User talk:JBW/Archive 22

deletion
Apologies for deleting the section of your page, I thought i was supposed to clean up once finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcats9801 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mini WP:RFC
Hi JBW,

About User talk:Skumar lyi. I wrote Your conduct has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, for the reasons already pointed out on your talk page. You may wish to discuss this on the WP:AIV page; please also feel free to contact me if you think I have made a mistake.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I think I made two mistakes. The first was to ask the editor to reply at WP:AIV, the second was to ask the editor to reply to me. Though I would like to think that I have adequate cluefullness, I must admit I am concerned about these two mistakes. Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What you did was exactly the sort of thing which is considered desirable or even essential in the case of a report to admin noticeboards, but not for AIV. Generally speaking AIV is for quick action when the user has already been given several warnings and therefore has had plenty of chances to reply, but is making destructive edits which need to be stopped quickly. It is not principally used as a forum for a discussion, though it is by no means uncommon for editors to express opinions there, and although it is rare for this to include the accused person, there is nothing to stop them from making a comment. On the other hand, if an admin does block the user very quickly, the user may find that they are simply unable to take up the invitation to comment, so for that reason I suppose it probably was a mistake, but not a drastic one. As for inviting the user to comment on your talk page, you are of course perfectly free to do so, but the same applies about not being able to do so if they are blocked quickly. Finally, a comment that you did not request. It is not usual to inform a user that they have been reported to AIV, and I thought, when I saw you had done so, that it was a good step. The only reason I can think of against doing so is that sometimes users remove reports on themselves if they know about them. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response - most appreciated! Things I have learned:
 * I should not suggest that AIV be used as a forum
 * I should not invite users that I have possibly suggested to be blocked to comment anywhere else but their own talkpage
 * Other than that, I appear to be doing a fairly good job here! ☺
 * Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree: a pretty good job. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

RfUD request
FYI Airplaneman   ✈  07:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

pua training
Dear Mr. Watson,

I want to write an article about pua training that is informative rather than advertising. I saw your deleted the previous page. What do I have to do for it to be accepted?

Yours faithfully,

Darcy Plant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcyplant (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

scalado
hi i would like to provide information about scalado's technology and their background. Is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I.am.alex.smith (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee
Hi, would you please convey to User:MickMacNee that his comments are not welcome on my talk page? He is not to post comments under any ceircumstances except those notices required by WP, such ANIs. I consider this baiting, as he knows the restictions I'm under since my block was removed. This appears to be a stalking of either me or MJroots. Thanks. I'd also ask that me not respond in any way to my comments in AFDs, no matter what, but I uderstand if you can;t relay that request. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've just said to BilCat on the Afd page, I had no idea he was 'banned' from talking to me. I certainly had no idea I was banned from his talk page - and based on the unblock discussions which I've only just looked at in his archive, the only person promising to stay away from anyone's talk page, bar ANI notices etc, was him from mine. This is the first I've heard of any full interaction bans as seems to have been promised by Mitchell, and I've certainly not received any formal notifications of such. I think the whole thing is absurd actually, I'm fine with him being beholden not to repeat the behaviour that got him blocked, as you originally seem to have offered, and leave it at that. I am not stalking anyone, but I have said before to him and I'll say it again, I reserve the right to comment in any location where my name comes up (subject of course to this apparent interaction ban being formalised), other than that, given past interactions, I've zero wish or even need to go anywhere near his talk page. If he was aware of this obligation he was under, the correct action would have been to have deleted the initiating post from Mjroots straight away, and avoid any suggestion he was even willing to discuss me and my business, rather than reply as he did. As such, I find his request to you here a day after that post, plus his calls for a block of me for supposed baiting with intent over at the Afd, rather rich indeed. If he really thinks I knew about this ban on him baiting me, does he really believe I would have let his first reply on his talk page just go without reporting it? I think not. MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not under any restriction against talking about MMN - I'm just not allowed to respond directly, as I understood the agreement. I'm going to file an ANI against Mick now for stalking - I think anyone in their right mind would know that commenting on the talk page of a user who was blocked for "baiting" - an unfair ruling in my case, but WP not being a court of law, I had no way of obtaining a fair hearing on the matter - is a bad idea. This sort of harassement is unwelcome. - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

By the time I found these messages, the ANI discussion was already very lengthy. I have read most of it, and also refreshed my memory about the past history, which I had largely forgotten. I do have opinions on the matter, but I don't think I have anything to say about it which would particularly help. I will leave it to the ANI discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I uderstand, and thanks for reviewing the matter. If you have any personal critical advice or guidance on the issue, I would appreciate a private email. I try do accept responsibilty for my own actions, and any concrete advice whould be helpful. That's up to you. - BilCat (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Money as Debt for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Money as Debt, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Bryan Larkin
Dear Mr Watson

I notice that you are a regular updater of wikipedia. I trust that it is a very demanding position and one that requires accurate data. I would like to draw your attention to the deletion of 'Bryan Larkin' a Scottish actor and entertainer. I am currently working as his publicist and would like to enquire about this deletion and to have it reinstated.

We rely on information about our clinets in the entertainment industry being visible on this site.

Kind Regards and thanks for your time.

Martin Kemp

Martinkwmp (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you are his publicist, the guideline on conflict of interest discourages you from editing on this subject. Generally speaking, Wikipedia articles should be neutral, and not written by an involved person. However, the article was tagged for deletion because it was a biography of a living person with no sources cited. In this situation the article is left for a week to allow time for sources to be added, and if there are still none it is deleted. If suitable sources can be produced that indicate sufficient notability then an article can be written. However, I have made web searches, and what I have found comes nowhere near indicating that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. For example, a Google search produces among its first couple of dozen hits IMDb, a commercial listing site, Wikipedia, YouTube, Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter, etc etc. None of these goes anywhere towards indicating notability, either because they are not independent of the subject, or because they are not reliable sources, or both. If, as seems to me to be the case, Bryan Larkin does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, then any work put into writing an article about him is likely to be wasted, as it will be deleted again. To see what is required you may look at the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people, and the guideline on reliable sources. Having said all this, in view of the conflict of interest issue I have already mentioned, you are not the person who should be writing this article, even if notability can be demostrated. If he is notable by Wikipedia standards then probably before long an uninvolved outsider will write an article about him. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Lou Engle (The Call)
My article had a dozen or so references, was connected with Bound4life, an already existing page on one of Lou Engle's groups, hard to see what else could have been done, for future reference why was it deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanszilvasy (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted a redirect at Lou Engle (The Call). There had previously been an article at the same title. The article was identical or virtually identical to the existing article Lou Engle, and there is no good reason for having both of them, so another editor had converted the duplicate copy of the article into a redirect. The redirect, however, was not very useful, as, in the fairly unlikely event of someone wanting to find an article on this subject and starting to type "Lou Engle (The Call)" into the search box, they would have a link to the article Lou Engle come up before they even got as far as typing "(The Call)". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dustin Zito
I represent Dustin J Zito... Please remove all information relating to a false identification as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.68.124 (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean that the article Dustin Zito contains false information which you wish to have removed. If so, you should specify what information needs to be removed, and why. We do not remove information because an anonymous editor says it should be removed without giving any explanation or justification. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for contact
Hi, which is the best way to contact you about a deletion which I find appropriate or would like to discuss. - Ol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.188.10 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally the easiest method is to post your query here. If for some reason you don't want it to be publicly visible then create an account and enable email in your account preferences. You will then be able to email me via the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox at the left of the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts?
I've been thinking about multiple universes on the basis of some statements made in accordance with hindu mythology...And to me, it appears that these postulates must be true....of course, my intention is to provide a link between Philosophy and science...

