User talk:JBW/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Reminder

Here's a reminder per your request. Cunard (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing context for the page. By the way, I plan to start a mass nomination for secret pages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2 within the next week or two. See the discussion at User talk:Cunard#Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

About the unblock request by User:GreenGobbie92, I think he was not using his old account because he has lost its password - it is pretty much clearly written there. And about User:Graham1973, they could have a same IP address because they might live in same vicinity and use same ISP. Forgetting a password is pretty normal and common. I just want to help a good faith wikipedian get his account back. Give him a chance and keep an eye on him. Keep the other accounts blocked. Cheers. Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue of a lost password is irrelevant. This is a blocked user trying to evade a block. It is also a user who has abused multiple accounts (the evidence is not just the checkuser results, but behavioural evidence too.) It is also a user who has a history of various kinds of unhelpful editing. Whether or not it is a "good faith wikipedian", it is a Wikipedian who was not a net positive to Wikipedia. (Incidentally, you said User:GreenGobbie92 above, but in fact it is User:Greengobbie92. Because of this mistake, I had to search to find the real user. In the course of doing so I happened to stumble on evidence of sockpuppetry which I had not previously seen, and so the effect of your trivial slip has been to considerably strengthen my belief that the block is justified.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence in what way? He may be learning how to use and edit wikipedia. Thats why he recently discovered userboxes. We all were newbies when we first arrived on wikipedia. But later we learned to cite our sources. He deserves to be blocked on behavioral evidence if he has vandalized a page. If so, which one? And besides the block request was because of sockpuppetry. (I) We need to see when was the last time the User:King kong92 was used. And when was the first time when User:Greengobbie92 was used. If these two times dont overlap this would prove that he was forced to make a new account because he lost his password. If the times do overlap, then he is wrong and deserves being accused of sock puppetry. (II) If only he is given another chance, is it not somehow possible, that two previous accounts are deleted or kept blocked and his Greengobbie92 account is unblocked. I am pretty sure he learned his lesson by now. He now knows that administrators have access to tools that he cannot escape. Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I find "If these two times dont overlap this would prove that he was forced to make a new account because he lost his password" totally bewildering. How on earth would it prove that? I am also puzzled as to why you don't just look at their editing histories and find out the dates. If you did so you would find that the respective dates were 6 December 2009 and 20 June 2010. Have you looked at the edit histories of all the various sock puppets? If you have and can still believe that the similarity of interests, the similarity of editing styles, etc etc are just chance coincidence then you surprise me. Then there are the similarities among some of the user names used (King kong922/King kong92, Greengoblin92/Greengobbie92). Yes, it is perfectly possible for different users to independently come up with such similar user names, but come up with such similar user names and edit on the same range of topics, often the same articles, and frequently make similar edits, with similar style, similar citing habits, similar introductions of OR, etc, and frequently have one account coincidentally start up shortly after another one has been blocked, and show up to a checkuser as being the same user? That many chance coincidences stretch credulity a long way. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have taken this discussion to User talk:Greengobbie92 Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Err??

Please undelete. We're getting on making sure the page is properly edited, etc. Would be open to suggestions, and I"m board to help ensure accuracy and following wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.128.92 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Undelete what? (This does not seem to relate at all to the section it was posted in, so I have segregated it into its own section.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reason cited

Hey - there is a reason listed for the removals at List of Legacy of Kain characters. The site no longer exists, and was noted. 60.241.188.222 (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that now. It's a good idea to always use an edit summary to make it clear. The note I left you said "Please do not remove content from pages without explanation", as you will see. Thanks for explaining it now, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Need your opinion/assistance in resolving dispute w/ "suposed" high-ranking, anti-vandal editor

I need your assistance resolving a bit of a dispute I am currently having with a supposed high-ranking "anti-vandalism" editor- username "Grayshi". Lately, he has been undoing many of the images I had added to the "Chinatown, San Francisco" article some months ago on the grounds of "excessive imaging". He has also basically removed all of the images from the "Kobe Chinatown" article which I had practically edited from the ground up via a pre-existing work. When I pointed out the he had left more images standing in the "Chinatown, Los Angeles" article and hinted at the possibility of a double standard in regards to "excessive imaging", his only response was that the images were irrelevant to the text and that I should read up on the WP files concerning protocols for inserting images. It mostly states that images should correspond to the texts(which I've tried to accommodate), but it doesn't specifically mention that it was required(unless I overlooked that bit), nor did it say anything to the effect of "excessive imaging is a NO NO!"

I also find it highly strange that Grayshi is trying to impose such standards on others, while not following them himself. Many of the images he removed from "Chinatown, San Francisco" were relevant to the text, including one that was of historical importance regarding the section on Ross Alley during the 1880s. In contrast, he has left more lame images standing in the "Chinatown, Los Angeles" page, most of which aren't historically important or relevant to the text, violating his on stance on "excessive imaging". Simply put, he is specifically targeting users like myself and randomly pulling out images without giving much thought. With such obvious display of favoritism towards one article over another, IMO he is also violating Wikipedia's "neutral" policy.

Some of the images in question from "Chinatown, San Francisco" had been there for YEARS before he came along to wipe them out. ---->If possible, could you please tell him to chill out and stop targeting pages edited by certain users and lecturing them on the moral rights and wrongs of Wiki. He's spending way too much time obsessed with removing images, when he could be doing more important things like checking for historical and factual accuracy, correcting mis-spellings, and removing obvious vandalism and obscenities, which I can assure you there are plenty of on Wikipedia.<--- I would also like to mention that I know of a good number of articles the same size with tons of images(often not relevant to the text) that make the "Chinatown, San Francisco" pale in comparison. These are also well-edited articles that are locked/restricted to special editors. For obvious reasons, I will not reveal their identity for fear that Grayshi will wipe them dry of their visual quality as well. To me, images tell a story and convey what can't be described in words. That's what I've always felt about Wikipedia which makes it stand out from other informative sites, and hope to continue to.

Has there ever been complaints against such editors for going too overboard, even to the point of being disciplined? Currently, I am not even working full-time and can barely find time to keep up this insipid battle. Don't some of these editors have lives? Family? Friends? A Pet? Hobby?

Thanks,

R. Beecher Wiki user: MealMachine MealMachine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

Clearly you and Grayshi have different views on how many images are suitable, in a number of articles. However, this looks to me like a simple difference of opinion, rather than an issue of policy. It is true that Grayshi has removed many images from some articles, and only one from Chinatown, Los Angeles, but I see no reason to doubt that this is an expression of perfectly good faith view on the relevance of the images. Action can be taken against editors who persistently edit disruptively, even in good faith, but I really don't see that this is on a scale to warrant any intervention. You may like to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see if it helps. I also suggest starting an article talk page discussion, which may possibly bring other editors in, so that you could see where consensus lies. Wikipedia:Requests for comment might attract others in to such a discussion, but it is not guaranteed to work. I really don't wish to take sides in this, but for what it's worth I am personally more in line with Grayshi's opinions on how many images are suitable than with yours. However, that is only a personal opinion, and I have no intention at all of trying to impose it.

