User talk:JBW/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JBW. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Stoush

Hi, I closed the AFD discussion on this as per Uncle G's suggestion, but I may have jumped the gun somewhat... I probably should have left this for some discussion first. If there's any objections to this, I obviously have no problem with it being reopened. Cheers! Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know I didn't upset anyone... thanks! Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

GBC Asset Management - a division of Pembroke Management

GBC Asset Management - a division of Pembroke Management is one of the oldest 'growth' style investment managers in Canada, and should be included in Wiki. There are many other firms, with less historical significance that are included. Evidently, I have had some difficulty describing the principles the firm has practices since 1968 -- principles that distinguish its investment philosophy and strategy from the strategies used by other firms -- without sounding like an advertisement. I would appreciate any suggestions you have that would improve the piece. Best regards, (A341672 (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

I am willing to look back at this and let you know what I think, but I don't have time to do a proper job of it now, and probably won't have at least until Monday. I know from experience that if I say "I will look back at it in a few days" then more likely than not by the time those few days have gone about 1000 other concerns will have put it out of my head, so instead I will say "please feel welcome to remind me in a few days". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Goldsea

I don't understand your deletion of Goldsea. I spent a lot of time to write an article with supporting references as requested by the editor who deleted the Goldsea Asian American Daily Entry. There were a number of edits to bring this page up to standards. Yet you deleted as though it were the same article delted last year. Please explain your basis. I believe the article should be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AA Patrol (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Another point I wanted to make with respect to Goldsea. I have seen many articles that have far less suppprting references and refer to far less significant subjects that do not continually attract so much hostile scrutiny.

What exactly do you feel was stated that needs to be supported by another reference. Frankly, I am starting to wonder at the extremely high, not to say impossible standard that is being placed in order to avoid deletion of an article on this topic.

To see Goldsea's significance as a resource on accomplished Asian Americans, all one has to do is do a search for Goldsea on Wikipedia. That will turn up hundreds of articles that cite it as a reference.

I am honestly trying to understand what needs to be done here to keep an article about a medium that has a very long and significant history as well as an important place in Asian American culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AA Patrol (talk • contribs) 21:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I went to the trouble to explain on your talk page why I deleted it. As I explained there, there was not one single independent source, and thus the repost of the article did not address the reason for its deletion following the earlier AfD. See WP:Notability and WP:RS. I am not sure what else there is to say in answer to so general a question as "please explain your basis", but if there is any specific point you want clarified I will do my best to help. As for other articles, I suggest you look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Goldsea

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Goldsea. 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. AA Patrol (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

NYyankees51

You need to do a better job of explaining your decision here, because it is quite apparent that you did not even look into the history of IP68. Also you should note that AKA and IP82 have been on a vendetta against BS24/NYyankees51 for the past month. Arzel (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I did look into the history. And as for other users being "on a vendetta", you may like to read WP:NOTTHEM, if you haven't already. My decision on the unblock request was based entirely on the reasons I gave, which were based, as you are no doubt aware, entirely on the behaviour of the person requesting the unblock. You appear to think that I should have also taken into account the behaviour of others, but that agrees neither with written Wikipedia procedures nor with common sense. I should be more inclined to unblock user X, not because of any merit of user X but because of demerits of users Y and Z who don't want user X unblocked??? Really? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted template

Hi there. A banned user created a template which you deleted because they did so in violation of the ban (which was due to sockpuppetry that I reported). That template was actually one of the few constructive things that that user did. I was thinking of re-creating it myself but wanted to see if there was any way it can be brought back. Would save me a bit of time. Thanks!--Jeff79 (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

St. John's University

Please take a look at the talk page of the school. We have been attempting to talk to IP 97 as well as CATruthWatcher. (which appear to be sockpuppets). They have been ignoring talk requests.24.239.153.58 (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St._John%27s_University_(New_York)#St._John.27s_University.2C_NY_Vandalism_-_El_Krevbo.27s_and_24.239.153.58.27s_anti-St._John.27s_vitriol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.153.58 (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The above user has an extreme agenda and is operating under several aliases - "ElKrevbo," "DC," and "24.239.153.58. Those aliases are "we." I have never seen one person so intent on destroying the reputation of a university. All I ask is that he be fair: he cannot do that. I attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page, although he only dismisses it. He absolutely has an agenda -- I would say a loathing, rabid hatred hatred -- that is destroying a community page meant to educate people in a neutral way. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Apologies that you've been drug into this situation. The first anonymous editor above - 24.239.153.58 - is correct in that this is a messy situation with one editor using sockpuppets to make multiple edits in opposition to several other editors. At the same time, he or she is labeling all of these other editors "sockpuppets" and "vandals." .58 is getting a bit carried away in his or her edits and reversions but it's quite understandable in the face of such ridiculous accusations and blatant misconduct. So please be careful about inserting yourself into this situation without taking some time to look through everything (personally, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole unless obliged to do so). ElKevbo (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a classic example of a situation that looked from Huggle as though it was a straightforward question of vandalism. The first post above prompted me to look deeper, and it became clear that it was a much more complex issue, and I decided that I too "wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole". I don't know and frankly don't want to know all of the background, but it looks to me as if neither side deserves much sympathy. I did think of protecting the page to stop the infantile edit warring, but that would have meant protecting one side's version or the other, so I decided to leave it. Maybe someone braver than me will sort it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(missing a comment from me which I couldn't post here for some technical reason. Sent email to JamesBWatson instead). I just asked for a block of .58, but I don't know how far that will go. Should know in a few days, I guess. Only affects one of his IPs anyway. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Had my talk page protected.

That should put a thorn in the little twit's shorts. I didn't suggest you, since you're an admin. HalfShadow 20:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I will consider doing that if the problem persists, but I am always reluctant to take that step, as it stops legitimate new users from communicating. I wonder what you and I have in common that causes us to be targets. Maybe you reported original account to AIV and I blocked, or something. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh him. No wonder I have no idea who it was; I don't have a memory for IPs. HalfShadow 21:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Nayansatya image uploads

As you are the 'blocking' admin, I figured you would be the person to contact.

I'm finding some possibly unfree contributions from this user (2 raised on WP:PUI already), Would you be willing to check their recent upload history, as owing to thier block they cant exactly respond quickly, Or do I have to formally request an investigation for that to happen? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look look, and the situation looks to me very doubtful indeed. I'll have another look when I have more time, but I think it may be necessary to report it at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations or somewhere else to get more help. However, I will try to look at it again soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC regarding Transcendental meditation

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

About iWallet - Hi Tech Hard Case Wallet

Hi,

This is regarding your deletion of the page about iWallet.

iWallet is a new invention done by Mr.Steve Cabouli who invented this wallet with the help of the engineers of NASA. And I feel this as the special wallet.

May I know for why the page is deleted?

