User talk:JBW/Archive 23

Talkback

 * Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Has also reverted under  IP address to  avoid 3rr (cur | prev) 17:54, 11 December 2010 92.7.241.254 (talk) (6,178 bytes) (Undid revision 401679166 by Kudpung (talk) as these are the band's official sites, as is common these days, they are appropriate) (undo)   Kudpung (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm inclined to wait a little longer, though, and see if it happens again. So far only 3 reverts (unless I have missed some) over quite a long period. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletions
Thanks. I did not know where to put the message. I'll write there. Jjmihai (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to propose for deletions. I don't understand. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmihai (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 December 2010
 * I'm really sorry, but I have to go now and don't have time to help. You may like to put a helpme tag on your talk page, followed by an explanation of what help you need, and then someone should come along and help, or you cold post a message at Help desk. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, JamesBWatson. Just a reminder that if you're going to delete AfDs then you also need to remove the transclusions from that day's AfD log.— S Marshall  T/C 21:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I had done that. If I didn't I don't know why. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out: I'll try to watch out for the same error in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish empire
Hello friend. You declined the speedy deletion of the redirect. The title has never used for Ayyubid Dynasty, except for nationalist movements. Number of google result is not a good criterion because for example there are over 8 million result for Iran Israel war which has never occured. If you have a look to Ayyubid dynasty history version you'll recognize that Kurdish users failed to use the expression Kurdish empire in the article and they created this redirect.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that it "has never used for Ayyubid Dynasty, except for nationalist movements" is irrelevant. If it has been used then someone might look for it under that title, and so the redirect may be useful to them. The fact that the only people who may find it useful are nationalists does not mean it is not useful. Besides, does having the redirect there do any harm? The worst that can happen is that nobody ever uses it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your reply. This Google books test reveals the fact that the expression Kurdish empire is not used in academic studies to refer to Ayyubid dynasty. I excluded the thrid book for you here which also emphasis that using that expression is not reasonable . I am sorry to take your time for this matter which you may think it's not important in a western point of view, but such these matters in middle east are source of all conflicts and wars.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The redirect was nominated for deletion as an unlikely term to be used to search for an article on this topic. Since the term is widely used there is not very unlikely that someone will search for it. Someone who uses that term is not going to hold back from typing it into Wikipedia because it is not used in academic studies, so that is irrelevant. Nor is the "Western" versus "middle east" contrast remotely relevant. Wikipedia does not exclude or include material because people on one side or another of a quarrel between different forms of nationalism want it included or excluded, whether the quarrel be one of those in the middle east, the far east, Africa, western Europe, Eastern Europe, or anywhere else. Exactly the same would apply, for example, to Northern Ireland. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Message Recieved And Understood
Adrian060756 here. Message Recieved And Understood but pd_THOR is also guilty of vandalism as that user has removed my paragraph over and over again citing it as unreliable when it is reliable. Same rules should apply to each and every user, you should not be picking favourites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian060756 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 December 2010


 * It is not a question of "picking favourites". If you disagree with another editor's talk page comment you can post your own response to it, not remove the comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Adrian060756 - I did make a response but it was removed. All I wanted to do was to add a paragraph of information to the Heather O' Rourke page and everytime I came back to check it, it was gone! And I don't think that's fair considering there was nothing offensive, rude or rejectful about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian060756 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not studied the history of the talk page in detail, and I have not even looked at the article at all. However, I do know that you removed a talk page comment written by someone else, which is not normally acceptable, except in extreme circumstances, such as grossly offensive personal attacks or libel. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey
I just thought I'd check in to Wikipedia for a small relax session before I settle down for college finals. How's it going? Could you evaluate my most recent edits to Manoj-Babli honour killing case? Thank you. Codedon (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look over your recent edits. Mostly, as you know, they are rather tiny little edits, and I have not carefully checked each one of them, but it looks to me as though they are fine. Best of luck with your finals. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Torry Harris Business Solutions
Hi JamesBWatson,

Thanks for the reply. I have gone over the same. In support of the 'Non-Notability' and reliability of sources, please find the following links about Torry Harris. These are by secondary sources such as other Software companies and neutral, Industry Standard analyst firms.

1) http://www.forrester.com/rb/Research/wave&trade%3B_emea_soa_systems_integrators,_q2_2009/q/id/46711/t/2

2) http://www.bleum.com/PDF/cool_vendors_in_application_services.pdf

3) http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/offer/cool-vendors.jsp

4) http://wso2.com/about/news/torry-harris-inks-integration-partnership-with-wso2-ayushman-baruah-informationweek/

Please let me know if the above are sufficient for notability of a company. Once this has been confirmed, we will rewrite the article in a more Encyclopaedia like format.

Kind regards, Bharat.mk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharat.mk (talk • contribs) 10:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, my own impression is that the sources you give don't constitute substantial coverage, and at least some of them still look to me fairly promotional. You say "we will rewrite the article": do you mind if I ask who "we" are? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Anna Ardin
Hi James. What's your take on this? The user is deliberately playing around with the deletion system. I would threaten him with a block for disruptive editing and wasting  people's time, and revert the AfD, but  it's not up  to  me to decide (I think).--Kudpung (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out to me. You can see my answer here and here. I considered salting the article, but on reflection I thought I would leave it open to anyone to write a proper article on the subject if they can. Nevertheless, it won't take much more of this kind of thing to make me change my mind on that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an RFC in progress at Talk:Julian Assange which so far seems to favor not mentioning the names of the two women in the article. A consequence of this would be not to redirect the names to the article.  Favonian (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen that. I also have my own view on this, but I have deliberately restricted what I have done and written to dealing with the creation of an effectively empty article to make a point, and left other considerations aside. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. By the way, Elvey has responded here and here.  Not sure what is meant with the socking allegation.  Favonian (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not clear who is supposed to be a sock of whom. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Fresh water
Sorry if my edits were confusing. There is consensus that Freshwater should be moved to Fresh water. The existing re-direct page appeared to be thwarting efforts to make the move. First the deletion of the re-direct made no difference then the request for speedy delete. However, we are still stuck with the wrong article name. As we don't have deletion of the old re-direct, can you help ? Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 15:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will do the deletion and the move. However, for future reference, the way to deal with this situation is to tag the page to be deleted with, and wait for an admin to deal with it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks  Velella  Velella Talk 15:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Diana Binks
I removed the prod tag you placed on Diana Binks as an AfD on that article was closed with no consensus 2 days ago. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What part of "LEAVE ME ALONE" don't you understand?
I simply point out that 1)You failed to look at the full history of edits I made to Anna Ardin. (Perhaps some of those edits were oversighted; I can't tell.)  2)I said I consider the issue closed, " I found a substantive and adequate discussion regarding the BLP issues; consider closed". '''So leave me alone. Don't edit my talk page again.''' 3)If automation removed the speedy tags, big fucking deal; I replaced them with a regular delete, for reasons I explained, which you haven't argued with, except procedurally.  As I stated, I acted in good faith, because I feel there is some inconsistency between having Tawana Brawley but not Anna Ardin.  And yet your aspersions include accusing me of being POINTy.  I also note that you deleted it without pointing to the deletion discussion.  And yes, I know, I'm responsible for tags left or removed by automation.  And yes, I get the procedural problem.  And I get that the community has spoken at the thread I referenced, which indicates that consensus is that the info on Ardin is going to be kept out of wikipedia, at least, until things settle down.  Obviously, I was not aware of that thread.  Again, I get that the community has spoken. I've acked your criticism. Again, I ask that you leave me the hell alone now. Case closed. Horse dead. Would like to get back to editing.

