User talk:Jamesx12345/Archive 4

BNP article submitted as a good article nominee

I note you have nominated the above article a good article. Is this an attempt to highlight possible bias in reviewers or are you simply against neutrality yourself? We see such overt bias in the editors of this article that it needs to be rewritten almost entirely before it should even be considered a good article. The BNP Wikipedia page is arguably the most biased I have yet seen on Wikipedia and it is disgraceful that such unobjective bias is smattered across the entire page with little or no objection.

I would say the BNP article is pretty good. What bias are you referring to? It isn't exactly supportive of the BNP, but no mainstream sources are. I don't exactly like the BNP, but I try not to let it show. Regards. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is blatantly written to portray the BNP in a negative manner. It is too long and smattered with a myriad of bias and negativity. I am well aware that no mainstream sources exactly report on them in a positive light. I would have thought that Wikipedia would show things in a neutral light. Seems I am mistaken, sadly.

Put it another way I believe that consensus outside the circle of editors there indicates most would agree with me: before the rating tables were disabled on the page a few months ago the fields 'well-written', 'trustworthy' and 'objective' were consistently at approximately 1.1/5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.162.93 (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is as neutral as it can be. The BNP is a party who did, until 2010, only admit whites. Its members have a history of threatening and attacking their opponents. It is a fascist party (according to all proper sources) that opposes immigration, homosexuality, and in particular Islam. The sentence "Political scientists see the party as fascist and say that it has attempted to hide its true nature in order to attract popular support" seems especially pertinent. You would need more than two blogs as evidence to change my mind. Regards. Jamesx12345 (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was never going to be an easy article to populate and meet the consensus of all, I am aware. However, the article is written in a way as to make the readers' minds up for them and some editors have admitted how much they oppose/dislike the BNP - that alone declassifies the article as worthy of good article status to me given the bias of many of those who have contributed to it. There should be a fair playing field from all sides somehow mixed to let the reader make up their own minds. I know that and the fact it only took the Establishment until the days after they got their 1st 2 MEP's elected to suddenly scrutinize their membership criteria speaks volumes given they existed since 1982 and, actually, they have an extensive history of themselves being the victims of suppression, intimidation, violence and harrasment which can easily be found online, James and I believe they use this to play the victim card. Somehow the editors do not believe this type of material is worthy of inclusion. The article needs to be written in a manner not designed to continually portray them as devil incarnates. In any case I stand by what I wrote regarding 'consensus outside the circle of editors' yesterday as it seems people are holding cards very close to their chest and more and more segments of bias are to be added, making the article read ever more like a collage of smear sentences and chapters. Regards and thank you for your cordial replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.162.93 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a bit more balance is needed, although I do not think that having editors opposed to the BNP precludes it from being a Good Article. Not in any way meaning to compare the two, Adolf Hitler is a GA, and I don't think he attracts much sympathy here. Would I be right in thinking that most of your concerns are under legal issues, and in particular Association with violence? I was personally unaware of the hammer attack. I think it is probably right that either it is included, or at least alluded to, even though the BNP members are being accused of making bombs. It would be wrong, however, to defend the BNP in any way - I think the most that can be done is to tone down the list of misdemeanours associated with members and remove some that are largely irrelevant to the party itself. Regards. Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'll try and condense mine as best as possible. Of course members' personal opinions do not prevent the article's being submitted as a GA. To me, I feel that, having looked through the discussions history as several have done, the editors find any excuse for the smattering of smears and negativity and in doing so, as time goes by, seem by consensus among themselves to authorize more negative news/data which feeds in to what I wrote regarding the article being too long and a collage of negativity. There is much violence against the BNP but it is scarcely covered in the media and certainly not extensively. There is a problem with the association with violence section but really the problem for me is across much of the article and the seemingly discreet ways editors use the page to taint readers' thinking (I will give an example or two in a moment). We have to live with the biased - and sometimes false - reporting on this Party as it is, but somehow show fairness and impartiality without surreptitiously and/or blatantly telling everyone "hate these demonic knuckle draggers and don't any editors dare disagree with us!" That, in a proverbial nutshell, is basically what my problem is and looking at the article as a whole and looking at the talk pages and their archived chapters there is no shortage of people who would disagree with me. I agree with toning down on the list of misdemeanours. I don't see many instances of assault by Labour Party candidates on their page and consensus from editors does not make that page become a hornets nest for articles like this, this or this, because as distasteful as they are, I don't think in every paragraph the reader needs reminding of the actions of a few like this to taint their thoughts against the Party as a whole as seems blatantly obvious here on the BNP page. I suppose this feeds back to the bias reporting from the media you pointed as being a gripe of mine. People want to see a balance and make up their mind for themselves. Wikipedia is by the people for the people, not for the people to overtly tell other people what to think.