Thanks John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.9.3 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You will need to be more specific as to exactly what article you are referring to. There has never been an article entitled iWallet, nor Hi Tech Hard Case Wallet, nor iWallet - Hi Tech Hard Case Wallet, so I can't find the relevant record. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tank kshatriyas

Just to let you know that your prod on Tank kshatriyas was removed by an IP and I've taken the article to AfD since I couldn't find any evidence of notability, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Kerri Dunn page deletion?

Hi JamesBWatson,

I'm new to Wikipedia but wanted to know why you deleted the Kerri Dunn page. She has been brought up over and again by numerous figures on the Right and Left for being one of the first instances of fake hate crimes.

All the best, Heinleinscat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinleinscat (talk • contribs) 01:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The article was proposed for deletion by RJC, the reason given being "Topic of the article seems notable for one event only." If you look at the guideline on people notable for only one event you will see that there is doubt as to whether this is sufficient to establish notability. An article which is proposed for deletion is normally deleted if nobody has objected after a week. However, if you think the subject is notable enough to justify an article it can be restored. If so then it will be up to the person who proposed deletion to decide whether to pursue the matter further. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:83.80.82.4 needs to be blocked again......

...for consistant and continued vandalism which goes on and on....... Please take some action. Viva-Verdi (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit War Notice

Please see this talk page. - methecooldude ^Contact 09:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

please respond

Hello - you declined an article about West World Media but I do think that somehow you reviewed a previously submitted version. This is the intended version which is not an advert. Please respond to this. Thanks! Suzesilk (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)suzesilk

My talk page is not the right place to post an AFC submission, so I have removed it. At a quick look it seems fairly promotional to me, but I suggest submitting it to AFC if you want it considered, not to my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of exorcists

The article List of exorcists has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The criterion for exorcist stated here includes every priest prior to the Second Vatican Council. This is not a notable criterion for a list. A new criterion should be established or the list should be deleted

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkriegls (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 November 2010

I wonder why you are telling me about that. I made a couple of minor edits to the article back nine months ago, but have no special interest in it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

furious production issue

you deleted furious production article and it was not an copy right issue or a form of advertisement. it only talked about the group, when we started and the members. i am the owner of furious production and furiousproduction.com, what i posted was not an copy right issue because i am the owner of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradag (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are the owner then you have a conflict of interest, and probably should not be writing an article on the subject.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia and claim to be anyone. We cannot accept the unsubsantiated word of an anonymous editor. That is why the message on your talk page gave instructions how to offer copyright material.
The article was distinctly promotional in character, and at some points was written in the first person. If you sincerely did not see what you wrote as promotional then my guess is that you are so closely involved in the subject that you are unable to step back and see how your writing will look to an outsider. This is, in fact, one of the main reasons why the conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing of articles on subjects in which you have a personal involvement. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Mister World 2010

Hi JamesBWatson. The semi-protection on Mister World 2010 has expired and anonymous IPs are once again substituting the name Mohammed Al Maiman for Kenneth Okolie as 2nd runner up [1][2]. Would you restore the semi-protection, please? Many thanks. Susfele (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection problem

Hello. The reason why the protection for Ray William Johnson seems to have repeatedly failed, may be that administrators can move a page upon a protected title without noticing and without leaving a log entry. Seems to have happened to me and to WereSpielChequers previously. There should be an explicit warning before and if acknowledged a protection log entry afterwards. Right now we do not seem to have either. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after I made the protection with the log entry which you are no doubt referring to I realised what was happening, and described the situation at Salted page recreated above. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed the thread above after posting own posting.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Kurdish population

Hi JamesBWatson, sorry about that. I have written my reasons for placing this template under deletion on the discussion page. Basically, the template has no use. It is written in the Turkish language and uses Joshua Project as sources which is an unreliable source.Turco85 (Talk) 13:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

why did you delete fact? when you do not know if it is fact or not?

What I have written is 100% true and factual and I do not know why someone who has no knowledge of what I am writing about would delete the post straight away.

I am asking you to reconsider your deletion for the benefit of the people who were apart of this proud event that happened.

thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuuuur44 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You must be referring to D Block vs. H Block. It may well be true, but by no stretch of the imagination is it suitable as an encyclopaedia article. It appears to refer to parochial events within a school, with no sources to indicate notability. If you wish I can restore the article, but if I do so I will immediately take it to articles for deletion, where it will be discussed and I have little doubt it will be deleted. Let me know if you want me to do that. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Please look at Revision history of Template:Kurdish population. Template is {{Under construction}}. But User:Turco85 insist on adding speed deletion tag. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Salted page recreated

Any idea how the page on Ray William Johnson was recreated? The log leads me to think that no non-sysop user should be able to create it.--Terrillja _talk 04:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To begin with I too was puzzled by this, and thought that something had gone wrong with the protection. However, looking more closely I see that it is quite simple. The protection on Ray William Johnson has repeatedly been evaded by re-creating the article under other titles (RayWilliamJohnson and Ray W. Johnson). On two occasions an editor has made a good faith decision to move one of these re-creations to Ray William Johnson, which seemed like a better title. On each occasion the editor who did the move happened to be an administrator, and so was able to make the move. I have deleted the article and protected Ray W. Johnson (RayWilliamJohnson is already protected). However, I daresay this will simply mean that we get Ray W Johnson or Ray Wm Johnson or something. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Looking at the protection log, I was quite confused as to how it kept getting protected and then recreated. Well, thanks for deleting it.--Terrillja _talk 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a new Ray William Johnson, now under his other name on Youtube, Equals Three. --John KB (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ripplebrook, Victoria

Hi James. Lest I look a fool, between the time I tagged the above-captioned article CSD#G7 (approx. 3:00AM EST) and the time you came along to assess it (approx. 6:20AM EST), the author had re-added material (approx 6:00AM EST). Thanks! — Spike Toronto 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't look a fool at all. In fact I should perhaps apologise for using too curt an edit summary. I suppose a more complete version would have been "Declining speedy deletion. In view of the way that the editing has gone subsequent to the speedy deletion tagging, it seems to me that that the author's removal of most of the content did not indicate a request for deletion". Probably somewhere between that rather verbose version and the very brief version I actually used would have been better. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi James! Thanks for your response. In any case, I realize that I should have paid closer attention to the timestamps and noted that it was too soon to mark it for speedy deletion. At the time, assuming it would not have been too soon, I was a little uncertain as to which criterion should have applied: CSD#G7 or CSD#A3. What does one do when the creator and only substantial contributor of content does not entirely empty an article, but reduces it to only one sentence? Does one use CSD#G7 because the article has been essentially de-contented? Or, does one use CSD#A3 because the article has essentially no content? Or, does some other course of action apply? I have started a thread here to poll other wikieditors who work with speedies. Perhaps you might want to participate? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Liquid metal

Could you take a look at this article and possibly restore it? If it contains only text from http://www.indium.com then we've received OTRS permission for this page (Ticket:2010111010011465 for my own reference). If you would be willing to take a look at Head-in-pillow also (even though you weren't the deleting admin) it's the same situation. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Liquid metal - restored, on the basis of your information.
Head-in-pillow - To be quite sure before I take any action, the article contains substantial copying from six different sources, from four different companies. All six of these sources have copyright notices indicating "all rights reserved" or some such restriction. Are you saying that Wikipedia has received authenticated copyright permission for all six of the sources? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I mentioned http://www.indium.com because we have permission for only that one website. I looked through all of their articles they mentioned and these two were the only ones where the deletion logs didn't specifically mention other websites which we couldn't use. Anyways, thanks for restoring the one usable article, I've tagged it appropriately. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the Contribution Team

Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate on the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team, or WP:CONTRIB for short! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions specifically to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to wikiproject outreach, article improvement, donor contacting, and more -- in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks -- whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you. If this sounds of interest to you, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the Contribution talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 19:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback for Gibraltar Chronicle...