--Elvey (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I did look at the full history of the edits you made to that article: all three of them. In fact I described all three of them in a message on your talk page.
 * 2) I will edit your talk page if and when it seems there is a need to do so. For example, if you make accusations against me in edit summaries (or anywhere else) then I will feel free to answer those accusations on your talk page, which is what I did this time.
 * 3) You seem to be suggesting that some of your edits have been automatically removed, and thus are not visible in the edit history. As far as I know that is not possible. The nearest I know of to that is if an edit filter blocks an attempted edit, which I have checked has not happened in this case, and in any case in that you would know that had happened.
 * 4) If you think that some of your edits are invisible and that that is why I have not seen them, then why do you accuse me of failing to look at the full history of your edits?
 * 5) You created an article and then nominated it for deletion yourself, and I said that presumably it was to make some sort of point. I do not regard that as an "aspersion": it was an attempt to make sense out of what on the face of it was an odd move. You are welcome to explain why you did it if you like.
 * Yes, I deleted it without pointing to the deletion discussion, since the AfD had no relevance at all to the reason for deletion.
 * 1) If there's anything else I can help you with please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Re. points 1 3, 4, and 5, above, I'm not interested in adding to or shoving your nose in the many explanations or corrections already provided. I'm moving on. --Elvey (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried to answer you civilly. It is a pity you haven't done likewise. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User Charlieuk01
Thanks for your help at WP:AIV earlier. has been spamming more articles this evening w.r.t. H&H. I have re-reported to WP:AIV and would appreciate you taking a look. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Imperial China
In August, you helped resolve a problem in one section of this article, e.g., here. Perhaps you may be willing to add this article to your watch list again? I reverted two edits by Historiographer which are separated in time. They each occur in the same section which called for your intervention some months ago. I tried to explain on the talk page, but my words may not be sufficiently plain. Please note that I've drawn attention to the talk page here --Tenmei (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

tb
-- Gnowor TC 20:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Histree ), the user is obviously a spammer and he's been on Wikipedia for a few days, pushing some irrelevant references onto articles. Could you please revert this? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scope_creep&action=historysubmit&diff=402753908&oldid=402752218 )

Thanks
 * is soliciting reverts to help you get around 3rr allowed? Tag team Histree (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it is or not is irrelevant in this case, as I would have done so anyway. I also notice with interest that you posted an edit-warring warning to the talk page of another user, despite having reverted jsut as often yourself, which is odd. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see the reverting has been done anyway, not by me. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks James. It's odd when someone is a member only for a few days and knows so much about Wikipedia... Thanks for your time and take care.Pm master 21:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Userpage deletion
Hi James. You said that you would have to delete the userpage User:Genjix/Carl Sagan quotes formatted for EBooks on Genjix's talkpage. He recreated the user subpage shortly after your speedy deletion. I thought I best check with you before taking action. Thanks. Polargeo (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I have listed it at Copyright_problems/2010_December_17. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I have already been called a bitter asshole and told Fuck you asshole by this user this morning. I was already looking into the copyright of an image at the time along with external link issues. So watch this space for more abuse :) Polargeo (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

that carl sagan page has been verified to be ok before. please check my talk page. bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genjix (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 December 2010

General Methodology - Deletion
"just saying that it is very likely to be saved otherwise" - I think you mean -un-likely to be saved? My opinion is that the editor is taking the whole process far too personally, but when they also dismiss advice in a way that practically borders on personal attacks we don't seem to be left with many options. Doniago (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I meant unlikely: thanks for pointing it out.
 * 1) I totally agree with you. It is actually possible that the article contains ideas worth saving, and if its author would only act in cooperation with us then we might be able to save it. However, as I said in the AfD, at present it is impossible to save it, as it is impossible to understand what the author's intended meaning is. Another indication of the editor's approach to anyone who does anything they don't like is here. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Welcome!
 * 2. No argument here, on either count. I think even at its best the subject might seem a bit opaque to me; the author's language limitations certainly aren't helping. As for their approach, I already knew about that. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had seen that, but forgotten. Editors like this tend to have a frustrating and unpleasant time on Wikipedia, and eventually leave in a huff. If only there were some way of conveying to them that being civil is in their own best interests, whether they think other people deserve civility or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The real failure is our failure to perceive their greatness and inability to do anything that is not entirely correct and in the best interests of the project, and allowing our fear and own inadequacies to blind us to what should be self-evident. (grin) Doniago (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, you've summarized it pretty neatly. It must be frustrating for such great people to have to waste their time dealing with us lesser mortals, who insist on wanting justification, rather than just accepting that they know better than us. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just seen the editor's last two edits to the AfD. The two together are pretty weird. I have come to the conclusion that unfortunately we are dealing with someone who has really serious difficulties in communicating with other people. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether it's in any way a function of the language barrier or the net in general, or whether they're as...exotic...even in settings with fewer obstacles. Scary. Doniago (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the language problem is obviously a factor, but my impression is that it goes deeper than that. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could provide a helpful link to an appropriate article...or, of course, better yet, create one ourselves...that would allow the editor to examine our concerns about them at greater length. Bipolar disorder? Doniago (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not being a professional I wouldn't care to publicly hazard a diagnosis. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Vestex
You deleted this as spam on the 2nd, it's back. I'm not sure what's correct at this point. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just seen the creator's message on your other talk page. I don't see much change in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I've gone back through and deleted everything that seemed "promotional" and what remains is the focus on the science of the nanotechnology used. If you have any other further suggestions I would appreciate them.

Again Thank You for your assistance.

