User talk:Jamesx12345/Archive 6

Restoration

I do appreciate your restoration efforts in the article on Ali...and i agree with you...i restored the article the way you'd want and i also made some room for my edit on Ali's participation during the Ridda Wars... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJDF2367 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

Thanks for your suggestions. I have done each one of them. Sorry for the time interval. Please have another review again. Many a thanks.Benison talk with me 10:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I still have some concerns about the use of references. I think this article needs a good number more - I can even still see a {{cn}} tag. It also needs to have recent info added about the science it is doing. On Sunday afternoon I'll either pass or fail it - you can always nominate it again. I think that's a fair amount of time to make a few changes. Many thanks. James^x12345 17:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

FC Steaua București

James, you reverted my changes on a page without noticing that I was simply reverting earlier changes made by a user who exhibited edit-warring behavior. I attempted to avoid this situation by opening a talk subject on the talk page of that article, but the user simply refused to participate. He also just violated the 3R rule. I am not familiar with the way everything works, but I'm damn sure about every word I added on that article and I also provided refs to prove it.

Optimvs (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears from the page history that you initiated it, but that would be very hard to tell without a proper investigation. That said, thanks you for not continuing it. I'll keep an eye on the situation. Regards. James^x12345 19:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No James, that is not correct. I did some edits a few days ago and the user Narcis90 bluntly reverted them, without any arguments and violating the 3R rule.

I opened a discussion on the talk page and he didn't participate, I added arguments on the revision history and he responded with personal attacks.

TBH I do not understand why you reverted to his version, since a brief reading of both versions should be enough to understand what the truth is, particularly considering the behavior of both users involved. You don't need to be a historian to figure it out, things are quite obvious.

Optimvs (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the dispute resolution people, but I think there is a strong chance that you are mostly to blame. I'm normally extremely civil, but it strikes me that the Optimvs account was set up purely to make these edits, typically a very strong indication that there is something going on. After this, you very quickly escalated the conflict, opening a case when no reply was received. If you want to radically change the history of a club, at least source it so we can evaluate what you are saying. Many thanks. James^x12345 16:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that at this point I would have started to consider you a sock of Narcis90 if your account history didn't proved otherwise. I made my first edit more then a month before the Steaua edit and the subject that made me create the account had ZERO things to do with football (or sport for that matter). Then, after a month or so, I discovered the Steaua page and was horrified how club employees managed to re-write the history of the club on Wikipedia. I made one edit and the club employee started the edit war, with no intention whatsoever to discuss the subject on the talk page but resorting to personal attacks in the edit history and so on. Again, one does not need to be a historian to figure things out, particularly considering that all the relevant information is present on a few other Wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_general_election,_1946 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Romania#Soviet_occupation_and_rise_of_the_Communists , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Bodnaras and so on. Unless of course you are in league with an editor who has a direct financial interest in perpetrating lies on Wikipedia.

Optimvs (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got it in one! There are only two editors on Wikipedia, you and Narcis90. All the rest are socks! I'm being paid $4000 a month to insert communist propaganda into random pages.

Looking at your account history, this is comes across as a single purpose account. Your knowledge of policy suggests that this isn't the first time you've been here. I don't mean to be rude in any way, but I think what you are doing qualifies as disruptive editing, and if it continues, I'll report it to WP:AIV. If you can source whatever you want to add, fine - google books is great - but if not, even if you don't feel it is true, Wikipedia can only say what appears in reliable sources. Hope that helps. James^x12345 20:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came up with this stuff, but it's embarrassing for you, to say the least. If you took the time to actually look at my account history BEFORE making wild accusations that basically amount to personal attacks, you would have noticed that after it became clear that Narcis90 began an edit war that was leading nowhere, I took a few days break from making any further revert. Guess what I did in the meantime, I studied the rules, since it was common sense to do it in such a situation. It may shock your world, but being new to Wikipedia doesn't equal to being new on the internet or not having any common sense at all. Also, if you actually took the time to LOOK at the edits made rather then bluntly reverting them you would have noticed that in the case of one of the two issues being debated I provided a very good and reliable source (the biggest sport newspaper in the country). The fact that you ignored it shows either bias or plain superficiality.

Optimvs (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

To support such a radically different history would would require multiple reliable sources, to the the least. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a single newspaper article is not extraordinary. As I said before, I'm happy if it is properly sourced, and composed in a neutral fashion. Your most recent edit, whilst sourced, was not neutral enough, with a number of issues such as "most shameful", "of course", and the exclamation mark. I don't want to get into an edit war, but reverting to the status quo is sometimes the safest thing to do. James^x12345 18:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is plain nonsense. There are TWO different newspaper articles, both from the leading sport newspapers in the respective countries: Romania and Spain. What you need to understand is that the version present on Wikipedia before I made these edits was a joke, just stupid propaganda written by a club employee. The fact that the only source of that version was an interview whith Valentin Ceausescu, in which he denied everything should be enough for you to figure out the truth. If you had no interest in this, of course. Btw, it says "one of the most shameful" not "the most shameful". No problem, you can keep reverting until you violate the revert rule, I'm sure that any administrator who reads the two versions and their sources will understand who wants the truth to be posted on Wikipedia and who has a personal agenda. Don't count too much on the language barrier, the two articles make perfect sense when translated with google translate.

