User talk:JBW/Archive 57

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 50

←

Archive 55

Latin alphabets

The consensus title is "Latin alphabets", but I can't move it there. The title you used was undiscussed and implicitly wrong, since Latin is a language. — kwami (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Where was this consensus reached? I see no discussion of the matter. As for "Latin", it was originally the name of a tribe, as you can see at Latins, but is now most commonly known as the name of that tribe's language. However, the word is also used for various other uses too, such as Latin jazz, Latin dance, Latin liturgical rites, Latin square, not to mention numerous uses in the combination Latin American. In this context it refers to form of the alphabet which was developped to write the Latin language, so even if you insist that "Latin" must be restricted only to uses relating to the language, it is a reasonable use. However, Wikipedia articles use titles based on how words actually are used, not on how you or I or anyone else think they should be used. A Google search for "Latin alphabet" produces 293,000 results, suggesting that the expression is commonly used and recognised. In any case, I am bewildered as to how you can reconcile your preference with the title "Latin alphabets" with your insistence that "Latin" can refer only to a language, not an alphabet.

What you call "the title [I] used" is, as far as I can see, the title that the article has had for all of its history, apart from a brief period from late June to July 2012, and two even briefer periods now that you have moved it. I see that you say in an edit summary "that is not the original title", but I can see no evidence that it ever had any other title until it was moved on 29 June 2012 by Indiana State. However, if you know better, please tell me what its original title was, and when the first move took place.

I also see that you have decided to move-war over the article, in violation of WP:BRD. I don't regard that as a helpful decision.

The article concerns alphabets which are derived from the Latin alphabet, but are not identical to it, so surely "Latin derived alphabets" is a more reasonable description than simply "Latin alphabets", or "Roman alphabets", since the alphabets in question were never used by the Latins or the Romans, nor for writing the Latin language, but are derived from an alphabet that was. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Another POV is that they are alphabets based on the Latin script, and that's what's intended by "Latin alphabets". Many are actually derived from other Latin alphabets, not from the Latin alphabet itself. We had several long and involved discussions a couple years back about distinguishing 'alphabets' from 'scripts'. So, for example, there is the Arabic script, Arabic alphabet, and potentially Arabic alphabets (though that is currently a rd). Similarly, there is the Cyrillic script and Cyrillic alphabets. Latin was the same, until s.o. moved this article w/o discussion: Latin script, Latin alphabet, and Latin alphabets. This is common usage – sources say that English is written in "the" (or more accurately "a") Latin alphabet, not in a "Latin-derived" alphabet, and on WP we always try to say a language is written in "the Latin script" or in "a Latin alphabet". After reaching consensus with those discussions, we removed the "derived" wording from a huge number of articles, not just for Latin, but also "Cyrillic-derived" (there's no such thing, they're all just Cyrillic), "Arabic-derived", etc. Currently, when we speak of a Latin-derived script, we mean something like runes. (The word "derived" seems a bit strong for the simple adaptation often seen. Another common but odd wording we tried to do away with was "Latin alphabet schemes".) So yes, I've reverted your move, because it ties into a huge number of other articles which we spent a long time getting in sync.

I thought this article had been moved with all the rest. Perhaps the move was reversed, and since it was a minor article no-one noticed? Regardless, the consensus displayed by our other article titles, as well as the wording in hundreds of articles and templates, is consistent with "Latin alphabets" as the title.

BTW, this only came to my attention because someone wanted to move Languages written in a Cyrillic alphabet to "Cyrillic-derived alphabet", giving this article as the reason.

For clarity, I suppose "Latin-script alphabets", which I see here and there, would also be acceptable, but I suspect there would be the same common-name concerns. I think that was probably considered in the discussions. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You said

You said at the revert page, "See the big pink notice when you edit." Yes. Even a big pink notice. Speling12345 (talk) 9:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Merry Christmas

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers ^talkback is wishing James Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same

Copyright

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Codywarren08's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied at User talk:Codywarren08. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Codywarren08's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Traditional Chinese medicine

Not sure where the 'only warning' came from there were three other warnings which the IP blanked. This guy has been IP hopping. I seem to remember a similar series of edits, but haven't found it. Looks like a block would not be useful here. My apology for the blunder. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ged UK just protected the article. Jim1138 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Playdale Playgrounds Ltd.

I was giving serious thought to refusing this at WP:REFUND under G11 anyway; your deletion tips the balance for me, so I've zapped it again. A belated Happy New Year, by the way! Yunshui 雲‍水 14:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, maybe you would like to amend your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done so. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

List of NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering people

Can you re-evaluate the speedy of List of NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering people? The page was moved here by User:Dizzygofer1, sock of User:Mangoeater1000, and the redirect was created when I moved it back. The page only existed at that title for half an hour. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite right. Thanks for correcting me. I have deleted and salted the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Jax 0677's talk page.
Message added 20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh

[1] Did you mean to block the anon for 8 years? Oo Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No, for 5 years, which is what I did. 2011 passed a while ago. JamesBWatson (talk)

Oh my grief. I've been doing so much Chemistry over the last two days that my brain has been melted... I'm still surprised at the length of the block though, and you forgot the date stamp on that post :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Stub???

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Fortdj33's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Black60dragon

This editor has reverted the change from Journeyman editor back to Veteran editor III on their user page. I've just noticed that a similar change was done by an IP Address - 174.125.71.54 - on 21st November. This Geolocates to Missouri - which is where Black Dragon is based. During his block he made several IP edits to his page as a block evasion/socking, but what's the process for editing his own page via IP outside of a block? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as the block evasion is concerned, I increased the length of the block because of it, and protected the user page for the duration of the block, to prevent the same happening again. However, what you asked about is IP editing while not blocked. It is far better not to do it, because it may give the impression that someone else is editing your user page, which can lead to various problems, perhaps most commonly someone else reverting your edits because they look like vandalism by someone else. However, there is a big difference between "it is far better not to do it" and "you must not do it", and as far as I know, unless it is done with the intention of being deceptive, there is nothing to say that an editor can't do it. Another issue is the question of posting lies on one's talk page. As far as I am concerned, deliberately posting false information on any page is vandalism, and should be dealt with as such. However, every time that this issue has been discussed, so far as I know, consensus has been that these service awards are at the discretion of the user, and if anyone wishes to post a false one then they are free to do so. However, there is another point about this. In my experience, editors who choose to lie on their talk pages about how much editing they have done, not surprisingly, are invariably disruptive in other ways too, so such false claims are a pretty good pointer to editors whose editing is worth watching. I bet quite a few editors who do post such false service awards that get blocked, not for doing that, but for other things which would never have been noticed if they didn't choose to call attention to themselves by their childish vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We have had this discussion in the past. First there is no penalty for doing so, and I technically "could" have the highest and no one could really do anything. But, like I said, we can count the edits how we choose, and I count the edits I have done on other Wiki projects which is fair to do. I dont see why you think this is such a big deal, as it doesnt affect anyone. Though I only edited my page during the block because people edited my page, even though I stated that I dont want anyone to. I just edited that page and left, Besides the page was protected until the block was up. Editing my page when the block is up from an IP is not punishable, but again what does it matter? BlackDragon 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything James said. However, just to be accurate, you don't have the requisite number of edits even counting other wikis, not even close.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, as was mentioned in the previous discussions - the "other Wiki Projects" you say you contribute to, are not part of the Wikimedia Foundation, hence my comment that if you count them - you may as well include Google searches as well for all their worth. Also, apologies to James for this spilling over to his page. It was originally intended as a simple question about block evasion and/or sock puppetry. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Black60dragon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SCISYS article deletion

Hi, I coincidentally noticed you've just recently deleted the SCISYS article. Whilst I have no idea as to the article's history, I am able to demonstrate the article's significance and feel it's probably worthy of inclusion on merit.

If you can restore the article (or if you're happy for me to restore it from an Internet Archive previous version and amend accordingly), I'll set about rewriting and rewording it to be NPOV, plus adding some more stuff about their radio playout systems.

Cheers, Chris W. (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To me, the article, containing such text as "SCISYS is conversant with a wide range of technologies and software development approaches. It is well known for integrating systems together to provide value", looks pretty promotional, and there is also a lack of citations to independent sources. However, if you can deal with those issues, and turn it into an acceptable article, then that will be great. I have moved it to User:Christopherwoods/SciSys for now. (By the way, for future reference, it does help to give the exact title of an article. I first looked at SCISYS, which I have never deleted or even edited, and it took a bit of searching to find it at SciSys.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Arthurian characters

Hello again! Just wanted to run something by you, so that there is no misunderstanding this time. As you know, I have been trying to make sure that all the Stub-Class articles in {{WikiProject Fictional characters}} are properly tagged. However, there are several that fall into Category:Arthurian characters, and I know that you have already removed the stub tags from some of them.

AWB considers any article with less than 500 words to be a potential stub, and the majority of the stub articles in the Wikiprojects that I follow are 3000 bytes or less. As a show of good faith, I updated the classification of all the Stub-Class articles in {{WikiProject King Arthur}} that were clearly not stubs, but with the above criteria, there are still 27 Arthurian characters that could be marked as stubs: [2].

Can you please explain to me why you feel these articles are not stubs, since most of them are nothing more than a few unreferenced paragraphs? I would like to add stub tags to these articles, so that they can have a better chance at being expanded, but I don't want to be accused of edit warring or disruptive editing again. Any thoughts? Fortdj33 (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As already discussed, my idea of what should be regarded as a "stub" sets the bar far lower than yours does. However, as I have also already said, I think that I got the whole issue out of proportion. I have, in fact, decided that what is and what isn't tagged as a "stub" is not important enough to bother about. No doubt when I removed the tags I felt that they articles were not stubs, but I don't think it worth going back and considering whether I was right or not. I will leave it up to you: if you disagree with my removal of the tags then please feel free to restore them. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. At second glance, there are a few characters on that list that are borderline, so I will leave them as is, but if you don't object, I will go ahead and re-tag the rest of them. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Declined Speedy deletion

Hi James,

You declined my speedy deletion here, on the grounds that its been around for a year so users may have links to it. What links here shows that it is unused. It's a template that I created a year ago, and never used or told anyone about. I can go to RfD, but really, that seems like a waste of time. Could you please reconsider the speedy request? Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The absence of anything on "What links here" proves nothing, because there may well be off-Wkipedia links. I have files on my own computer with links to Wikipedia pages that I think may be useful to me, and they won't show up on "What links here". A Google search found five links to this template on other web sites: one each on hitchhikersgui.de, wiki.verkata.com, and wpedia.goo.ne.jp, and two on newikis.com. There may be others that I have not found. Whether any Wikipedia editor will ever make use of any of those links or not, I have no way of knowing, nor, I suggest, have you. However, even if the likelihood of the redirect being of any use to anyone is utterly tiny, does keeping it do any harm? Doesn't it make sense to take the line if something cannot possibly do any harm, and it just conceivably may be of use to someone somewhere sometime, then it may as well be just left? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I could leave it, certainly. But it's a mess I made, and I don't want to be responsible for creating a mess. ({{Afd-notice/WelcomeGNG}} isn't a memorable title, and there were a series of others ({{User:Mann_jess/Afd-notice}} from my workspace and {{User:Afd-notice/WelcomeGNG}} from a typo). I tagged them all (including this one) to clean up after myself from last year. I don't think it's plausible that others have saved the template when it hasn't been used or mentioned since its creation. If someone does like it, then great (that was the idea, after all), but it'll still be linked in Category:Welcome templates to be found easily. I'll open discussion at RfD and see what others think. Thanks for your time handling this. I appreciate your input; if others feel the same way, I'll leave it alone. You're right, it's not doing much harm, it just makes things messier. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCllerian_agenesis

Hi, thanks for your message. Sorry for misplacing mine. I think the pic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCllerian_agenesis is vandalism because I think it's completely gratuitous to have such an explicit image, which adds nothing to the information that can be read in the text. Thanks again for your help. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it adds little to the information that can be read in the text, though it's not entirely irrelevant, because if you look closely you can see that the vagina is a dead end, not leading to a womb. You can try removing the image if you like. However, my experience indicates that if you do you will be likely to encounter strenuous opposition from editors who will cry "Wikipedia is not censored" and restore the image to the article. If you do try to get consensus for removing it, I wouldn't recommend calling it "vandalism", because using that word for editing which has been done in good faith is another sure way of getting opposition to your editing. ("Vandalism" is something which is done deliberately with the intention of doing harm, whereas I see no reason to doubt that the image was added with the aim of improving the article, whether you believe that it achieved that aim or not.) The image was added to the article by an editor known as Auric. You may like to raise the matter with him or her at User talk:Auric.JamesBWatson (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Olehenriksen

Hi James

Sorry if I am creating messages all over the place, but I am not at home with Wikipedia communications.

I find that I can't even reply to you if I am logged in because I am blocked, but apparently I can if I am logged out.

I am not impersonating anyone, but I am of course aware that there is both a celebrity and a company with the same name. And hundreds if not thousands of others; it's not an uncommon name for a Dane.

If I create another account or change the name of my current one, that seems to be construed as some kind of "evasion" attempt by Wikipedia, so I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On this occasion I was going to edit the "Origins" entry on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borland_Sidekick because it is incorrect. I was there at the time and can tell it the way it was.

I don't know what kind of verification you will accept, but I can refer to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borland

where I am listed as one of the co-founders of Borland back in the '80s. For more current roles I can refer to:

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=137671287&trk=tab_pro and http://www.bpod.biz/uk/contact.html

Kind regards, Ole Henriksen

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.23.88 (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again James

Due to the difficulties of using my Talk page because of the block, it would be much easier for me if you emailed me on this issue.