~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2kelam (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom & Jerry vandals are back
Looks like we may need to start edit-protecting varous Tom & Jerry articles again - if you'll look at my contribution list, it seems that the same problem IPs we had last time are back, adding in the same unsourced trivia and deliberately changing release dates to incorrect versions... I've already reported the current IP, but if last time is any indication, they'll just be back on another one within a day... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Mosque
Hi! Please delete this file. &mdash;kallerna ™  10:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me that this file can be deleted at present. See CSD for the exact requirements, and come back here once you are sure all the requirements are met. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be. &mdash;kallerna  ™  11:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Page 174.6.12.124 Creation Mistake
Copypasted my reply in the subsection you created:


 * Hm... how did it become an article? I was actually trying to submit a vandalism report to Administrator intervention against vandalism. :/ But yeah, not very familiar with that stuff here. If anyone else would like to do so, feel free. The user with the IP 174.6.12.124 seems to be a repeat violator. However I can not check how many times he has actually been blocked as he erases his talk page regularly. Again, please check and see if my previous action was appropriate. Anyway thanks, sorry for the inconvenience. --A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your actions at Yosef Jacobson
Hi JamesBWatson: Could you please respond at Talk:Yosef Jacobson. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again JamesBWatson: I see that you did place a notification on that article's original creator's talk page, but that was his only contribution so far, so I notified two others who had longer-term involvements with the article asking them for their input on the article's talk page. Looking forward to your input. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Phil Earle
Hi, you deleted the phil earle page, as I proposed, thanks, but its been deleted twice before - why have you not salted it? It should not be possible to recreate this page in my view. Similarly, you deleted law and auder records, again at my request and thanks but that has been previously created four times. When will that page be salted? Both pages should be salted. Mark Dask 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeepday (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Best Western River North Hotel
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

I was wondering if you could give a more detailed description of why the page for Best Western River North was deleted. I believe there is some interesting history and factual information that would be beneficial to share. Please advise me in any suggestions you might have on how I might improve the page, so as to return its published status. Thank you. --Mbrazausky (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole tone of the article was like a brochure from the owners of it, including such language as "Hallberg's crowning achievement", and "This location puts the hotel in the center of the River North Gallery District known for it's high concentration of art galleries". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

INAEXPO
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Hey, I was just wondering if you could give me a more detailed explanation for why the page INAEXPO was deleted. The notability of the company for an encyclopedia is that it is the largest exporter of hearts of palm in the world (occupies nearly 35% of the global market). What would I need to add to it for it to remain published??

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clairemoellering (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Such language as, for example, "has positioned itself as the number one exporter" reads like marketing copy, not like an encyclopaedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Its Hosur1
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

It was Mike who spoke all dirty language on my User Page and when I questioned I was blocked for that. Its me who is taking revange for the foul language spoken by Mike. I just want to f*ck him out of this Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.6.152 (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Vandal's meessage seen shortly before the following time: JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dublin Dragons
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Hi James! I updated the User:AVP8472/Dublin Dragons for the Dublin Dragons page and I think it's ready for review. Thanks, AVP8472 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Today, 13.17 you delete my page "Undocumented functions" (because it was duplicative to "the same" page "Undocumented features") without giving me some time to develop it. I think, it must be called "vandalism". I hope some other person will vandal your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamard Evitiatini (talk • contribs) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

I wonder why you removed the page Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples (NCIV). We are a NGO. Our aim is not to make money but help the indigenous peoples all around the world for more than forty years. The reason why we want to be on Wikipedia is not because of any promotion or financial gain. We just want the Wiki public to get to know us. I modeled the page after checking the page of another human rights organisation, namely Amnesty International. This one also shows, just like ours it's history, strategy and works. Your reason unambiguous advertising or promotion could, in my opinion, also be applied to Amnesty Internationals site. If you don't agree. Could you please let me know what kind of information I should delete or add. Thanks!213.46.211.26 (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted the article because it was unambiguous promotion. For some reason it is very common for newcomers to editing Wikipedia to assume that "promotion" applies only to commercial promotion, but that is not the case. You may like to look at Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Your statement "We just want the Wiki public to get to know us" confirms that you intended to use the article to promote the organisation. Finally, it is clear from what you say that you work for the organisation, in which case you have a conflict of interest, and probably should not be writing about the subject. Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Project Hoshimi
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Why did you delete the article on this worldwide competition ? It's like Imagine Cup. Maybe too links ??? You put only (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject), Are you a bot ? You don't read the discussion talk ???

Regards --David.aparicio (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only did I read the discussion, but I even went to the trouble to write to you on your user page explaining my reason, and attempting to answer your points. However, that was evidently not enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Andre Scicluna
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Dear JamesBWatson,

I wrote the article Andre Scicluna (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andr%C3%A8_Scicluna&action=edit&redlink=1). The reason given for its deletion was Unsourced biography of a living person with expired PRODBLP. I tried to include some references and a number of links in the artice, however I'm not quite sure what exactly was expected in this regard. Moreover, the fact that there is an internal link in another Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lija_Athletic_F.C.), indicating him as a football player, as part of the squad doesn't in itself evidence the fact that he is indeed a living person? Besides, I couldn't figure out how to conform to Wiki's format, including the personal details box on the right hand side, etc. Could you kindly send me some tips and guidelines to follow in order to make sure that the article meets Wiki's criteria, and if possible retrieve the content of the deleted article.

Thank you,

Sciclunaivan Sciclunaivan (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, sorry it has taken so long to reply. Someone removed your comment, with no explanation, and I have only just found it.


 * Have a look at WP:Notability and WP:RS to see what is required in the way of sources. The simplest way of citing a source is just.


 * I am not convinced that the subject meets the notability guidelines. If not then no amount of rewriting the article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. However, you can look at the guidelines for yourself, including WP:BIO.


 * If you are still interested in working on this article, let me know, and I will restore the content to a page in your user space. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kandi111777/J.R._Clancy
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Hi There, I understand why you deleted this page (along with some of my other pages) and I've been working on rewriting them without copying and pasting - however - for some of my pages that were inside my User namespace - those drafts were the only copies that I had. It never occurred to me that an administrator would delete a page that was inside my User namespace. I thought I could work on articles there. But I completely understand.