Optimvs (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I just found the perfect ref, a 1990 Associated Press article on the subject, published in The Los Angeles Times just a few days after Steaua returned the trophy. If this still isn't enough for you to admit that you were horribly wrong, it sure means that your agenda has nothing to do with the goals of Wikipedia.

Optimvs (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I was always willing to accept that what you might want to add could be in part factually true, but the way you are using sources to slander. Choose a despot of your choice, and their article will not contain the word "evil" of "shameful" unless as a quote attibuted to somebody. The fact that your viewpoint is so clear means that you are violating neutral point of view. James^x12345 18:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not about something that "could be in part factually true", it's about something that millions of people, including myself, saw with their own eyes in 1988,

 live on TV. My contribution doesn not contain the word "evil" so get your facts straight please. As for "shameful", it is used to describe an event that is exactly
 that, shameful (a dictator decided that the team who quit the match should win the trophy, just because he wanted it so).
 I have now 5 reliable references that prove my point, you have exactly ZERO, only opinions about events that you have no clue about. If you will keep reverting without
a single shred of argument, without using the talk page and generaly speaking without showing the slightest intention to be constructive, I will have no choice but to
learn the mechanisms used by Wikipedia to protect the truth.

Optimvs (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It may be shameful, but that isn't what Wikipedia says. What you added is still not neutral. My only interest is to make sure Wikipedia is. It is a very simple rule, which your edits still contravene: when an unbiased editor cannot detect what your interests are, then you have succeeded in adhering to NPOV. James^x12345 19:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your goal seems to be to preserve at all cost a version that is simply a lie, rather then work in a constructive way to improve a version that presents the truth (and is based on 5 solid references). If my choice of words seems incorrect to you, what you need to do is to use the talk page and propose an improved version, rather then revert to an outright lie.

Optimvs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to show you what I disagree with in the edit you are making, but I think I have already told you (in the edit summary.) It's pretty petty compared to the magnitude of this discussion, but neutrality is very important. There's a copy in your sandbox where you can make changes without affecting the mainspace article. Many thanks. James^x12345 19:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I made a different word choice on the parts that bothered you. Also added ample material to the talk page, including relevant quotes from all 5 references that I used. Looking forward to see you defending my contribution with the same determination that you had in defending the outright lie that was posted so long on this article.

Optimvs (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any further changes to this article, to avoid frustrating you any further. I know you don't like me, so just unwatch my talk page and ignore me, and try not be a part of another conflict :-) Regards. James^x12345 15:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hi Jamesx12345. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for FC ingenieros y arquitectos, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. In order to avoid possibly discouraging new editors, please move misplaced AFC submissions, rather than nominating them for deletion. If you have questions, please feel free to drop me a line. Cindy(talk) 17:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Many thanks. James^x12345 18:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Montini Catholic High School (Lombard, Illinois) 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:

• | oversight = [[File:LaSallian Logo.jpg|thumb|[http://www.cbmidwest.org/sample-page/midwest-ministries/ Christian

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Jamesx12345. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mary Riter Hamilton -- "is this an university project by any chance?"

No, I was browsing 'WikiProject Canada' 's Requested articles page[1] and came across someone wishing to have a page for Mary Rider [sic] Hamilton. I then proceed to create the Mary Riter Hamilton page a couple of hours later. Why do you ask? You also wrote that you 'merge[d] versions', what other page existed? Tradereddy (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite often articles with a fairly niche academic interest turn up fully formed at AFC as university assignments. I thought that this, the other version from AFC, looked a bit like one. Nice article, by the way - and very well referenced. James^x12345 15:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Help with "Carles and Sofia piano duo" article

Dear Jamesx12345,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my article and for your comment on my talk page. You said there that just a few words need to be changed in order to make it sound more like a Wikipedia article. It would be very helpful if you could specify which words or expressions should be revised. As this is my first entry on Wikipedia any piece of advice you could provide will be much appreciated. Thank you again for you time and help Kind regards, Littleparrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleparrot (talk • contribs) 08:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph Performing activity is a bit colloquial, and external links are not really recommended (I think some might mean to be refs). I'll accept it now, as the issues are pretty minor, to allow other editors to see it as well. Many thanks. James^x12345 15:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for accepting my article! I feel so glad that it could be finally approved :) Kind regards, Littleparrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleparrot (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi Jamesx12345,