As an admin with rollback ability, can you clean up that article cause that IP had already vandalised it so much times. It would be a pain for me to undo all those. Much would be appreciated. --Yong (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have restored what I hope is a good version. Actually in this case rollback is irrelevant, as it is applies only for undoing a string of edits all by the same user with no intervening edits by anyone else, which does not apply in this case. All I have done is find what I hope is a good version before the vandalism started, click on "edit", and then save: you could have done that. If there are any remaining problems I have missed and that you need help with please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicola Stanbridge

Hi James, Hope all is well. I'm curious to find out why my rather modest wiki entry was deleted from Wikipedia could it be that I was nominated? Best wishes, Nicola Stanbridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.121 (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Asuming you mean the article Nicola Stanbridge, it was proposed for deletion by Hut 8.5, who said that they could not find any significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, and that the subject failed to satisfy Wikipedia's guideline on notability of people. The proposal was not challenged and so, after a week, the article was deleted. It is perhaps also worth mentioning that the article gave no sources at all, despite having been tagged to ask for such sources for over a year. I may also mention that my own searches have also failed to produce any significant third party coverage. There are plenty of links to material by you, but little by other reliable sources about you. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

.. Not being terribly technically savvy I'm not sure how to get your reply to my message.

All the best, Nicola Stanbridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.120 (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

By the time you posted that message my answer was just above, where you could have seen it when you were posting. However, I will email you to make sure. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply James, I see your posting, it's easier than I thought. May I ask who Hut 8.5 is? I don't know who put the entry on wiki in the first place. But I do know it was only taken from an old web entry from the Today Programme BBC Radio 4 Website from about 8 years ago when I joined the programme. The entry was deleted sometime ago from there and we don't have programme reporter profiles anymore, although I am indeed still on the programme. A colleague mentioned I'd been deleted a couple of weeks ago and thought it interesting. Best wishes, Nicola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.122 (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

While you were posting that I was busy emailing you to tell you to look here. Oh well, never mind. I see that "Hut 8.5" is a Wikipedia administrator. I know quite a lot about some Wikipedia admins, but I know no more about this one than you do: presumably he/she and I work in different areas of Wikipedia administration and do not tend to come in contact with one another. If you want to know more then here are links to "Hut 8.5"'s user page, talk page, and contributions history. Incidentally, if the article about you was taken from an old "Today" web page then it was pretty certainly a copyright infringement, and should have been deleted for that reason. Are you still on "Today"? I used to be a regular listener, now only a sporadic one, but I will try to remember to listen out for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The entry was indeed taken from the old Today website. I was asked to write something when I joined so the info was right but the bit about cycling and world leaders quickly made me cringe after I got into the flow of the programme. I do a mix of news and music pieces. Up next will be pieces about Juliette Greco, Damon Albarn. Anyway I don't mind being deleted from wiki, it was rather extraordinary I was there in the first place, all good things must come to an end. Might make for a good short detective story if I ever get the time to find out the source of my nomination! All the best, Nicola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lenora Claire

Can you explain why you deleted the Lenora Claire page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.102.179 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you know that I deleted it, presumably you have tried to access Lenora Claire, and seen the block log entries, including my reason for deletion. There is also a link to the relevant deletion discussion. I will happily give any clarification that is needed, but I see no point in repeating information already available, so I suggest you specify what you need to know that isn't there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would you delete someone who has appeared in films (IMDB, etc can be verified), has appeared on everything from the LA Times, TMZ, NPR, the cover of the Miami New Times, LA Bizarro, as well as numerous other mainstream media sources (all verified), has appeared on nationwide ad campaigns including billboards in Times Square (all verified) as well as a dozen other notworthy accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.40.125 (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As you will know if you have read it, the deletion discussion was quite long and involved. There is no point in my going through all of the arguments there, since you can read them yourself. As far as my deletion was concerned, the reason was, as you presumably know, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". When I reviewed the article after it had been nominated for deletion on those grounds it was not my job to re-assess the reasons discussed in that discussion, but only to assess whether the new version of the article had addressed the issues which led to its deletion after discussion. It didn't. That was why I deleted it. Incidentally IMDb (1) is not a reliable source as anyone can contribute to it, and (2) is not a proof of notability, as anyone who has taken part in any film in any capacity is likely to be listed there. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobwong123

Did you mean to set this vandalism-only block for only three hours? Kuru (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Errm, no, errm, I'm not sure what I did there. Thanks for pointing it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just didn't know if you were entering a happy, fluffy phase. :) Kuru (talk)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick block of ARYANLISTWRITER. I'd reverted him and left a note to Dougweller about it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Brett Walton

Hi, could you give some guidance on why you think the Brett Walton article is written like an advertisement and what you'd recommend changing to make it less so? TadjHolmes (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The article concentrates substantially on telling us how good Walton is. If you honestly can't see that then i can only guess that you are so closely involved with the subject that you cannot stand back and see how it would look to an outsider. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Sonny Bono

Hi, James:

Have a question for you: Is it possible to protect an article's talk page? Or page protection is only for articles? The reason why I'm asking is because a range of ips kept making and reverting the same edits to Sonny Bono, and the article was protected as content dispute.

However, now that they're supposed to discuss changes to the article at Talk:Sonny Bono, one of the ips Special:Contributions/75.47.151.134 only deletes any opinion that doesn't agree with her/his viewpoint and is being disruptive eliminating entire sections of the talk page that refer to whether those edits should be included or not.