Thanks, Ole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.23.88 (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page, and by email. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking

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

Answered there. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

hello sir

hello sir , i am the owner of the farco jewellers and first i posted wrong thing and then posted about farco jewellers how it was established. please mention where it was wrong..thanks

"Farco the name was first introduced by a local businessman Sofi Mohammad Farooq in Srinagar, Kashmir for glass business in year 1999, and in year 2004 it was introduced in the jewellery line. S.M. Farooq was not aware of this business and was not even intrested so he hired a well know Gold Simth GURDEEP SINGH (Bobby Singh) as Manager at Farco Jewellers. S.M. Farooq was not satisfied with the result of FARCO Jewellers as he decided to discontinue it in the year 2011. But on 6th march 2012 his son FAISAL FAROOQ decided to manage and direct the Farco Jewellers towards the achievement of goals." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal16 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that your business is notable enough to be the subject of a page in an encyclopaedia, and if it is then you are not the person to write about it, as you are not a neutral observer, but an insider with a conflict of interest. [You amy find it helpful to read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, to see what sort of issues are involved in writing about a business. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The Dialectic of Sex

JamesBWatson, you recently blocked me and Beauvy for edit warring at the Dialectic of Sex. You were, of course, perfectly within your rights to do that, and I understand what the purpose of the blocks is supposed to be: to get us to reconsider our behavior and take a different approach to editing. Permit me, however, to point out the obvious: the blocks don't really resolve anything. The fact that you blocked Beauvy for seven times longer than you blocked me means that the blocks worked out to my net advantage, in terms of ability to influence article content. Given that nobody other than me and Beauvy seems to have any real interest in editing The Dialectic of Sex, the fact that her block is still in effect means that I will now probably be able to do more or less whatever I feel like doing at that article for the next twelve days. Was that really what you intended? I could spend twelve days editing that article, and my changes might (but more likely will not) be acceptable to Beauvy and help end the content disputes there. If at the end of twelve days, Beauvy returns from her block and starts undoing whatever I've done during that period, will you then block her? If you do propose to block Beauvy in such a scenario, I might well be prepared to refrain from reverting her - I could beg Flyer22 or Ishdarian to do my reverts for me. Would that be acceptable behavior? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The disparity in the length of the blocks was because Beauvy had already twice been blocked for edit warring, and you hadn't. The purpose of the blocks was to convey to both of you that edit warring is unacceptable. I have no opinion on what the article should contain, and no idea whether your preferred version is better, or Beauvy's, or neither. Nor do I have any interest whatever in influencing which if either of you gets more of a chance to edit, nor in ensuring that you both have an equal chance. You said "the blocks don't really resolve anything", and went on to explain how the blocks don't lead to equality of editing opportunities, but that is totally missing the point, because that is not what the blocks were intended to "resolve". I repeat: the sole purpose of the blocks was to convey the message that edit warring is unacceptable. It is to be hoped that a fairly short block will convey that message to you, but in the case of an editor who has been undeterred by two previous short blocks, it is unrealistic to hope for that, so I tried a longer block. (Surprisingly many editors, having been blocked once or twice for edit warring, simply accept that an occasional block for a day or two is a price worth paying, and the only thing that gets the message across is the shock of realising that the blocks will not stay at a day or two. Whether that will be so in Beauvy's case, I know not.) If it becomes apparent that you have recruited other editors to act as meatpuppets, to carry out edits on your behalf, and thereby help you avoid being blocked, then both you and they will be blocked, and very likely for a substantially longer time than you were blocked this time. Finally, I have never tried to keep count of the number of editors who have explained to me in words of one syllable why blocking is not bound to work, and that anyone who puts their mind to it can get round blocks. Incredible though it may seem, I do have enough intelligence to have worked that out for myself years ago. However, we have to use the best methods we can, and in practice in the substantial majority of cases the tools we have do help, with only a very small stubborn minority of editors persisting no matter how often they are blocked, and even for those few, the amount of disruptive editing is reduced by blocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

1. Not edit warring was, of course, part of what I meant by taking a "different approach to editing".

2. I think that you will find that Beauvy, being obsessed with the article, will go right on edit warring, regardless of her most recent block. She stated last year in her unblock request that she would "talk everything out in the most non-contentious way possible." That might have been taken to suggest that she would discuss edits before making them, but she has done no such thing and it seems clear now her unblock request was made in bad faith. Her idea of "non-contentious" discussion has been to issue shrill instructions to me in capital letters (Unfortunately this is not a joke - take a look at the article's talk page, if you haven't already).

3. "Meatpuppetry", according to the relevant page, is recruiting people who are not already Wikipedia editors, in order to get them to support one's position in content disputes. It should have been perfectly clear that I wasn't proposing to do that, so your telling me what will happen if I am found guilty of it was inappropriate and out of place. I was proposing only to appeal to people who already are Wikipedia editors, and who I've interacted with in the past, to revert what, in my judgment, are obviously bad edits. How could that conceivably be considered inappropriate? Is there a policy against it? (NB, Flyer 22 and Ishdarian are both established editors, and I think they can confirm that they aren't my meat puppets. Ishdarian already reverted Beauvy once, and did so on his own initiative.) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, a correction to a mistake I made above. It is not quite true to say that "the sole purpose of the blocks was to convey the message that edit warring is unacceptable". It was to convey the message that edit warring and the other unacceptable practices that have gone on are unacceptable, and Beauvy not only has a history of edit warring blocks, which you don't have, but has also been more disruptive in other ways. However, that does not substantially alter the point that the block was a way of trying to convey the message "this is unacceptable", nothing else.

OK, if you are the kind of person who thinks that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are sort of legal documents, then you are right in saying that the emphasis of WP:MEAT is on bringing in people who have not previously edited Wikipedia. However, the idea that somehow it is all right to do exactly the same thing as long as you use people who have previously edited is absurd. Perhaps if I point you to WP:CANVAS you will point out that the emphasis is on swaying discussions, and we could (but won't) waste a huge amount of time arguing about whether the present dispute can reasonably be characterised as a discussion. If I point you at Wikipedia:Tag team you may perhaps come up with the usual mantra "but it is only an essay". However, I don't give a damn whether or not it is possible to find somewhere some document which so clearly applies to this exact case that nobody could dispute it. The fact is abundantly clear: to suggest that getting someone else to do your edits so as to get round policies and avoid a block that would ensue if you did them yourself is perfectly OK, is not only against all common sense, but is also clearly against the whole spirit of consensus recorded in numerous places. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia does not have firm rules, and arguing about whether the exact wording of a policy contains features that do not relate to this particular situation is pointless. Trying to evade policies in the way you have suggested would be disruptive, and any disruptive editing can lead to being blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe in future, if you feel the need to tell a particular user that a proposed course of action would be wrong or unacceptable, you could just say that the action in question is a bad idea without invoking irrelevant policies meant to cover different situations entirely? I'm not going to start popping up on people's talk pages saying things like, "Please revert this edit for me." I'm not sure why I shouldn't ask a given user to review a situation at an article, however - and I don't see how you are in any position to legislate against that. You may see me asking a different admin for guidance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

I'm supernew at this. I just created an article called Cellone, the instrument, after I had noticed an incorrect linking to CellOne, the telecommunications company. I had expected to have to create a disambiguation page, so I'm a little confused. I just want to confirm this is not necessary. I guess the links are case sensitive. Thanks! Markelf (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia page titles are case sensitive except for the first letter, so for example cellone will link to your article Cellone, cellOne will link via the redirect CellOne to the article BSNL Mobile, while CEllone won't link to anything, unless someone creates a page at either CEllone or cEllone. Perfectly straightforward once you understand it, but I remember when I first started editing I was confused by the fact that things sometimes seemed to be case sensitive and sometimes didn't. In a situation like this, it is helpful to provide disambiguation by adding a "hatnote" to the top of each article, pointing to the other one. If you look at the two articles, you will see that I have now done this, in one case using the template {{about}}, and in the other case using {{Redirect}}. If you are interested, more information about that is available on the documentation pages for those templates (click on the blue links I have given) and on the page Wikipedia:Hatnote.) It is not normally worthwhile having a whole disambiguation page unless there are at least three or four articles to link to. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I see it, thank you!97.93.84.8 (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be more precise

Either yesterday or today you placed an alert on my Talk page asking me to stop "Soapboxing." I don't know which of my edits you are talking about, and request that you explain more fully what I've done on my talk page. I've done very little editing, ever since discovering that anyone who attempts to respond to the Alerts on the top of pages, asking people to fix those pages, automatically results in an accusation of being a shill! Instead I have done innocuous stuff like fixing information for actresses! If you could point out the specific edit I did which has broken the rules, I'd appreciate it. Chiascuro (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If you did not intend your extensive editing of I Do Now I Don't to be promotional, then you lack awareness of the nature of your own writing. I have never accused you of being a "shill", as you call it. However, since you raise that question, I note that another editor has suggested that you are here as a spammer, being paid by a business to abuse Wikipedia to promote their preferred view of themselves. I also note that, when it was suggested that you might be doing that, you did not deny it. However, even if that suggestion is unwarranted, and you are not being paid to post spam here, the fact remains that your attempts to write in a way that looks neutral have not been entirely successful. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

G13 deletions

Greetings. Do you have a short-cut way of deleting not known to me, or do you just have s super-fast computer. you seem to be able to implement speedy G13 about three times as fast as I can!--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I open about ten G13-nominated pages, go to each one in turn and click on the "delete" at the top of the page, then go back to each one in turn and click on the button to confirm the deletion. Because I do a batch at a time like that, while the page I have just clicked is still loading its deletion form, I can get on to the next one, rather than sitting and waiting for the first one to load, which saves a little time, but apart from that I don't have any special trick. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I had not thought of doing that; actually saves quite a lot of time!--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Swakop Uranium

Please clarify your objection. What do you mean by Soapboxing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SR.MBA (talk • contribs) 18:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The wording was from a standard message, which I sometimes use because it is quicker than repeatedly writing out individual messages that say essentially the same thing. My understanding of "soapboxing" is that it usually refers to attempting to promote a cause, commonly a political cause, but it can also be a religion, a charitable campaign, or some other cause. My guess is that the word is included because an astonishingly large number of people who come to Wikipedia to try to promote a cause deny that what they are doing is "promotion" because for some reason they think that the word can refer only to commercial promotion for the purpose of gaining money, so the word "soapboxing" is put in an attempt to make it clear that campaigning is included too. In any case, there is no doubt whatever that the page you created was promotional in character. It was full of such marketing-speak as "committed to caring", "committed on [sic] developing its communities to ensure they grow with us and share in our progress along the way", "continues to be proactive in promoting safe working environments by anticipating, recognising, evaluating and controlling unhealthy and unsafe situations", and so on and so on. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

You just showed me a page I've never seen before — MediaWiki:Ipb already blocked. We were both attempting to resolve Vjaasief's editing at the same time; this was the first time I've ever gotten into a block conflict :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I have certainly been in block conflicts before. I suppose that must show something or other about the difference between us. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nawab Faizunnessa school and all that

You got there a moment before me with the block button. I think we should bring back the school article, in MatthewVanitas' version (if it can be found among the maze of moves and redirects). It will probably be a vandalism target for a bit, but I wouldn't like this user to think that threats and vandalism have worked in keeping out the version s/he doesn't like because it isn't the preferred promotional fluff. What do you think? JohnCD (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: Matthew's contributions mean it was not, IMO, a valid G7. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. However, I will leave you to negotiate the maze, as I have no more time left. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Found and undeleted (by me), restored to Matthew's sensible version (by you), moved to Nawab Faizunnesa Government Girls' High School (by me), and also semi-protected for a month, as they will probably be back with socks and IPs. Phew! JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"Probably" is probably a bit weak. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Surely is. JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. I created a redirect from Nawab Faizunnesa Girls High School (which is how the article used to be titled and to which there are a number of links). Dwpaul ^Talk 21:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. I have semi-protected that, and the other incoming redirects, for a month. JohnCD (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Problems getting unacceptable

Hello! Please advise me what to do about things like this. I just can't stand it anymore and am considering to quit English WP alltogether. Specifcally I should note that you never miss an opportunity to highlight that someone is not a native speaker of English, which, frankly, borders on personal attack, where the never miss an opportunity part is so insulting and cruel and unfait that is makes me feel physically sick, and where the accusation of personal attack re: English is beyond my comprehension. It's been going on for a long time now, with that user. Would you please give me some constructive advice that might make me behave and/or feel better? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's difficult to know how to give you advice that may make you "behave and/or feel better", since I don't know you, and therefore don't know what might work for you. However, I have spent some time looking into this, and for what it's worth I will give you a summary of what I have found. I will then give you what advice I can, but whether any of it will help you at all I don't know.

First, I looked at the link you gave me. Certainly the suggestion that mentioning someone's not being a native speaker of English is a "personal attack", on the face of it, seems like nonsense, though why anyone should take such apparent nonsense so much to heart as to feel "physically sick" is not immediately evident. However, it is clear both from your comment and from the remark about it in the linked page that this refers not to one incident but to a perceived long-term issue, I reserved judgement. Other than that, I could not immediately see anything that you might be objecting to in the link you gave.

It is very unfortunate that you said "It's been going on for a long time now", but gave no links to previous edits, nor any other information that would help me to know what you were referring to. I thought that looking at pages where you had both edited might show me what you meant. I found 134 pages that you have both edited, and on those pages you have made a total of 1973 edits, and Surtsicna has made 2431. Probably at that point the sensible thing to do would have been to decide "This is ridiculous. Without further information I can't reasonably be expected to put in the work required to track down what SergeWoodzing is referring to", and left it at that. However, wisely or unwisely, I selected at a sample of the pages, and looked at edits that the two of you had made there. What I saw was as follows.

There are two editors who both have similar interests, and frequently edit in the same topic area. Not surprisingly, therefore, the two of you have come into contact with one another frequently, starting not long after you first started editing in 2009. Sometimes you have agreed, sometimes you have disagreed. There is a tendency on both sides to respond to anything one disagrees with with in ways that are more negative than is really necessary. Sometimes there are indications of contempt for anyone who can express a particular view, where respectful acceptance of the existence of a view different from ones own would be perfectly possible, and sometimes there is a personal sense of being hurt by something which does not seem to merit it. Both of you seem unable or unwilling to shrug your shoulders at any perceived wrong and move on, but instead both tend to make drama out of such issues, you in particular being a frequent visitor to AN/I. I have indeed several times seen you mention the fact that some other editor does not seem to be a native speaker of English. As far as I can see, all such mentions have been made in good faith, because it seems to you that the non-native speaker status may have adversely affected either writing or understanding, and no instance I have seen has it looked remotely like a "personal attack". Nevertheless, at times the comments about non-native English speakers have perhaps been misjudged, and a couple of times in the sample of edits that I have looked at, it seems that the true problem has been misunderstanding of English by you, which you mistakenely attributed to mistakes in English by someone else. I also see an unnecessary readiness to move in to conflict relating to Surtsicna, as for example in this discussion, where you had no reason at all to get involved, but chose to.