I hope that my comments have been some help. They don't give a definitive answer, but that is because I don't actually think there is one. It's essentially a question of discussion, seeing where consensus lies, and above all of being willing to compromise or even back down altogether. I do sympathise with your feelings if you have put a lot of work in and seen it gone, but with different editors having different views it is sometimes necessary to accept that things won't go the way you would have liked. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, my only complaint is not whether I am putting too many images, but why there is a double standard when applying it to me. To re-iterate, there are more images on the "Chinatown, Los Angeles Page" which he is already aware of, and yet he has done nothing. There are also other smaller-sized aricles with tons of more images which would be categorized as being "irrelevant" by Grayshi's standards. These are really excellent pages whose identity I won't revleal for fear that he'll do likewise with them. What Wikipedia should do is add in a function to set a limit for the amount of images based on size. Then editors —Preceding unsigned comment added by MealMachine (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. It appears to me to be not an issue of number of images, but rather an issue of relevance of images, and the two cases do not seem to be comparable, so I see no sign of "double standards". I can also see no evidence at all that Grayshi has any sort of personal vendetta against you. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Per your request on my talk page, I am notifying you that I have started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uchiha23/Awards is a related discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Manganvesuvianite wikipedia page

hello, I recently started a page for manganvesuvianite because I am doing a project for Mineralogy at the University of Texas at Austin, we have to slowly update the page with different information and you deleted my page, which I have to print out and give to my professor, by the end of the semester there will be a full page on this mineral, could you reinstate the page please?

Marty

Mm45883 (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to retrieve the text of the article, I will give it to you. However, Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, not a free web space provider, and I am not willing to restore the article, which did not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.

The full text of the article was:

Manganvesuvianite

chemical formula

Ca19Mn3+(Al,Mn3+)10(Mg,Mn2+)2(SiO4)10(Si2O7) 4O(OH)

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

^ (the report bit just below that). Cheers. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your name was mentioned in an appeal that I made.

See [1]. If you want to review this appeal and make more specific comments you are welcome. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Syclo - deleted submission

James - I know Syclo has been taken off Wikipedia already, but I wanted to point out that there is a valid reason for being listed - "listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications." (reason #2 for company inclusion). Syclo is mentioned in independent analyst reports, among them Gartner MQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Quadrant), IDC, Aberdeen and Frost, as being one of the leaders in the mobile enterprise software market. Is this a factor for inclusion?

I'll edit what might be considered "self-promotion" and re-submit, looking at Syclo competitors and partners as examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIBER) Please let me know if you have any direction.

Thanks.

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Nholman7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

14:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tonetta Chester

I am trying to create an article about a nationally published author, Tonetta Chester. I see that previously it was posted but has since been deleted. Before I post information about her can you please suggest what can be done to insure that this article stays a part of the wikipedia database? Mwilson52607 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Mwilson52607

(talk page stalker) The article was originally deleted due to this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonetta Chester. For a new article not to be deleted, the minimum requirement would be that the subject of the article has now recieved non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources. A search a news.google.com and books.google.com does not suggest that anything has changed. And the publisher [2] appears to be a WP:SELFPUBLISH / print on demand type of service, not a traditional publisher.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Active Banana. Mwilson52607, I suggest you read the pages that Active Banana has provided links to. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So can this article be listed a biography about a living person? Mwilson52607 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Mwilson52607

Although she owns her own publishing company (TC Publishing & Consulting Group)she is an author that has been published by Wheatmark and distributed by Ingram House (an internationally renowned company). I am not sure I understand your definition of notability. I'm just trying to ensure I get it right. Thank you so much for all your help. Mwilson52607 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Mwilson52607

Reckless Love page deleting

Hi!

Reckless Love, the Finnish glam metal band is one of the most popular bands in Finland this year. Band's debyt album "Reckless Love" reached the official top 50 list in Finland a week after its publishing. Reckless Love's singles has been in YleX Himotuimmat lists for many times. YleX is a part of the national radio and tv, Yle.

The band is nominated to Classic Rock Magazine Roll of hounour awards as a "Best new band", and for sure, that's a big deal. Band also played two conserts in legendary Download 2010 festival. In this fall it's touring the UK.

I'm a new guy in here Wikipedia, so I dont know how to add references. Reckless Love has got wiki-pages in Deutsch, Español, Italiano and Svenska and it would be nice if the Enlish pages could be done and in safe.

Please, tell me a step by step info so I can add the references. Reckless love ain't no "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriFIN (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the article Reckless Love certainly was an "article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Whether the band has importance or significance I do not know, but the article did not indicate that it has. Have a look at the general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to see what is required to establish notability. Once you have found suitable sources there is the question of how to add references to the article. There are several ways of doing this, but for the moment the simplest is as follows. At the point in the article where the reference is relevant, put <ref> the source you are using as a reference </ref>. Then, near the bottom of the article, make a section with the heading "references", and in that section put <references/>. This will automatically create a list of the references you have made using <ref> ... </ref> in the article.

To make it easier for you to work on the article, I have restored it and "userfied" it at User:HenriFIN/Reckless Love. The idea is that this is a temporary working copy for you to work on, and it can be returned to Reckless Love when it is ready. Please note that a userfied copy of an article is not a long term way of avoiding deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 85.12.104.70's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

12:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to add my company profile on wikipedia but i am unable to do that

I want to addmy company in wikipedi please..... help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsharmataj (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please note our policy on conflict of interest. You probably should not be adding an article about your company. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 15:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

15:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Giraffe Heroes

Hello,

I just created a page called Giraffe Heroes Project and you deleted it because of Copyright infringement. I did copy/paste from the GHP website, but I have permission from Ann Medlock, the Project's founder and my grandmother. What do you need to prove this and repost the page?

Thank you, Kathleen Newbould [email redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knewbould (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Kathleen. Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials has details (this section in particular): the easiest way is to get Ann to explicitly license the website's content under a "copyleft" license. Alternatively, you can email Wikipedia with permission. Hope that helps. If not, I'm not the copyright/licensing expert I'm pretending to be, but I know one or two editors who are, and I can get them to fill out details I've missed. TFOWR 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There were other issues, apart from copyright, and I have posted to the user's talk page about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson-- Please let me know how a 25-year-old US 501(c)3 nonprofit gets a page up at Wikipedia. I authorized one of our young volunteers to do this and it was taken down instantly, over your signature. We are legit, non-profit, and have a solid history. Other nonprofits are on Wikipedia. What do we have to do? AnnMedlock (Founder of Giraffe Heroes www.giraffe.org. AnnMedlock (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are asking a very common question. Many people come to Wikipedia to publicise their organisation, and are quite unprepared for teh treatment their work receives, when they discover that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" does not mean "anyone can add information to Wikipedia on any subject they like". Unfortunately, however, you are asking the wrong question. Wikipedia strongly discourages anyone with a close involvement in an organisation from editing about that organisation. There are, as I see it, at least two good reasons for this. Firstly, there are people who come here with the unambiguous intention of promoting their organisation, at times even deliberately misrepresenting it. Secondly, there are people who come here with the sincere intention of contributing objective information, but because of their close involvement with the subject, they are unable to stand back and see what they write from the perspective of an uninvolved outsider, with the result that their editing does have a promotional character, even though they are unaware of the fact. If you read the deletion log entries for Giraffe Heroes Project you will see that three reasons are given: (1) Copyright infringement. If this were the only problem it could easily be dealt with. (2) Promotion. This is likely to be more difficult to deal with, for the reasons I have mentioned. Potentially it could be dealt with, but a person involved in the organisation is not in a good position to do so. (3) Lack of indication of notability. If the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines then any effort put into writing an article about it is likely to be wasted, as the article is likely to be deleted again. No amount of rewriting an article will make a non-notable subject notable. I have briefly searched for information on the Giraffe Heroes Project, and on the face of it it seems likely that it does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. If, however, it does so, then sooner or later some independent, uninvolved person is likely to write an article on it from a neutral outsider's pint of view.