It's a shame really because with enough work from the editors - new or old - this page could be salvaged and if the tables I harked to earlier were still in place those field ratings 'well-written', 'trustworthy' and 'objective' would increase. It currently seems very selective when a reference is valid and when not...

To give just 1 example of when something is valid and when not. Why is there a membership figure (dubious in of itself) from 3 years ago in the infobox when, according to the BNP back then, their membership figure had hit 14,000? The figures vary even back then depending on which reference one chooses to use from the media, but surely an average of the figures from all appropriate sources should be used and not (conveniently) the lowest? Even now we should do the same? Maybe the figures officially submitted last time around would be most appropriate to use?

Regards and thank you once again for your objectivity.

Too many capitals; see WP:MOS

In this move, why did you use a capital "L" rather than lower case? (I corrected it by moving the page to data literacy.) Michael Hardy (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I just moved it to the default name given in the AFC process by the submitter. I will be more careful next time. Regards. Jamesx12345 (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

showing the solid, liquid, and gaseous states, and the continuity of liquid and gaseous states." (letter to [[Thomas Andrews (scientist)|Thomas Andrews]], November, 1874 |title=The Scientific

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TurboCoder resubmission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TurboCoder Digital Medical Coding Software and Publications Hi James

I have resubmitted my article with updated formatting and the contextual information you requested.

Please advise what else I need to do to get the article published.

thanks and happy 4th

Jeff Reid

It's now been published, but I'm going to remove a bit that does not at present suit wikipedia in terms of formatting and style. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 logos

Hello James. I've just encountered:

I notice that you uploaded them as "Own work". If you designed them, fine. But, if they are from a website, it may be a good idea to swap in that info. Also, one needs categories. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I uploaded them (a long time ago as needed them), having changed the compression, to make them "my own work". I should probably have asked for help, but assumed nobody would really care. Klein no longer exists, but Thomson does. How should I accredit them? Many thanks. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. It's nothing too serious. You could copy the info at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dell_Logo.png. The logos are probably too simple to be copyrighted. I would put the source as the company names, and maybe add an url if there is one that has the logos. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Away

I am away for the next week. Jamesx12345 (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi Jamesx12345. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! INeverCry 01:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Khazars and Antisemitism

First, thank you for your post. I am quite new to this, so I may have breeched some etiquettes. Now, for the point of this letter: I think that, to the contrary, the bits I deleted were anti-constructive to the main subject, by reducing the opponents of the subjective writer as either gullible idiots who might as well believe in the flat-earth theory, or worse, anti-semites. I would not like to be compared to an idiot or a nazis because I think that Jews and Khazars could be related (heck, the article recognize it beyond any doubts as far as the nobility is concerned), and frankly I think it would be a loutish form of debate. It is, in fact, an attempt to attack the messenger rather than the message, probably to conotate the debate. The article contains sections, such as the DNA one, that does a much more serious job at validating the same point - except, it's actually rational. Please leave it deleted, or if you want to re-post it, please work on the aformentionned points first. And I don't mean the sources here - I could well write a new, heavily sourced section about strawberries in the said article, but would sources make it relevant? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVictorP (talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I am not related in any way to the debate, just getting used to a new tool for reverting potential vandalism. Sorry about the confusion. Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete AFDs