Just over three years ago, Uncle G, addressing you, wrote You need to apply some sense of perspective, and only talk about personal attacks when someone personally attacks you ... and only talk about contempt when someone actually says something contemptuous ... At the moment, you're crying wolf when there's no wolf, and it's getting tiring. This is why you'll find that no-one is taking any action. Every time that you do this, it adds another datum to people's model of you, which is rapidly becoming "SergeWoodzing just overreacts to pretty much anything, on the basis of a long-standing dispute on the Swedish Wikipedia that none of us really care about or want to be involved in, and xyr claims don't turn out to have any substance when investigated. To me, that seems a pretty good summary. Year after year, you keep on in the same way. Yes, Surtsicna is often less diplomatic than would be ideal, but you would be better off shrugging that off, thinking "oh, it's Surtsicna getting things out of proportion again", and forgetting about it. You asked me for advice on what "might make [you] behave and/or feel better". As I said, I don't know you, so I can't tell what will work for you, but I suggest that, when anything annoys, upsets, or hurts you, you try reminding yourself "It's only Wikipedia. So what if somewhere among all the 4 million articles and goodness knows how many talk pages, Wikipedia project pages, etc etc, somewhere someone has written something I don't like? It won't affect my life in any way", and then either move on and edit something completely different on Wikipedia, or, if you feel too much affected to do that, switch off your computer, walk away from it, and do something totally unrelated to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, if you absolutely can't stop yourself from taking personally things that people say here, and being hurt by them, then you will continue to have an unpleasant time as long as you stay here, and your options may perhaps be to leave altogether or to reconcile yourself to accepting that there will be things that upset you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just read User talk:Cotillards#Created grammar problem. I suggest you may like to re-read it, and compare the remarks by Cotillards with your own remarks. Do you really really see the comments by Cotillards as more deserving of the labels "uncivil" and "personal attacks" than your own? If so, I suggest that, as well as the hypersensitivity to what others say that is mentioned above, you suffer also from a blindness to the nature of your own writing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now read all of what you were kind enough to investigate and write here again carefully, and have posted a link here to my user page as a reminder, so I can reread it from time to time as needed.

I have no idea whether or not you're interested, but here are my balanced reactions:

These things made me feel better (as I had asked about):

"Certainly the suggestion that mentioning someone's not being a native speaker of English is a "personal attack", on the face of it, seems like nonsense"
"respectful acceptance of the existence of a view different from ones own would be perfectly possible"
"I have indeed several times seen you mention the fact that some other editor does not seem to be a native speaker of English. As far as I can see, all such mentions have been made in good faith, because it seems to you that the non-native speaker status may have adversely affected either writing or understanding, and no instance I have seen has it looked remotely like a "personal attack"
"Surtsicna is often less diplomatic than would be ideal, but you would be better off shrugging that off, thinking 'oh, it's Surtsicna getting things out of proportion again'"

In all the rest I see your good faith in hoping to get me to behave better, and that too - behaving better - would make me feel better.

I value your analysis.

Thank you again! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Eh??

Hi. Can you take a look at this edit of yours from a few moments ago? Not sure if we had an edit conflict but i don't think your action had the intended effect - you've removed the references i just added, amongst other things... thanks! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for pointing this out. I have now self-reverted. The way this sort of thing happens is as follows. I keep the version of the page that I plan to edit open while I do more checking. When I have decided definitely what I want to do, I go back to it and edit it. Meanwhile, you have edited the page, so what I am editing is no longer the current version of it. Of course, what I should do is reload the page before editing it, but 99% of the time it works OK doing it that way, so it becomes easy to not think about the possibility of damage. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

[The] Brothers Grimm

Re: your revert edit to Brothers Grimm...

Should the title of the article then be "The Brothers Grimm"? I know "The Brothers Grimm" redirects here, but maybe it should be the other way around? Note: I am not the one who made the change, just making an observation.

Kenyoni 13:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenyoni (talk • contribs)

My own preference would be marginally for "The Brothers Grimm", but I don't regard it as significant enough to be worth bothering about. My purpose was discouraging a persistent disruptive editor from continually creating new accounts every time one is blocked, by conveying the message "you won't achieve anything, as all your edits will be reverted anyway". I would not have reverted any edit that was clearly significantly helpful, but in this case it was so trivial that I saw no harm in reverting, and potentially a small benefit, for the reason I have described. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough :) Kenyoni 13:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenyoni (talk • contribs)

Emma Kenny

Hi JamesBWatson

Thank you for your message. Yes I saw from a previous Wiki user that I had been falsely accused of having two accounts which can easily be dismissed with a simple check of my IP location, which they don't seem to be bothering with.

I have been trying to return Emma Kenny's page back to its normal state because she is being targeted by some vindictive admins on here which to be honest, has left me shocked. I am a client of hers and this is damaging. I have also seen that her partner has had comments made about his family and this has then been denied by the editor/user making the comments.

This issue is not going to go away until the page is either deleted or returned to its normal state. I can't speak on behalf of Miss Kenny but I suspect she would rather it was deleted as all confidence has now been lost in the impartiality of Wikipedia editors.

Thank you for your time. I am recommending to everybody I know that they stop using Wikipedia as it makes me wonder how many other articles on here which I have enjoyed reading, are being corrupted by people with an agenda.

Bobbins123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbins123 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Quranic epics

I'm not sure what you mean by this edit. What sort of evidence are you after? Evidence that the user is topic banned? St Anselm (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Aah! The knowledge that it was a topic ban was enough, as I then searched for "topic ban" on the user talk page, and found it. However, just knowing that it was supposed to be violation of a block or ban was not enough for me to know what to look for. Really, if you know relevant information which the admin assessing your request may not know, it is helpful to provide that information. For example, "topic ban on religion, see user talk page" would be good enough: a diff to the edit announcing the ban would be even more helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Burma

[[Please see Talk:Burma#Copied from Talk:Myanmar -- PBS (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ding!

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogo Dodo (talk • contribs) 06:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Easy4me

Can you reblock Easy4me for the same thing as last time? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about exactly what recent editing you regard as problematic? I have looked at a fairly large sample of the edits since the last block, and nothing strikes me as obviously disruptive. If you know of edits that you regard as disruptive, then please tell me which ones, and I will look at them. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Notifying page authors of a PROD

Hi, re this edit - please could you direct me to an old revision of the template which used the wording that was "removed from Template:Proposed deletion without discussion". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding the message suggesting notifying the creator of the article was done as a result of a suggestion at Template talk:Proposed deletion in 2006. The wording suggested there, and added to the template, was "Please consider placing <nowiki>{{subst:prodwarning|</nowiki>{{FULLPAGENAME}}<nowiki>}}~~~~</nowiki> on the User Talk page of the author.'" That wording remained in place until the following year, when an editor called Ruud Koot unilaterally changed it, without any discussion, making it into an order rather than an invitation to "consider". Later, the relevant content was moved to Template:Proposed deletion/dated, but since that page is transcluded in Template:Proposed deletion, the content still shows there. Apart from the suggestion at Template talk:Proposed deletion of adding this wording, there had previously been a discussion about a suggestion of making notification of deletion nomination compulsory, but the discussion rejected the suggestion. Unfortunately I can't tell you now where that discussion took place. Here is a revision of the template with the agreed wording on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in the nature of an objection at Template talk:Proposed deletion, which goes back four years. There is also nothing directly relevant since August 2007 in the archives, the most recent being Template talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 1#Recent change to prod template? If nobody (other than yourself) has objected during the 6+ years that have elapsed since then, I don't think that the wording which was used prior to January 2007 should be restored without discussion. Please revert and discuss. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The proposal to make notification of deletion nominations compulsory was discussed and rejected. Maybe I will find time to search, and if I do so, and I find the discussion, then I will link to it. Meanwhile, I see no reason why PROD should be regarded as somehow exempt from consensus on that issue just because there has been no discussion specifically on its talk page: we don't need to have a separate discussion going over the same points for each of the numerous deletion proposal templates. Here are a few examples of other deletion templates: {{db-inc}} {{Db-g11}} {{mfd}}. As you will see, all of those say "Please consider..." as do other speedy deletion templates. {{PRODBLP}} uses different wording "Notification of the article's author(s) is strongly recommended", but the essential point is the same: notification is recommended, rather than required. There is no justification for making the PROD template out of line with consensus on how such templates should appear. Turning to the relevant policies, Wikipedia:Deletion policy makes no suggestion that notification is compulsory, while Wikipedia:Proposed deletion explicitly indicates that the practice is encouraged, but not required: "The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed article deletion, except for cases where contributors are no longer regarded as active editors on Wikipedia." Restoring the wording which was put in without discussion to make it seem compulsory would therefore actually be misrepresenting policy. The argument that "nobody ... has objected during the 6+ years that have elapsed" is fallacious, as absence of objection does not imply agreement. I have only just reverted the change because I have only just noticed that the wording had been changed. I do not check every time I use a template to make sure that the wording has not been changed since I last knew what it said, and I don't suppose that many (if any) other people do so either, and in the case of editors who apply PRODs using automated or semi-automated tools such as Twinkle, it is even less likely that they will see it. It is highly likely that there are many editors who, like me, have not noticed this small change which is visible only in small print near the bottom of the message, and have remained blissfully unaware that the wording has been changed without discussion, contrary to policy. Furthermore, there may be many editors who have seen the wording, and don't like it, but have not objected because they are unaware that it is contrary to policy and to the outcome of past discussion. (Mentioning Twinkle reminded me that Twinkle provides notification of the author as an option, which is yet more evidence of consensus against it being compulsory.Naturally, by default the option is enabled, quite rightly, since more than 90% of the time it is right to inform the author, but there are times when there are good reasons for making an exception.) One case where I think there is a very good case for not posting the standard templated warning message is where a newish user has a whole string of articles all nominated for the same reason. A page full of notifications all making the same criticisms of the editor's work is a wonderful way to discourage and dishearten a new editor, and completely unnecessary. In such cases I regard it as much better to follow one templated message with one, as far as possible friendly, note saying something to the effect "Unfortunately the same applies to several other pages you have created. This must be very discouraging, and I sympathise. Here is some advice about how to avoid the same problems in future..." rather than a whole string of templated deletion messages. If you wish to propose a change to policy on this matter, then you are of course free to do so. However, as long as policy remains as it is, reverting a template to a form which misrepresents policy is not a good idea, even if your personally disagree with the policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Lost talk page

Andy Appleyard moved Talk:Imaginary Number (The Maine EP) to Talk:Imaginary Numbers, which you deleted shortly thereafter.

Please try to track down the talk pages, if any, that once resided at Talk:Imaginary Number (The Maine EP) and Talk:Imaginary Numbers and merge any useful content and useful history to Talk:Imaginary Numbers (The Maine EP), and delete any no-longer-needed redirects. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from redirects, the only content that there has ever been on the talk page of any version of the article was the single sentence "The same subject is on the page Imaginary Numbers." That was at a time when a copy-paste move of the article was created. Since then, Anthony Appleyard has history merged the two copies, so that sentence is no longer needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your followup and cleanup on this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

protection of article "Islam and Sikhism"

hi Admin,

"User:Sikh-history " who was blocked for vandalising article "Islam Sikhism" on 22 Jan 2014 by admin "JamesBWatson" ,is continuing same typo vandalism under user name "Atheismfanatic" ,kindly protect the article .

Regards Gurpartaap11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpartaap11 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Done JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Prod of Mari Hanafusa, and conflict of interest tagging of other Takarazuka Revue actresses

Hi,

I removed the prod tag you placed on Mari Hanafusa, since it sounds like she would pass WP:NACTOR criterion 1 as having performed major roles in multiple notable stage productions. My impression is that Takarazuka Revue is a fairly major performance group, and that their performances and top actresses would almost certainly have received coverage in Japanese sources. However, I'm not able to read Japanese myself, so I don't think I would be able to find sources easily. Perhaps someone from WikiProject Japan could help with finding sources? Regardless, I don't think the article should be deleted without discussion, as again, I think it is very likely that she is notable. I also noticed that you tagged several other Takarazuka Revue actress pages as having been contributed to by someone with a conflict of interest. Looking at the list of contributors, I couldn't see anyone who obviously seemed to have a conflict of interest. Who in particular were you referring to? If you meant User:Cougarwalk, I don't see how he could have a conflict of interest, as his user page says he is a freelance writer/journalist who lives in Canada and was originally from Hong Kong. That doesn't seem like someone who could possibly have any professional relationship with a Japanese theater troupe. Was there someone else you were thinking of when you placed the conflict of interest tags? Calathan (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I think you are right about the notability. As for the conflict of interest, I can't now remember what gave me that impression, but something certainly did. If you want to remove the COI tags then please do. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and removed the conflict of interest tags. Calathan (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi and PC on butt?

If "butt" is semi-protected indef., then PC should be disabled. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that it makes any difference, but since you have asked, I have disabled it. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Cathedral of Praise

I removed your prod tag, because this article appears to barely pass as notable. Its deletion might be controversial, so send it to WP:AfD instead, please. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I don't care about it enough to put further time and effort into it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries

If you don't have time to check into it, no worries on my part. I raised the issue on the Admin Noticeboard. Thanks. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Janet Hunter listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Janet Hunter. Since you had some involvement with the Janet Hunter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Glary Utilities

Hello, I was looking for Glary Utilities and found that you had deleted it at 04:07, 2013 June 24. Since it does not exist, I intend to resurrect it and update it. Could you please restore it, and let me know what issues you feel the page had previously? Since I connot see the version of that page when you deleted it, I can only guess. However, no matter what this page contained previously, I can say that this is a reputable software utility and it is entirely possible to form an unbiased description of the utility and its function with copious independent third party reviews, etc. Thanks in advance.
Enquire (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidently, you have seen the deletion log entry, in which case you will have seen that it was deleted as a copyright infringement. There is no question of knowingly restoring copyright infringing text. To do so would be illegal, and I would personally be liable for doing so. In any case, since you indicate that you know of "copious" suitable third party sources, there should be no difficulty writing a new article from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is there a non-copyvio version available? An article I worked on years ago got "hijacked" by a copyvio and was deleted. Fortunately, I recorded the page name so I could ask to have the older, legal versions, restored. See log. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless there were other problems as well as copyright, that should not have happened, davidwr, because an article should not normally be deleted as a copyright infrignement if there are early versions without the copyright infringing content: instead, the later versions should be removed, and the article restored to an earlier version. I never delete an article for copyright reasons without first checking back to the earliest versions to see if there is a version I can revert to. In this case, unfortunately, copyright infringement was present right from the creation of the article. Even more copyright violating content was added later, and eventually there was a mixture of copyright infringements from different sources. (The one source I cited in the deletion log was just a sample to show that there was infringement. When there is copyright infringement from various sources, it is often impracticable to cite every source, especially when, as in this case, content has been copied to so many places on the web that it is impossible to determine which was the original source.) Unfortunately, I think this one just has to be a case of starting again from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Postscript: I see that, in the other article you refer to, Graeme Bartlett eventually restored the earlier, non-copyright-infringing versions of the article. It would probably have saved trouble if those versions had been kept in the first place, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

He restored them after I asked for a refund last month. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Need more B's

From Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Worm That Turned it appears that more bureaucrat's are needed, especially in the area of renaming accounts. Your userpage indicates that (account names) is something you've had interest in. Would you consider doing an Rfb? Gerardw / Nobody Ent / NE Ent 02:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Chris Alexander (editor) ‎?