If you wish to read further on the points I have mentioned, you may like to look at some of the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines: the general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Being non-profit is actually irrelevant: Wikipedia's inclusion criteria do not distinguish between commercial businesses and non-profit enterprises. Finally, comparison with articles on other organisations is not as relevant as you are perfectly reasonably likely to think, for two reasons. Firstly, there may be reasons why another, seemingly similar, organisation, actually satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria better than yours, even if you are unaware of those reasons. Secondly there is the reason described at WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

James Turnbull

Sup James,

I don't beleive Mr. Turnbull meets {{db-a7}}. But since I am unfamiliar with WP:AfD, I will point it out to you and consider it a learning process. Cheers! QuAzGaA 17:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Existential instantiation

I was wondering why you chose to delete the page for existential instantiation. There exists a page for universal instantiation and so it just seems to make sense that there should be one for existential instantiation. Also, the page for instantiation links to both of these two and mentions both as two separate rules of inference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsaraph (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it seems on the face of it reasonable to treat existential instantiation and universal instantiation alike. However, the articles were not alike. Universal instantiation explains what the concept means, including giving an example. Existential instantiation, on the other hand, merely made a rather vague statement about the concept, and would not explain what it meant to anyone not already acquainted with the subject. Even if it were rewritten to make its meaning clearer, Wikipedia's policy is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and articles that give no more than a definition of a word or expression are therefore not acceptable. In my opinion even Universal instantiation does not really justify its existence in those terms, but it does give a little more than a definition. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Existential instantiation resulted in a consensus to delete Existential instantiation. The latest version, which you wrote, was not identical to the version considered in that discussion, but it retained all of the defects discussed there which led to its deletion. If an article has been deleted following consensus at a deletion discussion, and if essentially the same article is recreated, without addressing the issues which led to deletion, then the new creation is subject to speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

José Carlos Pesina Siller, aka Pepepe

I have a vague recollection of contributing to an article about José Carlos Pesina Siller, aka Pepepe, aka Pesina Siller aka Los Amparito. I just noticed in my watchlist that you deleted Pepepe and I can't recollect what the problem was, which bugs me, and there is no summary of any sort. Was it PRODed? Did I PROD it? I recollect it being a direct translation of an article in the Spanish wikipedia. If this is too much of a bother, forget it, I'm sure there was a good reason for the deletion. --Muhandes (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all sorry for deleting without giving a reason. This is a mistake which can easily happen when an article has a PRODBLP on it, because other types of deletion templates (speedy deletion, PROD, etc) automatically give a default reason, but PRODBLP doesn't. The article had an expired PRODBLP, which was placed on it by TeleComNasSprVen. You made a number of edits to the article, mostly of a general cleaning up type, I think, on the basis of a quick skim through them. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I guess the PRODBLP was added when I was on vacation and I didn't notice it when I returned. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice that in your recent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kacher you wrote "We have also consulted with our attorneys at Reed Smith and are prepared to take this to a higher level if necessary". I am not sure whether you had in mind here possible legal action against the Wikimedia foundation or against another party. Can you please clarify this? It is important to be clear as to whether you intended to suggest possible legal action against Wikimedia, in light of Wikipedia's legal threats policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not against Wikimedia or Wikipedia as I think they are brilliant examples of open source. No other site has grown as fast from the diligence of people who wish to share knowledge.

I notice that you have posted three copies of your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kacher on my talk page. At first I thought this was a slip due to lack of experience in editing Wikipedia, perhaps inadvertently saving the same edit repeatedly. but looking more closely I found that your three postings were spread over a period of 55 minutes, and I find it difficult to see this as an error. I do not know what your purpose was in making these multiple postings, but please do not do so again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, James. It was my own lack of experience in editing on Wikipedia. I wrote out quite a bit, so wanted to save it to prevent accidental loss. I did this three times. I didnt realize it would save a newer copy to your page each time. What is the next step in this debate? I am unfamiliar with the mechanics of Wikipedia. I have no problem providing links as I have done, or documents to supplement the claims others have placed on the page. You may notice that there was a debate back in 2007 that I was two different people, but somehow it was settled.

Thank you, Chris Kacher christian.geographia@gmail.com

Teardroprain (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

YAY for editconflicts

YAY for editconflicts :D --Wolfnix • Talk • 17:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wolfnix has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for making Wikipedia less useful

I'm writing to you in response to this: "Hello, Smithfarm. I see that several of your recent edits have been additions of meanings to disambiguation pages for abbreviations. However, a disambiguation page is for distinguishing among Wikipedia articles, not for lists of meanings not linking to relevant articles. Consequently your additions have been reverted."

The edits you are referring to were made when I went to Wikipedia to find out the meaning of an acronym. (This is something many people go to Wikipedia for, I expect.) When I found that the list of meanings on the acronym's page was incomplete, I added whatever was missing. When you revert useful edits such as these, you make Wikipedia less useful to others. Thanks, and happy policing!

--Smithfarm (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines you are of course welcome to suggest changing them. However, when another editor goes to the trouble to explain the guidelines to you, to take the line "I don't like the message so I will shoot the messenger" is not constructive. I think also that in the long run you will find other editors are more helpful to them if you are civil to them, even if you don't like what they have done. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Hi James, it has been over 48 hours (I'd lost my internet connection in the meantime) so could you please look at my request when you have time: User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_17#Re:_September_2010. Thanks, Mattlore (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tom & Jerry unsourced trvia vandal is back

That editor hell-bent on adding unsourced trivia to Tom & Jerry articles is back again - editing from 86.157.78.170 for now... perhaps we should look into semi-protecting the affected articles for a while, until that editor cools off, or gets bored? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I know it's tedious protecting all those page, but that editor just wouldn't stop, even after having the sourcing issue explained to him over and over... and over... Guess we'll see what happens now... :) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Tedious yes, and so I would prefer not to have to do it, but that does not mean I won't do it if it's necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess who again... :( already reported him, but he's editing from 86.158.160.76 today... persistent little bugger.... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

More tedium. How many of these damned Tom and Jerry articles are there? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Melaniegravdal

JamesBWatson- You deleted two pages - Globus family of brands and Avalon Waterways. Please provide me the content. Then, I ask that you please not delete these pages again. You cited "advertising" as the reason for deletion, yet both articles were sourced by more than 10 third-party editorial articles and provided much more sourcing than 90 percent of the content on Wikipedia. I understand your aversion to articles about companies, but unless you delete EVERY company on this site, your deletion of both the Globus family of brands and Avalon Waterways was both unfair and unwarranted. Further, the Avalon Waterways page was up for about a month and was edited by several people so in essence, you're telling all of us that our content isn't important by simply deleting it. Believe it or not, the content is important to thousands of people ... They look to Wikipedia to provide their insight about things, people, places and yes, even brands. Please don't simply delete that opportunity because you don't think companies/brands should be represented.

