User talk:JBW/Archive 13

El Corte River
The log indicates - 23:07, 26 June 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "El Corte River" ‎ (G2: Test page), which I don't think is right. I think based on the "hang on" in the edit summary that an editor had improperly formatted a hang-on argument. The CSD notice indicated the criteria as too little context to determine the subject of the article, but I think that is incorrect as "The El Corte River is a river in Mexico" certainly identified the subject. I don't want to go the mat for an old one-line article with a couple of external links but it didn't really seem like a proper candidate to be speedied. Thoughts? Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth I was neither the article's creator nor the editor adding the hang on argument. I just happened to be looking at it to see if it could/should be expanded. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I recreated the article, and will add some more content. See this book source for some of the colonial history of the people of the river. The speedy was submitted by a very new editor (contributions). Better to think about whether a stub has potential than to knee-jerk speedy delete because it so far has little content, my view. See the picture in the article - seem quite large. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A speedy deletion tag for "no context" was added to the article, but I rejected that, because, as Abby Kelleyite rightly says, there was enough context. I speedily deleted the article for a completely different reason, as the deletion log shows: "test page". Such text as "Most rivers are, for many people, decidedly interesting. ... Maybe this stub will grow into a DYK article? Let's see" looks to me like a test page. There may have been a case for removing the unsuitable text, which would have left us with "The El Corte River is a river of Mexico", and perhaps a reference or two, which seems to be what you are suggesting, and certainly I would not have objected to anyone doing that. On the other hand I don't think what I did was indefensible either. How far it is better to have an article even though it is very poor rather than have none is a question on which there is a wide range of disagreement among Wikipedians. Certainly the present article is a different matter altogether, and I offer Aymatth2 congratulations on their contribution to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After writing the above comment I thought about it some more, and I have come back to update my opinion. I still think that "I don't think what I did was indefensible", but I don't think that is the most useful thought on the matter. As I have already indicated, I did not delete the article because of "no context", and I did not really delete it "because it so far has little content" either. I deleted it because almost all of what content there was was inappropriate for an article. However, I think I was wrong to think of it in those terms. Instead of thinking about the value of most of what was there I should have thought "Suppose I remove all of the inappropriate material. Suppose I then look at the stub which would be left, and ask myself 'if this was what I had seen when I first came to the article, would I have deleted it?' " The answer to that would be "Of course not. I would have tagged it for expansion." That, therefore, is what I should have done. Obvious? Well, yes, it seems obvious to me now that I have thought it out, but my attention was dominated by the existing content, which I still think was more "test edit" than "article". I think the view I have now expressed is probably more or less what Aymatth2 was saying, but spelled out in more detail. I am very grateful to both Abby Kelleyite and Aymatth2 for prompting me to think again about this, and I shall try to bear in mind these thoughts when looking at future speedy deletion candidates. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * James, don't beat yourself up over it. That inappropriate text was added by some other editor after the article had been tagged for speedy deletion (probably after misreading the instructions about adding a hangon notice immediately below the deletion tag). The result looked like a test page. The end result is a much improved article thanks to Aymath2, so no real harm and quite a bit of good done in the end. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Both my deletion and all of what I wrote above were based on thinking that the text I saw was what had been tagged for deletion, whereas in fact most of it was added later. I should have checked the history. Ironically the new text, presumably added in a misguided attempt to prevent deletion, was what caused me to delete it. However, you are right: the end result is OK, and the history that led to it is not all that important. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I see what happened. It was completely my mistake. I put the tag on the page, then added my explanation and saved. I realized my mistake - the explanation belongs on the talk page - went to put it there and found the page had disappeared. What JamesBWatson saw was an odd article that said something like "All rivers are interesting. Maybe this stub will grow into a DYK ... This is a river in Mexico" and nothing else. So my fumbled hangon caused the speedy. No harm done anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a comment like that would make more sense on a talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I caused the problem, and things moved too fast before I could fix it. Sometimes I wonder if there should be a process in between Speedy and AfD, call it pending deletion, for articles that are relatively harmless but are not worth keeping unless they are fixed up. There is no point opening a big debate, but the author should be given a few days to fix the article before it is wiped out. Or perhaps that is a solution to a problem that does not really exist. An article can always be recreated. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does/would WP:PROD have anything to do with this? –dffgd 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Show how well I understand the deletion options! Yes, I think it would be an excellent idea to implement WP:PROD. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I actually figured out something another editor didn't. –dffgd 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

re List of breath mints
I'm not sure what you mean here. Regarding notability, the article recently survived an AfD. Regarding the content, are you saying that we needs refs showing that Product X does indeed exist and is indeed a breath mint?

That's reasonable, but could we tag the article rather than wholesale deleting content? Part of the point of the list is for the redlinks to provide editors with a quick reference as to what articles need to be written. I have done this, is this acceptable? Herostratus (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

James K Baker
Hi, just thought you might want to look at Articles for deletion/James K Baker which you deleted A7 yesterday. There's clearly a division of opinion as to whether this guy merits an article, but I'm a little surprised that you thought it merited A7.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At the time I deleted it the full text of the article was "James K. Baker is a technology inventor and entrepreneur, who co-founded Dragon Systems with his wife Dr. Janet Baker." Perhaps Dragon Systems is such a major company that co-founding it is a claim of significance, but even if it is, the article did not make that clear. Perhaps I should have been more willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, or spend more time checking, but on the whole I think a one-sentence article that tells us the line of business someone is in and the name of their business and nothing else is not really making an assertion of significance. However, thanks for drawing my attention to this. I shall express an opinion at the AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

editing
I have edited a page and i recieved two emails saying that my writing was unconstructiuve. I was constructive and gave alot of information so i dont know why i was sent that email. please fix this problem now!

If you give people the freedom to edit then let them edit how they wnat or just take editing away completely Geez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexismarie504 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know nothing of emails you may have received. Do you mean messages on your talk page? If so, you have received three of them. I will not waste time explaining why you received them as it is inconceivable that you thought the edits you made were constructive. You may be under the misapprehension that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can edit Wikipedia in any way they like", which is a common mistake among people unused to Wikipedia's methods. If you continue to vandalise you will be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Truth(video game player)
You recently deleted my article on "The Truth"(video game player). What the wiki-community needs to understand is that there are things that are notable in a local setting that may not seem notable to you. when someone wins a local tournament (or 6 as is the case with "The Truth") that person is notable. Phoenix newspapers don't publish tournament wins for video games, however video gaming has become a higher grossing industry than the movie industry. This is an area prime for improvement. The companies that put on these tournaments did not do a good job of keeping records so it is next to impossible to establish this notability in the fashion you are obviously expecting. In closing, this article was written using the apex of information available and chronicles a notable person locally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrymcdowell (talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you or I may personally think about the notability of a person, Wikipedia's standards of notability are outlined in its notability guidelines. The most relevant of these in this case are the general notability guideline and the guideline for notability of people. It does not seem that the subject of the article satisfies the criteria in either of these guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting WP:REFUND and Incubation of a couple of my articles deleted by you
Dear JamesBWatson:

Please “WP:REFUND” and “Incubate” or at the least “Userfy” the following articles speedily deleted by you:

1. Sanjay Kapoor (IIT Alumnus) and 2. Vrajesh Lal.

Also, please suggest the improvements to help these articles stick, as I'm getting a lot of requests from interested people in the professional community and the fraternity that the subject belongs to. I'm a new editor and am seeking your advice and wise counsel to reinforce the above articles, as they seem to be of great significance to thousands of people who know these individuals.