Ip was blocked by accident, since it didn't have enough warnings. However, it was on its way to accumulate enough of them (see deletion here, warning here, disruptive editing here, etc. If it comes back as another ip address, is page protection for a talk page the correct procedure? Or reporting and blocking the disruptive ips the way to go? -- John KB (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Related thread here. I was actually in two minds whether or not to undo my accidental block having been through their contribs - I eventually decided that I was seeing a newbie making mistakes and not a disruptive editor who should know better. However, see WP:ROPE... EyeSerene^talk 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those kind of ips are tricky, because they pretend to be protecting wikipedia and even cite wp policies and guidelines. Noticed at first how he/she was reporting usernames to the vandalism noticeboard, and was thinking, oh how nice. That ip is probably a username that may have been blocked in the past, too much knowledge and interest in politicians. --John KB (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the edit history of the talk page, the edit histories of some of the IPs, etc etc, I have decided that the best thing is to semi-protect the article's talk page, which I have done for 10 days. We will have to see what happens after that. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough :) I'd probably have blocked rather than protected the talk page, but I guess it's a judgement based on how many IPs are being used (I haven't actually checked). I'm certainly no fan of whack-a-mole. EyeSerene^talk 11:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not entirely sure which way to go, but the involvement of several IPs inclined me to the protection option, and so did the presence of quite a number of constructive edits by at least one of the IPs. Of course that could be gaming the system ("If I make a lot of good edits too then they won't block me"), but in the absence of strong reasons to suppose so I had to assume good faith. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this helps the article. One of the ips and a single purpose account made the initial edits in October, and it escalated from there. Thanks, James. --John KB (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

re Unblock request fromTropicallanterns

Thank you for checking with me. No objections. -- Cirt (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI

Concur. I was about to do it myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree I lack the admin tools so had to settle for a 4im ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

prynce

put the page back up thanks.Ci prynce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.72.98 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the author of that comment has been blocked. However, out of interest I checked and found that Prynce has three times been created, all three times nonsense, and all three times speedy-deleted, but never by me, and I don't see where I come in at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Dominic Sewell

In what way was copyright infringed? Surrey Brass don't own information on this composer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.28.37 (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

They don't own the information, but they do own copyright in the particular wording of the information which they use. The article was a verbatim copy of that wording. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

POLQA

> > Sorry to bump this, but I think it is lost in your archive: < < 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.205.105.19 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, sorry about my mistaken statement that there had never been a Wikipedia:Article incubator/POLQA. I looked for that and there was no log record of its ever having existed, but of course I had to look for POLQA, which is where it had been moved to, and therefore where the log record was to be found. Having said that, I have looked back at the article as it existed at the end of the AfD and also as it existed when re-created. There had been a number of edits, perhaps most notably the addition of four external links, evidently the "external references" that you refer to. These four are a page on POLQA's own site, two pages on marketing sites, and a dead link. These do nothing at all to indicate notability, and certainly do not "[demonstrate] the original deletion complaint was in error". The article incubator is meant for short term keeping of pages while they are corrected, not a way of retaining an article long-term after it has been decided it should be deleted, and when an AfD discussion has resulted in a consensus to delete, a matter of several months have passed, and attempts to address the issues which led to that decision have been unsuccessful, I think it is usually not justifiable to re-create yet again the article which it has been decided should be deleted, whether in userspace, the "article incubator", or anywhere else. However, I am willing to email you a copy of the article if you like. If you have a Wikipedia account then you can enable email in your account preferences and I can email it to you. (Of course, you can just post me your email address here if you like, but I wouldn't encourage anyone to post their email address on a publicly visible Wikipedia page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback from RGimenez

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

RGimenez (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

RGimenez (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Belen Echandia page deletion

Yesterday I spent a large amount of time researching and updating the Belen Echandia page. This morning I now see that it's been deleted for Unambiguous advertising or promotion and indefinitely protected for being Repeatedly Recreated. The talk page has also been deleted so I'm not sure what about my changes were unambiguous advertising. I am not an employee of the company nor are any of my relatives. I kept very little of the original page since I saw the original author might have had a conflict of interest. I would like to learn more about why this was deleted so that I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia. I'd also like to see if it's possible for the deletion & indefinite protection to be reconsidered. Thank you. AuroraHcky (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have had a quick look back at the deleted article, but unfortunately I don't have time now to do much more. On the basis of my quick glance i would say that the overall tone of the article was promotional, rather that there were specific details which were unacceptable. For example, a sentence like "Belen Echandia's handbags are entirely cut and sewn and finished by hand in Italy by an Italian atelier of bag makers in small batches using traditional leather craft" perhaps cannot be directly objected to, but when you have a succession of sentences like that it all adds up to an article which reads like an advertisement. I will look at it a bit more when I have time, and possibly may ask for a second opinion from another administrator. If I don't get back to you on this within a day or so please feel welcome to remind me. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I almost forgot to do this in all of my excitement yesterday. Thank you for restoring the page! AuroraHcky (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi James, I have been watching this too, because I AM directly associated with Belen Echandia and I am interested to follow the progress of this page. I realise that it is not my/our entry and therefore I have no basis on which to contest your decision, but I did just want to share some facts. The page was initially deleted 3 times but the person who initially uploaded it then improved the content to make it more factual. It was then selected as a KEEP by 3 administrators on the basis of notability and its content. The reason it was again selected for speedy deletion was cited by unixtastic as that Belen Echandia or someone closely related to Belen Echandia had created the page, not on the basis of its content. If you look back at the discussion on this page, you will see that this was the suggested reason for deletion. This is not true, neither of the two contributors have any business relationship with Belen Echandia. I just wanted to clear up those facts. Best findingtruths (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that clarification. I will try to look at it tomorrow, and will consider whether to restore the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The admin who made the final decision that it was notable was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davewild. You can see the discussion under the heading Belen Echandia posted by unixtastic and my response.findingtruths 14:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, it was kept only yesterday at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belen Echandia on the grounds that it was adequately notable and could be de-spammed by editing. I haven't compared versions, but maybe the thing to do is go back to that version, or despam further, and put a (hidden) comment in the head of the text, visible to anyone trying to edit, to discourage enthusiastic supporters from re-spamming it. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnCD. No doubt that AfD was what findingtruths was referring to, but I hadn't seen it. Naturally I have now restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother James, the article still has a tag that says that someone closely connected with the company has made a major edit. This is not true. I own the company and we have intentionally not touched it for COI reasons, other than to make one small edit this morning to change the spelling of Belen Echandia and correct a grammatial mistake. I did however forget to tick the minor edit box so this may be why it is flagged. How can that tag be removed? Very best findingtruths —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

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

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWatson,

I created the Belen Echandia page and have a number of items and questions to follow up with...

1. I have not edited the page in some time because of conflict of interest reasons. I will not edit the page again, unless I am explicitly given permission to do so by an administrator. The page has had a dramatic face lift since its initial publication and, in my opinion at least, looks nothing like the original article. Therefore, I would ask that you consider removing the COI tag on the Belen Echandia page that points to myself as its original author.