I hope that you know about myths...about the position of planets influencing the nature and fate of human...     I have tried to provide scientific explanation for this...and my theory is....

Each body exerts a gravitational force on the other...Now, for example, Jupiter and the earth are rotating around the sun.... Jupiter exerts a gravitational force on u..At the same time, sun also exerts a force on u....these forces now disturb your energy field (possibly, the energy fields created by the matter waves u emit)....Thus, your energy gets changed due to the interference of these energies....Thus, your energy changes unknowingly (without your conscience)...Thus, Ur thoughts...which also are a resultant of ur energy variations...(My hypothesis is that..Thoughts arise when our energy levels are changed due to the influence of another body)..will also change...so, correspondingly, ur deeds will change...

Coming to fate or luck...Ur energy will have an influence on others too...Some others energy fields get disturbed...accordingly, that person might begin to like or dislike u..(I believe this is the scientific reason for love, affection or what ever it may be)..

Now, when u go to perform an act, (Every work u do is just a modification of energy field)...your changing energy will also influence the work or ur task's energy field....thus, creating a negative or positive effect...means, suppose ur energy (it might be silly reasoning but dont laugh ok, coz i'm just trying my best) is in some sort of destructive interfernce with ur task's energy; then, that wud create a negative effect type of b thing...thus barricading ur effort to break the energy..or acheive that energy or emit that energy....(If u r going to do any task, it is nothing but breaking into the regions of the energy)....

Please help me in refining my thoughts. Ofcourse, I'm just a beginner. I have just started to read about cosmology, So I dont know much. Kindly answer me and dont mock me because I'm just an amateur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabgerno (talk • contribs) 13:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this has to do with editing Wikipedia. Have you edited Wikipedia before from another account? Why ask me? how did you find me? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at some of your edits and u have the best qualiication to help my question? plz don't mock me Im doing my best. No Ive never used wiki before as account but my IP elsewhere. plz help or do u know who can help with my thoughts???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabgerno (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm almost certain this is another sock. It's following the same method as the others: brand new account and the first edits are to your account and mine. Kill it with fire.  Half  Shadow  17:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked if the rangeblock she set up has expired. If not, he's found a way around it. I could have my page SPed, but unless it was indef, he'd just wait it out.  Half  Shadow  19:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's obviously up to you, but personally I regard the risk of collateral damage to be so bad that I prefer to S-P a user talk page only in cases where vandalism is currently frequent enough to be a serious nuisance. As long as it's only occasional I am willing to just keep blocking each sock as it appears. However, if you do want it on your talk page let me know and I'll do it for you. (Incidentally, S-P of a user page is a different matter: I see no reason not to do that. In fact my own is fully protected.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm....
Why did you delete a page from my own userspace that I created under G3? ~ D a r t h Starbo  22:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As you probably know, Malleus Fatuorum nominated it for speedy deletion as vandalism, and I agreed. The only sense I can make of your query is that you think that anything at all is permitted in user space, but that is not so. In fact the "G" in the speedy deletion code G3 that you quote stands for "general", meaning that the criterion applies generally to all pages, whether in main space, talk space, user space, or wherever. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I accidentally created it here and it was tagged as vandalism. I moved it to where it was supposed to be, in my userspace, and the deletion tag went with it.  Please restore it. ~ D a r t h  Starbo  14:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wherever it was meant to be can you explain why it wasn't vandalism, or why it should be allowed to exist on Wikipedia? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's my own sorta project. Nvm, I'll just create it again... ~ D a r t h  Starbo  14:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Banana powder
Any further thoughts at this AfD, JamesB? :) Thanks, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: see my comments there. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi, I wanted to have Fetchcomms adopt me, but he declined. Will you be my adopter? Codedon (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am doubtful about this, but have replied at talk. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the David Morris International Page
Dear James,

I was wondering why the David Morris International Page was removed. I am aware that any page for a company would appear as advertising. However, David Morris is a company over 50 years old, based in over 8 stores worldwide, I do not see how a page for this company is any different than the one for Tiffany & Co or Gaff Diamonds. If the copy for this page needs altering please let me know and I would be happy to change it to fit within Wikipedia’s boundaries. There have been many famous and important people wearing David Morris, from The Princess of Jordan to Elizabeth Taylor and Cheryl Cole. As well as a number of historical under takings, from the world’s most expensive Barbie, to the redesigning of the Miss world Crown. David Morris Jewelry has also featured in a number of Films including ‘Diamonds are Forever’ and ‘The world is Not Enough’, as well as our bond street work shopping being used as the office of Avi Denovitz in the 2000 Guy Richie film 'Snatch'

Please let me know what i can do to allow this page for the world renowned company to be created. Many Thanks Phoebe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmorrislondon (talk • contribs) 10:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated both in the deletion log (which you must have seen, or you wouldn't have known I deleted it) and on your talk page, it was blatant advertising. It was so blatant that I cannot conceive you were not aware of the fact. In addition, you clearly have a conflict of interest and should not be editing on this subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To-Shin Do
I am a To-Shin Do Practitioner who just tried to find his art on Wikiedia. I was saddened and dismayed that the entire page had been deleted. Our art is young in the world of martial arts, but not unknown. There have been more than 10 books published on it and and several websites. It has also been featured in Black Belt magazine. I didn't know it had a wiki article yet so I was unable to ad citations.

It turns out that a simple google search produces a plethora of videos and sources about To-Shin Do. I wish you had done that and added some citations yourself, instead of being lazy and just deleting the article. Now, unless you know some way to recover it, I am going to have to start over from scratch. Thanks a lot.