Hey, I'm asking a few people to keep an eye on this article. You might remember it from a week or so ago, when you had to block an IP for disruptive editing. Their block is now up and while the article is still semi'd, it will run out next month and the current discussion on the talk page for Alexander kind of shows that they're unlikely to want to change their habits anytime soon. I really think that this person has a deep personal dislike of Alexander that is affecting their decisions concerning their page. I finally just came out and told them that this is how it comes across and politely asked them to walk away from the page, but I'm expecting a lot of guff. In any case, I want to know if you'd continue to keep an eye on it for me. It was moved per a move discussion to Chris Alexander (editor), but the IP really seems to want to minimize what Alexander has done. I hate to use the word "vendetta", but that's what it's starting to come across as. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I Win Wiki page

Hi there,

My Name is Asaf Shani (I'm a 'He'). About a year ago I've uploaded a page to Wikipedia about my I win concept - A concept that my 16 years in the field of confrontational situations proves to yield better results than the famous Win - Win paradigm. A while ago I finished writing my 6th book about the subject - Win More, Compromise Less - which is currently sold on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EINRVA2/ref=s9_simh_gw_p351_d6_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1GEG9T2XXEVV4QP2YQP7&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1688200382&pf_rd_i=507846).

About a year ago I've uploaded a page about the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Win_(Conflicts_and_Negotiations)&action=edit&redlink=1) that was deleted due to violation of section G11.

I've just encountered the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Discipline and we've been wondering how come this page doesn't' violate section G11. I'm not asking in order that you'll take this page down but rather in order to understand how can I upload my ideas about what I perceive is an important model to Wikipedia without violating any rules.

Thnx in advance, Asaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroffs (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Because our notability and sourcing standards don't care what you, the author feels is "an important model"; they care what the rest of the world feels. As the author of the subject, you're not supposed to write about it here on Wikipedia ES &L 15:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I addressed the issue regarding The Fifth Discipline at Talk:The Fifth Discipline and put a note on User talk:Stroffs pointing him to that page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about The Fifth Discipline, just as I know nothing about over 99% of the 4,433,764 articles in English Wikipedia. The fact that an article with particular characteristics exists does not necessarily justify the existence of another article with similar characteristics, for several reasons. Some of the relevant issues are discussed at WP:OTHERSTUFF. (That is a section of a page about various inappropriate arguments advanced in deletion discussions, but the principles discussed essentially apply in this case too.)

Stroffs/Asaf, you express a wish to "upload [your] ideas about what [you] perceive is an important model". Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages us from uploading information about our own ideas. If your ideas become widely enough noticed, reported, and discussed to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then no doubt some independent person, with no direct connection to you or your work, will write an article about them. That article, unlike the one you wrote, should describe the ideas involved from a neutral point of view, not announce them as facts. It should, in fact, be impossible to tell by looking at the article whether the person who wrote it believes in the ideas described, disbelieves in them, or has no opinion one way or the other. Your article, on the other hand, made it unambiguously clear that it was written by someone who wishes to "spread the word" about your ideas, and persuade readers that those ideas are right. So, the answer to your question is "Leave it. If and when your ideas achieve widespread recognition, some uninvolved neutral person (not you or anyone working with you or for you) will probably write a neutral, balanced account of them. Unless and until they achieve that sort of recognition, your ideas do not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria." JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Three Mexico Dolphinariums at Los Cabos B.C.S.

Hello, Thank You for the note of encouragement...I will try harder and re-post new information asap (KbgemKbgem (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC))

A kitten for you!

Thanks

Lizziet123 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Magic Thermodynamic Box Ltd

My apologises for deleting the 'potential delete tag', this was done in error.

This is my first upload and I am trying to put a straightforward page on the encyclopedia about a Company which specialises in renewable energy products. I have for a number of years worked in the renewable sector including solar panels and heat pumps.

The products are innovative and unique and I believe deserve mention in the encyclopedia. There are many 'standard' companies already on the site and I think this particular company has merit due to the revolutionary product offering.

I could do with some help to rephrase so that the article is acceptable to you.

Thanking you in anticipation

Yours Chelmerhomes Chelmerhomes (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BlackDragon

Hi. I saw that you talked with Black60Dragon about his editions. He made (again) a vandalism in Triple Crown Championship. He allways changed WWE to World Wrestling Entertainment. We explained the change, we used sources, but he allways reverted. It's time for a ban, I guess. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

substituting templates

cleaned up this for you, have no idea how many more there are where you incorrectly substituted the template. you should remove the TfD notice before substitution, or the tfd notice will be in the article for discussion which are no longer open. 108.73.30.247 (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do know how to do it properly. Evidently I made a mistake here. Thanks for pointing this out: I shall check other substs I did on the same template and see if there is any more of the same to clear up. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

great. could you also clean up all the redlinked templates in Voltaire? e.g., Special:WhatLinksHere/template:p., Special:WhatLinksHere/template:chap., ... there seems to be a recent flurry of activity there with citations being cut and paste from the fr wiki. 108.73.30.247 (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

the discussion for template:General G. O. Squier class propulsion closed as substitute and delete, so it would be great if you could avoid undoing the proper substitutions of the template. I rolled back about six of your recent edits. 108.73.30.247 (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. It seems that I checked the last revision that I had made, and edited that, instead of editing the latest revision, where you had already corrected my earlier mistake. Perhaps I'd better take a break from editing for a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Weirdness

You mentioned you opened a proxy check at OPP regarding this unblock request, but I don't see it listed at WP:OPP. The reason I ask is that I had trouble adding a report earlier this month (it took at least three tries before it showed up). Maybe there's a glitch with the transclusions? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a caching problem. I always go directly to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests, which shows the current state of reports correctly, but if instead you look, as you evidently did, at WP:OPP = Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, the transcluded version of the "requests" page which you will see will be a version stored in the Wikipedia server's cache, which may not be the latest version. If you are interested enough, you can read more about this issue at Wikipedia:Purge, but if you just want a simple method of dealing with the problem when you come across it, then just click on the "edit" link at the top of the page, and then save it without making any changes to the page or writing an edit summary. That will force the server to update its cache. (Note: You have to make this null edit to the page where the transclusion takes place, not to the page which is transcluded. In this case, that means that you have to edit WP:OPP, not the requests page. That is why I say you should click the edit link at the top of the page: if you click the link to edit a particular section, you are likely to be editing the transcluded page.)

This problem can occur in many cases where one page is transcluded on another: I sometimes find that Template:Admin dashboard displays a hopelessly outdated version of WP:AIV. My first attempts to uploaded new version of images led to a great deal of frustration, because the article where the image was would still be showing the old version, so I would think I had failed to upload the new one, and would waste time trying again and again to do it, until I eventually gave up, only to discover some time later (such as the next day) that the image had magically updated itself. This happened several times before I realised what was happening. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

One more thought. A few pages, such as Template:Admin dashboard, have a "Purge the cache of this page" link, which is quicker than making a null edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't had caching issues in the past, the OPP issue is a new one and I use it quite extensively. For some reason Firefox has recently become stubborn with updating the cache on that page. I'll simply go straight to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests now as you suggested. Thanks for the advice!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I find that a page can be free of caching problems for months, then suddenly start exhibiting them for a short while, and then equally suddenly stop. I am doubtful this can be anything to do with your particular web browser. Certainly it wasn't an issue with your browser's own cache, because when, having read your message, I checked, I too found that the OPP page was not showing the latest changes to the requests page, though the latter was. I can't absolutely rule out the possibility that somehow your browser was failing to send some part of the http code that should have prompted the Wikipedia server to update its cache, but I really don't know how that could happen: I am not aware of any bit of http code that specifically does that. My guess is that it's just a case of the servers giving lower priority to updating the cache on the basis of other work they are doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Got it. It sure would be nice if someone could cobble together a bot to auto-archive old reports, but I'm not very hopeful.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was wondering earlier today why there isn't currently any bot that does that. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply

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

- Gilliam (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Cookie for you!

Michaelzeng7 has given you a c ookie! 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}}!

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage access

Hi, James. This is just to say that I hardly ever agree with removing talkpage access — let 'em vent and take the page off your watchlist is what I say — but MilesMoney's rants and accusations against TParis (an admin who can really be said to have bent over backwards to treat MM correctly), combined with his removal of TParis's reply, really is beyond the pale and, as you say, the last straw. I have to agree with your removal of talkpage access. Good call. Bishonen | talk 14:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pburka (talk • contribs) 15:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pburka (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Deprodded Mike Powelson

After I researched the candidate, I concur with you that Mike Powelson is not notable as of now. I decided to boldly merge his biography into the page for California's house elections, as the Wikipedia page on politician notability suggested. Cheers, Altamel (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

86.221.91.154

IP address 86.221.91.154[3] user is going around and stating that characters like Elektra[4] and Kira Nerys are Fictional bisexual females but the pages don't state this and this user is not proving any of it.108.82.15.230 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your first step should be to explain at User talk:86.221.91.154 that the content he or she is adding needs to be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

DroidMsg

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Philip Moon (actor)

Hi can you restore and I'll source it. He definitely meets GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Done JamesBWatson (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy note: ramble at Talk:Vishwakarma (caste)

Hi, a courtesy note that your name has been mentioned in a ramble at Talk:Vishwakarma_(caste)#Moderators_Please_check_User:Sitush:_Divide_and_rule_policy_is_still_existing. (See point #5) Cheerio! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

some advice please

You are aware that LimeyCinema1960 added the entire article of The English Patient (film) to the talk page for that article. It's not good form to edit another user's posts, so I'm wondering what to do with this extraneous material. Perhaps you could contribute something on the talk page in the way of advice? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for prompting me. I had intended to deal with this, but forgot to. There are various exceptions to the principal that one does not remove another editor's talk page posts, and in my opinion this is clearly one of those exceptions, so I have removed it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IP has returned

User:122.58.208.58 came back after the block you issued and is now repeating the same edits as before, blanking references, inserting external links, at International Fellowship of Christian Assemblies, List of Christian Denominations, Fellowship of Christian Assemblies, etc. I rolled back their edits on one page, but I hesitate to get rid of all their edits, as they are very subtle: basically, they're trying to mislead readers by confusing similarly named religious organizations, right? If the IP is causing trouble, I would be obliged if you would re-block. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my attention to this, Altamel. The editor is certainly disruptive, but I am not sure that it is deliberate. I haven't seen anything that looks to me like deliberately "trying to mislead readers", but on the other hand I have not looked at every one of the editor's 423 edits, so I may have missed something relevant. If you know of examples which give good reason for believing that, then please let me know.

Overall, this looks to me like a good faith editor who does not understand a lot of things about how Wikipedia works, and doesn't learn because he or she makes no attempt at all to communicate with other editors, or to take note of what they say. I have posted a fairly long message at User talk:122.58.208.58, trying to explain what the problems are, and suggesting a way forward. I prefer not to block for a significant time, in view of my impression that he or she is editing in good faith. However, two short blocks have not prompted the editor to change his or her ways. The longest block so far has been 31 hours, and there are very frequent gaps in the editing history of several days, some of them lasting for a couple of weeks or more. It is therefore entirely possible that the editor did not try to edit during the blocks, and never reads his/her talk page (certainly he/she never edits there). If that is so, then he/she may not even know that he/she has ever been blocked. In that case, the only way to make any contact with the editor will be to impose a much longer block. What I propose is to leave things as they are for now, and see whether the message I posted leads to any changes. If not, good faith or no, a longer block will be necessary. Please do contact me again if you see more of the same problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you made a good call here. It is exactly because of the ambiguity of these edits that I decided not to take this straight to AIV or something similar, since I knew you probably had more experiences distinguishing which editors are good faith or not. What I meant by "trying to mislead readers" was this edit [5], which added an external link to a similarly named, but completely separate organization. However, on further examination of this IP's edits, it seems to me that this was more of an isolated incident and might have just been a genuine mistake. There are edits like this one [6] that aren't bad faith. Thanks for posting a detailed message to the IP's talk page: I hope they get the message, and for now, it's probably best to leave things as they are. Altamel (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Glary Utilities

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Talk:Glary_Utilities.
Message added Enquire (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr. Watson,

Please remove your comment on copyright infringement from the deleted page B.E. Scully. The author is threatening a lawsuit as it comes up a Yahoo search and looks like the it's accusation of coyright infringement against the author. Thank you.

Editorqueen (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have moved Talk:Glary_Utilities to User:Enquire/Glary Utilities (talk). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the destination was a content page, not actually a talk page. So, I moved it, so I thought, to a sandbox talk page. It is now a talk page proper, but in the Wikipedia mainspace. I tried to move it directly to my sandbox "Glary Utilities" talk page, but experienced the same confusing (and unhelpful) error message. So, now its an actual talk page (good), but in the mainspace (bad). :(

Enquire (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I recruited help from User:Nick to get it where it should be ... now here: User_talk:Enquire/sandbox/Glary_Utilities

Enquire (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Vishwakarma at ANI

You should have received a ping but, just in case, you have been mentioned in this thread at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Restoring only a clean version

Re: This edit in which you said

However, for future reference, in case you ever find yourself in a situation which is similar but not identical, if the last version of the article had been purged of the original copyright-infringing content, it is very unlikely that it would have been possible to restore that last version, because it would almost certainly have contained contributions from a number of editors, and without keeping the history of their individual edits, there would have been no record of who wrote what, which is required by Wikipedia's copyright licensing terms.