2. I am still new to Wikipedia and am learning its policies. My COI stems from the fact that my sister has ties to Belen Echandia. My sister's relationship with the company has been openly discussed at length and I see no need to rehash it here again. I have not met the owner of the company, Jackie Cathra (Wikipedia alias: findingtruths). We have only exchanged a small handful of e-mails via my sister. Belen Echandia and I have made NO business transactions. The page was written 110% under my own initiative, not my sisters and not Jackie Cawthra's. Here lies my confusion... after uploading Belen Echandia's logo onto Wikipedia, I was asked to contact the image's owner (Jackie Cawthra) and get her to give wikipedia direct permission to upload the file (hence one of the e-mail communications through my sister). Therefore, I have to be close enough to the image/business owner to be able to contact them to get permission to upload their image, yet be far enough away from the company to have a neutral enough point of view to be able to make independent contributions on Wikipedia. I am being stretched in both directions. I would appreciate it if you could clarify exactly what constitutes COI on my talk page.

3. I am only able to contribute an hour or two on Wikipedia per week. One reasons why the Belen Echandia page was deleted previously was because my frequency of visits to the page was far to low in order to catch a speedy deletion tag and place a reply Hold On tag (keep in mind, I am still new to Wikipedia and am on a learning curve). I caught the latest version of the page in time to be able to place a Hold On tag. I would like to ask that you throw out or at least reduce the value in the following argument, that "the page has been deleted before, therefore it should be deleted again". I can only volunteer a small amount of time towards Wikipedia and do not want to see the integrity of the page compromised as a result.

4. The Belen Echandia page has been nominated for deletion ... again. It's been through this process with both a "keep" and "speedy keep" result. As I said above, I am no longer going to edit the page because of COI and haven't in some time. However, I would still very much like to see the page survive and prosper. Personally, I think it's silly that the page be nominated for deletion again given previous "keep" and "speedy keep" results. I would appreciate it if you could look into the matter and determine the root cause to these repeated deletion nominations.

Thank you for your time and hearing me out on my concerns.

Best, Parafianowicz (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the latest version of the article I agree that it bears little resemblance to the original version you wrote, so I have removed the conflict of interest tag. I fully sympathise with the problem of seeing changes, including speedy deletion, happen while you are offline so you don't see them coming. It is possible to go back to the deleting admin and ask for a reconsideration, but I can imagine how discouraging it must feel to come back and find that your work has gone, and a talk page note telling you what you could have done to challenge the deletion nomination may well feel like adding insult to injury if you find it only after the deletion has gone ahead. However, there are reasons why the system works the way it does, and there are pros and cons for different ways of doing things. The argument "the page has been deleted before, therefore it should be deleted again" applies only if (1) there has been a discussion as to whether the article should be deleted, (2) the article has been recreated in a form which is essentially similar to the previously deleted version, and which does not address the issues which led to deletion. It does not apply to speedy deletion, where there has not been an opportunity to discuss the issues. Nor does it apply if the new article has substantially addressed the issues which were discussed in the deletion discussion. While I do understand why you are unhappy with "the page has been deleted before, therefore it should be deleted again", the alternative would, I'm afraid, be unacceptable. Suppose we took the line that, even if an article has been discussed, and the new copy is substantially similar to the old one, we still do not delete without allowing another discussion. What would happen is that an article would be discussed for a week, deleted, immediately re-created, left for a week while the same points were discussed again, deleted, immediately re-created, ... The effect would be that anyone who wanted to could circumvent the deletion process, as well as wasting a huge amount of other editors' time. And in case you are thinking that this wouldn't happen, I can assure you it would. If you had had a tenth as much experience as I have of the tricks and twists that some awkward and uncooperative editors will get up to in attempts to get their way, you would not doubt it. Finally, there are the points you raise about the article being nominated for a deletion discussion again. The thing to do here is to express your opinions at the AfD discussion. (If you do so it might be as well to declare your possible interest, but that does not mean that you are not allowed to comment.) I have no more influence than anyone else in such a discussion. Theoretically as an administrator I could close the discussion, but I will not do so. (Even if I were one of the admins who deal with AfD closures I would not close one for an article with which I had previous involvement, as in this case.) ~~However, for what it is worth I will make a comment in the AfD discussion expressing my view of the matter, and you are, of course, very welcome to read it there.~~ Having looked at the AfD and seen what others have written there I have decided I have nothing worthwhile to add to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was my page Deleted?

The page Alma Fiesta was recently deleted by you sir. Please can you explain why it was deleted? It provides information about a socio cultural college festival in India organised by the Reupted College, Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar.

It is not meant for advertising or spamming as it was pointed out by wikipedia. It is a non profit event anyways which aims to spread the social message.

Rohitiit (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it was promotional. Just one sentence to illustrate its promotional tone: "Ultimate fun, exhilaration, joy and prizes worth ½ million to be WON". If that "not meant for advertising" then I don't know what it was meant for. Whether it is for profit or not is irrelevant: Wikipedia's policy is not to promote anything, for profit or otherwise. Finally "aims to spread the social message" means that it is trying to promote a particular "message", so you have, apparently without realising it, told us that the intention is promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

195.188.50.200

I think this IP should be unblocked now; it'll behave itself now the public terminals blocked Wikipedia temporarily. Please don't notify me on my talk since it's a shared IP here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 17 November 2010

Can you provide any evidence? I can't take action on the basis of the unsubstantiated word of an anonymous user. I also fail to see the purpose in unblocking if the public terminals are blocked from accessing Wikipedia, since the IP would not be able to edit anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not all public terminals, only 2 or 3 as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Then all the more reason not to unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Aneka Nepenthes dari Sumatra

I have just deleted this under a10 as adding nothing to Nepenthes - it is about these pitcher-plants which are already fully covered there. I didn't see that you had already, quite correctly, turned down an a10 for Kalimantan, or I would have checked with you first. There has been a flood of articles in Indonesian over the last few days - I think some Indonesian schoolmaster must have set his class an assignment to write a Wikipedia article. I hope sooner or later the word will get back to him that :id exists. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right to delete it, and I should have checked Nepenthes as well as Kalimantan. Yes, I too noticed a flood of inappropriate Indonesian articles, but didn't think of that explanation, but you are probably right. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Covenant Consultants

Sir,

You had just deleted the page 'Covenant Consultants' citing Marketing reasons.Let me assure you that this page is not being created for Marketing reasons and only to document a companys growth from a samll 3 member team to become the Fastest growing Staffing Firm in India. Request you to kindly reconsider the decision . Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.165.63.90 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Covenant consultants was full from start to finish of prose such as "With a combined experience of more than a hundred years, and a depth and diversity of knowledge, Team Covenant offers customers a distinct edge." You are telling me that was not promotional? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

i can remove those lines if you feel that is promotional.my intention is not for advertising because this will not get us any new clients.Pl request you to reconsider the decision and recreate our page. We would only like to document the achievement made by a group of yound people .Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.165.63.90 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole article was promotional, not just a few "lines".
Getting new clients is not the only sort of promotion. "We would only like to document the achievement" means that you want to publicise the "achievement": i.e. you wish to use Wikipedia to promote their "achievement", whether or not you expect to gain commercially by doing so.
Your use of the first person in your comments above indicate that you have a conflict of interest and should not be writing on this subject anyway.
"If [I] feel that is promotional"? If you can honestly not see that that is promotional then I can only assume that one or (more probably) both of the following applies: (a) you are so closely involved in the subject that you are unable to stand back and see what your writing will look to an objective outsider (this is one of the main reasons why the conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing on subjects in which you have an involvement); (b) you work in marketing and are so used to marketing-speak that you have become desensitised to it.
"We would only like to document the achievement" is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Not until the "achievement" has already been documented widely in independent sources will it satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is not acceptable to use Wikipedia to create primary documentation. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

Your explantions given and the decision made due to your assumptions are not right! Anyways i can only request and you can be assured that this is a wrong decision. Thanks . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.165.63.90 (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to point out which part of what I said is mistaken? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry

sorry for vandalising on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donal12345678 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How very kind of you to post here and tell me you were vandalising, so that I was able to block you. Otherwise it might have been a while before you were blocked. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Help!!