Thanks very much for your help.

Regards, editfun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editfun (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have userfied these two pages, and I shall comment further on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless anonymous comment
spoilsport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.171.10 (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Commator's links to metal-art.com.ua
Having previously reverted this link in other articles, you might be interested in a new Rfc on the matter: Talk:Forging

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Inflexitarian
I thought it's a hoax because I see no google results. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I find 8 Google hits, which are not enough to make me think it's remotely notable, but enough to make me think it's not a hoax. However, having thought about it I have decided it is sufficiently promotional for speedy deletion under CSD G11. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. See ya later. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My Post
Hello, You had called my editing on the Erskine Academy vandalism. It is in no way vandalism. It is the truth and am offended that you took it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boarder12345 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether true or not, your editing was unacceptable. It was unsourced, and potentially libellous if untrue. As I said in my notice on your talk page, the editing was unconstructive and appeared to constitute vandalism. If it isn't vandalism then you need to present it in a way that does not appear as though it is, including providing reliable sources. Without such sources any such edits will be reverted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and if I'd seen someone add "(Soule Man)" to a name, I'd have reverted it as vandalism, too. TFOWR 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

edits removed by you on TTP on wikipedia
Hi James,

I have added Khawarijts with the definition of TTP "It's a group (of Khawarij) that is closely allied with al-Qaeda. They train together, they plan together, they plot together. They are almost indistinguishable".

Please refer to the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawarij

TTP are from the Khawarij school of thought and they consider all the Muslims other than their school of thought as Mushriqs. you ca see this text on the above link also:

"They Kharijites believed that the act of sinning is analogous to Kufr (disbelief) and that every grave sinner was regarded as Kafir (disbeliever) unless he repents. With this argument, they denounced all the above mentioned Ṣaḥābah and even cursed and used abusive language against them. Ordinary Muslims were also declared disbelievers because first, they were not free of sin; secondly they regarded the above mentioned Ṣaḥābah as believers and considered them as religious leaders, even inferring Islamic jurisprudence from the Hadith narrated by them."

Therefore my change is justified, please do let me know if you have an argument.

Regards, HAROON —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroonsarfrazj (talk • contribs) 06:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * After spending some time searching I worked out that you are referring to this edit to Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. You changed the text of a quotation from John Brennan. The relevant quote has been widely reported, as for example here, and here. Not a single one of the reports that I have found says that Brennan included the additional words that you added. When reporting a quote we must report what the person quoted actually said, not what we think they might justifiably have said but didn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am so sorry, i apologies for the change, i was wrong to edit a quotation.

Sorry again

Regards, HAROON —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroonsarfrazj (talk • contribs) 06:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Falcon Crest
Hi, I am truly sorry to bother you, but I have tried to edit the falcon crest page and it keeps going back as it was. I think you did a great job, but it filled with to many spoilers and I personally think that a lot of fun of those series it to be surprised, it says who dies and what happens to them and I think it should just be something more general. My sister just recently started seeing the series and she wanted to know some stuff about, searched here and ended up knowing a lot, like the resolution of the cliffhanger that Jackqueline died and that Chase drowns or who died in plane crash and earthquake. Please consider it and change it as it to full of spoilers. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynastyfalcon (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree with you that articles should not contain spoilers. However, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline against it, and I have no wish to get involved in an edit war on the basis of nothing more than personal opinion. I have no knowledge of Falcon Crest, and although I am happy to remove material which is clearly against policy (such as vandalism or spam) I don't think I am competent to take part in a content dispute on the article. You could try discussing your concerns on the article's talk page, but on the basis of past experience I am not optimistic about your chances of success. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:SPOIL. –dffgd 15:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I had forgotten about that. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Soccer is not USA centric.
Soccer is not USA centric as you claim rather it is the phrase used by the majority of humans living in the English speaking world. This includes the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, Canada, Japan, South Africa, Papua New Guinea to name a few.

In countries wherein the phrase Football is used to refer to the sport, the phrase often develops from the native-language phrase for the word, examples are U.K. - native language: English, phrase used: "Association Football", Germany - native language: German, phrase used: "Fußball", Spain (and Spanish speaking countries) - Native language: Spanish, phrase used: "fútbol".

Note however that in the majority of English, NOT foreign language countries, the phrase "Soccer" is the majority language used. 120.16.79.220 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if that is true, to say the game is "occasionally" known as "football" is inaccurate. The name is in common use. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello,
Thank you for removing my edit to the section of "Sexting". It was a well thoughout idea and now it is gone forever. My only regret in life is that it was not left to bring joy to all who dared view the touchy subject of "Sexting". I want you to know that my soul dies with the deletion of my edit, along with the many possible laughs it could have brought. I only hope that you found it funny and that you know what you have done. -A Very Angry Teenager Who Wants To Better The World One Day- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.38.71 (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hoosch
Hi JamesBWatson - you just deleted the article on Hoosch that I created. I had placed the hangon tag on the page no less than 24 hours ago and was looking to improve the article with better references. Rather than wipe-out my work completely, is there some way you can restore the page, or supply me with the text so that I can continue to work on it? Thank you. Znarky (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have restored the article to Znarky/Hoosch, and you are welcome to work on it there. You should be aware, though, that this is a temporary measure to give you a chance to establish notability, and not a way of permanently avoiding deletion if the subject is not notable. I searched and was unable to find suitable reliable sources to establish that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Best of luck with trying to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. To lose the work would've been a setback. However, I've just checked and it appears Hoosch won't be returned as a search result if someone else wants to write on the subject as you've placed NOINDEX on it. If the article was left indexed there would be an opportunity for others to add/refine/establish it. As I understand it - as it stands now - the collaborative element has been removed and it's all down to me. Is that so? Znarky (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I will remove the NOINDEX tag. Unfortunately some users use userfied pages as a way of avoiding deletion, and keep pages indefinitely, unless they are noticed and deleted. However, I suppose this page is fairly innocuous, even if notability has not yet been established, so leaving it indexable for a while won't do any harm. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi JamesBWatson - It appears Hoosch still is not showing up when I run a search on WP. Is there a lag in the indexing once it's been removed? Otherwise, as I stated previously, other possible contributors will not see the page as it stands so far. I fully apprec iate that you don't want it up there for an extended period of time if you feel it hasn't yet been properly established as notable - but I'd argue that without it being available to be established as notable by the community, it will never have the chance to be established. I'm new to WP, but I'm experiencing far more exclusionary treatment from other contributors than I had expected! Znarky (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First, yes, Google tends to have a time lag, which is sometimes quite short, but other times very long. Secondly, I fully understand what you mean about "exclusionary treatment": I felt that way myself when I started here. After a time, though, I came to realise that what at first seemed like unnecessarily unfriendly treatment was not as arbitrary as it seemed, and there were reasons. Obviously, in a place where anyone can edit, we get all sorts, including unfortunately some people who are unnecessarily unfriendly, but on the whole Wikipedia is quite friendly once you understand it. Part of the problem is that we get many people coming here to edit in unsuitable ways, including vandalism, personal attacks, spam, etc etc. Those of us who patrol such activities have our time cut out dealing with the problem, so we tend to do things quickly, which sometimes means leaving rather curt automated messages and reverting or deleting contributions with a minimum amount of explanation. If every time I dealt with an editor who had fallen against Wikipedia's policies or guidelines in some way I gave them a detailed explanation of everything relevant, I would get much less useful work done here, so I often compromise. However, don't let that put you off: I hope you will stay and continue to contribute here, and please do feel welcome to ask me for help. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Znarky, James, I have moved the page to User:Znarky/Hoosch as userfied articles should be in the user namespace (I guess this was just a simple slip). Peter 11:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It certainly was a simple slip - but a pretty serious one. Thanks for the correction. User:Znarky/Hoosch is, of course, what I intended. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Valan International cargo charter
Hello, u have just deleted my article, considering that it was advertise

