there is some problem with me, then explain it". Yes, there is a problem, which has been pointed out to you many times, and you never seem to have heard what was said to you about it, so I doubt that telling you once more will do any good, but here it is. You seem to be unable to relate to other people who do anything you don't like without anger, aggression, a general adversarial approach, incivility, and accusations, and you take an ownership attitude to articles which you edit, objecting to others who have the affrontery to edit them in ways you don't like. If you have anything constructive to say to me about those of my edits which you don't like then please do so, but if you have nothing to say other than the kinds of things you have said so far then please regard this conversation as closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
“Ownership attitude”? This accusation is empty-worded – I confronted JamesBWatson only because his intervention to “compact star” made the introduction stupid again, instead of keeping with a modest improvement achieved by me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Yes indeed, you "confronted" me, which is the whole problem. You have a history of "confronting" editors you disagree with. As for ownership, unless your memory is not very good you will know full well that other editors have seen your editing in that light. Of course it could be that everybody except you is wrong about how you behave. However, since you don't seem to have anything to say apart from yet more confrontation, please regard my final comment in my last post above as now operational. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Plastique Tiara

Hello, I was fine with the article being redirected, but I would like to please have the markup restored as she is likely to be notable in the future. Just because one IP editor ignored the AfD result does not mean the article's history should be removed. Are you willing to restore, please? I've requested at Talk:Plastique Tiara and on my user talk page. I'm fine with the page protection as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I will answer the duplicate message on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW/Archive_74&oldid=1211804030"