Is there anyway that you could get me the content that you deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandi111777 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately all of the pages in question were deleted because they were copyright infringements. Copyright infringement is illegal, no matter whether or not the illegal copy has the name of a Wikipedia user in its title, and I cannot restore such pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

New Haven Academy
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Hello,

My page was deleted for copyright infringment. I would like to rewrite the article. I see many other articles about high schools in my town and would like to list this school. I am a librarian so I am concerned with copyright. The mission statement is ours, however, it is posted on other websites. I guess that will have to be omitted. I would like to rewrite the article. May I? It would help to have my text back, but I can start from scratch if you think that would be better. Thank you, Eileen (sorry, user:eileen204/new haven academy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eileen204 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the page was deleted because it was a copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is illegal, no matter whether or not the illegal copy has the name of a Wikipedia user in its title, and I cannot restore such pages.
 * I have had a very quick looke at Articles for creation/New Haven Academy. It looks perfectly OK to me, but as I say, it was only a quick look, and I have not checked the references. I suggest you re-submit it as an article for creation, so that one of the editors who assesses such articles can check it over. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Vestex
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Hi, Yes your remarks were very helpful thanks so much! I understand how an article could read like a promotion. Could you help me create an article that would pass? I am on a mission now to make a successful contribution! I have redone the page. I find navigation through these forums difficult, however, I think I created it on my user page space. Do you think you could look at it and comment? Many thanks eileen204

My page was deleted because it seemed to sound too much like a promotional campaign. I believe the product has great scientific importance especially in the realm of infect ion control (reason I had so many references). It has been rewritten so that all the "promotional" wording was removed. My question is what is the best avenue for me to get it published after the last page under the same name was deleted?

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by S2kelam (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest submitting it as an "Article for creation". I don't have much experience of this process, so I can't offer you much help, but instructions are at Articles for creation. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Thank you very much JamesBWatson for your kind response.Taribhen (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Help
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Your help is reguired in Lata Mangeshkar wikipedia bcz of vandalism.Taribhen (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like another sock of banned User:Dr.Mukesh111. Their very first actions were to undo edits by User:Shshshsh, which is the usual pattern.  I have blocked it indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replied
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Tyflas (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

-- The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Guoguo12 --Talk--  21:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Torry Harris Business Solutions
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Hi JamesBWatson, Thanks for the reply. Gartner and Forrester are Industry standard analyst firms and I thought recognization from these would suffice the notability of a company. Regards, Bharat.mk  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharat.mk (talk • contribs) 05:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Message seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry semi-protection
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

As you already know, several Tom and Jerry cartoon articles have fallen under vandalism after semi-protection have expired on such pages. For those that are currently under semi-protection and set to expire in Janurary, I suggest that you postpone the expiry time for at least one month. Also, as for the vandal IPs on these articles, you should have them blocked for indefinite amounts of time, if possible. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: I previously asked if you could semi-protect the article to the series itself. Since the same vandal IPs have touched that page as well, could you protect that page too? 98.254.83.35 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now semiprotected Tom and Jerry, since there has clearly been vandalism there. I have recently extended the length of the semiprotection on most of the other articles, and I hope to do the rest soon, but it takes a long time to do them all. Unfortunately long-term blocking of the IPs is not an option. The vandal jumps around over a wide range of IPs, and to block the whole range would stop many legitimate edits from other users, which is not acceptable. From time to time I have used fairly short blocks both on individual IPs and on small IP ranges, and I will do so again if it seems appropriate, but the most this can do is hold the vandalism back for a brief time. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I always wanted to know: Why are all these IPs obsessed with vandalizing Tom and Jerry cartoon articles? These kids really need to get a life and stop putting in whatever they feel like to these pages. When are they going to learn that there are people that review these articles? 98.254.83.35 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Vadalism
* (This section appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, not User talk:JamesBWatson but it is archived here to keep archives of my talk pages together for convenience.)

Hi! I am not sure if you reviewed my application? You wrote: "This is a place for reporting vandalism, i.e. deliberate attempts to damage Wikipedia, not good faith edits by someone whose opinions you disagree with, whether for nationalist reasons or otherwise." My report presents different forms of vandalism made over a longer period by user. In his work there is deliberate attempts to damage Wikipedia, lots of not good faith edits, deliting sources etc. Please consider the proposal again because these are rough forms of violations of the rules of Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is to lot's of Ukrainians almost useless with such untruth and disputed informations. I am looking for specific help here because the user deliberately distorts the data.--SeikoEn (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

unprepared deletion of Daniel Streich
Hi. While the nominator proposed it for a proposed deletion (but failed to go through procedures to list it properly and cite the reason on article's deletion discussion page), you still deleted it leaving no chance for anyone to vote for or against the proposed deletion. Anyway, the article had been checked previously by another admin and what's more importantly she (the admin) helped to resolve the copyright issue. Clearly, if article was of no importance she wouldn't be bothered helping resolve an issue with the copyrighting. However, I'm not going to judge your action, you just saw it was listed for a proposed deletion and deleted it without any discussion as you also saw it was noted in the related controversy article with a short summary (the incident with the nation magazine), but the person has over 224 thousand hits on google and over 10 thousand hits within swiss domain, which is pretty a lot for such a small internet domain that has so few popular sites / internet activity (small amount of active internet users per se) in worldwide domain rankings. I know that google hits don't in and of themselves show notability, but perusing them shows he has some notability beyond, say, swiss right or the islamic world. And the article shows that the embellishment story of the Nation isn't the only embellishment story of his incidents connected to him. As the fact that his incidents succeeded to gain international coverage. Newsru source, is one of the most read Russian language online news site and was used as a source for discussion about what was written in its column on the most popular channel 1tv, this discussion took part during the show which was broadcasted in Russia and CIS countries in prime time (start watching at 5:00), to the show Projectorparishilton, in which the discussion took part, were invited such guests as Mickey Rourke, Hugh Jackman, Hugh Grant. Just after the news of his public announcement regarding the conversion and his resignation from the SVP party broke out, it was reported on the most widely read daily newspaper in Switzerland - 20 Minuten. WP.N states "sources address the subject directly in detail, significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" which various information about him there (on news) is. And specifically within the world of international Islam. He is a celebrity within that world, a link between anti-Islam goals and secular Islamic culture. This is an important topic within the Islamic community (Muammar Qaddhafi, Erdogan, various other leaders issued their statements over minaret ban in Switzerland, sure paid attention to the incident to which Streich being a member of SVP party (which launched the ban) was connected at then time, and that community is notable. Let alone the notability of SVP party itself in Switzerland, which he left, let's say, in an unusual way, and labeled his former party with such a controversial title, a "witch hunt" campaign on Islam. So, not only he's the first one to leave the party for political reasons, but also the former member with such a controversial resignation. Thanks. Userpd (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to have confused proposed deletion with articles for deletion. In the case of proposed deletion (commonly abbreviated to "PROD") there is no discussion page, and anyone at all can simply remove the proposed deletion notice if they disagree. If nobody does so in a week then the article is usually deleted, as happened in this case. Even after deletion, if anyone disagrees with the deletion it can be restored, but in this case I see you have already re-created the article. Resolving copyright issues is irrelevant, as copyright was not given as a reason for deletion. I have not examined in detail the arguments you have given, but I have done the courtesy of informing the person who proposed the deletion that you have re-created it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hey,

I am involved in this discussion, and looking at the comments there (the last section), I think that these editors, namely User:Addyboss, User:Luckkann, User:Chotusardar, User:Nutanthakurlko, User:Tannuwriter are sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. I notice the style of their signature, and many other things, and I think that they may be the same user (all of them have little contributions other than the articles Amitabh Thakur and Corporate Social Responsibility). Of course, I am not a checkuser, so I cannot verify this, but I am quite tired of the discussion on the talk page there. If possible, I request you to mediate in that discussion and bring it to an end.