-B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.187.93 (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several things I could say in answer to that, but I will restrict myself to one. You do not encourage other editors to help you if you accuse them of "being lazy". I have put a considerable amount of my time and effort into this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the Lazy comment, I was reading other remarks left on you (I hope I'm getting this jargon close) talk page. I didn't realize just how much you do. I shouldn't have written while I was upset. Please is there any way to recover the work that was already done on the To-Shin Do entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.187.93 (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of tunnel?
Hi, why did you delete the tunnel page? It is 100% truth and no hoax, i have riden there and there are videos of it elsewhere? Liambowers666 (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes? And the photograph you inserted showed the tunnel? That was clearly nonsense, and you have only yourself to blame. However, if there is some truth in what you wrote, then perhaps you can provide sources for it, and also explain what the "Nike 6.0 tunnel" is, rather than launching into an account of its history as though it goes without saying that everyone knows what it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon Sexuality
The admin WhisperToMe (talk) is adament about adding sections about the possible homosexuality of the cartoon characters below. These sections are all based on the opinions of one man, JP Dennis, in one paper he wrote. Dennis is a gay man himself who seems to write exclusively about gay issues, so in my opinion, it's not surprising that he sees homosexuality where there is none. Also, there are already complete articles regarding this topic (LGBT themes in comics, LGBT themes in speculative fiction). If you believe these sections would place undue weight on this topic (which I believe is a non-issue), please comment on the talk pages below, otherwise WhisperToMe will add these sections back. Thanks in advance for your input.

Scooby-Doo (character) (talk), Shaggy Rogers (talk), Daphne Blake (talk), Velma Dinkley (talk), Pinky and the Brain (talk), Heffer Wolfe (talk) and Yogi Bear (talk). Judgeking (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to comment that I have seen this complaint before, at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82. User:Judgeking might have mentioned in his message to you that the paper by Dennis appears to be a reliable source.  Whether it is being accorded undue weight was not, of course, a subject for RSN.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh golly, let's see: 1) Not relevant, since he's a dog, 2) Dating Velma as of the new cartoon, 3)Dating Fred (and what level of stupid do you have to be to not see that?), 4) Dating Shaggy, 5) Both have girlfriends, 6) Has had several girlfriends; Rocko has as well, 7) Hello? Cindy?


 * I don't even like half the cartoons here and I know more than this "JP Dennis" twit. Half  Shadow  20:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * About the Scooby Doo stuff, let's look at the exact text and consider that.
 * From this revision of Daphne Blake
 * "Jeffrey P. Dennis, author of the journal article "The Same Thing We Do Every Night: Signifying Same-Sex Desire in Television Cartoons," said that several commentators argued that Daphne and Velma were a homosexual couple, citing Saturday Morning Fever authors Kevin and Timothy Burke.[1] Martin Goodman of Animation World Magazine responded, stating that "Any serious reading of this section in Saturday Morning Fever (pp. 105-111) quickly reveals that the Burkes were, in a most un-academic fashion, goofing."[2]"
 * This revision of Scooby Doo has the additional text
 * "Dennis argues that while Scooby and Shaggy hunt for ghosts together, they are not a homosexual couple since they do not engage in activities as a couple, share living spaces, or express any romantic feelings towards one another. Dennis said that their habits of jumping into one another's arms when threatened would usually be a sign of cowardice rather than affection."
 * What Dennis essentially said was (in my words) "Some people think they are gay" based on the Saturday Morning Fever source, and "but I conclude that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay."
 * And Goodman responded, saying that Dennis misread the Saturday Morning Fever and that the people who wrote that are joking; Goodman concluded that the SMF people did not seriously say that any of the Scooby Doo characters were gay
 * Now, your commentary:
 * "Not relevant, since he's a dog" - An objection based on Original research, especially considering one can possibly write a cartoon dog character who falls in love with humans of any gender.
 * "Dating Velma as of the new cartoon" - He's looking at the original 1970s cartoon and not considering newer cartoons, and different continuities can have different situations
 * For other stuff (3-5): "Dating Fred (and what level of stupid do you have to be to not see that?)" - Dennis is not assessing whether the Saturday Morning Fever people have correct viewpoints of whether Daphne and Velma are gay, and Dennis says that the viewpoint on Scooby and Shaggy being gay is not correct.
 * Rocko: "Rocko has as well" - Uhm, the Dennis revision said that Heffer was "coded" as gay, while Rocko was straight - And he addresses the "Elk for Heffer" episode in his essay. BTW, Dennis is not considering the comic book, in which Heffer gets a girlfriend in one story.
 * Yogi: The Dennis essay does talk about Cindy. Let me see what he says about Cindy. Lemme pull up the essay.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * About Cindy: (Page 134 - EBSCOHOST PDF page 3 of 10) - If you want the document, please e-mail me or state your e-mail address in this page:
 * "In the second season, as if to defuse such a reading, the character Cindy Bear was introduced as Yogi's "girlfriend." However she was mostly consigned to dropping hints and handkerchiefs, to batting her eyes while Yogi walked by, oblivious. She appeals to Boo Boo for seduction advice, and while the "sidekick" may well have known how to pique Yogi's interest, he offered only half-hearted and ineffective suggestions. Because he and Yogi were already involved? the same-sex relationship certainly triumphed over the incursion of heterosexual desire: Today almost everyone can identify Yogi and Boo Boo, but few have heard of Cindy Bear."
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, I still think he's trying too hard. Kind of sick, actually. Half  Shadow  21:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) So is this the right place to be holding yet another round of this discussion? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This topic is quite interesting, but I can't follow up everything of interest on Wikipedia, as I have a finite amount of time. When the original post on this came I read it and looked into the background a little, but decided I didn't want to spend time on it. So perhaps you could continue the discussion somewhere else. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll respond to other users on their talk pages, and I will respond to other inquiries on other talk pages WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're looking for stuff that isn't there. You're trying to read 21st century awareness into characters which obeyed the social norms of the times, i.e. that males and females did not "shack up": males rooming with males and females rooming with females was the norm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Insatanity Wikipedia Page deletion
It was not completely the same or repost, I believe I should have redirected it instead of post it again, I did not understand to redirecting and did what i thought was right. Ruinsofman (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In case it is not clear, he is asking for a reconsideration of the deletion, which he believes was improperly done. Ruindofman and I have been in conversation on my talkpage, but as you were the actual deleting administrator, I directed him to your talkpage for the request. Lady  of  Shalott  05:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Insatanity. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ruinsofman (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have spent some time looking at the history of this. Unfortunately I found it quite difficult to find the version of the article which had been discussed at the AfD discussion, as it had been moved, and it took me quite a while to find where it had been moved to. It really needs to be moved back to restore the editing history of the article, to avoid future problems. However, when I did eventually find it I compared it carefully with the latest version. It was essentially the same article, but with some additional material, and so the question to consider was whether that additional material answered the points which led to the decision to delete in the earlier discussion, that is to say the lack of sufficient references to establish notability. The sort of thing I found in the references was:
 * Posts on Answers.com and whyfame.com, neither of which is a reliable source, and both of which frequently simply mirror what is in a Wikipedia article, as turned out to be so in this case. Clwearly, therefore, they are of no value as sources for the Wikipedia article.
 * A dead link to metalpedia.com.
 * A page on transcend666.com which gives one brief passing mention of Insatanity in the course of writing about something else.
 * A promotional announcement of a tour at www.roadrunnerrecords.com
 * A page at www.joelmciver.co.uk/books.html with no mention of "Insatanity". Perhaps there is a mention somewhere in one of the books listed on the page.
 * A brief mention in what appears to be a page on a personal web page hosting site at bsbb.tripod.com
 * Very interestingly, two pages at unitedguttural.com and doom.wikia.com, neither of which mentions this band, but each of which mentions something else called "insatanity". These pages were linked in an attempt to support the statement "Their influence has brought the use of their name for many things, like song titles and most notably for the fifth map of DOOM II: Hell Revealed 2" which has been placed in the article. However, the page mentioning Wolftribe's song explicitly states that the title resulted from a drunken error in writing what was meant to be "Insanity", and makes no suggestion at all of any connection with the band which was the subject of the band which was the subject of the Wikipedia article under consideration. Likewise the page about the DOOM II map makes no suggestion at all that it had anything to do with the band, and my searches have revealed no source for this claim other than Wikipedia.
 * The speedy deletion was requested by LadyofShalott because she thought that the new version of the article had not adequately addressed the issues which led to deletion, and, as I have indicated above, I agreed. However, I have not just looked at the existing references in the article. I have also made my own web searches to see whether there were suitable sources which could be added to the article to establish notability. Unfortunately I found nothing at all that suggested anything like satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria.
 * I have spent a significant amount of time in searching and checking in order to be able to give this answer, in addition, of course, to the time I spent checking before deleting the article in the first place, and I hope the results of my work have helped to clarify the matter for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