Thanks for the review. I am not disappointed as this is my first experience. Through these reviews, I learnt more than that which I may have got from editing daily. Thanks a lot and of course, I will try another GA nomination after some more additions. Happy editing!!!! Benison talk with me 13:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It took me two failed reviews to get a GA, and after 12000 edits, I only have one. It's definitely a useful experience to have your work scrutinised by somebody else. Regards. James^x12345 15:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey

I learnt my lesson today; the press is not a reliable source, and Transfermarkt seems that doesn't know what is doing (they now removed Varela and Wesley). But I think we should let Neagu on the list, he confirmed it by himself, he said he signed.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs)

Sorry - I think you're getting caught up in a most almighty battle. Run for your life!

I've reinstated your edits - they look legit - but if you don't think so, just remove them again. Thanks for your edits - I'm not blaming you for anything. Regards. James^x12345 19:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll check reliable sources next time I add a player to the list. Thanks for understanding. See you around!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs)

FC Steaua București

Right or wrong, you are engaged in an edit war with a user without communicating with them in their talk page. Both of you should stop and engage in a conversation rather than changing the page drastically so often.  A m i t   웃   19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a long (and very repetitive) thread here. I think we need an external mediator (you seem to have volunteered :-)) to take a look. Many thanks. James^x12345 19:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I just template warned the other editor, as he had already crossed the 3RR(or probably should i say 12RR :-P). Some one needs to stop irrespective of the discussion going on.  A m i t   웃   19:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting to the status quo (I've said that a lot as of late) always seems like a good bet, and then stuff can be added incrementally. James^x12345 19:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

James, take a break, the other user has already been reported for Edit warring. Your reverting back and forth is not helping.  A m i t   웃   19:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Can you please keep an eye on it though? Many thanks. James^x12345 19:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of British National Party

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article British National Party you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eugene Gardner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Cruz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit????

You keep changing my edits!!! Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benobikenobi (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling people British is fine if they describe themselves as that, but I'm not sure they do. I think you know what others are getting annoyed about. You can't just change how somebody identifies themselves, and I'm pretty sure Sinn Fein are clear about who they support. James^x12345 19:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jamon Iberico

Hi James, I dont know the reason that you are removing the link that I put, its a link with information about the spanish iberico ham, and not an spam link. On the other hand, in this article you have references to a page that is an online shop of iberico ham, and don't remove this link. I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.1.30 (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The policy for external links is that if it gives the reader more than the best possible article, it merits inclusion. This, however, appears to be a blog post, so may not even be suitable as a reference. Commercial links aren't ideal, but they often have use as citations. See the external link policy for more. Many thanks. James^x12345 16:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok James, I cand understand these, so, I think that this blog post add more information to the reader about the carachteristics of the ham and the way to cut it. And I repeat that in the reference section, you have 2 links to an online shop of hams, that I think that don't add nothing to the reader. The policy for it is different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.1.30 (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If the online ham shops don't add anything, please remove them. Google books has loads of references you could use instead. Blog posts, however, are (for right or wrong) not really approved of here, because of their self-published nature. Hope that helps. James^x12345 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, could you please ban this guy for repeated vandalism? Thanks.--Leptictidium (mt) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been honoured with a banhammer yet, but if they make another edit along the same lines I'll report them to WP:AIV. I'm not really sure what they want, tbh, so have just moved the comment to the talk page. Regards. James^x12345 16:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

11 09 2013

Your attention is directed here where a complaint has been made against you for editwarring over a content dispute at Gerry Adams. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Where sorry? I think I'm being stupid. James^x12345 16:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Just click the link. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In future the best thing to do in such a situation is not be drawn into an edit war. Take a step back and consider what the logical progression is. Try to engage on the talk page or on the user's talk page. All that really happened was that you allowed yourself to become involved in a content dispute. Very dangerous on a 1RR page. As you can see Benobikenobi was capable of getting himself blocked without any help from you and that's usually what happens in these circumstances. No axe to grind from me but as someone who has been the subject of similar cases I don't let things like this pass by. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I made the mistake of editing via Huggle, which has the capacity to very quickly revert edits by the same user. I only became aware of the fact I had made so many reverts, and that there was an Arbcom ruling in place, after I had made the edits. I will be more cautious in the future. Regards. James^x12345 17:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

editing

Hi James,

I think you made a mistake of editing the page I created. I was just constructing it, that was not it yet. I was testing if it will work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosebud921 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If you want do do any more testing, it would be better if you could use your sandbox. Many thanks. James^x12345 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RajaMuneeb

please check again thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RajaMuneeb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1RajaMuneeb (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you (I assume it is you?) qualify for notability. See the notability guidlines for more info about what this means. Many thanks. James^x12345 20:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)