I think restoring all edits and revision-deleting all but the "clean" edit(s) would meet Wikipedia's legal obligations. The question in any particular situation is whether it would be better to do this than to WP:STARTOVER. The answer may very well be "no, starting over is better." As a matter of practice though, I've been told that existing articles in which long-ago edits are "polluted" and which "good" edits were made prior to the copyright-violating material being excised, neither deletion nor revision-deletion is used - the entire edit history, copyright violation and all - is left intact so that the attribution is "cleaner." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Three points.

The editor was asking for just the last version to be restored, possibly with an earlier version too, but without the history. That is what I was addressing, not the other scenarios that you mention.
Restoring all edits and revision-deleting all but the "clean" edit(s) would show that various people had edited, but would not show which bits of the content each had contributed. When I license my work to be freely copied subject to attribution, it is not sufficient attribution to say, "JamesBWatson did something or other to this article, but we are not telling you what."
I am well aware that copyright infringements are commonly left in article histories in the way that you describe. However, if a copyright owner chooses to take such a case to court, I don't for one moment believe that any judge will accept as a defence "Aah, but, you see, the public could not see the text that we copied unless they first clicked on a link labelled "history", so that doesn't count as publishing a copy of it." JamesBWatson (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding #2, restoring all edits and revision-deleting clean edits: Prior to the introduction of revision-deletion, there were cases where a page would be deleted but the "last" edit either un-deleted or copied to a new page. The edit history of the now-deleted edits would wind up copy-and-pasted into the talk page of the now-existing article. This was deemed "legally sufficient." I think this was, in practice, very rare but it was allowed for. This was also back when we were using the CC 2.0 license, without the Gnu FDL. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

List of television stations in the Philippines

There have been a couple of reverts. Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgetting something? --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, George. For personal and family reasons, I have recently had less time available for Wikipedia than usual, and I'm afraid this is one of the things that have been left. However, I have now reinstated PC for a year, and I have also semi-protected for a shorter time. The trouble with PC in a case like this is that very often the troublesome editing still goes on, and although PC successfully does the job of preventing the damage being seen by un-logged-in editors, it takes just as much work on the part of other editors to keep rejecting changes as it would to keep reverting. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For reverting vandalism by block-evading editor (184.190.80.94, et. al.) Safety Cap (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of IP sockpuppet edits Reply

Hello. You have a new message at Safety Cap's talk page. Replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes to self

Check section above at #Company Page Deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Drinkreader Block evasion. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Longleat Safari Park

Hi James. You applied indefinite semiprotection to Longleat Safari Park in November 2011. I wonder if you consider that semipro is still needed; would you consider removing the protection to see if the vandalism resumes at previous levels? Thanks in advance for taking time to check this over. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 11:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The disruptive editor has not (so far as I know) been active for quite a while now, so I have lifted the protection. I will also look at other articles the same editor edited round about the same time, as there may well be others that are still protected and don't need to be. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, many thanks for taking the time to do this! Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the brand-new news story about 6 lions being controversially culled in Longleat, it probably would've been wise to wait a couple of days for this. Ah well :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. As the policy clearly states, "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred." An article that has a raised profile because of a news spike is just as likely to attract well-intentioned, new editors and constructive edits as it is to attract vandals and unconstructive edits. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. The semi-protection was put there specifically to deal with one highly disruptive editor. Now that that editor does not appear to be around any more, it would not be justifiable to keep the protection just in case other problems may arise. We can and should deal with such problems if and when they occur. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: User:Klenky

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at J Mo 101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Answered there. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Clear vandalism , in the article about albania , from the same person operating multiple SOCK PUPPET accounts with nationalistic motivation

Hello James it seems that the article about Albania is being vandalized by the same user operating at least 2 different accounts ( 1 ip unregistered account , and 1 registered account ) both from the same country .

1) First unethical and mal intended edit that they did was to put in the lead paragraph that albania is the poorest country in europe , bringing a source from a BBC article , when in fact the exact phrase from the source was saying > Albania remains one of the poorest countries in Europe outside the former Soviet Union < , meaning that many ex soviet union countries are poorer than albania , and not only them but even some NON ex soviet countries .

My objection was simple , that even if inaccurate , i politely asked them to moove it to the Economy section , in the article about albania , where it would be relevant. I presented them also with Eurostat , IMF , WORLBANK references where it was clearly demonstrated that this was not true .

2) Second edit by the same users , is changing the source of the ministry of economics of albania , so that to have a lower GDP per capita. The difference is simply because of the population . The actual population for albania today is 2.831 , and not 3,4 milion that IMF uses to calculate the gdp per capita , as demonstrated by INSTAT ( the national statistics insitute of albania with the 2011 population census ) , thus the ministry of economics of albania has a higher gdp per capita ( Gdp per capita is calculated by dividing Gdp with the population ) .

I would find it logical that the official economics ministry of a country , knows better its economy than a national insitute !!!!! And the explanation is preety simple ( the population difference , from the migration and other demographic issues for these past 20 years ) . This is also supported by the Worlbank statistics !

Please do check these 2 sockpuppet ( user with an ip 77.49.58.129 , and user Astarti34 accounts because they are way beyond limit , vandalizing an article of a country that they dont like with a nationalistic objective , which only god knows why ! They ( or maybe should i say the same person operating multiple accounts ) have made over 20 reverts in a single day for the same matter !!!

Also please do check the talk page for the article of Albania .

Best regards , John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi JBW. Just an FYI: I noticed this edit warring yesterday while doing vandalism patrol and reported it to WP:AN/EW today (wasn't aware of the extent of it yesterday and didn't have time anyway). FWIW, as noted on the talk page, the article is subject to ArbComm general sanctions. Cheers.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WilliamThewatt and the reported user know each other very well as demonstrated here > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliamThweatt&diff=595062326&oldid=594256153 , where the reported user is asking help from him to report me ( and in fact by using nationalistic language ) !

Here is another link showing that you have participated mutliple times in war editing , supporting user Astarti34 . > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=594910468&oldid=594886667

for more detailed explanation , please do follow this link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Malbin210_reported_by_User:WilliamThweatt_.28Result:_.29 to see that i have given enough evidence to proove that user WilliamThweatt ,is implicated in this story as much ! He has been implicated in the war edit as well ! I do not know their connection , but they are connected in some way as proven by the links .

I just ask from them to stop vandalizing the article about albania . He is simply trying to make you not follow the matter any further , when in fact he is implicated as much , reverting and supporting the edits from the ip account 77.49.58.129 , and user Astarti34 ( Malbin210 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC) )

Sorry, JBW, I know your talk page isn't the place to hash this out, but I feel I have to respond to the above. 1)I don't "know" any of the involved parties, well or otherwise, nor have I had any previous interactions with them. As far as the edit warring goes, Albania: Revision history speaks for itself. User:Malbin210, as a courtesy to JBW, please direct further comments to the Albania article talk page, the edit warring noticeboard, or, if your comments address me directly, to my talk page. Thank you.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 02:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

ok then however i would really prefer if James would delve into the matter as well . Best regards , ! ( Malbin210 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) )

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Constructive criticism is always appreciated. What doesn't kill us... Cheers, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Company Page Deleted

Hi, the company page Point Inside was deleted in 2013 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Inside We weren't aware of any bans or blocks on the page, and would like it to be restored. Please let me know how I can help. Crystal pointinside (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Crystal

I don't have much connection with this. As far as I know, my only connection is that I removed a redirect which was left after another editor had moved the page from one place to another. However, I see that the administrator who deleted it has since retired from Wikipedia, so I will look into the relevant history for you, and let you know what my conclusions are. Unfortunately, I don't have time to deal with it properly now, but I will try to get onto it soon. If I haven't got back to you within 24 hours, please do feel more than welcome to remind me, in case I have forgotten about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for checking into it. You help is appreciated.50.78.44.229 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Crystal

Just checking in-have you had time to take a further look? Crystal pointinside (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Crystal

My apologies, Crystal pointinside. For personal and family reasons, I have recently had less time available for Wikipedia than usual, and I'm afraid this is one of the things that have been left. I will make a note of it, and try to catch up as soon as possible. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, yet again my apologies for taking so long to get round to dealing with this. However, here at last are my observations, now that I have looked into the history of the case.

The article was created by an editor employed by a business that has a long history of deliberately editing contrary to Wikipedia policies. That business has gone to considerable lengths to try to hide the nature of what they are doing, using numerous dishonest methods to try to evade detection. They have blatantly lied to Wikipedia about what they have been doing.
The business has also lied to its "clients", whom they have sometimes duped into paying for services which the business knows full well they are in no position to undertake to provide.
The company has been banned from editing Wikipedia.
Wikipedia policy is that pages created by banned users can be summarily deleted. There has been much debate over this policy, with some editors taking the line that if an article is acceptable in other respects, there is no justification for deleting it purely on the basis of who created it. However, the consensus is that, in a case such as this one, that consideration is outweighed by the fact that if the company knows that it can get away with persistently defying the ban, and that articles it creates will remain in place, then there will be no incentive for them to stop.
In this particular case, however, the article was not "acceptable in other respects", as there were other problems which would, in my view, have been sufficient grounds for deletion anyway, no matter who had created it. Principal among these problems was the fact that the article was blatantly promotional. It read not like an impartial encyclopaedia article, but rather like something put out by an agent paid to promote the company. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising or promotion of any sort, and using Wikipedia for the purpose of promotion is a breach of Wikipedia's policy.
I have checked the references cited in the article. They were a classic case of a well-known technique used by professional spammers who are well enough aware of Wikipedia's standards to know that the article they are writing is unlikely to meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards, and who seek to give the misleading impression that it does. This technique, described at Wikipedia:Bombardment, consists of posting large numbers of "references", in the hope that nobody will examine them all, and realise that they do not demonstrate that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In this article, a very large proportion of the references are dead links, links to pages that don't even mention "Point Inside", or pages that barely mention it. Others include promotional sites, brief reviews, and other pages with little value in establishing notability. If the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then any article about it is likely to be deleted, no matter who writes it or how it is written.
I gather that you work for the company. If so, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourage you from any involvement in producing an article about the company, as a Wikipedia article should be written from a neutral, third party, point of view. If, as seems likely, your company paid in good faith for an article to be written, unaware that the company you paid knew probably full well that the article was, for various reasons, unlikely to survive, then I fully sympathise with you. However, if it is any consolation to you, the article survived for over four months, while I have known many other similar articles that have not survived for a day. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the very thoughtful explanation. Can you tell me what user created the page so I can investigate further? I am also confused what articles were considered bombardment. I suppose that it's hard to see with the page being deleted - where these added by the same user? Crystal pointinside (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Bengi Semerci

Hello,

I am new at entering Wiki articles, there is too much information that I am not familiar with. Can you please explain to me why my entry was deleted and what I should do? I have another entry named Bengi Semerci Institute which I believe was not admitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deryautku (talk • contribs) 11:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no time now, but I will try to get back to you within 24 hours. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bengi Semerci was deleted per WP:G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of http://www.bengisemercienstitusu.com/bengiSemerciEng.htm; (copied from another web site), and WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (serving no other purpose other than promoting the person who is the subject of the article. The article was unsourced.

Bengi Semerci Institute was deleted per WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, and WP:A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The article was unsourced.

In my opinion, both articles were correctly deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung, for providing that answer. In addition, I will add a few more comments, which I hope may be helpful to Deryautku.

The article on Bengi Semerci read much more like a CV or resumé than like an encyclopaedia article.

It is essential that the subject of an article satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the subject doesn't, then no matter how the article is written, it is liable to be deleted. Unfortunately there are, in my opinion, far too many of these guidelines, and each of them is far longer and more complicated than it needs to be, making it very confusing for a newcomer to editing English Wikipedia to tell whether a subject does satisfy the guidelines or not. In this case, the guidelines which are most relevant are Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). However, the fundamental principle is that a subject is notable if there is substantial coverage of the subject in reliable published sources independent of the subject. (in this case "the subject" means either Bengi Semerci or the Bengi Semerci Institute, depending on which article is being considered.) "Substantial" coverage means that a few brief mentions of the subject are not enough. "Reliable" means that it is of no value to give sources where anyone can post information, such as Wikipedia, FaceBook, YouTube, and so on. "Independent of the subject" means that it is of no value to give the subject's own web site, the subject's FaceBook page, a page on a web site of a business working in collaboration with the subject, a book written by the subject, etc.

I tried to find evidence of notability by searching on Google. I tried using both general Google searches and searches on Google scholar. On the general searches I tried searching for "Bengi Semerci", for "Bengi Semerci Institute" and for "Bengi Semerci Enstitüsü".

On the general Google searches, in each case I examined the first two pages of hits. (In the case of a search for "Bengi Semerci", there were only two pages, with a total of 13 hits.) I found: Bengi Semerci's own web site; the institute's web site; several pages on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn; a couple of YouTube videos; an article on Turkish Wikipedia; a site which appears, as far as I can make out, to be a collection of articles by Bengi Semerci (not about her), amounting in effect to a blog; a page on a site selling a book by Bengi Semerci (again, not about her); the website of a business which makes just one brief mention of the fact that it works "in cooperation with the Bengi Semerci Institute"; a now defunct blog on blogspot; a list of speakers at a meeting, which merely includes in a list of 39 names Bengi Semerci's name and the description "Psychiatrist - Bengi Semerci Institute"; a page on a listing site on which the full and complete text about the institute is "Bengi Semerci Enstitusu, Doctor's Office and Home (private), Nisantasi"; and so on. Eventually I found a report of a meeting at which Bengi Semerci spoke, which was a bit more substantial, but if that one fairly minor amount of coverage is the best that can be found by looking at a few dozen of the leading Google hits then from my experience over the years, it is that it is very unlikely indeed that there will exist evidence satisfying Wikipedia's general notability guideline.

Moving on to the Google scholar search, I found 63 hits. The number of hits in a Google search is not in itself a very reliable measure of notability, because it does not distinguish between major and minor mentions, because it is an unintelligent listing which sometimes includes duplication and spurious hits, and for other reasons. However, in my experience 63 is a modest number of hits for a significant academic, and several of the hits that I looked at were merely inclusions of her name in lists of speakers, or other minor mentions, so my overall impression was that there almost certainly is not sufficient evidence of notability to satisfy Wikipedia's guideline on notability of academics.