In addition, it's worth noting that I didn't have an opportunity to provide the {{hangon}} tag for either site before deletion of either site. And, when the Globus family of brands site was originally nominated for deletion from YouSou, it was done while I was still editing and creating the article - another very unprofessional thing to do.

Melaniegravdal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaniegravdal (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 September 2010

The articles were deleted because they were unambiguously promotional, not because of lack of sourcing, nor because they were about companies, nor because their content was not important to many people, nor because I don't think companies/brands should be represented. Apart from a few minor copyedits and removal of some unsuitable content, Avalon Waterways was edited by one registered user and one anonymous user, who may or may not be a different person. I am not sure why you describe YouSou's action as "unprofessional", but since editing Wikipedia is not a profession, it is irrelevant anyway. I have userfied the articles for you at User:Melaniegravdal/Globus Family of Brands and User:Melaniegravdal/Avalon Waterways. Please understand that this is a temporary measure to allow you to improve them before they are restored as articles, and not a long term way of avoiding deletion of unsuitable articles. Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is not permissible anywhere, including in userspace pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

At the time I wrote the above you had not informed me that Requests for undeletion had been filed and rejected for both these articles. Since they had been considered and rejected by another administrator, I shall delete the pages again. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

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

Admittedly, I don't understand all of the rules/criteria of Wikipedia - I'm not sure anyone could. I contested the article deletion at the same time I sent you the email. Clearly, you have a strong understanding of the user-generated content, editor rules, etc. And, while I disagree that the articles I created (Globus family of brands and Avalon Waterways) were "unambiguously promotion" - again, the content was pulled from third-party, editorial resources - I would be grateful for your suggestions for improving the articles so I can restore them. I don't want this to become a tug-of-war, I simply want both the Globus family of brands and Avalon Waterways to have content on Wikipedia and would appreciate your help/advice/suggestions for making that happen.

I'm not sure this message will get to you (confused by the talkback/talk functions of the site) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaniegravdal (talk • contribs) 13:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(Unrelated) It's spelled Yousou, not YouSou. Just for clarification. Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Globus Family of Brands and Avalon Waterways advertisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

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

JamesBWatson. I appreciated your kind insight and feedback on MyTalk page. Your point-of-view makes sense and has been helpful. 17:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please undelte GDiesel page

James,

Working on revisions. I thought you were going to undelte the GDiesel page. Plese undelete. Thanks you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.128.92 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User Kibele and her lynch campaign for Mr. Hasan Sami Bolak

Hi;

User:Kibele is a personal political enemy of Mr. Hasan Sami Bolak and she had a political lynch campaign in order to delete his article in the Turkish wikipedia. She has real hate of him that she deletes his name whereever she sees as you can see also on Alparslan Türkeş and Necip Fazıl Kısakürek articles. She also uses puppets to get rid of three revert rule on the edit wars. She is a dictator in the Turkish wikipedia and using lots of puppets to use in her campaigs. Pls think about this situation and help me on her edit wars. Thanks. 212.156.67.30 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Khalidnawaz123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

08:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

included personal attacks? please analysis good, my contributions and this. if its "has happened on Turkish Wikipedia is completely irrelevant" what is it all the words 'lynch', 'dictator', 'sockpupetts' etc.? thanks for attention. --Kibele (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I have removed the warning message which you copied to this page. Please do not copy warning messages from one user's talk page to another to indicate what you are talking about, as it gives the misleading impression that the warning applies to the second editor. Better is to provide a link to the edit in question, or to simply state in a few words what you are referring to.
2. If someone suggests that you are using sockpuppets then you can respond to the accusation. It is not appropriate to remove the relevant wording so as to hide the fact that the suggestion has been made.
3. Frequently accusations of sockpuppetry are mistaken, but if the accusations are made in good faith they are not personal attacks.
4. What has been decided on Turkish Wikipedia is irrelevant to what happens on English Wikipedia, as different Wikipedias are autonomous, and often have different standards. Thus the fact that an article has been deleted on Turkish Wikipedia is not grounds for deleting it on English Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

2mcctv Cube

Dear James B Watson, This is 2mcctv Cube, a Technical Writer from Jordan, who works as a Technical Writer in the Marketing Dept.for a USA based Company in the field of Security Cameras and Video Surveillance System. i registered in Wikipedia in order to have the chance to read and contribute by editing and improving content of various articles and topics as a mean of marketing my skills and help others improve their knowledge regarding any specific topic. i tried to add some external links to two pf Wikipedia articles: 1) CCTV and 2) IP Camera, but it seems that my links violates your editing guidelines, so in order not to make any vandalism acts, i'd be grateful if you help me and support me by explaining how can i be a good and selective contributor in your prime website?, and how can i add/edit content that would be compatible for English and non English users of Wikipedia English Page?

I look forward hearing from you in the very soon. Thank you for this space

Regards 2mcctv Cube —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2mcctv Cube (talk • contribs) 09:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the essential clue is in your remark "as a mean of marketing my skills". Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion or marketing of anything, whether yourself, your work skills, your company, a web site in which you have an interest, or anything else. The links you provided appear to be there principally because you wished to call attention to the linked pages, rather than to supplement the content of the Wikipedia articles. This is contrary to Wikipedia's guideline on external links. I strongly suggest that you start by editing in ways which do not relate directly to yourself, other work you have done elsewhere, any web site you contribute to, any company you work for, or anything else in which you may have a conflict of interest. By all means edit on topics of which you have a knowledge, but that is not the same thing. If you are happy to edit here objectively, keeping a distance from anything to which you have a personal or professional connection, then you should be able to make useful contributions. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hi JamesBWatson. The edit summary here insults me. (The same user also made personal comments about tr.wiki sysops in the same page.) I'm an experienced user in Turkish Wiki and unfortunately used to attacks like this. I want to inform you about the policy violate, because you are a sysop here. I will appreciate if you take interest. Thank you in advance. -- yabancı^m 09:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I also want to comment about this static IP. By his own admission (tr), which you can confirm with another Turkish-speaking contributor, he is a user who has been indefinitely blocked from the Turkish Wiki. As you can see from his contributions here, he has a misconceived perception about a number of sysops at the Turkish Wiki, due no doubt to his inability to accept the wrongfulness and severity of his actions which ultimately led to the indefinite block. Having been called "dictators", "puppets", instigators of "lynching campaigns" and "political enemies", User:Kibele and User:Yabancı are justifiably offended by the personal attacks directed towards them by this IP. It was only moments ago that he tried to provoke (tr) User:Kibele. I request that appropriate steps be taken to sanction this IP so that he can no longer continue his cross-wiki harassment. --Pinar (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. It is clear that there is a problem here, but I think it is too complex for me to feel I can deal with it. Perhaps you may like to take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks James. Will do. Pinar (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Michel Germain page

I noticed that you had deleted the Michel Germain page that I had created. I am not trying to advertise anything but since I know the perfume well and his name is practically the only name on the "List of Perfumes" page that does not have a link to a page about who he is, I wanted to create a page so that people can know who Michel Germain is. How can I rewrite the page so that it doesn't sound like advertisement? I tried to get as many references as I could but I put the page up with what I had while I continued to research. Thank you for your help with this - I just want people to have a place to go to find out about the Perfume Designer "Michel Germain" and since I use Wikipedia a LOT, I thought that this would be the place to find the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.46.87 (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole tenor of the article was promotional. If you honestly did not see it that way then my guess is that one or both of the following applies: (1) You are closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. "He continues to create various enticing and unique fragrances", for example, is at best an expression of personal opinion, and at worst an attempt to promote. It is certainly not an objective statement of fact. (2) You work in advertising, marketing, or "public relations", and are so used to marketing prose that you have become desensitised to it, and are unaware of it. If neither of those applies then I can only suggest you think carefully about how what you write will look to an outsider.