Hello, I ask of block the users "Dr Claudio", "Windask", "Komorosky", "Dottor Claudio", "Kaiodviskok", "Peroskyv", since they are all mine, and since I created them because I liked some of these names, it was better to create them now. I've tested as contributions, if they had problems in the unified login. Hey, do not think they have created for evil purposes! Thanks. --Claudio Asaro (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Steel Swaps

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

Replied at User talk:Todoto. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thor Heyerdahl Institute

Hello, The page "The Thor Heyerdahl Institute" was deleted by yourself. I understand why, but want to find out what I can do to get it put back up. I was asked to create the page by the managing Director of the institute, Beate Bjørge and she provided me with the text from her brochure. I see that the text used is the same as that on their website. What should I do? Thanks GillyhEnglish (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you were acting on behalf of the managing Director of the institute, you were editing with a conflict of interest, and probably should not edit on that subject at all. Even if your intention is to write an objective account rather than a spam article, it is very difficult for someone involved in this way to stand back and see the subject from a detached point of view and write objectively. Text from a brochure from the institute is almost certainly not going to be suitable, for two reasons, copyright and promotion. It is possible to deal with the copyright issue by getting the institution to release the material under suitable licensing terms, but it is usually a waste of time doing so, because what results is almost certain to be an article which will be deleted as promotional. It is in the nature of brochures produced by institutes, businesses, etc to be promotional, and it is in the nature of encyclopaedia articles to be non-promotional and detached, so the two are incompatible. Theoretically it is possible to take the text of a promotional brochure and rewrite it to be non-copyright infringing and non-promotional, but in practice it is very difficult. People who have spent a lot of time and effort in trying to do this have often found their work is still deleted, as with the best will in the world it is difficult to see what you are writing from the point of view of an outsider, and more of the character of what you are using as a source will creep through than you realise. The way to write an article is to use several sources which are all independent of their subject. If their aren't several such sources in existence then the subject almost certainly doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines and doesn't qualify for inclusion.

Having said all that, I would still remind you of the conflict of interest issue, which makes it doubtful whether you should be writing this article at all. Before considering doing so I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Also relevant are the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of Notability of organisations and companies|organisations and companies, and the guideline on reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I cannot see why it would be a conflict of interests since I am not connected to the Insitute in any way and they are a non-profit organisation. I feel that the information is relevant since it related to the continuation of work done by Thor Heyerdahl, possibly one of the most well known Norwegians of all time. While the information posted was from a brochure I was careful to remove promotional text and simply stated the facts as they are. The artical can be validated by a number of independant sources, but they are almost all written in Norwegian. Would it help if I rewrote the text in my own words and added newspaper references. In addition the Institute is connected to The Glasgow Caledonian University and the Norwegian University of Life Sciences which could also be used as an independant referance. I do feel that the artical is relavent for Wikipedia. At no time did I intend to write a promotional artical, but rather an informative artical. Please advise what I should do to get an artical posted on The Thor Heyerdahl Institute. A Norwegian artical does exist and was not created by myself, though I have updated it as a number of things have changed since the creation of the institute in 2000.GillyhEnglish (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Being a non-profit organisation is irrelevant: Wikipedia's policy is not to promote anything, whether commercial or not. You are certainly right about Thor Heyerdahl being well-known, but that is not the issue, as notability is not inherited. In other words we need evidence of notability of the institute itself, not of Thor Heyerdahl. Obviously it is more helpful to readers of English Wikipedia to have sources in English, but that does not mean that sources in Norwegian can't be used: by all means include references to them if they are relevant. Yes, it would probably help to write the article in your own words, and adding newspaper references can be useful too. It is very helpful if there is an online copy of the newspaper article that you can link to, so that readers can check it easily, but that is not essential. I don't know the nature of the connection to the Glasgow Caledonian University and the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, or what kind of material those universities can provide as references, so I can't make specific comments, but institutions which are "connected" might not be really independent. However, it is worth making a distinction here which is missed by many Wikipedia editors, including quite experienced ones. To justify the existence of an article you must provide evidence of notability, which can only be done by means of independent sources. However, once you have established notability, verifiability of particular information in the article can often be achieved perfectly well from sources which are dependent on the subject. This means that it is not the case that all references have to be independent sources, only that there have to be enough references to independent sources to show that the institute has received significant attention and coverage. I hope these remarks have been helpful. Incidentally, I don't know much about either of the Norwegian Wikipedias, but I do know that English Wikipedia tends to be much more strict about such issues as sourcing than Wikipedia in many other languages. I don't think this is just English Wikipedia editors being awkward: people who wish to publicise a subject widely see English Wikipedia as being a better way of doing so than a Wikipedia in another language, so the issues of notability and verifiability become bigger. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks...just one last thing. Being new to Wikipedia ( as a contributor), I am not familiar with how everything is done, so this has been really helpful. I will work on a new artical and publish it with references. All of the newspaper articals can be read online and there are some other articals from independant sources which might be useful as well. I will see if I can find anything in English. However, is there anyway one can write an artical and have an editor check it, in order to avooid delitions? Thanks again...I understand the need for controls, but since this is a 'hobby' I need to squeeze in to an already full schedule it is not always easy to read all of the information provided, even though it is probably very useful!GillyhEnglish (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC) (talk)

I do understand how confusing Wikipedia's methods are to a new editor - I was a new editor myself once, and found it hopelessly confusing. In my opinion there is far too much information, and it is totally unrealistic to expect anyone to learn it all before they get started. The original idea of Wikipedia was very simple and straightforward, with very few rules, but the quantity of information about how to edit and how not to edit Wikipedia has grown alarmingly over the years. I would prefer to see 90% of it cut away. The best thing to do is to make a start anyway, read what you need to in the various guidelines etc as the need arises, and gradually learn. Naturally this way you will sometimes make mistakes, but as long as you are willing to learn by those mistakes that is not a major problem. I do recommend starting in a fairly small way, though, and gradually building up. That way you don't risk putting a huge amount of work into writing a major article and seeing the whole lot gone in one blow. You may like to prepare the article at User:GillyhEnglish/The Thor Heyerdahl Institute and then submit it to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback when you think it may be ready to move out of your user space into main article space. (If you click on the red link a new page with that title will be opened for you to edit.) A userspace page like this is fine as a short term way of preparing an article, but should not be used as a long term alternative to a proper article. Finally, please do feel very welcome to come back to me with any further questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - you have been very helpful!GillyhEnglish (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Peggy Liu

HI James, if you get to this before anyone else does perhaps you can delete it again, perhaps with a spoonful of salt.