i want to remake this page or create a knew one, so that it wouldn't be considered as an advertise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alunar1988 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is certainly possible to write a satisfactory new article inplace of an unsatisfactory deleted one. However, even if you avoid outright promotion or advertising, there are other considerations to take into account. The article indicated that you are working for the company, (for example, "We are in the market to offer our clients ...") which means that Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from editing an article on this subject. There is also the question of whether the company satisfies Wikipedia's requirement for notability, and whether there are reliable sources to indicate that it does. Notability (organizations and companies) and FAQ/Organizations are also relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you for the review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alunar1988 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

yes it's vandalism
either i do not understand or you do not understand what vandalism is, according to your recent comments :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&action=historysubmit&diff=369876953&oldid=369875922

since then "he" did it again : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Did_You_Hear_About_the_Morgans%3F&action=history

i put here 256 lines since december 31, 256 ! and you call that "Insufficient recent activity" and "Edits are not vandalism", bravo! --- kernitou talk 05:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a content dispute here. The editor at 74.193.78.243 disagrees with your editing and has reverted much or all of it, which clearly must be frustrating for you, as you have put a significant amount of work into the article. That editor also shows no attempt at all to discuss the editing to reach consensus. However, that is not the same as vandalism, which is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". What I see is entirely consistent with the editor genuinely thinking that his/her editing is improving the article. You or I may disagree with that opinion, but if there is no deliberate intention of doing damage then it does not fall under the vandalism policy. Various ways of dealing with this situation are listed at WP:Dispute resolution, and Edit warring may also be helpful, but Administrator intervention against vandalism is specifically for two situations only: persistent editing with the deliberate intention of disrupting Wikipedia, and persistent spamming, neither of which applies in this case. Finally, you quote with disapproval my saying "Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block". This referred to another IP address, which had done no editing for four days. We do not block IP addresses for vandalism which is not currently continuing. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * you wrote "The editor at 74.193.78.243 disagrees with your editing and has reverted much or all of it" and what happened is exactly the opposite : i reverted what he edited (me: like 3 lines; he: 256 lines!)! obviously you dit not read what he is doing since, at least, december 31, 2009 : he just put tens of google main page links, what has no use, no content, nothing (see here) ...when such an user is doing it and doing it again, using an article as the sandbox, again and again even after warnings, it's called pure vandalism - kernitou talk 14:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, there are many points in the edit history where the anon editor reverted your edits, just as much as you reverted their edits. For example see this pair of edits: &, and in this pair:  & . Secondly, who started the string of reversions, and who was responsible for introducing the controversial material in the first place is completely beside the point. The point is that there are two editors (you and the anonymous editor) who disagree about what content should be in the article, and keep reverting one another's edits. This is a content dispute, resulting in edit warring, and is a completely different thing from vandalism. By all means pursue any of the dispute resolution methods listed at WP:Dispute resolution, and please read Edit warring if you have not yet done so, but WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism is not the place to have it dealt with. "Vandalism" does not mean any kind of editing which is not constructive: it means editing done with the deliberate intention of being disruptive. It is, of course, possible that the anonymous editor intends to be disruptive, but there is no evidence that that is the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

could you please kill user:Wikipedical, even if he understands better than you the said vandalism problem : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Did_You_Hear_About_the_Morgans%3F&curid=24445186&diff=371324584&oldid=371295090 thanks in advance - - - kernitou talk 05:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Ron Orp page
Hi there, I don't understand why this page should be deleted. Ron Orp is a publishing house which is growing and getting more and more important. It's newsletters are delivered to over 70'000 subscribers in London, New York, Brasilia, Vienna, Munich, Berlin and 7 Swiss cities. I've added many sources to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.143.187 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion about the possibility of deleting the article, but at the end of the discussion it was not decided to delete it. If you are interested in why deletion was suggested you can read the discussion at Articles for deletion/Ron Orp. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Swami Nardanand
The article Swami Nardanand you deleted, was not to promote a perticular entity, or it was not any advertisement page. It is just an spiritual info page like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagawan_Nityananda. Please consider this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamisatyadevanand (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 July 2010 07:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was unambiguously promoting a particular religious view. Giving another article which you consider similar is never a helpful argument for keeping an article. For one thing, the other article may be in need of deletion too. In this case, the two articles are very different: one promoted a person's view, and the other describes a person and his view, without presenting it as the truth. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Stations Former Talent List
Hi James,

I was just wondering... I have always edited these pages for about over a year now and I know it's against Wikipeda policy, but I had worked very hard to add everyone that was w/ the station at one point or another. Just for the 5 Chicago Stations, I was wondering if I could have your permission to leave the articles as is. It's not like it vandalizing them in anyway. I am not taking anything away form the article itself. I just feel like if you only keep the notable names, you might as well as not have a list at all b/c that is just such a select few. I would really appreciate it if you as an administrator would allow just those 5 pages to remain as is. I also used to look forward to updating those lists with budget cuts and everything else going on these days in television. Every other station can stay as is. Thanks so much. 98.223.95.42 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several things I could say in reply, but since the user is now blocked as a sockpuppet it's not worth it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

reply
Okay listen,I can't understand what a dumbo like u is thinking is right now.The recent changes that Ive made in ********* section is completely right.

For a person like u who knows nothing regarding my country's win,achievements,hosted or going to host matters,I cant help it.That article was left completely barren & nobody cared to make the ongoing updates.So I decided to step in & clean up the mess.