In addition, much of the article contained purely personal material which really did not have encyclopaedic value. (e.g "Michel met his wife Norma who inspired him to find a fragrance she truly enjoyed; she told him she would only wear a fragrance that made her feel beautiful and sexy.").

None of the "references" you gave constituted substantial coverage from an independent reliable source. Some were clearly from promotional sites, most made only brief mention of Germain, at least one (maybe more) was a website which anyone can edit, and so not a reliable source, and so on. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

GDiesel

Did not get to see the PROD delete until yesterday, and did not have a chance to respond re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDiesel. Is there a way for people to know in advance that there is a propsoed delete on a particular page?

George2140 (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The person proposing deletion should ideally notify anyone who has substantially contributed to the article. However, checking through strings of edits to determine exactly which editors have made substantial edits is something that very few editors do, and in practice it is usually only the original creator of the article who gets notified. It is possible to check at Category:Proposed deletion, which links to pages giving lists of all pending proposed deletions. However, to be realistic, it is unlikely that you will want to regularly check through all of the pending deletion proposals to see if they include any pages you may have an interest in.

The conclusion of this is that there is probably really no realistic way of knowing if an article is proposed for deletion except looking back at it. However, all is not lost. If an article has been deleted following a PROD you can contact the deleting administrator and ask them to undelete it. Although you have not actually asked for undeletion, it is clear that you are not happy with the deletion. If you would like to ask me to I will undelete the article. However, I think it is only fair to tell you that if I do so I think the article will very probably be deleted again, perhaps following an article for deletion discussion. The article did not really establish notability for its subject, and was also in my opinion sufficiently promotional in character to be borderline for speedy deletion on that basis. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nver heard back from you regarding undeleting the "GDiesel" page. Please undelete as you suggested. I want to upload new info that works better for the Wiki site ... George2140 (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Resident Identity Card

Hello. Just in case you weren't aware, the talk page hasn't been moved yet. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Done now. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

About Serge Marjollet again

Hi ! Thank you for your first reply. However, the original article that I have submitted has been deleted by user Jack D Campbell on grounds of "personal attack and defamation" (it was not, since that first article has many published, trustable sources). On 3rd September, it has been replaced by an article which is much, much softer in tone and is bordering on self-advertisement. I'm kinda new to contributing. What shall I do next ? Shall I ask for a Request for Comments ? I know this is a delicate subject but at the very least, I don't think wikipedia should be used for self-promotion and advertisement. Thanks, any suggestion will be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsuoi492ufc (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Instinct Magazine

   * 15:29, 16 September 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Instinct (magazine)" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: non-notable, apparently dead magazine)

Could you please undo the above deletion. This magazine is NOT dead, it is America's #1 gay mens magazine and has been in existence for 13 years.

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Instinct Magazine "Instinct Magazine - America's #1 Gay Men's Magazine. A clever mix of Cosmo and Maxim, Instinct is funny, sexy, and smart, and is a new kind of gay magazine ... www.amazon.com/Instinct-Magazine/product-reviews/B00006KIJJ - Cached

Basically, you turned a hoax into a reason to delete the article.

Or, at the very least, this needs to be discussed. Simply deleting because of an expired prod is not enough in this case.Ryoung122 19:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to your request I was about to restore this article, but found that Mkativerata has already done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Marketing-speak

I have made a copy of your eloquent words in the "Michel Germain page" section above, and expect to use them often. You have expressed beautifully the frustration I have often felt in dealing with people so soaked in marketing-speak that they genuinely cannot understand why we think their words are promotional. Thank you! JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of 80.47.125.248

Hello JamesBWatson. 80.47.125.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou !

Just want to say thank you for unblocking me. All the best.80.47.125.248 (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ricci Riccardi

Hi JamesBwatson, Can you please explain to me why the page Ricci Riccardi was deleted. Is it because there were too many links to external sites? Should I wait until my name is mentioned on the Nadine Coyle page and then put the page up with all the proof in the album sleeve liner notes? And as for the article not recognizing the importance of the person, I disagree considering that all the comments are factual and have already happened. I am not trying to advertise myself, I wish merely for people to beable to find out information on my relevance to the Nadine Coyle project, in the same way that I look up other music producers on your wiki website whenever I hear a record I like. Should I put it up and take the external links out and put some source references in? Could you please explain to me how I should write this page so that it meets your criteria? R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricci Riccardi (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the cause of your doubt is. You have already been told that the deletion was deleted because it did not indicate notability, and you have been given links to the relevant guidelines to indicate what is required. None of those, as far as I am aware, could be read as meaning that "too many links to external sites" is a reason for deletion. You say "And as for the article not recognizing the importance of the person, I disagree considering that all the comments are factual and have already happened." However, I had breakfast this morning. That is factual, and has already happened, but is not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. You may like to look at Wikipedia:But it's true! or Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability or both, on the subject of "it's really true" not being sufficient grounds for inclusion. Finally, you ask "how I should write this page so that it meets your criteria". Unfortunately this is the wrong question. That question should only be asked after you have asked "is this subject suitable for a Wikipedia article", and determined that the answer is "yes". No amount of rewriting will make a non-notable subject notable. I have searched on the internet for information about Ricci Riccardi, and found facebook, myspace, etc etc, but nothing suggesting notability according to the criteria which you have been directed to. There is also really no good way of writing an article about yourself, although you have clearly decided to ignore the advice you were given on the conflict of interest guideline. If you are really notable enough to appear in an encyclopaedia then someone else will no doubt write an article about you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Digimon Tamers re-protection

Can you put Digimon Tamers back into semi-protection mode? After the protection of the said article expired, the Indonesian misinformation vandal came back and put his brand of vandalism on the article as 114.57.114.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) about an hour ago. Same thing on List of Little League World Series Championship Game broadcasters, using the above address and as 202.70.54.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) yesterday. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: The Indonesian vandal struck again, using the address 118.137.143.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (which is outside the coverage of the current rangeblock on 118.137.0.0/17; rangeblock on 118.137.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) may be in order against this guy). Some of the pages he vandalized had their protection expired a few days ago (e.g. Digimon Adventure 02, Digimon Frontier, Digimon Data Squad, Little League World Series on television, and Digimon Adventure to name a few) and have taken advantage of them. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat reluctant to place large rangeblocks because of collateral inconvenience to other users. Having just yesterday dealt with a case of an innocent user being caught in a rangeblock I am very much conscious of this problem. I will compromise by imposing a very short-term rangeblock, but unfortunately that will probably not be very effective. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How about the articles I've listed? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marty And Doug's New Religion