Hi mate. I noticed you've lodged a few AFDs lately but most of them are missing templates or text and people have had to fix them up for you after the fact. If people don't happen to see them, the discussion won't go anywhere and you'll end up with a bunch of default-closed AFDs on your list. You should consider enabling the Twinkle tools that include a one-click XFD function. Makes AFD nominations super-easy and you'll almost never make mistakes. Cheers, Stalwart 111 03:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just enabled Twinkle as I know that I am causing some problems. Sorry about my incompetence. Jamesx12345 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise - it's all good mate! There's a tool available to weed out occasional mistakes (that we all make) - you might as well use it. I use Twinkle every day. Happy hunting! Stalwart 111 13:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. INeverCry (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated offender

Hi James, you reverted some edits to Daniel Sawrij’s page after an anonymous user deleted the entire controversies section without giving a reason on 6 July. I thought you’d want to know that the same IP address has deleted the same section again from this page. All the best BarkingNigel (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope he knows how much hassle it causes us to revert stuff... click. Cheers. Jamesx12345 (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selenium in baby formula

Hi James, you recently reverted my edit to Selinium, in no time at all, for unknown reasons. There are several resources available via a simple web search which confirm that there are a number of advocates making efforts to REQUIRE selenium in baby formula at the FDA, not merely solitary ingredients. With your expertease at wikipedia, please double-check the internet before removing valid content based on false-flags to ip addresses in Hyogo, Japan

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.37.133.218 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I see that you are correct - it just looked like vandalism as it sounded improbable. I have reverted my own edit. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Edwards (American football),

It didn't seem constructive, I was putting his NFL.com profile in his infobox. Just like any other NFL player that has one.71.180.91.32 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - you are correct. It looked like you were entering random rubbish, so I thought it was vandalism, but have reverted my own edit. Sorry - keep up the good work. Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan's Bootleg series no. 10

Yes, a mistake has happened about that page (The Bootleg Series Vol. 10 – Another Self Portrait: 1962-1964 (1969-1971)): the page title was wrong! Now there is a new page around with the right headline: The Bootleg Series Vol. 10 – Another Self Portrait (1969-1971). I see that someone has deleted it with the "speedy deletion" mode (I didn't know how to do that by myself), phew! Anyway, thank you for your interest in my edits on Wikipedia.--Malachia53 (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand, but OK. Message me again if you need any assistance. Regards. Jamesx12345 (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayan towfiq

I deleted the content from Bayan towfiq because I couldn't figure our how to edit the title of the page. how do I edit the tile? Jjeffmackay (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Jjeffmackay[reply]

You have to move the page, using the drop down tab in the top right hand corner. Jamesx12345 (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people claimed to be Jesus

hi Jamesx12345 you removed one of my edit's on the page: List of people claimed to be Jesus, and although it is technically true, that the person in question(not really a notable person but still) acutally does believe and, claims to be jesus i mostly just put in on the wiki as a joke :p

i would not have let it sit on the wiki for long, just a day or 3 for my fiends and him to read. i did not think it would get picked up this quickly. anyway i got a screencap on my phone so its fine. good to know there are people so activly mantaining the wikipedia pages.

keep up the good work, Vannez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.182.157 (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you want to make more conventional contributions as well, please feel free to do so, but do monitor your edits, pulse, brain activity etc. very closely. Regards. Jamesx12345 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drifts discussion

Please note that the text has not been deleted but moved from the talk page to the project page. The talk page seems not to be the good place for such discussions. I guess you’d better revert your edit.