One final comment. As I have mentioned above, one of the pages I found in my searches was Turkish Wikipedia's article Bengi Semerci. The first thing I saw when I looked at that page was a large prominent notice saying "Bu madde Vikipedi standartlarına uygun değildir. Sayfayı Vikipedi standartlarına uygun biçimde düzenleyerek Vikipedi'ye katkıda bulunabilirsiniz. Gerekli düzenleme yapılmadan bu şablon kaldırılmamalıdır. (Eylül 2013‎)" Even my extremely limited and fragmentary knowledge of Turkish was enough for me to realise the essential point of that notice, and I am sure you will understand it much better than I do, but for the convenience of anyone else reading this page, here is a Google translation: "This material is not suitable for Wikipedia standards. Page editing in accordance with Wikipedia standards can contribute to Wikipedia. This template should not be removed without the necessary arrangements. (September 2013)" That does not prove anything about the suitability of the subject for English Wikipedia, both because it gives no indication as to why it is considered "not suitable for Wikipedia standards", and because Turkish Wikipedia's standards are not exactly the same as English Wikipedia's standards, but I thought it worth mentioning. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Authorization

Dear Concern, We are authorized to carry out the Social Media of Mr. Suresh Kalmadi as per the attached letter and accordingly We edit/create new content of Mr. Suresh Kalmadi on Wiki and also other social media tools While We were trying to correct and edit the Wikipedia page of Mr. Suresh Kalmadi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suresh_Kalmadi) which is showing some controversial content against him and hiding the actual content supporting him and denying his conviction. But on the other side some user are trying to start an edit war against the content and Page of Mr. Suresh Kalmadi and prohibiting to mention the actual content even after giving the reference link and proper evidence. We are logged in using Username: “maharashtramera” We further notice that some the content we load is not accepted by you and gets deleted. Since we are authorized by Mr. Suresh Kalmadi hence request you to accept the content created by us.

Kindly resolve the issue at earliest since this situation is really annoying. For any further query Wikipedia can contact Owner of organization by dialing: +91-9818105555. Mr. J.P. Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maharashtramera (talk • contribs) 11:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You say that you are "authorized to carry out the Social Media of Mr. Suresh Kalmadi". In the context, I can only take that as meaning that you are attempting to use Wikipedia as "social media". That is indeed completely consistent with your editing, since virtually all of your editing has consisted of adding to the article Suresh Kalmadi content which looks as though it belongs on a social medium webs site. However, you have, unfortunately, misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a social medium, and it seeks to give neutral, third party, coverage, not to provide a platform for people or organisations to present their own preferred account of themselves. If you are "authorized" to edit on behalf of Suresh Kalmadi, then you are not a neutral, impartial, editor (as is abundantly proved by the blatantly promotional nature of your editing) and Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines indicate that you should not be posting content about him. The article is indeed, as you say, "showing some controversial content against him", as is proper in a neutral account, since that content is supported by reliable sources. Your attempts to suppress all content critical of him are totally unacceptable. Apart from the copyright issue, the content you have posted is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia, as it is nothing but an attempt at promotion of the person. (Here are just two examples of the subjective and promotional nature of your editing: "Kalmadi's job was to organise the Games and he and his team did it to perfection." "Suresh Kalmadi, the incumbent Member of Parliament, is a dynamic leader, who thinks globally, and acts locally, a man who dreams big and translates his dreams and vision into reality." There is much more of the same kind of marketing-speak.) Beyond that, I refer you to all the messages on your talk page, which give further information about why your editing is unacceptable, and why you will be likely to be blocked from editing if you continue in the same way. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

(message from page lurker) Maharashtramera has created a new article on the same subject: Suresh Kalmadi (MP). Needless to say, I've tagged it for speedy deletion under CSD A10. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, AndyTheGrump. The article had already been deleted by the time I got there, but it was enough to prompt me to indefinitely block the editor. As well as being a content fork of an existing article, and being purely promotional, it was yet another copyright infringement. In fact, all that was far more than enough: by this time, even one tiny little promotional edit would have been enough of a last straw to trigger an indef-block, in my opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to Maharashtramera, he had created the new article before you'd posted your response above - though given the multiple warnings on his talk page, I'd have to suggest that if he hadn't got the message already, he probably never would. From a quick Google, it seems to me that the existing Kalmadi article is entirely justified in giving extensive coverage to the negative material. I can understand why Kalmadi wants his 'social media' under control... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that the article was created before my post above. However, there had already been enough explanation of what the problems were on the user's talk page, and unambiguous warnings that continuing in the same way would be likely to lead to a block. Every essential aspect of what I mentioned in my message above had already been mentioned on the user's talk page before the article was created, including the fact that Wikipedia is not a "social media tool", so I don't think the fact that he had not yet been seen that message makes any difference. In fact, if I had known about the new article earlier, I probably would have blocked without spending time writing the message. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Chris Diorio, again

FYI: WP:REFUND#User:Jmcfarland27/Chris Diorio. This is the subject of WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jmcfarland27/Chris Diorio. He says he's going to work on it, so I suppose we have to give him another chance, though the subject does not seem notable to me. I will watchlist it. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. In view of the history of the page, this looks to me more like an attempt to use userspace to store a WP:FAKEARTICLE than like a bona fide userspace draft. However, we will see. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Romanian mafia

The term is Romanian clans not Romanian mafia, and is consisted mainly of gypsies (take a look, those articles include photos - they are not WHITE like the normal Romanians). He has no sources for his info (Muie88 means MiddleFinger88 by the way), I removed the unsourced info, I removed and replaced the dead links and I wrote it well (encyclopedic way, according to the sources). Moreover, this person has created another user (Jade444). I didn't try to delete the article or something like that. Let me tell the truth because they are mainly of nomad origins! I even brought new sources. Now please help me with the move, to Romanian clans because I can't do it anymore! Thank you Fanycfr (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The expression "Romanian mafia" is overwhelmingly the more usual term in English. As a rough guide, a google search for "Romanian mafia" produces 6320 hits, while "Romanian clans" produces 612. The number of Google hits is not a reliable measure, but when there is such a huge difference as that, it is a fairly clear indication that the one expression is more common than the other. Normally, unless there are specific reasons for doing otherwise, the English language Wikipedia uses the expression most commonly recognised in English as the title of an article. Unless you can provide good reasons for making an exception in this case, there does not seem to be any justification for changing the title of the article. As for whether the Romanian Mafia consists mainly of gypsies, you need to provide reliable sources for that if you wish to include it in the article. It is clear from sources that I have seen that there is a substantial gypsy mafia based in Romania, and that the sections of this mafia are referred to as "clans", but it is also clear that there is a non-gypsy mafia too. I have also seen suggestions that the gypsy mafias are to a large extent subordinate to the non-gypsy mafias. However, most of what I have been able to find is in sources that come nowhere near satisfying Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. It seems to me that there is probably scope for articles covering both the Romanian gypsy mafia and the non-gypsy Romanian mafia. However, it is really necessary to provide reliable sources, particularly since it is clear that the issues are controversial. So far, you have certainly not provided any sources (reliable or not) for some of the claims you have made. For example, in this edit you introduced the statement "Usually these people are part of the Romani minority of Romania, the so called gypsies", and you followed it with three sources. However, none of those sources states that Romanian mafiosi are usually gypsies. Indeed, in one of the sources the only mention of gypsies is the statement "He would not confirm the gang were Roma gypsies". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

One other point that I forgot to mention in that message. What reasons do you have for believing that Jade444 is the same person as Muie88? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment But those people are majority gypsies, in West some forget to mention they are of Roma/Romani origins (BBC says pickpocketing by gypsies - in Spain and Italy trust me it's the same, then in Australia the same, you can find many photos and articels say they are of Roma/Romani origins). In the majority of the articles the photos are of gypsies. So what's wrong then? CLAN is a term for gypsies groups - organized crime (I know better because I am from Romania). I didn't add clans, it was added. People were linking them to the South-American networks and so on without any source. Europol source says Northern Italy and Spain, the Romanian source the same. Then I personally re-added an Australian link because there wasn't any. Some links have been also dead, but I believe at external links. Viviane Reding has received letters from some French complaining about the gypsy communities, many of them having Romanian passport. source Romania is mostly safer than Western Europe, if you don't believe me please come and see, but our gypsies migrated in mass and they are organized in groups. I believe the Irish Travellers are mentioned as being travellers, the aborigens the same in Australia who have the same nomadic habits. Not all, of course, I don't generalize. But in this case, there are studies. Even in my country the crime is consisted by their clans. If you want, you can leave mafia, and I will also write the Romanian term. Because the Cosa Nostra is called the Italian Mafia. If we don't mention the truth, it's offensive to us the Romanians. I don't want to delete or anything, it's a shame already they have Romanian citizenship. I think Jade444 is the same user because he edited the same, in the same way. Fanycfr (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know what points you are trying to make. Nowhere do you provide reliable sources for the statement that the majority of Romanian mafiosi are gypsies. That may be true, but that is not the point. As for your statement "I know better because I am from Romania", why does that mean you know better what word is usually used in English, which is what matters for the title of an article in the English language Wikipedia? It doesn't matter in the least what they are called in Romanian, because this is not the Romanian Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment The photo of Costică Argint (racketeering in Romania and Italy): http://www.gandul.info/stiri/costica-argint-a-fost-arestat-la-tivoli-video-2376887. Is he Caucasian? Or Corduneanu with Cămătaru http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/schimbare-de-lider-in-lumea-interlopa-costel-corduneanu-eu-sunt-smecherul-tarii-asteia-1054854.html (Argint, Cămătaru these are gypsy names, SILVER, USURY occupations). Maybe it's better to rename it, Romanian press says clanuri, interlopi, lumea interlopă. So yes, Romanian mafia = Romanian clans. Fanycfr (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever seen photographs of Barack Obama, Louis Armstrong, Martin Luther King, Oprah Winfrey, Muhammad Ali, and Condoleeza Rice? If you have, then you will no doubt feel fully justified in editing the article United States to say that the majority of its citizens are of black African origin. Or maybe you won't, because you can see as well as I can that "look, I can show you a lot of photographs of Romanian mafiosi who are darker gypsies, so that proves that most Romanian mafiosi must be gypsies, and I don't need to produce reliable sources to say so" is totally fallacious. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment It's not the same thing, Obama and all the black Americans aren't nomadic. With all the respect. I can bring sources for the all clans written here, which MENTION them being gypsies. Also for hte ATM skimming in Australia I can bring. I didn't even say they are not Romanian, right? Because they hold Romanian passports. I only want to say that they are majority gypsies. And this is the truth. All those clans are consisted of gypsies. Some like Rohozneanu even proclaim themselves EMPERORS (Împăraţi). This is a term for their tribes. Fanycfr (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake, black Americans not being nomadic has absolutely nothing whatever to do with it. The point is that to support a general statement about a whole group, you need a source which supports that general statement, not a number of sources which make specific statements about particular members of that group, and that is equally true whether the statement is about being black, being nomadic, or wearing green hats. To justify putting the statement that the majority of Romanian mafiosi are gypsies, you need a source that says that the majority of the Romanian mafiosi are gypsies, not a set of separate sources making separate statements that individual groups of Romanian mafiosi are gypsies. As for "Some like Rohozneanu even proclaim themselves EMPERORS (Împăraţi)", even if we assume that the word "Împăraţi" refers exclusively to gypsies, have you not noticed that the word "some" occurs in that sentence? It is perfectly possible for a statement to be true of some of them without being true of most of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Better? If I will not mention them the Romanian mobs as being gypsies, only the clans? All those are gypsy. You can find in the press. Some articles even mention, clanuri ţigăneşti. Fanycfr (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

TalkBack

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

Alessia.bardi (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sunderland against Di Canio block

Hello James, just wanted to let you know that I support your block on Sunderland against Di Canio (talk · contribs). I suspected his meat puppetry on the AfDs a few months ago and contacted @GiantSnowman: but I was unable to prove it. Just thought I would let you know :) JMHamo (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you get

my email? Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Tumbleman

[Needless trivia; feel free to ignore.]

Hi, remember this?[7] Oh boy chicken again was a dead ringer for Tumbleman in every respect, then after he defended himself in the SPI (his own defense provided more evidence for sockpuppetry), he took on a whole new personality and style. I figured Tumbleman just handed his account off to someone else, or copied in someone else's text -- something I could never prove. Or could I? In writing up a tangentially related SPI, I hit upon the "double space" test. The effect of chicken-boy's metamorphosis was that the account suddenly began using two spaces after a period. Tumbleman uses one space, though occasionally a two-spacer will slip in. After the transformation, it's consistently two spaces everywhere. Cheers, vzaak 19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting. Needless trivia? Well, in a way yes, but on the other hand it could be a useful clue to look out for in future sockpuppet cases, so thanks, Vzaak. You say "occasionally a two-spacer will slip in". Well, I find that the original Oh boy chicken again from time to time would slip in an extra space in a way that looks pretty well random, fairly often having a double space between two words (without any punctuation) and occasionally even putting a space before an apostrophe. It looks to me as though the occasional double spaces after "." were probably just examples of those random extra spaces, not specifically related to the "." That was unlike Oh boy chicken again Mark 2, who consistently used double spaces after "." and did not put extra spaces anywhere else. Interestingly enough, Tumbleman also from time to time put in those random extra spaces. In this edit I wrote "I was inclined to believe that it was a sockpuppet, until I saw this edit, where the use of English is radically unlike Tumbleman's." The edit was the second one that seems to come from Oh boy chicken again Mark 2, and clearly the account having been handed over to another person would explain the different use of English. The double space business is not enough evidence to prove anything on its own, but I am inclined to think that if I had noticed it at the time it might have been enough to clear up my doubts. I find in a lot of sockpuppet cases details of use of English, oddities of punctuation, and the like, can be very helpful, particularly if more than one such piece of evidence can be found. I don't often mention the fact, to avoid telling sockpuppeteers what give-away signs to avoid with their next sockpuppets, and when I do mention it, I usually say vague things like "the use of English", as I did in the edit I quoted above, rather than specifying what aspect of use of English is involved. You have now given me one more possible sign to look out for in future cases. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the occasional period-space-space from chicken-boy-1.0 and Tumbleman looked haphazard, an identifying characteristic in itself. I didn't search for just space-space as you did, which gives more insight. I hesitated to mention the trick for the reason you said, especially since I know Tumbleman follows my edits.