I decided to enquire about this sockpuppet problem here instead of reporting it directly, because I wasn't really sure. Thanks.  Making The Mark  •Wassup doc?  17:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Having been involved in tracking this issue from its beginnings, I'd say there is some merit to the suggestion of sock- or meatpuppet behaviour. --Ckatz chatspy  09:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks a lot like it, but I have given the user(s) a chance to give an explanation if there is one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Sakulk
Thanks for attending to the matter of deleting my account User:Sakulk. It s al rt with me if the account is kept as at now. Thanks again Saman SL (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pioneering Automotive Technology
You deleted Pioneering Automotive Technology earlier. Wanted to give you a heads up that it's back. The user posted an attack on Talk:Pioneering Automotive Technology as well. See also []. I liked your "words of advice" btw, too bad the user didn't take them... Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed
Hey James. I'm now done with finals!! :) I just need some advice about User talk:Codedon. Thank you! Codedon (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Bank of Commerce
* (This section originally appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, and has been moved to User talk:JamesBWatson for convenience.)

My first try at creating a page was speedily deleted :) I now tried once again on my userpage. Kindly comment if the new format would be feasible for wikipedia . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericndt (talk • contribs) 01:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi thank you for your comments, if possible please have another look of my revisions based on your comments thanks :) Eric Noel (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card


Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)





Query/Undelete request
The deletion log for the article Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski says you deleted it, although I don't see it in your contributions (maybe that's not abnormal; I've never tried this before). This article about a contemporary German composer was written by a Ph.D. candidate in musicology whom I happen to know; he used to be an enthusiastic contributor to Wikipedia but has recently become disillusioned with it due to the perception that strange and inconsistent standards are often applied to its content. He was rather upset earlier today when he discovered that the aforementioned article had been deleted; checking it out, I found the message on his talk page saying:


 * The article Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

We are both a bit perplexed by that particular policy, but in any case, he had told me that he'd added references to his article after it was tagged, and&mdash;sure enough&mdash;the only copy I can find on the internet clearly has references. It appears as though some mistake was made. (My hypothesis is that the mistake was a failure to remove the tag after adding the reference(s), but it is easy to understand why an editor would make this mistake, since removing a tag from one's own article is usually frowned upon.) Now I could put back the article myself, using ask.com's mirror; but it would be really awesome if you would just undelete it (please correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that you can). It might help persuade a worthwhile contributor to return to Wikipedia, and I would also find it somewhat reassuring. False vacuum (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, an editor's contributions record shows only contributions to pages still in existence, and does not show logs of deletions etc. Secondly, I have looked at the article, and although there is an item listed (several times) as a "reference", it is merely the title and other details of a work by Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski, not references in the sense of citations of independent sources that support statements made in the article. I do not think that, in its existing form, it would be possible to justify restoring this as an article. I can, if you like, restore it as a page in user space for you to work on, providing references before returning it to article space. Let me know if you would like me to do so. However, before you decide, you should take account of the following facts: (1) this would be only a short-term measure to allow the article to be brought up to scratch, not a way of indefinitely avoiding deletion, and the page would probably be deleted again if it were not made suitable in a moderate amount of time; (2) a quick search gives me the impression that the subject may well not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, as all of the sources I have found either do not give substantial coverage of Schmidt-Kowalski, or are not independent of him, or both. I am willing to "userfy" the article for you if you like, and please do let me know if you want me to, but I do not think it would be fair to simply do so without making it clear that there is a significant chance that any work spent on this article might be wasted. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference (I agree there only seems to be one) is to a CD booklet. This exists, and is an independent source which supports the specific assertions made in the article.  I have no doubt that additional sources are available, but the policy under which the article was deleted requires only one.  The deletion was not based on notability concerns, no such concerns were raised, and there was no deletion discussion.  Based on the evidence I can see, the article should not have been deleted; therefore it should be restored.  If you or anyone else wishes to contest the notability of the subject, deletion could then be proposed on such grounds (an unnecessarily adversarial step in my opinion, yet permissible under Wikipedia's current rules), or such concerns could simply be raised on the article's talk page (which it seems to me would be a more reasonable first step).  Now, if you still disagree with my conclusions even after reading and understanding what I said (and verifying my claim that the '"reference"' is in fact a reference), please explain why.  And perhaps I should point out again that I could easily have resurrected the article from the copy at ask.com without calling it to your or anyone else's attention if I had wanted to; instead, I wished to have it demonstrated, to myself and to my friend, that Wikipedia administrators are intelligent, reasonable people like ourselves, and that mistakes can be corrected.  I also wanted the history back; it feels very wrong to me when bits of an article's history are missing.  Would userfying the article restore its history?  False vacuum (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I had not realised the nature of the reference, but I accept what you say, so I have restored the article. I have also changed the reference format to avoid unnecessary duplication in the references list. However, it is not clear that a booklet produced by a company selling the composer's work can be considered an independent source, so it is quite possible that this may be challenged. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I believe Vaux plans to work on the article some more, and probably add more references, but musicologists seem to agree that a CD booklet published by a company like Naxos is a decent source (and that having one's works performed and recorded commercially is sufficient evidence of notability).  Incidentally, if you are a fan of serious music at all, then I suspect that listening to some of Schmidt-Kowalski's work would help convince you of his notability (I listened to his third symphony last night, and it's pretty impressive).  False vacuum (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

loeb & loeb
you already deleted this page for copyright infringement. Now I have tagged the latest version g11 because the creator of the page, loebllb, actually states that the article is to promote loeb&loeb. Does it now need salting? I'm newish at speeding so would appreciate your comment. Mark Dask 21:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

replied to your message on my talk page (or at least tried to). Thanks
replied to your message on my talk page (or at least tried to). Thanks Coleopterist (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

M/A-COM
The original deletion discussion is here--it links to the current article on a redirect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/M/A-COM_Technology_Solutions I'm putting it up for a speedy again, as you suggested. Qworty (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Lear's Fool 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year