Any Indian would appreciate my work without hesitation & ppl who know about that article wll acknowledge that it is good & well acceptable —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadRed94 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A dumbo? JamesBWatson (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Simon Prast
I see that you have removed many internal links to Simon Prast on the grounds that the article has been speedily deleted under A7. However, that article has not been deleted, and as an actor in a number of reasonably popular New Zealand television programs, I doubt that it is likely to be. I will revert your edits.- gadfium 09:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not intend to remove these links. By accidentally clicking on the wrong button I deleted the article, but immediately corrected my mistake. Unfortunately, links were automatically removed by Twinkle. Thank you for reverting them, and apologies for putting you to the trouble. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see there is a deleted article SIMON PRAST, which probably lead to this situation. No problem.- gadfium 09:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KakapoNZ (talk • contribs) 09:15, 2 July 2010 Errm, I can't see any. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the explanation above re Simon Prast. Good thing is it prompted me into gear and I have done some major editing on my on wikimedia server. So intentional or not, thanks for the motivation. Will put new post up tomorrow. Again Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KakapoNZ (talk • contribs) 10:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

list of Dawoodi Bohra dai
Dear sir,

I clarified the position of new article which I have created naming' list of Dawoodi Bohra dai' on its Talk page and left message of hangon on the article.

The article is similar to article of list of Ismaili Imams ,name and details of dai compiled at one place.

These have link with article Ismaili, Mustali,Dawoodi Bohra and would be very useful for Wiki viewers.

There is no information in it concerning with live person,references are given ,may pl. consider the article suitable for Wiki.

Thanks.--Md iet (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC) --Md iet (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

creating "Mohamed Sulaiman Kuthubdeen"
Hello,JamesBWatson

May i have to create a Page for a Real People Mohamed Sulaiman Kuthubden and he is a son of Kamil Kuthubdeen, So Please can i create him a Wikipedia page.. he was the chairman of Apple SK9 inc. and youngest president of Real Estate.. Please Allow Me to create a good page about him on wikipedia and may people would know about that person..

Regards,

USR:Sulaiman7799

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulaiman7799 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that this article has been created and deleted five times within a period of four days. Each time the deletion was because the article failed to show that the person had enough significance to justify an encyclopaedia article, and four different administrators did these deletions. A Google search for his name produces very few hits, among which Wikipedia, MySpace, etc feature. None of them looks remotely like substantial coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject, which is what Wikipedia requires in order to justify an article. A search for "Apple SK9 inc" produced nothing other than Wikipedia. The long and the short of this is that I have seen nothing whatever to suggest he is any more than a very ordinary businessman running a very ordinary small business, without any notability at all. In this case he does not qualify for an article. If you have not already done so you may like to read Wikipedia's notability guidelines, including the guideline for people. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you please monitor this discussion
I trust your ability to summarise and close. Would you please monitor this friendly discussion, both to keep it on track if necessary, and, in a few days to close it with whatever consensus is reached? Unless, of course, you wish to add your thoughts to the (so far not) emerging consensus? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've had a look at it, and I will come back to it and see how it goes. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Very many thanks. I will say nothing here to influence any decision you make in the future. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

List of record labels: A–H
Can I ask you logic for removal of EyPi RecordZ, since it has an article (all be it at AfD) should it not be presumed notable until the AfD closes ? Codf1977 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no good reason for "presuming" notability in the absence of evidence of notability from reliable sources, but I don't feel very strongly about it, so if you wish to restore it I won't mind. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree I don't think it is notable, but I think that in the interests of seeming fair, it should not be removed until the article is deleted. Codf1977 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Vice redirects to Kascha Papillon
Please let the RFD discussion conclude before deleting anything, there was really no concensus for anything but a merge, so the redirect is natural to that. UPCDAYZ (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Kamil Kuthubdeen
Hello,User: JamesBWatson

why did you remove Kamil Kuthubdeen's Article?

Under what circumstance did remove kamil kuthubdeen. could you please give me some reason for removing kamil kuthubdeen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulaiman7799 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted the article Kamil Kuthubdeen because, as the deletion log says, it gave no explanation of the subject's significance. The article told us that Kamil Kuthubdeen is a businessman who has set up a real estate business in the Maldives, and that was all. There are millions of businesses in the world, and being the owner of a business is not sufficient grounds for being the subject of an article. If you have not done so I suggest reading the guidelines Notability and Notability (people) to see what is required. Notability (organizations and companies) and FAQ/Organizations also have some relevance. I see that you have created articles eight times, that almost every one of them has been about a person with the name "Kuthubdeen", and that the one exception was unambiguous advertising for a company. I suggest you read the guideline Conflict of interest and the policy WP:NOTADVERTISING. Finally, I see you have several times re-created deleted articles, without addressing the issues which led to their deletion. Please don't continue to do this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Zoran Kesic
Zoran Kesic is one of the popular and most funniest TV hosts in Serbia.I'm form Serbia.And that is the reasone I wrote the page about Zoran Kesic.His talk/sketch show is realy briliant,so I made this page for other-country people 'cause maybe they will like the show.So please do not hide the page. For now, this page has a preference and resources which could see something about the TV presenter. The first source is the website serbian FOX television, and the other two interviews, one Serbian and one in English. I'm new on Wikipedia (and I'm not so birlliant at English,but I wrote the page on English because of internstional people,who is not from Serrbia), so I'm not sure if I should just explain this to write, but I think I explained all ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirten (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Response / request from Paul K. Arlington
I left a message, i think on your talkback, but it's hard to know for sure! Sorry for the confusion. Paul K. Arlington (talk) Paul K. Arlington (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:AJ Kirby
Don't know if you're around, but the talkpage to author still exists. Talk:AJ Kirby. moreno oso (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not now it isn't. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam blocks
(sounds like catering quantities...) When you're blocking because of spam, your sig isn't appearing, just four tildes inside the yellow box. OrangeMike and Athanaera's sigs appear - can't find one of Athanaera's but here's one OrangeMike did in case it helps: User talk:Mydivert. Keep up the good work, anyway... Peridon (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been forgetting to "subst" the templates. Thanks for the prompt. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Revolver (T-Pain album)
Why did you delete that page?? I seriously improved the page so much so that it was significantly different (and better) than it's predecessors. Why would you delete it?! Please undo what you have done, I will address any previous reasons for deletion if you would kindly bring them to my attention. IFreedom1212 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked back at the last version of the article, and yes, I agree it is much better than its predecessors. I still think the sources need attention, but I have restored it so you can work on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR RESTORING IT!!! :D IFreedom1212 (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The article may be better but there is still not enough coverage in reliable sources and has no format on the page. This page would easly be killed off and Salted in a AfD. Red Flag on the Right Side 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you may well be right, but I think we should give a chance for it to be worked on. If it's not improved after a while we can think again. In any case I think it was a mistake to speedy-delete as a repost, as it is distinctly different from the previous version. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How would I add a format to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IFreedom1212 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll format it for you. Red Flag on the Right Side 20:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How
How is what iam doing vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N2492004 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't, but it looked like it. It would help if you used edit summaries to say briefly what you are doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's blatant troublemaking. I'm way past AGF now, considering I've explained the matter several times and am working off sources. This user is consistently ignoring facts, breaking AGF and going round in circles. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So I get blocked for doing nothing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N2492004 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you are not being blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I warn other users?
How do I warn other users? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N2492004 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you mean how do you give them warnings about unsuitable editing, such as vandalism, there is a list of templates to use at Template messages/User talk namespace, but they can be rather confusing to a new user, so I will give a brief indication how to use them. If someone has made an edit which you think is vandalism, you can place the tag Article on their talk page, replacing "Article" with the title of the page which they vandalised. This will give a fairly polite and gentle warning. If they continue to vandalise, you can use Article for a sterner warning, and eventually work up to Article, which will give a "final" warning. If the user still persists with vandalism after a final warning it is possible to make a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism, and an administrator will sooner or later look at the case and decide whether the user should be blocked. Other warning templates work in a similar way, but for other problems instead of vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A note to you N249, I'm not vandalising. It's clear you're asking so you can warn me. However, I'm keeping to all the rules, when you're 3RRing and ignoring sources, to place in your own biased commentary. I would suggest you stop now. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N2492004 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been pulled into this dispute as an uninvolved outsider. This is a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. However, there was a request at Talk:UFC 117 for a third opinion, and I have offered one there. I hope that will help to resolve the dispute. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, Paralympiakos has made a request at RFPP for the article to be semi-protected. –dffgd 14:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Churcham
about the churcham edit, i go to school of the lion so i would know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnoteditinganything (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but we don't take "I know so you can take my word for it" as a reliable source. See the guideline on reliable sources to see what is acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Logic Wireless