Tumbleman/Bubblefish continues to live up to his off-site reputation. I recently removed a fabricated quote in Criticism of Wikipedia that was originally inserted by one of his socks.[8] He has a friend (definitely not a sock) who is presently campaigning for Tumbleman. When I looked into this friend, I found evidence of shenanigans. vzaak 18:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

IP hopping editor

Thanks for protecting Russian American article against this IP hopping editor. He is also the one who insists on placing the Canadian Wayne Gretzky into the Belarusian American article, saying that he, IP editor, can find sources in Google saying Gretzky is American and choosing to ignore the contents of the WP article on Gretzky. He acts in a closed WP world of his own choosing and does take other editors into account. Hmains (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP hopping editor is still at with 176.24.224.138 at Belarusian American. This article needs the same protection that Russian American was given. Thanks Hmains (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

IP rangeblock

Thanks. I can clear a couple of requests now and ACC volunteers will be able to process requests from teachers and other employees while still blocking vandalism by others. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 15:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Some more edits to redact

Hi, Special:Contributions/76.31.236.94 who you blocked, has left a few comments which I think need to be entirely removed from User talk:Frosty. These edits contain parts of the abuse, including our reverts of them which I didn't put here. Pardon me for being too insistent but I'm feeling uneasy just leaving them there.

Thanks in advance, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Partly done. I have revision deleted two of the edits. In fact, I had intended to do that, and forgotten, so thanks for reminding me. The others, though, I have left. Both of them were left in the editing history for a while, so that it would be impossible to remove them without also making much of the page's editing history disappear from view. One of the edits is in any case a fairly minor bit of incivility, which I don't really think satisfies the requirements for revision deletion. The other one is more offensive, and I would certainly have liked to have removed it, but I don't think that it is so vital to do so as to justify throwing away so much of the editing history, and in any case it probably won't be seen by many people, buried as it is in the history of the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Talk:Bangali Babu English Mem.
Message added 18:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES ^(talk) 18:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Change of block conditions

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia email-Request mod of block parameters.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctree (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Seen and responded JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Debian edit war

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 84.127.80.114's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen and replied. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 84.127.80.114's talk page.
Message added 02:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Seen and replied. Please do not remove this section, as I prefer my talk page archives to contain a complete record of communications, with a few exceptions such as talk page vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 84.127.80.114's talk page.
Message added 15:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Debian page (again)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthinkcpp (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

User: 98.218.107.108

Hello JBW, Many thanks for your actions against the vandalism of the above user. Your action is much appreciated. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

regarding Chris Kyle page edits

Thank you for the unblock! I was wondering, before I discuss the source of the reference on the talk page for the edit on the Chris Kyle page, is there a way you could easily confirm that the multiple people who were removing my edit were from separate IP addresses?

Thank you for the assistance, James. I was just curious if you had the ability to determine the individuals removing my edits did indeed have separate IP addresses? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Kyle&action=history

(Apologies if you are receiving duplicate messages, I am not seeing my messages after I send them?) Hello James, thank you for the assistance with this. I was just curious if you could confirm that the individuals who repeatedly removed my edits did indeed have separate ip addresses? Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Kyle&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownUnknown2000 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of to explain why you don't see new messages after you post them is that you are seeing an old version of the page, saved in your browser's cache. I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. (Sometimes a similar effect can be produced by the Wikimedia server cache, but I think that is very unlikely on this occasion.)
No, I can't determine IP addresses of editors who edit using an account. That can be done only by a group of editors with special abilities known as checkusers. However, there are very strict rules about when and how they are permitted to use that ability, because of Wikipedia's confidentiality policy. A checkuser can only investigate if there is already strong evidence to suggest malpractice. On this occasion I am quite certain that there is not such strong evidence. All the editors concerned have been around for quite a while (all but one of them for several years), all of them have made thousands of edits, and looking at their editing history I cannot see any connection between them at all. the fact that they all made similar edits to this one article on this one occasion is swamped by thousands of edits where they do not seem to relate to one another in any way. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

One other point that I forgot to mention. When you make a post on a talk page, at the end of it put four tildes, i.e. ~~~~. That will automatically be converted to a signature, which not only shows who wrote the message, but also contains a link to your talk page, which is very convenient to anyone wishing to contact you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thank you!! UnknownUnknown2000 (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Creating a article with title "Isrg Rajan"

Hi! JamesBWatson, Through this I would like to request you for creating an article entitled Isrg Rajan.
Thank you!
Iraag (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Apply for a user check

I apply to check whether user Kamakatsu (talk) is another ID of user Banzaiblitz (talk). Banzaiblitz uses lots of IDs in different article and now for talk page of Nanking Massacre, there is a new ID to support Banzaiblitz. This new ID was registered today and claim he is not Banzaiblitz. Hence, I apply to a user check. Thank you.Miracle dream (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014‎

It is perfectly obvious that this is the same person, so I have blocked the new account. There is also a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Banzaiblitz for a checkuser, to see whwther there are any other accounts in waiting. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

JD Institute of fashion Technology

I want to create a page with the same name, but i have rewriten all the text and i have removed all the images, text and other questions who can made the page look like advertising. I need to know if you are OK with this and if i can create the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scortyro (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The new version of the article is, I think, much better. Most of the stuff which looked more like a promotional brochure than like an enyclopaedia article has gone. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Bullador

Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking - it's to satisfy my own curiosity more than anything else - I noticed you declined the PROD I placed on Bullador. I do realise my option is to now take it to AfD - I'm only really seeing a couple of refs when I do a web search - dogbreedinfo.com, which the Dog Project tends to remove on sight as it's a SPS and dog-breeds.findthebest.com that I think looks like an SEO site, the rest are Facebook, tumblr or personal breeder websites advertising their puppies for sale? As I said, I'm just curious so I hope you don't mind me asking. Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have looked again, and I think that I initially acted hastily. Having looked carefully at the sources, I agree with your assessment of them, so I have deleted the article. Thanks for prompting me to look at it again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to be critical in any way, just as I said curious, as we seem to constantly battle against "new breeds" (or breeds "I just made up one day"). Thank you for taking another look, it's very much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Vise decision. Hafspajen (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello James , it seems that the banned sock puppet account of that religious User from Pakistan is back

Hello James , i have to contact you directly , because i don t want to start a war edit . I do believe that user Rahtujabi from Pakistan ( or he was called something like that because i do not remember the name exactly ) that you have banned multiple times operating multiple sock puppet accounts in order to promote a religious extremist agenda , is back again . I had contacted you some time ago( 3 months ago aproximately) when he was vandalizing the article about Albania , with 3 sock puppet accounts , and you banned him and all his sock puppet accounts .

Please can you check the connection of users > Mingling2 , رائد عزمي حموده , 79.112.121.127 .

These 3 users did the exact same edit to avoid the 3 reverts rule , they all seem to be preocupied with religious matters on global scale based on their contributions history .

As demonstrated here > Revision as of 10:44, 18 February 2014 by رائد عزمي حموده , Revision as of 15:11, 20 February 2014 by 79.112.121.127 , Revision as of 15:59, 21 February 2014 by Mingling2 . All these users are making the same revert in a timespan of 2 days . Their contributions history is also only about religion ... !

Second revert that now Mingling2 is trying to do , is remove a Sourced , very valuable image within its historical context that is located there ... ! Why would this be somehow connected to a religious matter ? The answer is because SKANDERBEG , the national hero of Albania , was a christian ( as the whole population of Albania before getting occupied by the muslim ottomans ) that fought the ottomans and won countless of times , until his death . After his death , the ottomans did occupy the whole albania , and made by force a part of its population muslim ... So thats where the connection is . By hiding one of the most important battles of Albania against the ottomans , he wants to hide this fact .

Revision as of 15:55, 23 February 2014 by Mingling2 .

His ridiculous explanation of removing an established , very important , very relevant and sourced image , that has always been there as per consensus with previous users, which is DIRECTLY connected with the ottoman period in Albania , is non Standing in any way shape or form .

This guy is user Rasturhabji , i am betting my everything on that .

Regards ,(Malbin210 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC))

Dear fellow, why are commited to wasting time of admin. I really don't know what a hell u are talking about rahtujabi. It really does not matter which religions Albanian believe but it have no religious motive. I does not find any link between attacks on ottomans an Islam in albania. There is nothing wrong with me nor others. Your image has not only reverted by me, anonymous user and with a name with Arabic script but also by antidiskriminator and many other. The image seems to be irrelevant and unsoursed. The section is about role of Albanians in ottoman empire and not against it. If u really insist, u can create another section about the battle of albulena or other name. But in my eyes the image created by some immature artist and is totally against the dignity of our national hero. On one hand the picture can be used to describe the attract of skanderbeg on ottoman and in the same time it can also be used describe the attack of native american on Spaniards or others.

U seem to be worst sockpuppeter yourself. In order to avoid three revert rule u seem to edit anonymously and the next time u seem to edit with your wikipedia account.

If the admin is not satisfied with my explanation, he is welcomed to check accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingling2 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing (band)

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/23/279147672/first-listen-nothing-guilty-of-everything

Nothing is a very significant band from Philadelphia with a new album that's being well received from respected critics. If that's not significant for a page than what is? William Gould — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.252.169 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There are thousands of obscure bands that release an album that gets good critical comments. Are you suggesting that there is more than that to this band? If there is, can you provide references to reliable sources establishing the fact? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi James,

The article I was currently writing(Liquid Health Inc.) was deleted because of blatant advertising and promotion, and also for copyright infringement. I understand why it might have been deleted, but my main goal was not to promote the company but merely speak of it in a neutral manner. I would have been more than happy to rewrite any content, but by deleting my post altogether, I feel like I spent half my morning writing an article that hasn't even submitted for review for nothing. If there is anyway you can retrieve my content for editing I would be very grateful. Also, as an expert, I look to you for insight on how to create a more neutral and unbiased article. Thank you very much, If you wish to contact me directly my email is luisq@matsunnutrition.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lquinanola (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were sincerely intending to write "in a neutral manner" then I can only think that one or both of two things applies: because you have a close association with the company about which you were writing, you are unable to stand back and see how your writing will look to an impartial outsider (which is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages us from writing on such subjects in which we have a close personal involvement), and/or you work in marketing or "PR", and are so used to reading and writing marketing-speak every day that you have become desensitised to it, and can't see it when it is right in front of you. There is no way that I can see the page you wrote as being written from a neutral point of view. People speaking or writing neutrally about a company they have no involvement with and are not seeking to promote simply do not pepper what they say or write with strings of such language as "premier" and "commitment to quality".

On the subject of copyright, when you post anything to Wikipedia you indicate that you are releasing it under very broad free licensing terms for anyone in the world to re-use, either as it is or modified in any way they please, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, subject to attribution. Are you sure that your employers are willing to release the text under such open terms? Very few businesses are. If they are, then you must provide the Wikimedia Foundation with documentary evidence that that is the case. We cannot simply take the word of some anonymous person who chooses to create a Wikipedia account that they have authority to grant such a copyright license, for the simple reason that unfortunately very many people come here and falsely claim to have such authority. Unless and until there is confirmation that the owners of the copyright are willing to license it in terms compatible with Wikipedia's terms of use, the content cannot be restored.

You clearly have a close connection with the company, and so, as I indicated above, following Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, you should really not be writing an article on this subject anyway. If the business satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines then before too long an uninvolved person will write an article about it from an independent outsider's point of view, as is required for a Wikipedia article.

Finally, note my caveat above "If the business satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines". If have done some quick searches, and nothing I have seen suggests that it does. If it doesn't, then no matter how you write an article about it, any time spent doing so is likely to be wasted, as that article will be deleted anyway. No amount of rewriting an article will change the notability of the subject of that article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism revisited at Jalpaiguri

Last time, the insertion of factual errors were inserted by certain sockpuppet accounts. However, again the article is edited by multiple IPs (same range), and inserting similar factual errors. I request you to semi-protect the article for a longer period at the earliest. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been protected for 1 week, but the same IP range (probably, blocked user Sayan basu) is making deliberate factual errors in the article Siliguri now. May need protection for Siliguri, if possible keep it in your watchlist. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have increased the protection on Jalpaiguri to two months, since the trouble has been going on for months, and a 1-week block is unlikely to be effective. Please feel welcome to contact me again if the trouble returns, either via IP editing after the two months are up, or via new sockpuppet accounts before then. I had wondered about Siliguri, but at present I don't see enough of a problem there to justify taking any action. I have watchlisted it, but I have a (possibly bad) habit of adding huge numbers of pages to my watchlist, with the result that I often don't find time to check all of them, so again, please feel free to contact me again if problems continue there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please check the contributions of User:Subhasree Chakravarthi, which I guess is a sock of User:Sayan basu. This new user wants to edit the page Jalpaiguri and removed information/inserted factual errors in Siliguri and Cooch Behar. I think there is a need for semi-protecting Cooch Behar and Siliguri for longer period. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Checking in

I just wanted to make sure that you saw my email in reply to your note here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw it, didn't have much time and so left it to come back to, and then forgot all about coming back to it. Thank you very much for reminding me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it was so long! If anything was unclear please let me know - obviously I can't go into too many specifics, but the timeline is telling. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Another email coming your way!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

...and yet another. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw your latest email and agree with your thoughts. For me it's an application of Occam's razor, but if after your next bit of dialogue with the editor you find yourself in a place where you believe it would make sense to unblock then I'm fine with that. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted HVK's article