Hello, you are kind of involved having deleted one version of this article and so I hope you can help get things sorted out properly. The article has been created and speedy deleted several times under at least two variations of the name Marty And Doug's New Religion, Marty and doug's new religion and was speedy deleted while an AfD was in process and a further recreation under the version of the name that wasnt under the AfD process. Soo does the AfD continue or is the recreated article speedied again or what? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

At present both versions are deleted, and the creator blocked, so there doesn't seem any point in pursuing it. If it gets re-created again then we can think about it again. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor understanding of what an Encyclopedia is

I find it absurd that you delete an entire article merely on the grounds of arguing semantics. To give a direct example of your poor argument, I will use the word "semantics" as an example. If I were to google the word "semantics", the very first response I might well get would be the wikipedia page for the word "semantics". The very first statement of the wikipedia entry might begin with "Semantics is...". The following would be the definition of the word semantics. Of course it goes on further to explain more about semantics in general, but it initially starts with the definition, or, rather, embellishes up on the definition. I do apologize for not adding more to each article/entry at the time of their creation, but giving a start to each article does not entail what the entire article is bound to be. I did notice that you did nothing concerning my edits to the Thematic Transformation (Mostly known as Thematic Development). If you would have further looked into why I created those pages with simple definitions it is due to my editing of the Thematic Development page (which should be renamed, and the page should be "re-cached" so it will come up on a google search). I have a very rudimentary understanding of the dealings of creating a prominent page that will show up on google (as far as caches are concerned) which is something that you could help me with. But deleting an entire page based on the argument that Wikipedia is not a dictionary is incredibly ignorant and ironic within itself. An encyclopedia, or encyclopædia, is a collection the entire range human knowledge on many, or sometimes just particular, subjects. Knowledge about something includes, and derives from, its definition! The fact that you misunderstand the definition of the word "encyclopedia" only to tell me that wikipedia is not a dictionary is hilarious to me because of its beautiful irony (unlike Alanis Morissette's song "Irony", which is ironic...). If you are arguing that wikipedia is not an actual encyclopedia of any scholarly kind, then I would agree with you, but if you are arguing semantics, then you are clearly at fault and lack proper judgment in "enforcing" what defines wikipedia.

If you could restore the article and possibly help me to expand it and the many other music articles that are simply vapid, then I would be much obliged. If you can not restore the article due to my incredibly late response, then you, James, have just deleted knowledge and truly fucked up.

Evifnoskcaj (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also, there are pages for "Transposition" and "Inversion" which fall under the grander term of "Permutation" much like "Retrograde" does as they are all types of "Permutation". So, if "Retrograde" must be deleted, then the rest should go as well. If you disagree, then I suggest that you help in adding a page for "Retrograde" and get whoever checks your musical knowledge for wiki to a nunnery (or just a college). In short, just look at this damn article and tell me what you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_development

P.P.S. Here's the link to the wikipedia article of "semantics" just in case really need to check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

P.P.P.S. Although I don't have a page on wikipedia set up for you to stalk, I am indeed still a real person, and not some fact checking robot of sorts sent here by your archnemesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archenemy), Encyclopædia Britannica.

P.P.P.P.S. Maybe I should just take my "definitions" to your bastard son, wikitionary.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Evifnoskcaj (talk • contribs) 06:57, 18 September 2010

1. I have no idea what deleted article you are referring to. There are no deleted contributions in your editing history. Did you create the article using a different account?
2. As far as I can make out the essential point of your long and rather involved comment is that you disagree with the notion that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a reason for deletion of an article which contains only a definition, and that we should accept such articles. This is a reasonable view. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a Wikipedia policy. If you wish to argue for a change in that policy then you are perfectly at liberty to do so: I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would be a good place to do so. However, haranguing an individual administrator for administering the policy which you disagree with is likely to be a waste of time.
3. Wiktionary is indeed a more appropriate place for dictionary definitions.
4. On the whole, editors who disagree with other editors tend, I find, to have a greater chance of gaining cooperation if they are civil. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Quit horsing with the IP troll

• James, I'm sure you can tell by now that that (71.178.55.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is just toying with you, let us not forget WP:DENY and disable his ability to edit his own talk page already. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking access to one talk page may as well be done, but it won't have much effect, since the vandal has so far used at least 9 IPs and one account. I am trying short term range blocks. Maybe they will get bored and give up. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I'd figured that he was on a roll since the block hasn't stopped him from posting more comment but my whois template might have helped stopped his ranting somehow, though I'm not betting on it. I have brought him to the attention of ANI, let's see if a free and obliging CU can help, thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like I really spoke too soon, he came back with this. Time to disable his ability to edit own talk page? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I wonder if he will now come back and mess about on other IP talk pages. If so I suppose we can range-disable talk page access for a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that troll

		The Userpage Shield
		Sure, it was my talk page and not my user page, but thanks for reverting that troll. The UtahraptorMy mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 13:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

David Amoo

Hi - would you be able to drop the content of the deleted David Amoo article into my dropbox. He's notable so I would like to tidy and restore the article (even if it was created by a banned user. Thanks Steve-Ho (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

about spooler UTM article

hi dear admin. at first sorry for my bad english writing. i create one article with this subject : SPOOLER UTM but you deleted my article with this title : (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://parskharazm.com/Portals/_Spooler/HTML/Spooler_EN.htm) spooler is one Unified Treath Management application in internet. spooler is native product in UTM base. other UTMs in the word such as ASTARO, Cyberoam, IBSEngine, NetAsq and .... please verify my article and dont delete this article. it is not advertising article. my article in farsi language is in here. our site is http://www.parskharazm.com or http://www.spooler.ir and i design this site and the contents are posted with me. my email is mahdi.faraji@parskharazm.com and i observe the copyright. thanks dear admin. Mahdifox (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Kalifa Fai-Fai Loa

Hey. You deleted Kalifa Fai-Fai Loa which was created by a banned user. From what I recall the page itself wasn't that bad and the player was notable (though maybe unsourced), is there a way I can recover the source and edit it before starting the page again? Mattlore (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this and your reply on the block. Most of the page details are basic factual stuff (statistics, dob etc) so I don't see the problem, it would be the same if I started it from scratch (just take me longer...) but I will rewrite what I can before I move it to the main space. As for the block, I wasn't sure if I should approach the admin who blocked me or not for advice so I asked you instead - being blocked was rather a shock as I've been around here for over four years and never had a warning or anything so I wasn't quite sure the best way forward. Mattlore (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

POLQA

Hi: I noticed you deleted the "POLQA" incubator page. That page was in the incubator awaiting review for reinstatement following updating; new external references had been added that demonstrated the original deletion complaint was in error. Could you please reinstate this page at least to the incubator so it can be reviewed, or at least give me some way to retrieve the text so that a new article can be started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.205.127.124 (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more precise as to exactly what page you are referring to? There has never been a Wikipedia:Article incubator/POLQA, and I don't know what else you may mean. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Again: If you review the information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POLQA, you will see this just prior to your deletion:-

00:50, 25 June 2010 MuZemike (talk | contribs) moved POLQA to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/POLQA [without redirect] ‎ (Moving to the WP:INCUBATOR after what may possibly be sources found post-AFD.)