James, I'm sorry that there has not any recent new articles as of late. I will get you the news worthy information that you would like to see for this to make it as a wikipedia page. I will be several week before I can do this. I will be getting back surgery on monday. I only mention this so you do not think that I am just blowing it off since I will not get it back to you asap. Thanks you. Ruinsofman (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Smurfie Syco
Hi James

I am contacting regarding you authorizing the delete of Smurfie Syco wiki page, It has been linked wrongfully under copyright infrigement, I personally wrote the content of the page for Smurfie Syco for his personal web page and the content has been copied by http://www.grimepedia.co.uk/wiki/Smurfie_Syco and http://www.ragomagazine.com/news/dirtee-stank-get-ready-to-unleash-sm, I have no problem with external sources using my content but I'd like to stress that I am the original owner of said material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole Caine (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably you have seen the deletion log entry, since otherwise you would not have know that I deleted the article. You will therefore have seen that I gave "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" as a reason for deletion, which would have applied irrespective of any copyright issue. You will also have seen the deletion notification on your user talk page, which links to instructions on how to donate copyright material. Naturally we cannot accept the unsubstantiated word of an anonymous editor that they own copyright. However, it is very rarely worth the time and effort spent on donating copyright in these cases, as the copyright material is almost invariably promotional, so that the article is deleted anyway. Finally, the article gives no indication of notability of its subject, which again would be sufficient reason for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

--> Thank you for the speedy response I was/never has been my intention to come across promotional, I will still in the stages of fine tuning all the irrelevant information within the post. could you please advise of the next steps to take as this is my first time using wiki system therefore I am subject to teething issues, ultimately my goal is to have a Smurfie Syco content page up on Wiki's site with all relevant information minus the promotional/advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole Caine (talk • contribs) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to give your query the attention it needs now, but I will try to get onto it tomorrow. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Cole Caine"? Is it within the rules to have user ID's that suggest illegal drugs? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To come back to your question. There are various requirements for a Wikipedia article, and unfortunately for a new editor it can be a minefield. All too often a new user has a page deleted for copyright reasons, re-creates the article carefully avoiding that problem, and then has it deleted again for reasons of promotion or notability. In your case I think it is almost certain that you should not be writing an article on this subject, because it looks as though you have a personal involvement with the subject, and so have a conflict of interest. There is also the question of whether he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I have searched, and the vast majority of material I have found on him is in sources which are (1) dependent on the subject, such as his own web site, or (2) in unreliable sources that anyone can post to, such as forums, blogs, etc, or (3) both of those, such as his MySpace page. The general notability guideline the notability guideline for people the notability guideline for music, and the guideline on reliable sources are relevant. Sorry that there are so many of these. Personally I would prefer a return to the way things were in the early days of Wikipedia, when there were far fewer guidelines, policy documents, etc etc to confuse everyone. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

--> I've definitely found myself way in over my head with this one. Nevertheless massive thank you James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole Caine (talk • contribs) 11:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD of Kolinchipatti
Hello James, I was on the point of deleting this article after your speedy tag, but when I Googled it I found it is in fact a village in India. So I declined the speedy, but the other problematic tags remain and of course if these are not remedied the article could be deleted in due course via WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  16:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandals
Why not? There not IP addresses. When an editors first edits are vandalism, there is basically no chance they'll make good faith edits in the future. When blocking accounts you're only blocking the one vandal and not IP addresses which might include good faith editors. The user just created another vandalism page. JDDJS (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Motivation for deleting Dream Hampton??
I saw that you deleted the article for Dream Hampton, despite the fact that it demonstrated pretty clearly that is a notable writer, and had quite a bit of good information about her. I can only assume that your choice to delete the whole article, rather than deleting the unsourced content was racially motivated? Would you ever delete the article of someone who had been the editor of Rolling Stone? Epukinsk (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave the reasons for deletion as unambiguous advertising or promotion and unambiguous copyright infringement, so I'm not sure why you think that demonstrating notability and having "quite a bit of good information" are at all relevant. I am quite used to new editors who come here to promote someone or something accusing me of lying about my reasons for deleting articles or supporting nominations for deletion. I have been accused of right wing bias and of left wing bias, and of secretly working for a competitor. As far as I remember this is the first time I have been accused of deleting an article for racial reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. Yes, I would delete an article about any subject whatsoever, including someone who had been the editor of Rolling Stone, if it was a copyright infringement, if it was purely promotional, or both. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Leisure Dome (UK) Ltd page
Hello,

You've deleted the Leisure Dome (UK) Ltd page stating that it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion"

The article was factual, and was not intended to be considered as advertising or promotion

As this is the first article I've created, I'd like your constructive input as to how I should get the article published on Wikipedia Dpwhatley 16:46, 29 November 2010


 * I have looked back at the article, and decided that, although it is somewhat promotional in tone, it is not totally blatant advertising, so I have restored the article. However, I think it only fair to inform teh user who tagged it for speedy deletion, so that they can consider whether they still want to pursue deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which, after careful consideration and toning down of some of the spamminess, I have now done... Articles for deletion/Leisure Dome (Weston-super-Mare)  --Simple Bob (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Armand Cabrera page deleted
Hi James...I'm sorry...I'm definitely clueless because the Armand Cabrera page was my first entry and I'm finding Wikipedia a bit difficult to navigate. You mentioned about copyright laws. Armand has put up a notice on his website about copywriting...."The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

So what's a gurl to do now? Will you un-delete the section on this artist? How's it work?