Hi James Please restore the article that you've deleted regarding HV Kumar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._V._Kumar). Wikipedia had approved that page since Dec 2012 & the only reason why it was removed because it didn't have any updates, which I intended to do in Jan 2014 & unfortunately it was removed in Dec 2013 while I was on a road trip with HVK's guidance. I've justified the same on Mark's page over several days requesting to restore. Since he didn't know a way to recover the original copy, he asked me to submit it again. Hence requesting you, please don't remove the article, it is the same source that Wikipedia approved in 2012 Jan & I assure to update it with more artifacts once the article is approved. Aarganesh (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have never deleted the article, as you will see if you look at the link you gave in the above message. The only thing in any way connected to this article that I have ever deleted was a redirect to it, which I deleted after the article had already been deleted, so that the redirect was useless.
The article was the subject of a deletion discussion, where there was a clear consensus to delete. On the eighth of January you claimed that you were ready to improve the article "now". You and someone editing without logging in, who may or may not have also been you, then spent quite a bit of effort to have the article restored. You (plural or singular) repeatedly made requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, despite repeatedly being told that was not the right venue to request restoration of an article deleted following a deletion discussion. You also repeatedly posted to the deleting administrator's talk page. He went to some trouble to make it clear why the article was unlikely to be suitable for restoration, but you persisted, until eventually he restored and userfied the content of the article, on the basis of your assurances that you had evidence of notability available to add, and that you would rewrite the article so that it was not promotional. In fact, all you did was repost the original article, with no changes at all other than removal of the infobox. That was six weeks and four days since you had first claimed that you already had available suitable material to add to the article. The article then waited another two days before it was deleted, in which time you made no attempt whatever to improve it.
Long before that, in October 2012, the article had already been deleted, and then restored on the basis of your assurances that you would improve it. You did, on that occasion, make some changes, but they did not prevent it from still being a completely promotional article with no evidence that its subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. You really cannot expect to keep on having the article restored on the basis of promises that you will improve it, when you have repeatedly failed to do so.
You seem to be under the impression that the article was originally acceptable, and that it was deleted only because you haven't kept updating it. You mentioned that impression in your message above, and you expressed it even more clearly in this edit. That is a complete misunderstanding. The page never was suitable as a Wikipedia article. It was accepted by one editor from a submission at "articles for creation", but there is an unambiguous consensus that that editor was mistaken in accepting it. The article reads from start to finish like a piece of marketing, clearly intended to tell the world how wonderful H. V. Kumar is, not to give a neutral, impartial, account. It also totally fails to show that its subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
You say that you were "on a road trip with HVK's guidance". That means that you have a close connection to him, which no doubt explains why your writing about him was so promotional. Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest indicates that you should not be writing about him. If he really does satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then before too long an uninvolved third party will write an article about him.
I have checked the references you provided, and also searched for further information about H. V. Kumar. It seems to me clear that he does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Note to any other administrator who wishes to check the history of this article: Unfortuantely, the editing history is a mess, with edits that were originally on different pages now appearing to be on one page, and edits that were originally on the same page now appearing to be on different pages. This is due to a history of various page moves, a couple of copy-paste moves, and a good faith but not entirely helpful attempt at a clean up by history merging by the administrator Anthony Appleyard. The editing history is fragmented across the history of at least three pages, namely H. V. Kumar, User:Aarganesh/H. V. Kumar, and Hvkumar The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

History-merge

Thankyou for history-merging Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shamin Mannan to Shamin Mannan; but please report such history-merges in page Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thankyou. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is that? The page says "this page is still available if you find a cut-and-paste move, and are not able to repair it yourself", and I was, as far as I know, able to do it myself. If there is something wrong with how I did it then it would be helpful if you could tell me what. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Now I see. You appear to mean that I should check if there is a report on that page, and if so record the fact that I have done the merging. It wasn't clear to me what you meant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you James for your help.

I appreciate your help all along.

Ryopus" (talk) 5:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: CheckUser and talk page formating

Thank you! I'm happy you fixed my edits for good. :D ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney talk page ban

In retrospect, I believe the community ban was the right call. But banning him from the talk page seems excessive to put it mildly. As you implied, a TB ban is an extreme measure, since no one has to follow a user to his/her talk page. Why did you feel it had to be done in this case? Steeletrap (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what further information you want, beyond what I gave when I removed talk page access, but I will try to clarify the issues. The main purpose of allowing talk page access to a blocked editor is to allow requests for unblocking, and discussions related to that. There are many editors who think that no blocked editor should be allowed to use talk page access for any other purpose at all, and I have seen requests for talk page access to be removed for reasons such as a blocked editor using his or her talk page to propose edits to articles. In this case, the use of the talk page by the blocked editor was virtually entirely for the purpose of venting his resentment about what he perceived as a malicious campaign against him. There were requests for talk page access to be removed for that reason, but I thought, and still think, that permitting him to let off steam did little harm, so I left things as they were. Eventually, however, he made a personal attack on another editor, and also selectively removed content in such a way as to give a misleading impression about exchanges on his talk page. At that point, I decided to remove talk page access. Since the block, talk page access had not been used in any constructive way at all, so nothing useful would be lost. Talk pages, whether for blocked, banned, or any other editors, are there for constructive discussions related to work on the encyclopaedia. In the case of blocked editors (whether banned or not), since they are not permitted to contribute elsewhere, usually the only constructive use is for requesting unblocks (or unbans). Unlike many editors, I am willing to be flexible about that, but when the only use of talk page access is to tell everyone how much an individual resents and hates other Wikipedians, there is no useful purpose being served by access to the talk page. When, on top of that, access is abused by making personal attacks, the talk page access is doing some negative work and no positive work. For some time there had been accusations against specific editors, bordering in some cases on personal attacks, and it had now clearly gone beyond the border. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Help/advice regarding persistent vandalism by anonymous user 218.204.52.138‎

For the last 48 hours or so, anonymous user 218.204.52.138‎ has been persistently vandalising the John Keats article. I and other users have been reverting his efforts but to no avail. I just put in an article protection request which 218.204.52.138‎ tried to delete. From examining his contributions, I think the user is up to mischief in other areas as well. Your advice/help would be appreciated. Thanks --Chewings72 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I note that since I sent you this request, user:Bbb23 has dealt with the matter through a block of one year on the anonymous user. Regards --Chewings72 (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

April O'Neil

IP address user 58.110.118.17[9] and 58.110.102.181[10] (most likely the same person) is putting down info on the April O'Neil page that has nothing to do with the fictional character.[11]. The reference link this person gives just says 404 - Page not found! I did a search and I didn't find anything on TMZ that this user states.68.75.19.47 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. However, this message arrived just as I had to go off line, and by the time I had a chance to deal with it, it was over 24 hours since the last edit, so there's probably no point in doing anything now. Do let me know if you see more of the same, though. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocking User:Ground Zero

As much as I understand how crucial WP:INVOLVED is to the operation of the project, your 96-hour double-damages punitive block of a long-term admin in good standing seems excessive. I placed a request for unblock for him (without consulting him), and urge you to re-examine the usefulness of such a block in this case. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 18:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a fairly long answer on Ground Zero's talk page, but for the record I will put a short summary here. Blocking an editor for participating in an edit war in which one is oneself the other participant is admin abuse. Edit warring + admin abuse is worse than just edit warring (in my opinion far worse). Therefore the administrator who has abused his or her power to "win" an edit war can reasonably expect a significantly longer block than the editor who only edit warred. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm your 'sockpuppet' apparently...

Just fair warning, I just got this missive from an IPV6'er telling me they're still pursuing the ridiculous campaign that all of us productive editors are socks of you. Made me laugh more than anything. Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, an IPV6 that tries to hide behind an IPV4 address that is not assigned to anyone! The IP did exactly the same thing to User:Rybec, with a different but equally implausible IPV4 signature. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether faking an unassigned IP address was accidental, or part of the trolling. I guess the latter. In any case, it's pretty futile: does the troll think that we are too stupid to look at the editing history and see the real IP address? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The two IPs used in the templates were both impossible to have access to, and completely different - so it was definitely deliberate. But yeah, it's a daft tactic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Raghusri

Are you Black mailing me? So, i came to know that the Admins in Wiki will block users according to their Moods. Such Gesture is an Unexpected thing for any Co-editor like you. If i had violated Wiki's Policies & Guidelines then block me please. Showing pity on me is not the Right thing. I didn't liked your Gesture. Then why don't you warned the User TRPoD because he too engaged in Edit-war & without reaching Consensus in Articles talk pages how can we Proceed? He is Keeping on reverting my edits. I want to ask you one thing : " Is there any Particular Reliable Websites list in wiki? " That user removed the Famous film news sources and is leaving edit summaries as those are not Reliable sources. As far as i know, Newspaper sites, Some famous sites those are Providing Reliable Info., can be added in wiki. Blogs will be considered as Self-published sources, Social networking sites too and one Shall avoid the usage of them only after Checking whether they are Official (or) Not. We can claim, if Some sources are Questionable per Reliable Sources. We can proceed only after getting Consensus in an article's talk page. I totally hurt by your Action on me because it seemed to me as a Personal attack. Because a long ago like this only, you've blocked me for, With a Faulty reason : " Abusing multiple accounts ", again you unblocked me after getting Info., from Checkuser. See this Block log : [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=Raghusri&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= ] if you are unable to remind that.

If you repeat such things i will complain to a Bureaucrat.

Regards,

Raghusri (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake: "blackmailing"? I was giving you a warning that you were very close to a block for edit warring, Raghusri, and I did so in a slightly light-hearted way, because I thought that might be more friendly than something that looked more like a threat. Evidently, I was mistaken in doing so, because you have taken it in a very different spirit. As for your asking why I didn't warn TheRedPenOfDoom, if you had checked, you would have found that after I posted the warning to your user page my very next edit was a warning about the same edit war on TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Sir, First of all i respect Seniors in Age / Editing than me. Sorry, because i've checked for an Automated warning in his talk page but, you'd given a Manual warning. I am sorry if you were annoyed by my words. Thank you for Remembering me :D Have a Nice day Sir :D Raghusri (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

My favorite to you

INPanda 11:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User Lozleader

Please can you visitUser talk:Lozleader so that you can discover that the block has not yet been lifted. Lozleader is frustrated by this delay. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozleader (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:PasqualeKallas

...is a spambot. We have had hundreds of these over the past few months, always following the pattern User:FirstnameLastname and something like "Hi, I'm ____ from ______. I like ________. Visit my blog: [spamsite]. Just letting you know. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NawlinWiki. I was suspicious, but I decided to start by assuming good faith and then keep an eye out for future edits, with a finger ready over the block button. Now that you have told me a bit more about the pattern, maybe I'll be more aware next time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

WMRE

User:Radiojon decided last night to move the WMRE page to WMRE (AM) and make the WMRE page a disambig page. Only problem is, the other listing, WMRE (Emory), is a total redirect to the page for Emory University. There was no reason for the disambig, the page move, or any of this. A hat link would have worked nicely.

Could you revert the move, the creation of the disambig page and any changes to any other pages? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the move, and added a hatnote. (Please edit the hatnote if you don't like the way I've done it.) I have also reverted changes to two links to the article, but if there are any others that I haven't seen, perhaps you can clean them up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was cleaning up the other links as you were doing some as well. The hatlink looks fine, no problems there. Thanks again for the assistance. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Spreading awareness

After noticing your recent post at AIV regarding User:Killywalk, I thought you might like to be made aware of this delightful character. Characteristics: posting a variety of spamlinks to userpages (and userpages of prior socks), using the heading "How we ... with supplements", misspelling "Muscles" as "mussels", usernames containing the string xxxjack, xxxwalk, Marryxxx or Kittyxxx and often a number. I must've blocked thirty of them in the last week or two. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yunshui. As I said at AIV, it looked highly suspicious, but in the absence of clearer evidence I decided to give much benefit of a little doubt. From what you have shown me, though, there is no longer any doubt. If I see any more of the same I will know better. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, more of the same is pretty much inevitable... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Ludlow

I have opened a discussion regarding this article at BLPN, I believe there are edit summaries on the article and talk page that may need to be redacted. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, there are recent edit summaries at Peter Ludlow that need to be redacted. Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 23:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A|tiso|ne Se|iu|li

Thanks very much for your speedy delete of this article (deliberately I have added a couple of things into the title just so that search engines don't pick it up, which is part of the problem in the first place). I am sure you realise, I created the stub deliberately so that other editors could see the problem rather than just guessing from a redirect, and I was in no way alleging anything against Murphy myself. I tried as best I could to keep within the BLP guidelines although I may have gone a bit far I don't know. But it is quite right that it is deleted and I asked either you or another admin also to salt it, which has now been done. There are plenty of scandal stuff on the Internet that other people can look at but it has no place on Wikipedia, in my opinion. I think your closing remarks were extremely well put and thank you for that. Si Trew (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Simon, I think that creating the stub to show how bad things were was a mistake. It would have been better just to explain why the redirect should be deleted. However, the main thing is that the whole thing has now gone, which almost everyone who has commented at any time agreed should happen. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a perhaps a mistake for me personally since I kinda copped it by others assuming that I had done so in bad faith. But without actually mentioning the content and so on, and the easiest way to do that was simply incorporating the content and doing so as neutrally and equitably as I was able, I thought it would give other editors a chance to see it. For that reason it went straight from RfD as a procedural close (because it was no longer a redirect but an article), over to you at AfD and speedy close, so I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that was the quickest way to get it sorted rather than it having it around for weeks. I could have been mistaken but please be assured of my good faith. Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I never doubted your good faith, Simon, but I think you made a mistake. Posting BLP-violating content, even as a temporary measure, is not a good idea. As it turned out, it is almost certainly true that the redirect was removed quicker by use of that tactic, but it was by no means certain that would happen: for one thing, the AfD might have been left to run for a week, and for another thing I seriously considered deleting the article but restoring the redirect, since the redirect deletion discussion had not been given a fair chance. The first of those possibilities, leaving a BLP around for a week, would have been far worse than leaving a mere redirect (which had already been around for over 5 years) in existence for another couple of weeks, and the second possibility might have meant a new RfD discussion to start from scratch, meaning the eventual decision would have come later than if you had left it as it was. However, more important than that is the fact that the ends do not justify the means. Deliberately posting content that violates the BLP policy is never a good idea, no matter how good your intentions are. I had decided to let this go, and not mention it, but since you have brought the matter up I think it only right to make it clear that I don't think you should have used the method you did use. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Rgherbert

Hi James!

Please see my reply to your comment on my talk page.

Regards,

Ronald Guillermo Herbert Hermosillo | Surrey, British Columbia | rgherbert@gmail.com 04:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgherbert (talk • contribs)

Seen. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your block on 2601:E:1980:532:E5DB:2799:E2F6:74A2

This ipv6 seems to be able to change ips at will so a block on a single address is not likely to be effective in stopping the vandalism. Would it be possible to block the ipv6 range 2601:E:1980:532::/64 he uses? The range is large but the ipv6 space is sparse so there should be little collateral damage to a range block here. See this search for other activity of this IPv6 - I don't know how else to do a range contribution check for an ipv6, the normal ip range tool doesn't work for these. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2601:E:1980:532:4DED:1734:DEF7:DB4B/Archive a checkuser stated that this range belongs to a single Comcast subscriber so there will be no collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

How interesting that you should post this message, Geraldo. Firstly, as you can see here, I have already made exactly the range block you suggested. (Sorry about the typo in the block log reason.) Secondly, you have provided me with at least a partial solution to a problem that has bothered me for some time, on which only today I finally got round to seeking help, as you can see here. Thanks for that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)