 * Disclosure: I was asked for help with this article off-wiki.

Hi JamesBWatson. I noticed that you've speedily deleted the article on Logic Wireless. I had a look at the previous AfD. The deciding factor there was notability, though CoI was another concern. I think notability issue is not the same as before for:
 * 1) it's now more than one year in the company's existence with real consumer products
 * 2) They now have reliable sources like CNN Money, PCMag, EndGadget (even PR in Forbes etc.,

I'd request that you reconsider your deletion. I agree that the content is not substantive as of now, but the article can definitely grow. I was asked to help with the article off-wiki, but I declined so as to avoid even a remote possibility of CoI. If possible, I can write a short stub with balanced content and post it in a talk page. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I gave in the deletion log was "A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". I think I included G4 mainly because that was the reason given in the CSD nomination, but it would probably have been better just to have stuck to A3, which was really the main reason for deletion. The article contained an Infobox and a list of external links, and nothing else. The links were labelled "references", but they were not references in the sense of citations to confirm statements in the article, as there were no statements in the article. I am perfectly happy to restore the article, on the understanding that this is so that it can be built up into a proper article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for restoring the article. I agree with you on the A3 part when it was CSD'd. Will try to do my bit on the content. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

AE
You commented in a previous AE on a problem which hasn't gone away:. Maybe you could take a look. Thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have a look at it, but unfortunately I don't have time now. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of L.G.R article
Hi James,

I placed an article on L.G.R I listed facts about the companies and put references to several established newspapers, however it got deleted. Could you please tell me what else I need to do in order for the article to stay on wikipedia?

Thanks,

Jenny (user name is jennyeb002) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyeb002 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason given the first time L.G.R was deleted was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The second deletion followed a nomination which gave as reasons lack of indication of importance of the company and also advertising or promotion. All but one of the references to newspapers were just links to "fashion" photographs of sunglasses, which scarcely counts as substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of ConSol Consulting & Solutions article
Hi James, why did you delete this page? i explained the reasons for not deleting it. Can i recreate it? thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aby74 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This message came while I was writing a comment at User talk:Aby74 which I think covers this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

About ConSol Consulting & Solutions
Hi James,

thanks for you answer, i read the information about company-sites here a few minutes, ago.

Well, the reason for this site is: Once (2009) we placed one of our products in a Wikipedia comparison-chart ("list of issue tracking systems") here. Some month later the list-entry was deleted with the reason that we had only external links and no wikipedia-site for our product or company....

So now i thought it's better to start a company-site, then adding the product-sites and then adding them into the comparison charts.

Indeed 95% (!) of the companies in the "list of issue tracking systems" - site are both smaller and have not the relevance on market which we have or which i would call "notible".

So what can i do in this case?

thx, br, andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aby74 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well over 90% of "List of..." articles contain entries which do not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and should be removed. However, the amount of work involved in checking all the hundreds of lists is way beyond the amount of work that can be done by the volunteers who work on them. When people do try to clean up these lists, they often use whether a topic has a Wikipedia article as a short cut to deciding whether or not to remove an entry, but having a Wikipedia article is not really the right criterion. The correct criterion should be having reliable sources cited, but editors often assume that if there is a Wikipedia article then that article will contain good sources - not always a safe assumption. It may therefore be true that other entries in that list are less notable than the one you have tried to add. However, this is not necessarily so: size of company and market size do not equate to Wikipedia's notability criteria.
 * The fact that you write "we placed one of our products" indicates that you need to check the guideline on conflict of interest, and consider very carefully whether you should persist with editing in this area at all.
 * The answer to your question "So what can i do in this case?" is that you need to determine whether or not your company satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. If it does then, in the course of establishing that fact, you will have found reliable sources which you can cite in an article, which should then avoid deletion. If, on the other hand, the company does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria then the answer, I'm afraid, is that you should avoid wasting more time on a task which is doomed to failure. The advice I gave you before was based on the assumption that you were interested in contributing to Wikipedia more widely, and if so then that advice still stands. However, in the light of what you have written above, it seems that your only interest may be in promoting one company. If that is so then carefully consider the conflict of interest guideline, the notability guidelines, and what I have written above. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for you fast answer. :-) indeed one of wikipedia advantages is to get information about very special technologies ("products"), too. And as in this case (issue tracker) i think it doesn't matter if there is a further commercial intention as missing the tool in this list is a kind of falsification of the reality. It's like a list of "typical" operation systems which lists plan9, BS2000, TOS but MacOS or Windows are missing... So there will always be some cases, especially in very special technologies/facts or sth else where you can not distinguish between "pure information" and a kind of "commercial interest". ...i'll try the old way: adding it in the list again and see what will happen.. br, andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aby74 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Booti Kall entry
Hi James

This is my first time using Wikipedia in terms of adding an entry so please forgive my lack of knowledge.

I'd entered the group Booti Kall a few days back with the intention that other users would remember them and help to fill in some of the gaps. I note that it has been deleted and marked as a "hoax", which I hope I can assure you it is not.

The entry actually came about from discussions at a recent university reunion event, at which the group came and played. There were quite a few of us there who remember them doing quite well with reasonable success and certainly being at some of the smaller open air festivals in North London. Moreoever, the auditions which were mentioned during their recruiting period were attended by some of the same people at the reunion (most of which were are Royal Holloway).