Thanks for your help! Diane Diane Burket (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, and I was wrong to suggest there was a copyright infringement. I am sorry for that mistake. However, the other reason for deletion, namely that the article was promotional, still stands. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view which this one wasn't. In fact it is almost never useful to copy substantial material from the web site of the subject of an article, because even if the copyright is OK, it is usually not written from such a neutral point of view. I have restored the deleted article at User:Dianeburket/Armand Cabrera. However, please note the following two points: (1) This is a temporary measure to allow editing of the content to make it less promotional. If it stays in its present promotional state for long it may well be deleted again. (2) If you have a close connection with the subject then you have a conflict of interest, and you should probably not be editing on this subject at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello James! I've spent a ton of time on the post trying to get it to conform with the standard. inline stuff, non-promotional, wiki formatting, etc. Where do I go from here? Thanks for all your help. You have been very kind and patient. I realize the answers must be on the site...but for a first time user, it's a bit difficult. Actually---it a LOT difficut. ;-)   Diane Burket (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick look at the page, and it looks pretty good to me. You clearly have put a lot of work into it. (Please note, though, that I have only looked quickly, and have not checked out all the references.) You can certainly remove the morefootnotes and wikify tags, which no longer apply. Then you can move it back to Armand Cabrera. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Replied on TomCat4680's talk apge. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Teambox page deletion -
You still have not given me a reason why our page was deleted when there are 50 other tools listed. I followed every instruction and made sure it was not promotional.

19:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Karlgoldfield (talk)


 * The reasons I gave in the deletion log were "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", though unfortunately the last few words were truncated because they ran over the character limit for log entries. I also gave what was intended to be a helpful response to your query for further clarification on 25 October 2010, and my answer is still available at User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 20. The reasons I gave may not satisfy you, but it is certainly not true that I haven't given a reason. There is also a message on your talk page from MrOllie telling you the reason why the article was nominated for deletion. The discussion which led to its deletion is at Articles for deletion/Teambox. If you have a specific question I can try to answer it, but I see no point in repeating what has already been said, so please let me know what needs to be clarified. Finally, what other articles exist is not likely to be relevant, both because there may well be reasons why they satisfy Wikipedia's criteria better than the one you are referring to, and because of reasons described at WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol
I notice you blocked 67.234.167.254 for his edits at Civil Air Patrol. I think he might also be editing from a range of IP addresses that includes 67.234.99.17. Would a rangeblock be possible? Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Block the edit warring IP on Mouse Wreckers
I have an IP that is edit warring on Mouse Wreckers. This IP is constantly removing info that I submitted last month and is not giving any explaination for his actions. Could you please block this IP? 98.254.83.35 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:194.82.227.23
Hi James. P'raps another schoolblock? A month? --Kudpung (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In view of (1) the long term vandalism, (2) the absence of constructive edits, and (3) the past blocks, I see 3 months as minimal. Thanks for pointing it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing it :)--Kudpung (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for removal
Request for removal of Telereal Trillium page as information is out of date and incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue admin (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it not be better to update the information in that case? If you do want it deleted you can use one of teh following two methods:
 * 1) Propose deletion (commonly abbreviated to PROD) by adding Your reason for deletion here to the top of the article. if you do this you should inform the author of the article on their talk page. A proposed deletion notice will appear in the article, and near the bottom of this notice there will be a template for you to copy and paste to the author's talk page to save you having to write a message out by hand. (It will be preceded by "Notify author:").
 * 2) Start an "Articles for deletion" (AfD) discussion. Instructions for doing so are at WP:AfD.
 * The essential difference is that PROD is intended for uncontroversial deletions: if anyone at all objects then the deletion will not go ahead. By contrast, in the AfD case there is a chance to discuss whether the article should be deleted, and it will be deleted if there is a general consensus to do so, even if there are objections.

Unfortunately the AfD method is a little complicated, and can be confusing if you have not done it before. PROD is much easier. Let me know if you want further help or advice. I am honestly not sure whether the article should be deleted, and am open to persuasion. However, "information is out of date and incorrect" is not, on its own, a good reason for deletion, as the article could be updated. On the other hand, if the company does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, that would be a reason for deletion, and at present the article lacks sufficient evidence of notability. You may like to look at Notability (organizations and companies). The general notability guideline is also relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal
Hi James, my name's Hunter. I saw that you had given a final warning to an IP user a few weeks back who vandalized the same-sex marriage page. Just to let you know, he recently made similar edits at the page Boyfriend, as you can see from his contributions. The edits have been reverted, but wanted to bring this to your attention. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to tell you.
I mean he's all but effectively banned anyway, this is just making it official. Half Shadow  17:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Garbage Scow
Assuming that the deleted article doesn't have any copyright infringement, can I have it restored to my user space? Thanks. Buddy431 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See User:Buddy431/Garbage scow. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Buddy431 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wanker (surname)
You reverted an edit by User:Wankerdedia but I think you will find it was quite correct: it links in the appropriate de.wiki page. (The user in question has since been blocked for an inappropriate name) Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. That revert was a mistake made with Huggle. Afterwards I realised that the edit was OK, and I must ahve forgotten I had already reverted it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Help to get my article published
Hello, You've deleted the Gurumaa Ashram page stating that it was unambiguous advertising. The articles was not intended to be considered as advertising or promotion.In fact proper Newspaper, Magazines and websites reference were also provided. This is the first article i have created,i'd like your help to get my article published. Shweta Khanna2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweta khanna2 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I did not delete the article. I suggested that it be considered for deletion, but it was HJ Mitchell who deleted it. What references were provided is a completely separate issue from whether the article appeared to be promotional. It was written like a brochure from the organisation aimed at potential users, not like a description from a detached outsider. It even gave instructions how to get there. Looking at your other edits, some of them are clearly written from the point of view of an insider: at least one of your edits even uses the word "we". If you are personally involved in the subject you are writing about it is very difficult or even impossible to edit from a neutral point of view, even if you honestly intend to. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages us from writing about subjects in which we have a personal involvement. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WMUKBot
Its been approved for testing. Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/WMUKBot.