The page was only in question because it seemed to lack external references - otherwise I believe it was a good neutral page, and I'd like to get it back now that the subject matter has received considerable publicity. The page was edited on the incubator page with new references and (I thought) submitted for review - but somehow it got back into mainline circulation and then subsequently deleted. Is there any way to get that text back without re/writing the entire article?

Taztouzi is back

Hi JamesBWatson. Wanted to let you know that Taztouzi is back, making the same old edit [3][4][5][6], and he has also created an article Mohammed Al Maiman containing the same misinformation. I have submitted an SPI request WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Taztouzi. I put various notices on his new talk page [7][8]. Is there something else I can do? Thanks. Susfele (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Update -- The new user name has been blocked as a sock. In his last edit he came up with 5 dubious sources (Wiki's and promotional sites) naming Al Maiman as the 2nd runner-up. I think he is trying to invent the evidence he needs to get the Al Maiman name to stick in the Mister World 2010 article. I feel quite concerned about it actually. I tried to write up a fairly complete history of the whole thing on Talk:Mister World 2010. I mentioned some things you discovered. Could you take a look at what I wrote to ensure I didn't misrepresent you? And let me know if you think it's inappropriate? Thanks. Susfele (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the vandal has worked out the trick of creating an account, leaving it idle for a few days, and then rapidly making enough trivial edits to get autoconfirmed, so semiprotection won't work. If it continues maybe we should consider full protection. I have deleted the article the vandal created under CSD G5 (Creation by a banned or blocked user), and I would suggest tagging any future articles for this. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much.Susfele (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Eye Candy Films Pvt Ltd

mr jamesbwatson

why did you delete eye candy films page??? please tell me why you are playing god on wikipedia???

eye candy films is a production house based in mumbai and they are into commercials, music videos and feature films production.. i have even give the link for the website.. www.eyecandyfilms.in... why did you delete this page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallamraju (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted Eye Candy Films Pvt Ltd for the which I reason stated when I did so, which was the same reason that you were told on your user talk page by the editor who nominated it for deletion. This did not constitute "playing god". (Incidentally, my experience is that generally speaking editors tend to get more cooperation from other editors if they are civil.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Phillora

Please note the edit that I did was based on reliable sources which I had cited in the articles Battle of Phillora and Battle of Chawinda. I am reverting your edits as the information changed are exactly as mentioned in sources. You can take up the topic on talk page if you have doubt.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Viscera Trail article

Why is this page so inappropriate? I mean, I created a lot of good pages such as Viscera Trail and Lehavoth which about known bands, plus I brought lots of info and references and all, and its get deleted without a reason. JackShestak (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viscera Trail. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Netcallidus

Hi there,

I am editing company pages that I know of and adding information. I just received the message and wanted to edit it to comply with the guidelines... I only manage to go to the toilet and when came back wanted to place {{hangon}} to edit it...but it was already deleted.

Can I still edit it?

Kind regards, Katy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katyperrylove (talk • contribs) 11:50, 22 September 2010

You are evidently referring to Netcallidus You can recreate this article if you like. However, if you do so, please make sure that you avoid writing it again in a promotional way, as repeatedly creating the same article without dealing with the issues that led to deletion is not a good idea. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Winbank page deletion

Hi there! Could you please provide me with some information on why the winbank page was deleted? I had started working on the internal links but did not have enough time. What should I change or write different ? Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankergreece (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was written in the way that the company might write its own promotional material for its potential customers, rather than in the way an uninvolved outside observer might write an impartial descriptive account for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. If you honestly did not see it that way, then my guess is that you are probably closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

AdventureQuest AFD nomination

Please undo this speedy deletion. I don't believe the nomination was appropriate, and had objected to the original speedy nomination. Rather than addressing my concerns, the nominator seems to have simply replaced the speedy. The AFD appears in the article history, and I see no gain in expunging this from the record, only the likelihood of increased confusion in the future. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this page. On the whole I agree that it makes more sense to preserve the history. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI re: returning vandal

Back on this archived thread on ANI you mentioned using some small range blocks. The user posted again to my talk page saying they plan to be back again tomorrow, and their past record suggests they'll stick around through the weekend. Not sure if it's worth re-applying the range blocks for a few days, or to just go on with revert/block/ignore. As far as vandals go, they aren't really a concern, although they do seem to think that they are the first to use dynamic IPs amd/or proxies, or a much bigger threat than in reality, or some other silliness. Just thought I would request your thoughts on it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC

This is all just ridiculous. RBI will probably work best. But this vandal is just nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.68.186 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 September 2010

I think that it's a question of whack a mole. The range blocks I tried were not very effective, as the vandal IP-hops too much. Most of the IPs that I know have been used fall into two ranges, one of which I have blocked, but the other one is rather large, and there are also a couple of isolated IPs used. (I have, however, blocked the IP that made the above comment, as this is clearly the vandal in person. Actually that comment is one of the things that encourages me to think range blocks might be worth while, as that comment and another comment the vandal made indicate that the vandal does not want range blocks, which suggest that they do actually inconvenience the vandal to some extent.) On balance my feeling is that for the sake of the small amount of time it takes to revert and block each time, we may as well just do that, rather than spending effort on other methods. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Cookies

		Cookies!
		Thank you for all your help cleaning up RC today. :) You seem to be a very active and competent administrator. Sincerely, Clementina talk 09:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Verismic

You deleted this due to conflict of interest (I think). I've never disputed this situation, but those commenting and editing the PC Power Management article have very similar conflicts of interest and threatened removal of products that did not have an associated article for the organisation. To answer this I created a page in the format of one of the more well-established articles Faronics. I'd ask that this Verismic page be re-instated or that you review what is happening specifically on the PC Power Management article so that the same position is taken across all vendors. There are people on there claiming impartiality when in reality they have a vested interest and I hope it would be clear from the discussion threads that I've tried to point out this in the past. At the moment it seems that people hiding their interest are able to edit or comment as they please whereas I am open about where I come from and that puts me at a disadvantage.