We couldn't find any reference to the band still existing, but hoped that with a moderately basic entry on Wikipedia we would be able to use the "power of the people" to help us build the entry and hopefully find out what happened to them/where they are now etc. Also to just generally add to the diversity of the encyclopedia as there are quite a few bands that we thought were "big hitters" that have no entries either: Zillionaire, Volcanoes.... all who have had decent success in the indie world but no entry!

The username "RoadEnd Records" incidentally has no correlation with the name of the producing company -- i'm not a band promoter, nor have I ever been (if you were suspecting this entry was some kind of shameless plug!!). It was simply the first name we could think of when starting a new account.

Would be grateful for your views on how we can put this entry live. Totally understand if that's not possible, but I am hoping that other people will remember it, add to it and it will grow and accurately reflect some of the loved groups of yesteryear.

Kind regards Dale  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoadEndRecords (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all I personally never thought it was a hoax, and the deletion log indicates that was not my reason for deleting it. Unfortunately just now I don't have time to comment further, but I will try to come back to it tomorrow. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now come back with more time. Essentially you are saying that you could not find much published information about the band, and decided to use a Wikipedia article as a way of starting off an attempt to gather information on it. Unfortunately this is an excellent of what Wikipedia is not for. Wikipedia's policy is to have articles only on those subjects for which there is already a substantial amount of information published in reliable sources. Any subject to which this does not apply does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, and using a Wikipedia article to assemble material not already available in published sources comes up against the policy that Wikipedia articles are not for original research. It is a common mistake to think "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can put anything in Wikipedia", but it doesn't: it means "anyone can edit Wikipedia within the limits set by our policies and guidelines". I wish you luck with using "the power of the people" to find more information about Booti Kall, but I'm afraid you will have to find somewhere else to do it: Wikipedia is not the right place. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

More complete list

 * 70.129.23.104
 * 75.8.83.191
 * 70.251.194.227
 * 70.254.70.220
 * 70.255.170.189
 * 70.254.66.240
 * 70.254.65.96
 * 75.24.64.113
 * 70.254.70.87
 * 70.129.16.13
 * 70.254.67.16
 * 70.129.17.67

-- Marcus   Qwertyus  (signs his posts) 19:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Joaquin Fuster
Hi -- what with one thing and another, I see that you deleted an article on this person because of copyright infringement. I don't doubt that the article was infringing, but can you verify that there wasn't an earlier version that was okay? I can't check this myself because I'm not an admin -- he is definitely notable enough to have an article about him. Sorry to trouble you, Looie496 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At one point an editor removed the copyright material, which reduced the article to a two-sentence stub. The author of the article, however, was not willing to accept this, and restored the copyright material. Under different circumstances I would think that reverting to the stub and letting editors work from there would be the best way forward, even though the stub was in itself too trivial to be of much value. However, taking into account everything I have seen regarding this article, I do not think there is likely to be much future in that. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Phoenixthebird
Please put your comments on the administrative action we've opened against EENG to support his position, thanks! We removed the talk page on behalf of the subject of the article to protect Wiki. Before you accuse me of vandalism, after deleting a page we worked on for many days with the principal, check with Wiki's attorneys, as we are working to avoid the problems you and EENG have created with the deletion. Vituperous talks like that created by EENG's patience-lacking templates, even while we had in progress editing templates active, confuse and anger principals. The subject put GNU type language on his site, and without even checking it, you and/ or EENG capriciously deleted the whole article, without inviting discussion or votes from any other admins. We are asking for administrative support, since EENG also subsequently began to systematically tag all our contributions in vendetta fashion. Are you and EENG working on this together, or are you looking objectively at the notability of this gentleman? Most admins would have allowed far more time to work with the subject and get the article "right" since we were doing all the work! Thanks for looking at both sides, I'm assuming you have more objectivity than EENG has shown here. There was ZERO liability while we were working with the subject on this article, you've actually worsened the situation for Wiki (from the subject's standpoint) by insultingly removing the article and leaving the talk. You need to put yourself in the principal's shoes here, who went above and beyond to protect Wiki by agreeing to public domain language on his site, and was "rewarded" with your way-too-fast deletion, leaving only combative talks under this distinguished gentleman's name.Phoenixthebird (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

When an editor is working with a principal, time is needed to "get it right." This is SO basic! There were NO copyright issues, as the subject easily agreed to put GNU language on his site. Your actions and those of EENG's have created more risk for Wiki than if you'd just shown a little patience instead of instantly firing off your deletion dispenser. Admins need more training if you don't even take the time to get second opinions, especially when an editor is working diligently with a principal. Cripes, this distinguished gentleman was going reference to reference with me to pick out the ones that were juried and peer reviewed for inclusion, and remove those that weren't! Given some of the poor quality of other Wiki articles, this is surely above and beyond.Phoenixthebird (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

PS James I presume: Hey, don't consider this a lost cause. Doc Fuster is happy to work with me on reinstating, if someone can give me air cover from EENG. I'm an IP attorney, but if you want to check with wiki to be sure the doc added acceptable "freeing" language, it will give us time to get other references together. Lord, with 2,000 references in PFC alone... you get the drift, there is plenty out there. This may seem just like a nit to you, but the subject here has many grad students in Neuro who would be great contributors to Wiki, and I've got several dozen young PhD's working for me all of whom are Wiki types in chemistry, biotech and supercomputing (being ancient, I'm new to this, and as the boss, would not ask for their help anyway!). My time is valuable and I won't waste it on global deletion opportunities, but if someone is willing to allow the time to get it "right" according to voted opinion, I'm fine with that. All our work is for juried submissions anyway, which isn't all that different than editors, as long as those voting are bright. If not, no big deal either way. Phoenixthebird (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a fairly long post, which raises several points. I will restrict myself to just a few points. Firstly, it seems clear from your comments that you are working on behalf of the subject of the article, who I assume is the person you call the "principal". This means that you have a conflict of interest, and it might well be better for you not to edit articles concerning him. Secondly, you say that "The subject put GNU type language on his site, and without even checking it, you and/ or EENG capriciously deleted the whole article". I looked at the site to which you had linked, and could find no sign of the sort of copyright disclaimer you referred to then, nor of the sort of copyright notice you refer to now. It is not true that I acted "without even checking it". What is more, I find it surprising that you thought I did, since I referred on the article's talk page to my having checked. Thirdly, "GNU type language" is a surprisingly vague expression for a attorney to use: do you mean a license under the terms of one of the GNU licenses? If so I am surprised that an attorney did not check Wikipedia's licensing terms and find that a GNU license is not sufficient. Fourthly, you refer to "liability", but do not explain what you are referring to. Perhaps you would like to clarify this. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Orange County Democratic Party
Hello, My name is Emily Wells and I am an intern with the Democratic Party in Orange County, California. Recently, the Wikipedia page I created for the party was deleted due to "copyright infringement" and "unambiguous advertising". What needs to be done so our page can remain up? Thanks, Emily Wells emilywells13@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilywells (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) You should read Wikipeida's policy on conflict of interest, and consider whether it is a good idea for you to be writing this article at all.
 * 2) The article was clearly written in away that promoted the organisation. To be acceptable as a Wikipedia article it needs to be written in a neutral way. If you can see that the article was written in a promotional way then it should not be difficult to avoid that. If, on the other hand, you can't see it, then that takes us back to the conflict of interest issue. Being closely involved in the organisation may make it difficult for you to see it from a detached perspective. If that is the case then you certainly should not be writing this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

semi-protected
I just semi-protected your talkpage in the hopes that that vandal will get bored and wander off soon. If you would prefer that it not be, please just let me know or fix it yourself. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand semi-protecting all the pages the vandal has been targetting is probably the most likely way of stopping it. On the other hand I don't wish to prevent legitimate new users from contacting me. Well, I'll leave it semi-protected for now and think about it again. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a /opentalk page for that purpose, as I agree that being open to legitimate contact is important. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Care to Explain?
Could you please explain why you deleted the ENTIRE content of my talk page and replaced it with this message:

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:HamburgerRadio, you may be blocked from editing. It is also not constructive to make anonymous edits from an IP address and pretend someone else made them. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)'"

Can you please explain or reference me to the place where I "made an anonymous edit as an IP address"? I have no idea what you are talking about, and it doesn't make sense. Firstly, I make all edits on this user, not on a IP. I don't know where you got this from, but I would at least like the content from my talk page back. Even if I had posted something unconstructive, that in no way explains your reason for wiping out my talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryzal (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have answered on your talk page, but I will also say here that I did not "wipe out" your talk. The edit history of the page show that I have only ever made two edits to it, neither of which removed any content. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Young BarZ
I was wondering how I could come upon creating this page for a rapper at my school in Holden ,Massachusetts named Young BarZ. He Is up and coming and I feel the article I write will be significant for people who search him to really know what he has gone through. He is an inspiration to me and others from our small town of Holden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballout226 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly recommend reading at least some of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to find out what a subject needs in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article. You should at least look at the general notability guideline and the guideline on musicians. The guideline on notability for People is also relevant. The fact that you and others think he is "an inspiration" does not make him suitable for a Wikipedia article. As for "up and coming", I find that usually means "he is not yet notable, but I think he will be one day, and I want a Wikipedia article to help him to achieve that." Unfortunately this is against both the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the policy that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. In short, what you have written above suggests that he does not satisfy Wikipeida's notability criteria, and does not warrant an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DZEL-TV
Actually, in this case, the content didn't originate from Wikipedia. The article on Wikipedia has been deleted several times as being a copyvio of the other article, and the article on the other wiki was created long before the one here. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see you are right. The other Wiki says "Original content from Wikipedia", but that is clearly untrue. I have deleted the article. Thanks for correcting me. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Kripalvananda
I see that you deleted the article Kripalvananda under CSD G4 -- recreation of a page deleted following a deletion discussion. As the person who created this article, I take offense at the suggestion that it was a recreation of the deleted page. When I created the article, I was following redlinks, and I was not aware that previous pages about the topic had been deleted (this lack of awareness of previous articles was due largely to the fact that the redlink I followed was one that misspelled the subject's name). After recognizing the article history, I went to the trouble of finding the various earlier articles about the guy and documenting the deletion history on the article talk page, as well as redirecting the various titles to the new article -- thus making it so much easier for somebody else to identify this new article as having the same topic as a deleted article.

I've looked at the various deleted articles, and I am fully satisfied tha the article I wrote is not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the deleted page(s). The deleted articles, including but not limited to the article discussed at Articles for deletion/Swami Kripalvanandji, were worshipful claptrap by devotees (including some copyvios), whereas I created an article that attempted to objectively describe the subject's life and legend, referenced to several sources. (I have no independent knowledge of this person nor an interest in his religion, and I most assuredly have no inclination to act like a devotee.) The AfD discussion was lame, as AfDs go; it pretty much started from the premise that Kripalvananda was non-notable, and because no one attempted to address that premise, it ended up being deleted on that basis. Having written a new article about the guy, I'm convinced that he's notable under Wikipedia criteria.

I don't believe that the article I created deserved to be deleted. At a minimum, I'd like to ask to take the article that I created to DRV or AfD. --Orlady (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have looked back, and I accept that the article is significantly different from the AfD version, so I have restored it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Amadeus
Mister Watson

Can you explain the reason for your report ? I am a sound engineer and uses these products daily. I therefore wish to share my experience and my knowledge about this brand. Inform you before you delete posts in the future ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaetanoo (talk • contribs) 11:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After some searching I have realised that this evidently this refers to the deletion of the third creation of Amadeus Audio Systems. It would have saved me some time had you given the title of the article. As you can see from the deletion log, the reason for deletion was "No explanation of the subject's significance", which was the same as the previous time the article was deleted. As you are aware, the full text of the article was "Amadeus is a brand of professional audio products created by Atelier 33 SA." JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's back. Should Amadeus Audio Systems be salted?  I can't find a single reliable source and this is the fourth time he's created the article.   APK   whisper in my ear  11:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to leave it for now to see if he adds any significant content, and reconsider it after a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but someone has already tagged it for speedy deletion.  APK   whisper in my ear  11:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see. If another admin speedy-deletes it, so be it. If not, as I said, I'll reconsider it in a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you want more informations about this brand you can always visit their corporate website here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaetanoo (talk • contribs) 11:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WTF
HOW, HOW was my last post in any way against Nick Clegg, also who gives u the right to change what others write —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrGerard21 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edits are a mixture of vandalism and plugging a particular opinion. Both of these are against Wikipedia policy. Any Wikipedia editor can revert such edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious, thanks for pressing the button James. Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fuster Revisited
Process question. Doc Fuster has added this line to all the pages on his site: "Material on this site may be used for reference and review as long as a link or credit for the source is given." I've got a couple admins who are willing to help with getting this re-started. Should I start it in the sandbox or on a user page, or under a different name (with a middle initial, etc.) so we don't get immediate deletion tags from EENG or others? There are MANY other references I've now garnered, the guy is a legend. No one ever disputed notability, and EENG glossed over the other references by focusing on the use of Fuster's site. Since you deleted it, I thought it made sense to get your advice up front on restarting it. I still doubt that anyone else will take the time to do any research on this, but maybe I'll be surprised? Don't waste a lot of time on this, just let me know I'm not wasting mine! Phoenixthebird (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just saw your COI comment. I do not know Fuster at all, and am not working on anyone's "behalf." I've emailed every article subject I've worked on, but out of the blue and with no biases either way. He is notable by anyone's standards, and I think even you, who speedily deleted the article, agree with that. I found his books while reviewing a CNS read list at MIT. Several other admins have confirmed that I'm objective and not some PR type. I guess the only proof is that I don't have a lot of energy to continue fighting your objections, and if it doesn't happen, it's not a big deal! Due to the ANI I've now got other admins asking me to help with IP questions. I apologize if I didn't clearly indicate where Fuster put the permission slug-- it's at the bottom of his web page. I get that there are other criteria and there are plenty of other sources as you know since you are one of the few that have access to the original article! Thanks for at least considering this. The guy is 80 years old, I'm sure, like me, he takes this with a grain of salt if you'll check out his pubs list! Phoenixthebird (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