17:58, 16 November 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Peggy Liu" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://chinaglobalspeakers.com/?p=3841)

Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mobile Reagents

Hi,

You just deleted the page entitled "Mobile Reagents".

This page is not a blatant attempt at "advertising or promotion", it was intended to be an information resource, and was a work in progress.

I initially created a stub for it yesterday, as a favour to the people who wrote the application... just to get the ball rolling. It got flagged for deletion because what I wrote for it was quite short. I was not aware that this would trigger some kind of abuse-flag procedure. The article is definitely valid - or at least, it will be valid if you would be so kind as to restore it, and let us continue to work on it.

Please reconsider your decision.

Best regards, Alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.212.212 (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the article was "intended to be", it was written in a way which promoted its subject, telling us all about what wonderful features it has, even using such wording as "a unique scientific application". The fact that you created the article "as a favour to the people who wrote the application" means that you were helping them to promote it, and also that you have a conflict of interest, and so should not be editing on the subject at all. Wikipedia does not exist to host articles as a "favour" to the producers of products, but there are plenty of web sites that provide exactly that service. Finally, I should say that my searches suggest that, even if the article were written in a non-promotional way, it would probably be deleted, as I can find no evidence that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for the clarification. That does sound very reasonable - however, the Mobile Reagents page was started in good faith, with every intention of conforming to the goals of wikipedia. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow the page to be exist? e.g. rewriting it much more carefully, to avoid sounding promotional.

Best regards, Alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.212.212 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you register for an account in Wikipedia, you could work on draft articles in sandboxes for that very purpose. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I would not encourage anyone with a potential conflict of interest in a subject to write an article on that subject. generally speaking it is not a good idea to write on subjects in which you have a personal involvement, or on behalf of someone who does. In your case I get the impression that your intention is genuinely to give objective coverage, rather than to write a spam article, but even with the best intentions it can be very hard for someone closely involved in a subject to stand back and see it from an objective perspective, so there is a strong tendency to write in a way that comes over as promotional even if you honestly don't think you are doing so.

However, if you are determined to try, since you say you created the article you are presumably Aclark.xyz, in which case you could create a page at User:Aclark.xyz/Mobile Reagents, and work on it there in the hope of producing something suitable for eventually reaching as an article. (If you click on that link you will get a blank new page to start writing in, and when you click on "save" it will be saved with that title.) However, before you spend time and effort on doing this you should have a very careful look at the guidelines on notability and reliable sources. I have known many new users who, following advice from other editors, have put a lot of work into preparing an article in a user page, only to find that, as soon as they launch it as an article, it is deleted for lack of evidence of notability. Read the notability guidelines and ask yourself "does this product satisfy these guidelines?" Only if the answer is "yes" is it likely to be worth spending time on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for the time you have put into clarifying these issues. (Yes, the "anonymous" posts were from me, I didn't realise that I wasn't logged on at the time.) Until you explained it, I have to admit I did not have much understanding of Wikipedia's policy of discouraging people with close connection to a subject from writing pages about it, and I apologise for not having read up on the subject as thoroughly as I should have. The only reason I created the wiki pages for two of my own projects (SketchEl and Mobile Molecular DataSheet) is that I was of the opinion that information on these subjects would be beneficial to the community at large, and saw no problem with writing a factually accurate document. Certainly had I not done this, nobody else would have, at least not for some time. It was my hope that I would be able to "get the ball rolling", and from there the wiki community can treat it just like any other piece of content. I am now well schooled, and will certainly not be creating any new pages if there's any kind of grey area.

I do hope that my two project pages do remain on WikiPedia. I put a fair bit of effort into making them into a useful information resource, and connecting them up with other pages in the same subject group. It would be a shame to disqualify this information just because of who it comes from.

- Best regards, Alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aclark.xyz (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Thanks for finally blocking that vandal ClapBoy380, he was really becoming a nuiseance. Have a cookie!

Rusted AutoParts 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}}!

--Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:49 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Camping and Caravanning Club

You haven't protected the article here the expirary time is set for the time you made the protection. Mo ainm~Talk 19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the protection log entry as saying "expires 15:11, 22 December 2010", and the time I protected it as "15:11, 22 November 2010", so it seems you must have misread it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your correct maybe it's time I went to Specsavers. :) Mo ainm~Talk 08:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sambhar

Thanks for your message. I'm glad you agree with me but am puzzled that you conclude the user should not be blocked. Another admin decided to assume good faith, but subsequent to that I proved with the page source analysis that all six sites promoted by this user are indeed from the same person and this puts beyond doubt that this is a spam only account. This came *after* the original admin's decision yet the user is allowed to continue. Why? Surely it merits a permanent block. Stopping spammers is more important than upsetting the feelings of an admin who is obviously logged off now (as no further edits have been made since warning Sambhar). --Biker Biker (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The conversation (as well as my response to a similar question) at my talk page might clear some things up. Furthermore, I'm not logged off, I'm just not actively editing at the moment. I am, however, watching my talk page and keeping an eye on Sambhar's edits. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My Page Deleted

Sir , My page got deleted titled "Chaudhari Technical Institute". I am ready with the new content in neutral way. Should i create the new page / or i can get my old page back. Ast.bhatia (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hollybrook

Hi James, I see you deleted Hollybrook. Is there material there that could be contributed to Shirley, Southampton? I thought there might have been, but I don't really remember. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You can see the text of the article at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hollybrook/107757412580811. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It confirms that there's nothing there worth re-using unfortunately. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ignasipuig

I see that you have now twice nominated User:Ignasipuig for deletion under CSD U2, i.e. as a userpage of a non-existent user. However, the user account does exist, as can be seen at Special:Contributions/Ignasipuig. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi James. Yes, but that's not quite how things were supposed to happen. Yesterday I re-nominated that page here, but that didn't seem to put a tag on the page or even seem to notify anyone of what I was doing or why. So, I followed this up today, trying to use something other than Miscellany, but nothing else seemed correct, so ended up using the speedy deletion option again - which of course didn't give me the chance to explain my re-nomination.