Appreciate your comments. Mgmcginn (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, in general I do agree that sometimes declaring one's interest can sometimes put one at a disadvantage compared to others who hide their background, and I fully sympathise with you if you think this is happening in this case. However, as far as the specifics of this case are concerned, I did not delete the article because of conflict of interest. In fact, although Wikipedia urges caution in editing if you may have a conflict of interest, such a conflict is not in itself a reason for deletion. The article was deleted because its tone and character appeared to constitute promotion. I would have deleted it no matter who had written it, and conflict of interest did not come into it. Conversely, despite your declared conflict of interest, I would not have deleted it had it not seemed promotional. (Naturally a promotional article is more likely to be written by an editor with a conflict of interest, but that is a different matter.) The discussion at Talk:PC power management is quite long and involved, with some of it somewhat wandering off the point, and I am unwilling to put in the amount of effort it would take to critically evaluate every detail. However, Wikipedia requires some evidence of notability for inclusion of information. There is a common tendency in the case of articles which give lists or tables for editors to take the fact of a subject's having a Wikipedia article as the criterion for inclusion of that subject in such a list or table. However, this tendency has no sanction from any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Whether some of the other products have more notability under Wikipedia's definition than yours I do not know, but the way to decide is to consider how much (if any) coverage they have in reliable independent sources, not to consider whether they have Wikipedia articles. I see that the question has been raised at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Links_in_PC_power_management_article, and the suggestion is made there that conflict of interest has played a significant part in editing of this article, and that an attempt has been made to deal with the problem. Finally, any decision about the existence or otherwise of Verismic has to be based purely to the content of that article: there is nothing in WIkipedia's policise or guidelines to support keeping an article in order to justify what happens in another article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In some ways I'll be glad to see the back of this because it has been a pain having to keep an eye on it due to other people's activities; it just seems odd that this is singled out when it is very similar to others on the PC Power Management article. Sources listed on the Verismic article were external sources such as Capita, Boulder Valley Schools, various press agencies and so on although yes, some was from the Verismic home site as would be expected. How much is required to justify its continued existence in comparison to the other vendors/products such as PowerMAN (Software), Verdiem etc? I need to understand the fairness in this and to be certain that this is a decision across the board as applicable recognising that some vendors/products based on these criteria would be more notable than ours. If only we have a bigger marketing budget to get more press. :) Mgmcginn (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The deletion was not because of a lack of sources, but because the article seemed promotional in character. If other articles on similar topics are no better then that is a reason for deleting them, not for keeping this one, but I have not investigated them. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Slightly frustrated because I had tried to avoid being promotional and making wild claims. I'd tried to be factual as far as possible by just stating what products there were, what they were designed to do without making huge lists of features, and details such as where the organisation was and in what countries. Promotional details are reserved for the website. Is there an example you could quote of someone that has balanced this well? I also realise you haven't reviewed others but maybe it might be worthwhile due to the reasons why this one was created in the first place. You aren't the first to comment that an article of our own is not required for notability as this was previously marked for deletion but then rescinded. This view certainly isn't being shared by everyone and I'm pretty certain me attempting to follow the pattern you've outlined here would be seen as me being fair at all, rather trying to affect competitors. Anonymity could have been far simpler. Appreciate you responding, will stop bugging you soon. Mgmcginn (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Put simply it feels like my article has been deleted for reasons not being applied to others in this space. Just asking for a level playing field. Please restore it or deal with others related to this in the same way. Too much to ask? Mgmcginn (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made a quick glance at the articles you seem to be referring to. They look as though they could do with some improvement, but none of them strikes me instantly as promotional. Restoring a promotional article because an editor with a vested interest in it wants it is totally against Wikipedia's principles. The other suggestion you make seems to be to delete the other articles you refer to, for the same reason that the article you want was deleted, i.e. because they are blatantly promotional. The way to ask for deletion of a page for being promotional is to add a speedy deletion tag to the top of the article. {{db-promo}} is a suitable tag. If you do that then it is possible that an administrator will think the articles are so blatantly promotional they should be deleted. You may also find WP:OTHERSTUFF useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please can you confirm if this article was tagged for speedy deletion before you deleted it? The article was about a notable product in the field and it is a shame it was deleted without a discussion. Could you have just marked it {{db-promo}} as you suggested? Perhaps you could restore it to my talk page and I will have a go and re-writing it to avoid any hint of self promotion. Many articles about companies/products work in a similar way so I don't quite get why this one was singled out for such harsh treatment. Hnobley (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You raise several points. Here are answers to some of them. Yes, it was tagged for speedy deletion before I deleted it. Therefore the question of marking it with {{db-promo}} did not arise. Could I have achieved much the same effect by just leaving the article as it was, with tag there? Yes, but the whole purpose of a speedy deletion tag is to ask an administrator to review the article, decide whether deletion is appropriate, and act accordingly. If "it is a shame it was deleted without a discussion" is just an expression of your personal feeling, then that is fine, but Wikipedia's deletion policies and guidelines do provide for deletion without discussion in certain circumstances, promotion being one of them. I don't think this article was "singled out": hundreds of promotional articles get speedily deleted. It is true, and unfortunate, that some of them escape, but that is not a reason for letting them all escape. You may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you haven't done so already. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

When was this marked for speedy deletion and who by? I had been active on Wikipedia on this day and saw no speedy deletion notice. There had been one a week or so earlier that had been rescinded after discussions with another moderator. In this case the deletion happened so fast there was no opportunity to ask for anyone to hang on (which I know is an option available prior to a speedy deletion) while the article was justified. With the article gone I can't see history of updates but I know it couldn't have been there more than a few hours at most as I was moving between office and home at the time. Did you look at previous conversations regarding notability with Marknutley?

Is Hnobley's suggestion of restoring for him to have the opportunity as an independent to de-promotionalise (is that a word?) it an option? This was a VERY speedy deletion and came as a real surprise. Was this marked by another moderator/administrator? Mgmcginn (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was tagged for speedy deletion at 11:35, 21 September 2010 by 81.149.198.107, and deleted at 11:58, 21 September 2010. The time it takes between tagging and deleting varies considerably, from less than a minute to many hours, depending on when an administrator gets round to it. 23 minutes is not an exceptionally short time, by any means. I actually agree with your implicit criticism of the way the speedy deletion process works: there may or may not be time for an author to respond to a proposal, depending on rather arbitrary circumstances. I have often thought about raising this issue, but I have never really been sure what better system to suggest. Certainly some articles need to be deleted immediately (libellous pages, for example). We could have a two-tier speedy deletion system, with some criteria being only semi-speedy, but would this on balance be better? We already have four different deletion processes, which frequently confuse newcomers, and I don't think that having yet another one would be a help. I do tend to hold back from deleting to allow time for a response when the tag has been very recently placed, especially in the case of a newly created article. However, as often as not I find that the only effect that achieves is to give another admin time to delete the article. Marknutley had tagged the article for speedy deletion on 8 September 2010 under CSD A7 (no indication of significance), which is a completely independent issue from the question of promotion, and I don't see that an assessment of one should depend in any way on the other. Finally, I have userfied the article at User:Hnobley/Verismic. This is, I hope, a short term measure to allow it to be improved and then returned as an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

These things happen, I did try to find out how speedy 'speedy' was meant to be but couldn't find anything that discussed normal periods for response so thought this would probably fall into that grey area. Actually, 25mins wasn't too bad, but without the history I couldn't see it. Appreciate yours and hnobley's involvement here and look forward to the results of the update and hope it's a bit stickier this time. Mgmcginn (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

It Has Been A Huge Inconvienience That On Email...You Said That My Info Was Wrong...Take A Look At This Page URL...http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/1408411/A-Conversation-With-The-Inventor-Of-Email.htm...If You Still disagree...then fair enough...but at least give me a hearing...(not literal)

Shaxelen (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In this edit you said that all of the existing information in the article was false. It is entirely possible that there are some errors there, but to claim that it is all false is absurd. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My Friend Did That At School While I Was In I.C.T Lesson Talking To The Teacher...

Shaxelen (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)