RedSpotGames
It's a minor point, but I just wanted to be clear. I don't necessarily support keeping RedSpotGames. Based upon some claims, it seems like they ought to be notable, but the article is not very good. My declination of the CSD was not based upon my belief that the article was now good enough, but a more narrow point - the CSD was predicated on it being virtually identical to the one deleted, and, in my judgment, it wasn't virtually identical. I noted that the editor had added several references. They may not be good ones, or not good enough, but we reserve that CSD reason for a particular reason that didn't seem to apply. I felt the editor deserved a community response as to why the article wasn't up to snuff. I'm still new to this job, and pretty good at changing when I make mistakes, so if you think my judgment was wrong, I'm all ears.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, your position on this is perfectly reasonable. CSD G4 refers to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy ... of a page", and it comes down to what is "sufficiently" identical. The difference you referred to is the addition of references. If even one of those references had seemed to me to have any merit then I do not think it would have been reasonable to call it "sufficiently identical and unimproved". However, when the reasons for deletion are such as that the sources given are press releases or "trivial" and do not support notability, then I think that adding a few more of the same does not affect the reason for deletion. For that reason I personally would have accepted the speedy deletion nomination. Having said that, I admit that it is not an entirely clear-cut case, as the article does differ from the previous version in other respects, apart from the references, so it is a matter of judgement where to draw the line. I think the judgement you made was a perfectly reasonable one, even though different from the one I would have made. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your in-depth response. You've been around for quite some time, while I'm still new at the mopping stuff. I'm happy to see that, while we did and still would make different calls on this specific incident, it falls more into reasonable range of interpretation rather than simply miss sing something. There is a mild irony in this situation—I am trying to avoid falling into the trap of accepting a speedy just because someone tags it a speedy, and a few seconds review suggests it could be a speedy. I want to take things a little slower, and I have run across the occasional speedy I've declined after looking into it. The irony here is that I could have accepted it if I spent a very short time reviewing it, and I very well might have accepted it had I spent enough time to actually review the new references to see that they didn't add anything substantive. I got caught in the "sweet spot" ((or maybe it is the "sour spot" in this case) of spending enough time to see issues with the CSD, but not long enough to reject the issues. Having said that, I think as a project, we sometimes are too tough on potential new editors, so my instincts are to err on the side of caution. The worry in the back of my mind was that a potential new editor would have seen an article disappear, made what they thought was a good faith effort to improve it, and see it disappear with only the message that it was unchanged. OK, time to stop rambling, and cleanup some backlogs, thanks again for your thoughtful response.--  SPhilbrick  T  14:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree with your point about new users. Sometimes I take the trouble to write an explanation on a user's talk page when I know full well that a lot of admins would just delete and move on. Probably I should do that even more often. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Read. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

REFERENCES_kastoryano
* (This section originally appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, and has been moved to User talk:JamesBWatson for convenience.)

hello thank you for your message about the references, but I could not add a reference eventhough I tried ten times...I have always the same message. I am trying to add my reference in the bar, next to "link" and "embedded file", thanks for your help

Cite error: There are tags on this page, but the references will not show without a template or a tag; see the help page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daglarkizireyhan (talk • contribs) 15:08, 30 December 2010


 * Another editor corrected your mistake, as you can see here, but you then undid the improvement in this edit. You need to add tags in the article where the reference is relevant, and then at the end of the article a "== References ==" section containing a tag. This will automatically create a list of the references you have added. I have now done this for you. However, the link you give is not a reference, in the sense of being a link to a source which confirms the content of the article, and the page it links to does not even mention Riva Kastoryano, so it belongs in an "external links" section, rather than a references section. I will make taht change too.JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike
* (This section originally appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, and has been moved to User talk:JamesBWatson for convenience.)

hello

after you message, I put a refence, (I tried at the beginning but i could not) however, my entry was deleted by Orangemike, just after your messsage.. I understand nothing, I came here faithfully to contribute, but the ambiance is not that i expected.. I write an entry about one of the leading sociologist in europe, and it is delated without any explanation, moreover I sent him a message in which I explain why she is important it is time to leave... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daglarkizireyhan (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

KASTORYANO REPLYH
* (This section originally appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, and has been moved to User talk:JamesBWatson for convenience.)

hi, the reference that i was trying to put is: http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/cherlist/kastoryano.php it was the website of the france's leading public research center, riva kastoryano is well mentioned there, but i could not add it because the entry is deleted, can I creat it again.. or thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daglarkizireyhan (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

proposed AFD
* (This section originally appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, and has been moved to User talk:JamesBWatson for convenience.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28hepatologist%29

Dear JamesBWatson- please evaluate the above AFD as vanispamcruftisement Thanks CHATGATTOMAN55 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson --- Thanks for your suggestions. I just did not feel I had enough experience to suggest an AFD, and thought I would bring this article to the attention of more seasoned Wikipedians. CHATGATTOMAN55 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rameses Casten
Happy New Year.

First and foremost, the article about Rameses Casten has been thoroughly reviewed countless times, ang I think it is ready for creation.

I would like to ask help in this matter as to not create confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramianus (talk • contribs) 05:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what help you are asking for. My searches still fail to produce evidence of notability. In fact this comment seems to sum the situation up pretty well. Unless you can produce genuine WP:RS providing evidence that Casten satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BIO I don't think I have anything to add to that comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Darleen Gruben (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A question
Hi James, is this Editor here, the same Editor you were dealing with here. This discussion would suggest that they are?-- Domer48  'fenian'  17:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt it's the same person. I have blocked the new IP and extended existing blocks on IPs previously used, but unfortunately the IPs are so widely spread that a range block is not a viable option. I have also semiprotected the articles most affected for 24 hours. JamesBWatson (talk)
 * Thought as much! They do keep trying though.-- Domer48  'fenian'  13:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems?
* (This section originally appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, and has been moved to User talk:JamesBWatson for convenience.)