Anyway, irrelevant of my poor use of wiki-tools, and from personal experience, it seems to me that this is not a 'real user' in the true spirit of the word. However, I rest my case. You decide. Rgds, Mannafredo (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Homospaciens

Dear JamesBWatson, I have added three online external references (see links below) from reliable sources (articles from the Washington Post, from the European Space Agency, and from John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences) that prove that, Homo Spaciens, is a term commonly used in the field of space exploration to explain our future evolution. Then, this is not an original thought, nor a review, or an invention, and it's been there since many years. Therefore, I encourage you to re-consider your position before recommend its deletion. Thank you. Homospaciens (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny at all that the expression exists, but the article is an essay which makes an original assemblage of assorted ideas into a new synthesis, and I don't see any evidence that there is significant coverage that justifies that synthesis. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

edit warring on Show Biz Bugs

I've got an IP that is edit warring on Show Biz Bugs, and may also be using another address as a sockpuppet. If he continues this edit war, give him a warning or have him blocked. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly wrong with his edit; if anything, he's actually tidying it up a bit. And I will remind you that it takes two to edit war... HalfShadow 21:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 81's version is a clearer explanation, and I have restored his edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see three copies of the same edit by 98.254.83.35 and two reversions by 81.135.x.x, so who is edit-warring? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dublin Dragons

Hi James! I was just checking on the Dublin Dragons American Football wiki page which I created. It says that it was deleted by yourself and I'm no sure why. I noticed another post on your talk that said someone else's page was vandalized and I'm quite sure this is what happened with my page. We are one of the Football Teams in the Irish American Football League (IAFL) and are non profit, nothing to sell etc.. Hope you can help to get our page back up and running. Look forward to hearing from you! AVP8472 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion by Realkyhick because he thought it seemed to be purely promotional. Reading it I agreed. Here are a few quotes from the article: (1) "The Dragons are proud to be one of the founding members of the current Irish American Football League." (2) "We attract an array of talented players from all countries including the USA, while at the same time producing some of our best home-grown talent here in Ireland..." (3) "We are proud of the fact that we have one of the best coaching setups in the country." I have rarely if ever seen any article with more unambiguously promotional prose as that. The fact that the club is not for profit is irrelevant, as Wikipedia's policy is not to accept promotion for anything, commercial or otherwise.

Even if the article were written in non-promotional terms I am not sure that it would satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Both the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (sports) are certainly relevant, and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) may be worth a look too. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi James, That's sounds ok. A lot of the text was taken from the Club website and it would be more promotional stuff on there. I am happy to change the article, can I get access or a copy to change the article text please. Regards AVP8472 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied the article at User:AVP8472/Dublin Dragons. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great James! I have Up-dated the text in the article and I hope it's ok now. Regards, AVP8472 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Intervention against vandalism

Thank you for you reply. I've pointed out Observerq's edits because practically all of them have only one thing in common: a nationalistic point of view which distorts the information already present on WP; needless to say that these edits are never sourced. In order to impose his/her particular point of view, Observerq uses several strategies:

he/she falsifies pieces of information which are possibly harmful for the image of his/her ethnic groupe (see his/her editing the numbers of the Jewish victims of Chernivtsi and Sighetu Marmaţiei; see also Cuman people) or which could possibly offer his/her ethnic groupe reasons to be proud (see: Kaloyan of Bulgaria, Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria, Basarabi Cave Complex...)
he/she tries to impose Romanian names to places / rivers / people [...] which don't have Romanian names and/or he/she unnecessarily hightens the Romanian variants of these names (there are too many examples of this kind of edits: Moldova, Wallachia, Khotyn, Transnistria, Bukovina, Balta, Ukraine, Hunyad Castle, Timočka Krajina, Körös River, Debrecen, Salonta, Szeged, Gyula, Hungary, Jassy–Kishinev Offensive (August 1944) and so on)
he/she inserts redundant or irrelevant information (or, on the contrary, deleats pieces of information) only in order to emphasize the Romanianness of the thing especially when the article is related in some sort to ethnic minorities living in Romania or to the history / geography of present day Romania (see: Miercurea-Ciuc, Sighişoara, Mediaş, Dobruja, Gelou, Iron Gate (Danube), Danube, Black Sea...)

As at least 95% of his/her edits are of this particular kind, I can hardly see how these contributions could be taken for innocent cases of content dispute. Burghiu (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

James, can you help me please?

I created a page for a MMA fighter from Romania, Bogdan Cristea. what did i do wrong? can you please tell and to make it permanent?

i know all the details of him from Sherdog, but you cant find his age and his birth on the internet.

HELP ME PLEASE, PAL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlabel337 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As recorded in the deletion log, and also on your talk page, the article does not indicate that the subject is notable. Apart from the general notability guideline, which is linked from your talk page, you should look at the guideline on notability of people. Those two pages will show you what kind of evidence is required to justify keeping the article. Finding personal details like his age on the internet are not enough, as all sorts of people have that kind of information recorded, and that does not establish notability. You should also look at the guideline on reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

deleted page

Is it possible to get the page back (hamilton lane) and put it under a work in progress tag so I do not have to start all over?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcats9801 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Wildcats9801's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I would gladly oblige if it weren't for the fact that it appeared to be a copyright infringement. Unfortunately I can't legitimately make a copy of it available for that reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the picture or the text content is a copyright infringement? I pulled the information from the company website and public sources which I did not purposely plagiarize. Thank you for clarifying, I may just need to reword.

It was the text, which is very nearly verbatim the same as that at http://www.linkedin.com/companies/hamilton-lane, as stated in the speedy deletion tag placed in the article by Cindamuse. I actually remember checking this article, and finding that the wording was, as I said, very nearly the same as that at that URL, but even more exactly the same as that at http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Hamilton_Lane, so I gave that URL in the deletion log. However, that URL no linger contains anything remotely resembling the text of the Wikipedia article. Yes, it is basically a question of rewording.

If you are quick, before Google's cache is renewed, you can still see the article at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lYT2Jytp7icJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Lane+%22Hamilton+Lane%22+Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am the original author. If I can get the linkedin page changed, can you put the page back up or is it already deleted forever?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcats9801 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 November 2010

Yes, I can put it back up. However, as far as copyright is concerned, Wikipedia requires verification that you are the copyright owner. (Since anyone can create an account and claim to be anyone.) Instructions on how to donate copyright material are given in a page to which there is a link in the copyright notice on your talkpage. However, the text would still need substantial rewriting to avoid being deleted as promotion, and you might find it easier just to rewrite it from scratch. Finally, you should be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, which discourages editing on a subject to which you have a close connection. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer if you could put it back up and I could edit it from there. That was my first page so it took me a really long time. Also, the piece on Linkedin has already been changed. I am not directly associated with this company. Thanks for your help. I will be able to remove any promotional language tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcats9801 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 November 2010}}

While I fully sympathise with you, I'm afraid I must stick to what I have already said: I cannot legitimately make available a copy of what appears to be a copyright infringement. (Incidentally, the idea of a "talkback" tag is that you put it here to tell me there is a message for me on your talk page. It is not needed if your message is here. On the other hand the best way to sign a message is to put 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end. That is automatically converted to a signature, complete with a link to your talk page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)