This is my first time running it and I kinda screwed up. I stopped the bot and reverted the mess. So much for the smooth testing I had hoped for. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 12:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Duck
Hi JBW, hope you don't mind but I chose to bring this to you as the most recently-active admin on my watchlist. Special:Contributions/Pedolicious seems to be a pretty blatant sockpuppet, though I'm unsure of whom. I've also reported them to UAA since their username is rather offensive. I thought I'd accelerate the process of dealing with it by informing you.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Very likely block evader, and the username as well as the two edits are sufficient in my book for an indef block. Favonian (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had just decided to indef block myself, and found you had beaten me to it by about a minute. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast response, guys.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oi.
Why delete my page? Think you're ace, don't you? Cunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielKuhlman (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 December 2010 ! JamesBWatson (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Your Message about Deletion of Hyla aborea page
James, Sorry, I am writing you a message about this again because I haven't received a response from you, so I may have posted the other one incorrectly. Regarding the Hyla arborea page that was changed back into a redirect, I can see how it can be viewed as a duplicate. However, the reason that I created a new page instead of adding to the current one, European tree frog, was because that page is referring to the common name and includes 4 species within that common name. Therefore, I created a new link for Hyla arborea, like the other species that were listed on that page. The information that I added was only specifically about the species Hyla arborea, so I feel that it was acceptable and was following the existing format to create a new page. Thank you for your time reviewing my page. Leighlynn89 (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

SharePoint scanning
Hi, The page on SharePoint scanning I have just created has been deleted on the basis that a page called SharePoint already exists. This article is about a specific application related to SharePoint and is not about SharePoint itself. I have checked the SharePoint article and it does not cover this topic at all because scanning and capture functionality is NOT included in SharePoint but is provided by a third party market. Many of the companies I talk to are confused about what scanning to SharePoint is about so I decided to create this page to provide guidance on what the options are for using capture technology to get digital documents into a SharePoint repository. I would appreciate it if this page was not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosta57 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is doubtful whether there is a good reason for having a whole separate article on this topic, rather than just including a note about it in the main article. However, even if it is considered worth having an article on the topic, the article as written was not suitable. It read like a personal essay, rather than an encyclopaedia article. I was also written in the style of a commercial brochure, rather than an encyclopaedia article, even including such rhetorical techniques as asking the reader questions and then answering them. It gave no sources, and appeared to contain a significant amount of original opinion, rather than reporting established published content. It included unsuitable external links to a blog and a commercial site. Consequently, if the article had not been deleted as an unnecessary content fork it might well be deleted for other reasons, and failing that it would certainly be edited beyond all recognition. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Article - Scanning to SharePoint
Ok, fair comment. I have removed the commercal site link and changed the blog links to sources. I'll have a go at writing in the right style. I still think it is useful informaton and is worthy of a seperate article. Scanning is not a subject covered by Microsoft but it is important to a lot of businesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosta57 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Chronology of the Harry Potter Series
why did you delete the Chronology of the Harry Potter Series? >:( $up3rg1rl (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It took me quite a while to find what you were referring to, as there has never been an article called Chronology of the Harry Potter Series. It does help to take the necessary care to get the title right. It turns out that I deleted Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (Note: stories, not Series) in November. Presumably you have seen the deletion log entry (otherwise how would you know I deleted it?) and I deleted it for the reason stated there: it was a redirect to an article which had been deleted. That deleted article was Chronology of the Harry Potter series. That article was deleted as a result of a consensus to do so at a deletion discussion. I took no part in that discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Should not delete of Techor
Should not delete of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techor since there are many similar pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumstix are here. and there is no copyright issue with www.techor-instrument.com since they poduce instruments, and we make modules, boards and embedded development tools. should it be revovered? sorry.

Som2416 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Som2416 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) As far as other articles are concerned, (a) there may be significant differences which make some articles justifiable and others not, even if they are in some ways similar, and (b) see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
 * 2) I do not understand why anyone should think that what products are produced by companies decides whether copyright has been infringed. Copyright is a question of whether text has been copied from someone else's writing without permission under suitable licensing terms.
 * 3) The article was nominated for deletion as a copyright infringement of http://www.techor-instrument.com. I did not find evidence of copyright infringement there (though that does not mean it does not exist: for example, that web page may have been changed since the copying took place), and I gave instead the unambiguously promotional nature of the article as the reason for deletion. It appears that I also left the original reason there, which was an error. Nevertheless, there certainly was copyright infringement in the article, as a section was copied almost verbatim from the Wikipedia article Gumstix without acknowledgement, which is contrary to the Wikimedia foundation's terms of service, and an infringement of the copyright of the author of that section. There may or may not have been other copyright infringements there too.
 * 4) Your use of the word "we" in the above message indicates that you have a personal involvement with the company in question, which means you have a conflict of interest, and you should not be editing on this subject at all. It was no doubt this personal involvement which led to the unacceptable promotional nature of the article, which, as I have already explained, was the principal reason for deletion. The fact that editors with a personal involvement of this sort almost invariably edit in a promotional way (even if they appear to sincerely believe they are not doing so) is, in fact, one of the principal reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing in such cases. If the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria then sooner or later an uninvolved impartial editor will probably create an article on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

media censorship
James B Watson - trying to hide the truth are we? It is clear that you are a lobbyist that does not like damning facts about Taksin to be made public - shame on you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.23.189 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.23.189 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 6 December 2010
 * Have you carefully examined my editing history before deciding that it is "clear" that I am a lobbyist? In my experience such accusations come most commonly from people who are themselves trying to use Wikipedia to promote a person, organisation, or point of view, and assume that everyone else works on their own level. However, if you have evidence that I am "a lobbyist" then please present it. Meanwhile I have no idea who or what Taksin is. Having said all that, I notice that your only edits apart from this post are vandalism, with a fake "reference" that does not mention the supposed fact to which it is linked, so I will move over to your talk page and warn you about that. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting pages
y are u deleting my article which i am creating.

is there any rules to create pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msgourrou (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the article you created was a complete hoax, consisting of a copy-and-paste copy of an existing article with the name changed, you can scarcely have thought it was acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Article
Hello, I want to know why Guilan Linux Users Group has been removed, That is a registered Linux Users Group same as other Linux Users Group in Linux User Groups category and have Article in Farsi Wikipedia. Thank you :) --حمید رستمی (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article gave no indication that the group came anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. How far other Linux Users Groups satisfy those guidelines I don't know. My guess is that some do and some don't: there are some prominent widely notable groups and some local groups that have received little attention outside their own circle of members. In any case, the existence of other articles on what seem to be similar subjects is never a reliable guide to notability, for reasons explains at WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence of other articles on other Wikipedias is even less relevant, as different language Wikipedias are autonomous, and often have widely different inclusion standards. JamesBWatson (talk)

Talkback from Leighlynn89
Replied on Leighlynn89's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Which CSD?: Peter Sellers AND Daniel Mendoza
Hi James. I just CSD blanked and blanked a long talk page message from article space as: This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because Editorial message. NOT an article. Page has been blanked as a courtesy. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance. See CSD G6 I could not find an appropriate CSD key for it, but  this kind of thing  cannot  be left  to  wallow for 7 days at  PROD. What's the normal procedure?--Kudpung (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The message clearly did not belong in an article, so moving it from main space to somewhere else seems to me to be "uncontoversial maintenance", and I have deleted it under CSD G6, as you suggested. For future reference, another way to have dealt with it would have been to have moved the page into the user's userspace, leaving a note on their talk page to tell them where you had put it. This would leave a redirect at the original page, which you could tag for speedy deletion as a cross-namespace redirect (CSD R2). On the whole I think that would have been better, because it uses only methods which are clearly standard procedure, and any admin finding a page tagged for CSD R2 would have known what to do. However, it doesn't matter much, as it's done now anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The most important thing is that I now know what to do in future. --Kudpung (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I took the trouble to describe another way of doing it, rather than just saying something to the effect of "don't worry, I've dealt with it." JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Carrol Boyes
Hi James,

A couple of things: 1) I do believe that a page for Carrol Boyes is relevant because:
 * 1) She is listed as one of the key alumni of Pretoria University.  It seems bizarre that there is nowhere for that link to go to or explain to people why she is a key
 * 2) She has really been innovative in funding a niche for art that is functional.
 * 3) She is now creating an outlet for artists to bring their talents to the fore.