I do not think you really understand the situation at all. "If you cannot or will not work collaboratively..." Please describe where collaborative work comes into play here. No other people who have any knowledge on this subject has helped out at all, leaving me alone to try and work on these articles. I already tried to nominate the ASC article for deletion under the idea it wasn't a subject that warranted a main article, but you, among others, didn't think it was suit for deletion. But at the same time, no one was really able to improve the article. I understand the importance of collaborative work from CindaMuse's warning a while back. You just don't understand that virtually no one else can or will help out with such articles. Have you not noticed at all? At this rate, I would rather see most of the siren articles deleted, with basic information about whichever sirens and companies noted in the 'Civil Defense Siren' article. In my view, it is easier to have a few big articles covering their respective subjects, rather than a bunch of small articles that fail to do so. The reason for the attempted redirects was to make the subject more easily understood and covered in one big article rather than a bunch of small ones. Not to cover up previous edits like you assumed once again. I would've liked to have turned my sandbox into a true article, but you do not seem supportive of this. What else do I need to explain, and are you going to help out with any of the articles? Before you assume Wikipedia isn't the right place for me, I'm all for collaborative work, as long as my 'fellow workers' are willing to help out as well. And they aren't. --JustInn014 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You proposed an article for deletion. You evidently wished to replace it with an article of your own, which you think is much better. There was consensus not to delete it. Rather than accept that consensus, you have posted to editors asking for help in replacing the article with your preferred version, and you have replaced articles with redirects to your own version in your user space. In other words, you have made concerted efforts to overturn the decision reached in the discussion. If you search back through my editing history you will be able to find several occasions where I have nominated articles for deletion but found consensus in the discussion was against me. When this has happened I have accepted the decision and moved on to other editing, even when I have personally felt that the decision has been wrong. That is how Wikipedia works. Editors who will not accept decisions reached by discussion, but persist in the belief that they are RIGHT, and dedicate themselves to trying to impose their preferred version despite consensus against them, tend to have a frustrating time. They continually find that their efforts are thwarted, that other people are against them, and that they never achieve what they want to. Eventually they either leave Wikipedia disgruntled and angry or else get blocked, banned, or both. I don't always get my way. I don't get worked up about the fact. I simply move on, as I said above, to other editing. That way I achieve quite a lot of what I think is worthwhile, and what I fail to achieve is a pity, but not a big deal. (Incidentally, I don't understand what you mean by "but you, among others, didn't think it was suit for deletion". I took no part in Articles for deletion/American Signal Corporation, and I don't know what else you may be referring to.) 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Vincent Rocca
* (This section originally appeared at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, and has been moved to User talk:JamesBWatson for convenience.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Rocca (talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 December 2010
 * Seen JamesBWatson (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Redirects
Seen JamesBWatson (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson
Did you know that James D Watson is also a famous biologist? I didn't even think James Watson was anything else... Had to check out your user page in case you were the REAL James D. Watson. Maybe you can pass yourself off as him to confused Wikipedians. ;) Genjix (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't know. Yes, Wikipedians so confused they can't tell a B from a D, perhaps? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Matti Järvinen
Despite both your and mine concerns, the speedy delete for the dab has been completed. Shouldn't have this been discussed first? Dolovis (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes it should. However, I don't myself feel strongly enough about it to pursue it. You are, of course, welcome to take it up with the deleting administrator yourself. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyldesley Little Theatre
Hi James

I am the 'webmaster' for TLT and I note that you have recently deleted the page that set up for the Theatre earlier today. I am totally new to this type of stuff after our previous 'webmaster' left the society. I therefore simply copied the text text the TLT site and posted it onto Wikipedia with some amendments.

Sorry if I have breeched any rules, but I am learning by my mistakes. The Wiki page is not intended as advertising, simply another way of people finding the societies' details. As a 'not for profit' registered charity we need all the help we can get and I thought that Wikipedia was a great way of getting info to both people wanting to join a local amateur dramatic society and also people wanting good cheap theatre, at a price they can afford. We try to cater for people who would not normally set foot and the city centre theatres or even afford their prices!!

Any guidance which you can give me will be appreciated as there is no point in me taking the (unpaid) time to set up another page, only to have it deleted again!! Regards Paul

Paul Whur Tyldealy Little Theatre, Lemon Street, Tyldealy, Manchester. Whurwulf (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally Wikipedia is an information resource and is unconcerned with anything else. It might sound harsh but the absolute goal is a quality encyclopedia. Therefore is a page doesn't meet notability guidelines, it will be deleted. If it does but the article is a stub, then it too will be deleted. However if an article has a good length (and a modicum of quality) and fits notability guidelines then you have a case for keeping it. Make sure you mention on the Discussion page that you have permission to copy the text and release it under the GFDL/CC-BY-SA. There needs to be a way to verify this, like the original page it's copied from putting up a notice giving permission to Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Genjix (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of R Systems Page
Sir

I don't agree with your evaluation of R Systems company profile being added as a unambiguous and promotional activity. kindly clarify for the said as I have mentioned all relevant links for the information provided. Further, I am unable to edit it as it is marked protected now. kindly reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurbh.Mahajan (talk • contribs) 10:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyldesley Little Theatre
Hi James Thanks for your kind reply. I have expanded the revised TLT page in what I hope is a neutral style including only fact, leaving out (I hope) any promotional stuff. If it still contravenes Wiki rules, please let me know before it is deleted again. I will continue to update on a factual basis, as an when, things come to mind - Whurwolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whurwulf (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal again...
Hello. Do you remember the Indonesian misinformation vandal? Here returned today using two addresses: the previously blocked and  (which is outside of the currently blocked 118.137.0.0/17 range, the second time he used an address outside that range). Same kinds of articles. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 110.136.113.144 hasn't been blocked yet. As I've already stated, this was the second time the vandal used this particular address. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked it now. If you have any other IPs recently used please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've stated, 118.137.153.150 was the second address outside the 118.137.0.0/17 range that he used since the said range was blocked last August. The first one was, but that was last September. Just saying this to let you know. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Indonesian vandal has come back today, using. He struck while I was out and I just found out about it when Ryulong dropped me a message on my talk page. This is part of the 114.57.0.0/16 range because he also used addresses from this range:



As with the edits the vandal did today, he has now infiltrated in Pokemon and Telemundo territory. BTW, the above address is now blocked thanks to Ryulong's actions, but Materialscientist doesn't seem to care about what the vandal can do. About the articles he "cannibalized," I know they won't warrant semi-protection due to inactivity these past few days. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have put a range block on for a brief time. Judging from the editing history the amount of collateral damage will be low or zero, but even so I am not willing to out a longer-term range block in place. maybe it will help a little, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ANTaR page
Hello

I was looking at the Reconciliation Australia page today. I thought there'd be more and better there. I deleted an odd/dodgy paragraph and thought about whether to add a bit of extra information. But I then clicked on the link to Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation at the bottom and found it had been deleted, then restored and then moved with a "userfying for improvement" message. It had your username on it, which is why I am sending you this message.

I thought before I tried to touch the Reconciliation Australia page, let alone an ANTaR one, I'd try to clarify what the situation with the page/s are.

I've used Wikipedia for a long time, but only very occasionally tried to edit them. I've never come across a "userfying for improvement" message/instruction before, and though I've tried using all the Help functions on this site, I can't see any reference to what that might mean. The page told me to contact the "deleting administrator" but the Wikipedia help section hasn't helped me get any clearer idea of who that might be. I am guessing that this may be you, so I thought I would ask. If its not, if you could give an indication of who I could direct my inquiry to I'd be most appreciative.