Thanks, (Ulissipus (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8 entry on OS-tan article

Hi James, you reverted some edits to the Windows 8 entry in regards of Twitter accounts over the alleged inappropriate external links claim. On what specific ground you claim 'inappropriate'? The revert was generated via Wikipedia:Huggle, which deals with vandalism, not general 'inappropriate external links' claim. In other words, you used a wrong tool for making the claim. Technicalities aside, there are other problems with your claim:

The personal website is not always a legitimate claim, especially when they are official links (which they are). I can honestly claim I do not affiliate with those account holders, and you can be sure of that with whatever spy buddies you may have connections with (assuming they are honest). The 'links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product' claim is exempted if a link to an official page of the article's subject. Since the addition was about official sites for the characters, that claim is also invalid. Besides, AKIBA PC Hotline already posted their sites. (See "「窓辺ゆう＆あい」がTwitterしてた、って知ってました？".)

Twitter accounts aside, your latest revert also incorrectly reverted information over the Madobe Yū and Madobe Ai theme songs. This showed you had not even reviewed the contents properly before hitting the revert button using the wrong tool. How can I trust your edit when the decision was made in haste? Unless you can think of better reasons for your reversion decisions, the results of my edit should stay as is. -- 142.150.48.219 (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:MOS recommends that there are no external links in the prose. Links to social networks, should if appropriate, be under the external links header at the end. Jamesx12345 (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yamaleela

Hello Jamesx12345,
I have created the article long back and mean while it has got edited by so many other people. the reason sourced "Totally, this is a good family entertainment." I'm not sure about notability - I know nothing about Indian film, but I get 83500 google hits, which isn't many" is not added by me , rather added by some other user. you can delete those lines from the article, instead of deleting the article itself.--Sultankhadar (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I didn't mean to delete it - I installed WP:Twinkle and was getting it to work. If you look at the page history I undid my edit a minute later. If you could clean up this article though, that would be great, just to make it more encyclopedic. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Seiple

Please remove the wikipdeia page with my name. I am Elena Seiple and i didn't approve the page or the image. I also do not approve that my married name is linked to it . That is NOT public knowledge. So please remove this page .

Thank you Elena — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.130.104 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been blanked and tagged for speedy deletion, which means an admin will have it gone in around 15 minutes. Apologies for any distress caused. James^x1 2345 18:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might have to go a longer way round. I'll delete anything contentious, and the picture, and then is has to go through WP:AFD as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. Sorry about this. James^x1 2345 19:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Elena Seiple

Hello Jamesx12345. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Elena Seiple, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Author has not requested deletion, or other users have added substantial content. WP:CSD#G7 is only for the case where the actual author of the article requests deletion. We do not speedy-delete articles at their subjects' request. At most (see WP:BIODEL) if notability is marginal, the subject's wish may be taken into account at an AfD discussion. It would be necessary for her to contact OTRS to confirm her identity.

You should point the requester to WP:BLP/H for advice. I have restored the article to its state before the requesting IP effectively blanked it. At a quick look, I do not see anything objectionable in it; she is welcome to say on the article talk page if there is anything factually wrong

Let me know if you want me to help, for instance by raising an AfD, or by making an entry at WP:BLP/N to get other users involved. I have to say that there seems to be reasonably documented notability, and I doubt whether an AfD would delete, but you can never tell. I see that there are also articles on the Spanish and Polish Wikipedias. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one, as she is probably notable, but less so than many others without wiki articles. I've taken down the picture, but don't know what she means by her married name being linked to it (nothing obvious in Special:WhatLinksHere/Elena Seiple). As you say, AFD is probably pointless. The fact that she has a website with pics and a bio suggests privacy isn't a massive issue, but it's hard to tell. Regards. James^x1 2345

Subject in wikipeda already

Hello,

What if my subject is mentioned in an approved wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeenahriggs (talk • contribs) 15:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Ross Culvert? Just because he is mentioned does not automatically make him notable, but he possibly is. The problem with this article, however, is that it is not suitably referenced. Wikipedia is very strict about living people, due to a number of high-profile cases. I'll add some headers if you add wikilinks and references and then somebody else will have another look. Regards. James^x1 2345 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]