2) I did put up hangon tags, because I needed to get Carrol boyes or her people to look at the page and edit it for correctness and for her to be OK with me proposing. It seems as if this second point didn't sit well with you. In that I am a newbie, I guess you know Wikipedia better than me so OK.

3) I did a bit more research and it now seems to make sense that I should get a user page going and get them to edit that and then get some reviewing done.

4) Do you agree this point 3 is the way to go? If so, should I use articles such as those on Elon Musk as a good template.

5) If OK, then is there a way to send me back the text that you deleted. I did put some effort into it and wouldn't want to lose it?

Thanks Athorny (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You should look at the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people and the guideline on reliable sources to see what is required for a subject to qualify for an article. My own search failed to produce any coverage in independent reliable sources, though there is an abundance of promotional and marketing pages to be found. The article you produced seemed to fall into that category too. I do see the point of asking the subject of the article to vet it to ensure accuracy, but it is dangerous. Wikipedia does not exist to host a person's chosen or preferred account of themselves, and articles are supposed to be written independently, from a neutral point of view. Indeed, the fact that you are in a position to ask "Carrol Boyes or her people" suggests that you have a close involvement with her, in which case Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you from writing about her. Such a close involvement could well explain the promotional tone of the article: editors with a conflict of interest rarely edit from a suitably objective point of view. Apart from those who come here with the deliberate intention of advertising or promoting, even those who genuinely intend to be impartial are rarely able to stand back and see how their editing will look to an uninvolved outsider. I am sorry to be so discouraging, but I have seen many new editors come here full of enthusiasm to write on some subject close to their hearts, only to find everything they do destroyed, which can be very disheartening and frustrating. I really think it fairer to warn you at the outset, rather than taking a line which superficially might look more encouraging, but would in fact not be helpful to you.
 * I strongly recommend looking at the guidelines I gave you links to above. If, and only if, you can then convince yourself that Carrol Boyes does satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, that you can find suitable reliable independent sources to demonstrate that she does, and that you do not have a conflict of interest, then come back and let me know. I will then restore the old article to a page in your user space for you to work on until it is ready to republish. One final comment: if I do that it will be a temporary measure for you to improve it before relaunching it. Sometimes inexperienced Wikipedians think that "userfying" an article is a long term way of evading deletion, and are then disappointed or even angry when they find the page is deleted again after a time has gone by and it is still not suitable as an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi James,

Thanks for your comments and the guidelines on the articles. Your advice on looking strongly at the notability standard is accepted. The Wikipedia direction on independent, neutral point of view is of course accepted.

You are correct the style wasn't appropriate which I know I will have to work on.

Yes I am confident there independent non-promotional sources. Yes I am confident that these will produce an independent view. I don't agree that it is not reasonable to ask her people for a view on factual accuracy and completeness. In any case, Carrol Boyes has the right, as her own person, to challenge any articles put up or statements made about their accuracy.

As to conflict - I have spent many thousands of pounds on her merchandise over the last 10 plus years for personal use. The merchandise and the art it represents gives my wife and I pleasure to this day. So yes I am a fan. Because of being such a fan we have also now built this into a commercial relationship, within the last year. This probably means the article must go through a much higher test of independence, verifiable sources, and notability. Fair enough.

It would seem to make sense to use the userfy mechanism to get the article validated and invite people to comment. If that is not acceptable, then I guess I could circulate a copy by email and get people to comment before resubmitting.

AdrianAthorny (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, an apology for not expressing myself more clearly. I was not trying to say that it was unacceptable for Carrol Boyes to say if the article was inaccurate, just that consulting the subject of the article introduces a danger of making it reflect that person's point of view rather than a neutral point of view, so you need to be careful.
 * I have userfied the article at User:Athorny/Carrol Boyes, and you can take it from there. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - will work on it over Christmas break. If Christmas is your thing, have a good one.16:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athorny (talk • contribs)

Article
I made changes in my article but it is deleted Article was about " Raja Liaqat Ali" It was considered as same like deleted one but I made changes.There are so many articles which can be deleted why mine is chosen.? Secondly explain me please notability.And how can I make my article according to notability? Cj.Raja (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you made changes, but the changes did not address the issue which led to deletion, which was lack of notability. "And how can I make my article according to notability?" is, unfortunately, the wrong question, although it is a question very often asked by newcomers to editing Wikipedia. The question is not how the article can be made notable, but whether or not the subject of the article is already notable. No amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. Apart from the fact that the article gave no indication that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, my own searches have also failed to produce any evidence that he does. I found Facebook, Linkedin, YouTube etc, but little if anything that could be regarded as independent reliable sources. You may like to look at the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people, and the guideline on relibale sources. Raja Liaqat Ali does not appear to satisfy those guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion GoalBus
16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Answered. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of GoalBus
09:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Torry Harris Business Solutions
Hi JamesBWatson,

This is regarding the deletion of the page, Torry Harris Business Solutions. I have gone over the previous deletion discussion and have addressed the points of the company not being notable etc. The company has been identified as a leader in SOA by Industry analyst Forrester and has also been identified as a Cool vendor by Gartner. The article is not just about any company or product. It is an article about a company that has been identified by Industry Standard analysts. Kindly request you to let me know what changes you recommend for the article.

Regards, Bharat.mk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharat.mk (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was written in such heavily promotional terms that I do not doubt that it would have been deleted as spam had it not been deleted as a repost. The references in the article were to the company's own site or to other sources which were promotional, or which gave only brief mention of the company, or both. In addition, I have made my own searches, and have found no evidence of notability. (I found the company's own site, the company's own publications, press releases, linkedin, acronymfinder, job advertisements, business listing sites, etc etc, but nothing that could be regarded as significant coverage in independent reliable sources.) Articles on this topic have now been deleted ten times by ten different administrators, as well as being discussed at AfD with a consensus to delete. I wonder what it would take to persuade the owners and employees of the company that the company does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, and that no amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now seen that you made a request for feedback on this article. The response you got was very much inline with what I have written above, but you appear to have taken little if any notice of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I dunno...
...a rangeblock didn't seem to work so well the last time. But don't let it be said I'm not optimistic. Let's give it a try. You're not using the same range Dianaa was, are you? Because I know that doesn't work. Half Shadow  18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Dianna had a rangeblock up and he found at least two ways around it before I asked for an SP. Half  Shadow  17:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

dab solver
hello,

can you give me the article, please? I couldn't find it in my contribs. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert Goran Tufegdžić page?
I'm making the page better, corrected grammar, etc.