(and my apologies if I've used the wrong page or mechanism to raise this. I am finding the internal Wikipedia communication protocols very confusing)

Sheldonsheep 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldonsheep (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, Wikipedia's workings can be very confusing for someone who is not used to them, as I remember very well from when I started editing Wikipedia. However, you have done quite right in contacting me, as I am indeed the deleting administrator. (Also, even if you are not sure where to ask about something, don't worry. Just ask somewhere that looks as if it may be relevant. Probably you will find someone who will point you in the right direction if necessary.)
 * The situation is as follows: (1) Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation was deleted because the article seemed to be written to promote the organisation, rather than as objective reporting. (2) The link to the deleted article from Reconciliation Australia should then have been removed, but wasn't. I have now removed it. (3) The user known as "Misarxist" asked for the deleted article to be restored. In its existing form it was not suitable to be restored as an article, so I restored it as a page in that user's user space, to allow time for the issues which led to deletion to be addressed. This is commonly referred to as "userfying" the page. The new title of the page is User:Misarxist/Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation. (4) So far there has been almost no work done on the page. It is quite possible that it will be deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that.

I will look to add some extra bit of substance to the Reconciliation Australia page and will see if there is enough to justify/verify an Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldonsheep (talk • contribs) 12:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 12:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Victims of political repression CfD
Hi. Thanks for adding your vote. We need some new opinions on the thread in question as it is the same people re-opining over and over. However, I think you added your argument at the end of the South African Cat (subcategory) rather than at the end of the main argument further up the thread. I may be wrong, just wanted to check. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be right. I found the layout rather confusing. I have moved my comment to what I hope is the right place. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem with editing
Why can't I edit this page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2fresh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2freshworld (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean what is actually stopping you from doing so, then the answer is that it is protected to prevent you from wasting everyone's time by repeatedly recreating it. If you mean what is the reason for deletion then what clarification do you need of the reasons posted to your talk page? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I create this page and you decide to delete this straight away! But what do I do wrong? I mean, How can I create this without any problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2freshworld (talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 January 2011


 * 1) Between the first time you created the article and the time I deleted it there was an interval of nine days. Between the time when I deleted it and the most recent time you had created it was an hour and nine minutes.
 * 2) Wikipedia requires a subject to be notable in order to justify the existence of an article on it. The most relevant guidelines in this case are the genereal notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people. I have searched, and found no evidence at all that you satisfy those guidelines. (Most of what I can find is on Facebook, MySpace, blogs, etc.) As long as you do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards the answer to "how can I create this without any problems?" is that you can't. No amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. I suggest you forget about using Wikipedia to promote yourself, since any effort spent in doing so is likely to be wasted, and use your time and effort more constructively in places where you can promote yourself, without any need to establish notability, such as MySpace. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And here's another problem with deleting my file at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2fresh.jpg How long will it takes for administration to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2freshworld (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have no idea. I am an administrator on English Wikipedia, but that file is hosted not on English Wikipedia but on Wikimedia Commons, and I know very little about the workings of WM commons. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

''Thank you for taking time to help me!! P.S. C U When I get There!!!'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2freshworld (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 16:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

deletion of 'North Star Fund'
Hi,

I notice that you deleted the page for our foundation claiming that it was 'unambiguous advertising or promotion.' We would like to have it reinstated, of course written in a way that conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

66.114.68.76 (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Mark Leger Communications Manager


 * You are probably not the right person to write on this, as you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. In addition, there is the question as to whether the organisation satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, including those for organisations and companies. My (admittedly brief) searches do nothing to indicate that it does, most of what I found not being from sources independent of the organisation. You may also find it helpful to look at FAQ/Organizations. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Darleen Gruben 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Binksternet
Hello, good evening! I'm having trouble with this user. He is just now responding about edit issues, but at this point I'm burnt out with resolving it with him. I have overly discussed it on the talk page of Stevie Wonder, there is a "paper trail" on my profile and his, as well as about 4 editors that said it was ok. To avoid explaining again, please view all of the related talk pages and let me know how you can help so he doesn't keep removing it. Take your time, as there is alot about it and I want you to see everything that was being said and how the edit is perfectly acceptable no more than any others used on people's articles. I have documented my edits excessively. He is just personally not wanting the edit there for an unknown reason, as his explanations aren't valid and contridicting/inconsistant. I saw you created a block he had on his page and so I wanted to contact you and the blocking admins to assist since he is seemingly violating policy and being disruptive, as well as continually reverting. I stopped reverting so I don't get blocked, but each time I "undid" an edit, it was to improve it or change it or reduce it down to one sentence. Not only that, he was reverting two other perfectly good edits that I did at the same time, which have now since been redone and kept. (I sourced one and did a grammer fix). The main text I did an edit on was already there, I just did a minor expand and added sources, so it's an issue of prejudice I guess. Not sure. Please help! Thank you and I appreciate your help in advance I'm attempting to do what's right in good faith. Take care... 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked into this. This is a long and fairly complex content dispute, and i do not claim to have studied every detail of it in depth, but I have, I think, read the history carefully enough to get the overall picture. There are several issues, but it looks to me as though the central issue is the "Wonder is important in Gibson's history, but is Gibson is important in Wonder's history?" question. I do not know enough about the history of either to have an opinion of my own on this. I could make a detailed study of the sources to determine how far they support the disputed content, but it seems to me that the whole thing is a storm in a teacup, and the amount of time and effort I would have to spend on this would be disproportionate to the importance of whether or not a fairly small amount of fairly unimportant information is included in this article or not. Personally, whenever I have found myself in a dispute with an editor who seems to me to be stubbornly persisting in their view, after a few exchanges I have walked away and left them to it. Some of the content of WP:Dispute resolution may possibly be of help. Finally, I suggest being careful about selectively contacting administrators who have been involved with a block of an editor who you are in dispute over in a completely different case. There is a danger that it may be seen as trying to find an admin who is likely to oppose that editor. I trust that that was not your intention, but it can be a good idea to avoid even the appearance. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I was the one who was handling disputes right, the other one wasn't. I wasn't contacting Admin to do that, only to have my edit seen as no worse than others on the article for approval. In fact, I just included examples in the article that should be removed then if mine is. Feel free to take a look, I just posted it. I also typed a proposed edit change. It's unfortunate how people are treated on here, if I had a created account or it was about Michael Jackson doing backups, it wouldn't be an issue. That is the point I'm making, that Gibson did have an impact on Wonder. It's not commercial info, but well worth adding and they are being prejudice about it. Oh well, I have a bad taste in my mouth about editors and Admin as this is a very unfair practice and flat out wrong. It's now the principle, this is the kind of behavior that causes so many other big issues/problems. Being stubborn isn't a reason to get a free pass. Maybe this is all he has going for him in life, IDK!? I will find my own Admin to look into it further, best of luck... 63.131.4.149 (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)