James: An "article rescue person" has jumped in and helped (didn't even know there is such a person), and I put the original article up in a sandbox to help him, so no further work on your part is required. He seems to be well aquainted with "the commons." Phoenixthebird (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock
Hello, James. Please see this

User_talk:J.delanoy

Sinbad Barron is highly DE user that regularly returns almost once a week.On J.delanoy you may see how we deal with it, but as Rod is off now, i will write to you. It is always DUCK, but urgent reaction is needed. Just tag it properly, please. Thanks for block. -- Tadijaspeaks 11:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rod is back!! I just noticed! :)) -- Tadijaspeaks 11:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I had just worked out that you meant "Rod is back" (not "Sinbad Barron is back") when you changed your comment to tell me. Thanks, anyway. As for Sinbad Barron, I'll help if you like, but at the moment I'm not sure what is needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, yes, Rod, not Sinbad! :) Thanks, my friend, i will inform you, he (sinbad) is here almost once a week. Range block? Or something even better? This is just pointless... I helped and reported almost all of those, so i will inform you when he returns again. Thanks, all best! -- Tadijaspeaks 12:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Has there been a WP:SPI report on this? If not, perhaps you should start one, and report all the socks, even ones which are already blocked. Perhaps then a checkuser could place a range block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Sinbad Barron/Archive
 * Ok, i will do that. Hope it will help... Thanks, you are the man!!-- Tadijaspeaks 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheryl Dunn
why do you keep deleting my article on Cheryl Dunn? She is a notable person and is already found on wikipedia for her collaborations with artists, the book and film, Beautiful Losers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunhea (talk • contribs) 01:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't keep deleting it: I have deleted it once. That, as the deletion log records, was because it did not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject". The fact that there are already mentions of her in other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant, for two reasons. Firstly, maybe there shouldn't be. Secondly, the level of notability needed to justify a brief mention of a subject in an article about something else is much lower than the level needed to justify a whole article on the subject. To see what is required for an article I suggest looking at the notability guidelines. The most relevant for present purposes are the general notability guideline and the guideline for people. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Death threat by User:Fullestliam
Thanks for the backup warning. Prolly just a punk kid that doesn't know any better, but worth keeping an eye on. Jusdafax  08:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Question
I was just curious, if someone wanted to be a confirmed user early but wasn't four days old, if they had good edits, would an administrator be able to confirm them because of their good edits? -- CuteMice · Talk 10:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there would need to be rather special circumstances to justify it. Why do you ask? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I am quite impatient and after I have used Wikipedia before as an Anonymous User, I know most of the guides and I think I have been doing good work on the Articles For Creation page. Also I want to use Twinkle because I know how to use it and I have read the guide fully. -- CuteMice · Talk 11:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll have a look at your contributions, and see what I think. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A message about this is on CuteMice's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to have a look at what this user's been up to, just for the record. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I had been intending to check. I had been far less than 100% confident of the user's intentions, but had decided to AGF for the moment, but keep checking, with a view to retracting my action if need be. I was already made suspicious by such things as the user's approaches to another admin over rollback, and was rather expecting I might well take action today. As it turns out I don't need to. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunks
Hello. I had noticed the previous episode with. They seem to be adding the same or similar material to articles once again. Dawnseeker2000  15:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have blocked the user and rolled back their edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentry McCreary Sr.
I am soo sick of Wikipedia's antics... The article was very legit please explain to me as to why you erased it please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gentry_McCreary_Sr.&action=edit&redlink=1 you will see a list of the logs from the three times the article has been deleted. In all three of them the word "unambiguous" appears, and yes, in all three cases it was unambiguous. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentry McCreary Sr.
WHO CAN HELP ME... ERASING MY ARTICLE UNCALLED FOR!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sheeana has already explained on your talk page. However, you cannot copy other people's work and post it here unless they have indicated that their work is free for public use. Doing so is called "copyright infringement", and it is not only against Wikipedia's policies, but also against the law. Also, if you want help from administrators you are more likely to get sympathetic treatment if you don't go around swearing and cursing about them. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dapub12 is easily found via Google to be a promoter, so there's a problem beyond copyvio. EEng (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. For simplicity I gave what I thought was the clearest and most unambiguous reason for deletion, but you are quite right, that is not the only problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just hope someone doesn't give him the "rewrite it in your own words" lecture, he does that, then he gets the COI lecture. That would be unfortunate.   BTW, I'm really hoping that our friend the bird is truly seeing the light.   EEng (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the first point, yes you are right. In fact for that very reason I often avoid mentioning copyright in multiple-issues cases. I'm afraid this time I allowed myself to be influenced perhaps too much by the way the editor has expressed him/herself, and the feeling that an answer which had already been given was being ignored. Even that, though, is not clear. I tend to forget that many people have little if any notion of what copyright is, and that even those who do have some idea of it actually believe that anything on the internet is legally free to use in any way. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why, you'll recall, I took pains to point out to Ptb from the beginning that there was both a copyvio problem with the Fuster text, and beyond that an RS problem even if copyvio was avoided e.g. by paraphrase. The general approach you describe is probably the best, if it fits into the framework of the particular situation.  I say again that I keep fingers crossed re Ptb . (Eventually I'll explain to him about deleting Talkpage comments, but I think for now we can overlook that since he's trying to put his past behind him, it seems.)  EEng (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave Dapub12 some advice which I hope will help. EEng (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

SCPD
There is currently no other articles by the title "Suffolk County Police Department". It is entirely unnecessary to disambiguate the one in New York as such. The same goes for Suffolk County Sheriff's Office. Disambiguating it, but leaving the only redirect to it, is entirely unnecessary. Also, the English articles are at Suffolk Constabulary, not "County Police Department".— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reuse in state after state of names like Suffolk, Norfolk, Middlesex is so prevalent that the chance of their being another Suffolk County, with a Police (instead of the usual Sheriff's) Department is far from negligible. Why wait until there's a conflict and then do a confusing move?  The article should be Suffolk County (New York) Police Department.  EEng (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is no other article with a similar title. Why bother disambiguating in the first place when it's the only one with that name?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no other article with the same title. However, if there is another "Suffolk County Police Department" in existence then it might cause confusion, whether or not there is an article with that title. Even in the case of a county "Suffolk" in which the local police force is not called the police "department", as in England, it is perfectly easy for someone to think that is the county being referred to. In this situation it seems to me that the disambiguation can do no harm, and may possibly sometimes avoid misunderstanding. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to Talk:Suffolk County Police Department. I see also that Ryulong, without obtaining consensus, retagged the article with db-move and had the article moved. The tag asserts that the move is non-controversial, which is difficult to understand in a case where the tag had already been declined. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)