Why you reverted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.25 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 December 2010
 * What? The edit I reverted just changed the spacing and layout, it didn't make any change to grammar. Also, in what way was it an improvement? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at who made the additions between 3rd December and 5th December, it was me who added the extra content, such as "achievements". Basically I'm trying to perfect the page better. I didn't add the correct tag for Kuwait National football team but now I did. Also, the person who made the list before me had it all clustered up. Also, there are places that needed to have commas, etc. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.25 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 December 2010
 * Even if that is true (and I have better things to do than find out) it has nothing whatever to do with the edit that I reverted. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway it doesn't matter now. The current page looks better now. Thanks. :) comment added by 193.188.105.25

193.188.105.25 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:208.190.202.70
I'm slightly puzzled by your decision to block this IP, since I'd declined the AIV report on the ground that they had been issued a final warning 20 minutes after their last act of vandalism and then the editor who gave the warning reported them to AIV without any further activity, yet you blocked them? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought quite hard about this one. I could see a case for not blocking, but on the other hand the IP had received three successive "final" warnings over 20 hours or so, and the nature of the edits made it perfectly clear that it was the same person. I did not know that you had declined an AIV report while I was checking the editor's history (3 minutes before I blocked). Your decision was by no means unreasonable, but when an editor has received repeated "final" warnings and continued regardless, I think there is a case for deciding "enough is enough". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

bishopmoore college
sir, i had given some changes to this page and now it found delited. i agree that the template bmcat is not properly added. it was my limitation. please add that template properly. the addition i given in the text also delited now. please re enter them. i assure i can add more text and photos shortly. thanking you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.75.138 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC) sorry that i have not signed in while entering the text --Dvellakat (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After I had wasted time looking for a record of a (possibly deleted) article entitled Bishopmoore College, Bishopmore College, Bishopmoore college, or Bishopmore college, I eventually found it at Bishop Moore College. When an article refers to its subject in such terms as "a ccenter of excellance and a catalst in facilitating a holistic development of youth with international standards edified with the sanctity of truth equipped to serce, grounded on christian ideals" we are dealing with promotional market speak, not objective encyclopaedia writing (quite apart from the quality of the English in which it is written). When the same article refers to the subject as "our colleg" we are clearly dealing with editing by a user with a conflict of interest, who probably shouldn't be editing the article at all, but should leave it to impartial, objective, outsiders. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Seven Records
Hello JamesBWatson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Seven Records, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Label that's released stuff for a notable band is enough for CSD. PROD or take to AfD.''' Thank you. Ged UK  11:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

SCAMPER Brainstorming
Hi James -

I teach innovation around the world to global business leaders, and was disappointed to find that there is no reference to a famous creativity and innovation tool, SCAMPER, on Wikipedia. I noticed that you deleted the page that had it, and the deletion log said it did not come from a reliable source, but there certainly is a need for the SCAMPER tool to be on Wikipedia. It's well-known among innovation practitioners. In fact I recently worked with Chris Kurjan, who worked for IDEO (a famous innovation company) for 15 years, and SCAMPER is one of the key tools she teaches in her innovation workshops around the world. You can contact her if you like about the credibility of this tool: chrisk at innovationdelivery.com

Could you please consider adding it back? Here's a terrific reference for the tool: http://litemind.com/scamper/

The reason I'd love to have an article on Wikipedia about it is that it might then get translated into Japanese, and many of my clients are Japanese.

Thanks for your help, Kimberly Wiefling  kimberly at wiefling.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.243.50.46 (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted as a result of a deletion proposal by Simon-in-sagamihara, whose reason was "None of the sources are WP:RS. This activity was concocted by one guy and has not appeared in any significant, reliable sources. The author of this article has basically reworded those other webpages into this non-encyclopaedic entry." (Unfortunately the wording got truncated in the deletion log entry, but that was the full wording.) In addition to this I saw the article as being written to promote the technique, and added that as a further reason in the deletion log. Since you have asked, I will restore the article. However, I still think it does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and I will start a discussion on whether it should be deleted again (and stay deleted). JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

fwiw
please block them with email blocked and talkpage access revoked. saves someone time from having to deal with a bullshit unblock. i reblocked with those enabled. feel free to delete this. Syrthiss (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Thanks for prompting me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tofifest
Heh, you beat me to it... I noticed the page from AIV, then saw it was CSD, as well. Cheers =) -- slakr \ talk / 14:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you got your own back by beating me to the next step. My edit summary, which was never used due to an edit conflict, was "Decline speedy deletion for now, as author was prevented from adding content by edit filter, to give author time to establish notability, without prejudice against retagging if that is not done." JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was payback for the edit conflict you caused me! :P Heh, cheers =) -- slakr \ talk / 14:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

copyright policy
first thanks for the information. QA :if it was copy from a site what if the copy info is actually pure technical info that the device manufacturer released. Is this "copy" also forbidden under copyright policy ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonForst6 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The information is not copyright, but the wording in which it is expressed is. Even if the wording is changed, but follows the original closely enough that it can be clearly seen to be based on the original it may be a copyright infringement. Exactly where the borderline goes is impossible to define: it is best to play safe by not using anything that could reasonably be seen as a close paraphrase. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand, Thank for the prompt answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonForst6 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Joker264
Hi James. Could you take a look at this user's edit summaries and check out some of the edits that catch your attention, especially those at the very beginning of the editing history,the recent removal of ffd tags and th strange occurence at Talk:John Lennon. Do you think this is a 'vandalism only' account? Or is it an account that  has been compromised?--Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked fairly extensively at the user's edit history. What I see is certainly not a vandalism only account, and I think probably not a compromised account either. It looks to me like a substantially good faith editor who is, however, very immature, distinctly ignorant in some areas (e.g. copyright), very much inclined to believe he/she is right and anyone who disagrees is to be dismissed, and somewhat inclined to react rashly when annoyed. Of the edits I have looked at, amny were questionable, some inexcusable, but the only one I saw which looked like out and out vandalism was the one at Talk:John Lennon. If it was wanton vandalism then it seems to have been out of character (though of course there could be other isolated occurrences scattered through the edit history, which I have missed). If it was an innocent mistake then it was one that I can't understand. If it was due to compromise of the account then it is surprising that the editor didn't deny having done it when it was mentioned on their talk page. I have asked the editor to explain it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that James. Not only does it confirm what I thought, but it also confirms how important it often is to get a second opinion :) Kudpung (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Hi James. To say that I am disappointed in the way Jeremy's RfA went is already an understatement. Not so much because of Jeremy personally, but because of the broken and corrupt process that RfA has become. Nevertheless, thank you for being one of the few admins to continue to take interest in the process that got you there, even if we don't share the same opinions.--Kudpung (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Hi James. If you're online, could you please close this per WP:NOTNOW. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
Yes i understand the problem, but maybe you can help me. I really need a photo of Azem Hajdari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinie007 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 10 December 2010
 * Can you be a bit more specific? What help do you need, and how can I be of use? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)