User talk:JBW/Archive 24

About Teambox deletion
Dear James,

I have found that the Wikipedia page for Teambox has been deleted and I cannot see why. I think that Teambox accomplishes all the criteria to be included in Wikipedia.

In other way there are a lot of examples of similar products that actually are into wikipedia without problems.

Please could you reconsider your position about this issue? Or just tell me what can I do to include the page again. I think Teambox is a great project and should have a proper Wikipedia entry.

Thank you,

Ferran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gammben (talk • contribs) 13:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The decision to delete was made at a deletion discussion. The reasons were essentially to do with the failure of the subject to satisfy the notability guidelines, including the guideline for organisations. In addition, at least some of the several creations of this article (perhaps all of them, I haven't checked) were written in ways which appeared to be designed to promote the subject, which would in itself have been sufficient reason for deletion.


 * You ask me to "reconsider [my] position]". However, it is not "my" position: it is a position reached as a result of a discussion in which I took no part. My contribution has merely been ensuring that the decision is implemented, in accordance with policy.


 * You also ask me to "tell me what can I do to include the page again". Unless the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines the answer is that you can't. No amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. Although the decision to delete was not mine, I have made my own independent searches for information about Teambox, and have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence at all that it does so. Much as you think that the subject deserves publicity, my advice to you is that any attempt to get a Wikipedia article on it will certainly be a waste of your time, as it is doomed to failure. The fact that you "think Teambox is a great project" is not a justification for an article, by Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You may find it interesting to read Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ask for patrolling
Hi, JamesBWatson!

I'd like to ask you to patrol the translated article from the Russian Wikipedia - Kommandcore - and the related articles which have been edited (minor edits). Could you do this?

With best regards, Damir Zakiev (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

REMLOX
Dustin.sachs (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. --Nlu (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

2011
Hello. Given, remember that we have already passed 2010. Hey Mid  (contribs) 17:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A web site for School of Medicine in Split
Hi, I am a vice-dean of the School of Medicine in Split, that is why I used materials from our web page. This is soooo frustrating! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpuljak (talk • contribs) 21:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Lpuljak (talk • contribs) 21:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Julian Assange deletion
Hello James

You deleted that article of mine under CSD 10. The relevant passage there is: "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect."

I find this odd - there was a great deal of additional material, all referenced, in my article. The parts that might have been objectionable are still in the main article at Julian Assange, Criticism. Would you care to explain? Templar98 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see ANI where this deletion is being discussed. I didn't intend to register a complaint against the deletion (or against you), but it looks rather as if that's the way some people want it to be taken. Templar98 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks for letting me know about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

MfD User:Davesmith_au/pigwrestling deletion discussion closure
JamesBWatson as you are the admin who closed this MfD, I am interested to know if you would consider reviewing your decision. In your summary I don't see any reference to consensus or violation of policy and guidelines, save the "Wikilawyering" remark, which hardly makes things clear, at least to me. Could you expand on that for me please? Who do you believe was Wikilawyering? Davesmith au (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The result of the discussion was Delete It is not necessary to address all the involved Wikilawyering as to exact details of policies, guidelines, etc. The essential nature of the page is clear. It is clearly outside the range of purpose of a user page, and should not be hosted on Wikipedia. It is also clear that the page characterises individuals in a way likely to be seen as offensive, whether or not it "seem[s] to actually attack anyone in any sort of organized manner"."


 * Sorry that I didn't explicitly mention consensus or policy violations. I was taking it for granted (1) that my comments were to be taken in the context of the statements made by editors in the discussions, and that any references to policy or guideline violations made in the discussion were therefore implicitly referenced, and (2) that my comments were intended to explain how my decision related to consensus, so that I did not have to explicitly say so. Clearly I was mistaken.


 * I did not, and still do not, not think it would be a productive use of my time to repeat all of the references to policies and guidelines mentioned in the fairly long discussion. However, I will give you a couple of examples. As Beeblebrox pointed out, it is clear that the page was being used to identify users that you considered to be "pigs" that "enjoy" getting "covered in crap". This is a personal attack, which is against Wikipedia policy. There was also reference to the discussion to WP:UP, which indicated that the page violated a Wikipedia guideline. There are other mentions in the discussion for guidelines or policies.


 * I am not particularly willing to spend my time discussing or defending my use of the word "Wikilawyering". The point I was trying to convey was that there had been attempts to argue that there had been no identifiable violation of a specific policy requirement, but that it was not worth addressing all the details of those arguments, as the overall picture was clear, and in that overall picture there were such violations.


 * Ideally, of course, a deletion discussion should end with a clear agreement of all participants, which is true consensus. A second best is a clear agreement of the substantial majority of the participants. If we do not achieve either of those, then it is the job of an administrator to assess whether there is nevertheless a sufficient degree of consensus, or whether there is no consensus. In making that assessment an administrator is required to consider not simply the number of particiapants supporting each side, but rather the strength of their arguments. In this case the supporters of deletion seemed to me to have made a good case that the page was in violation of policies and guidelines, while those who supported keeping had largely used unconvincing arguments. I mentioned one example of a weak argument in my closing summary, namely the notion that an attack somehow does not count if it is not made "in any sort of organized manner". Other argument used which do not seem to contribute meaningfully to reasons for keeping include such issues as that evidence was quoted which did not appear on the page itself, the fact that the nomination was made on Christmas day, and even whether the word "retirement" was appropriate in describing your period of absence from Wikipedia. Finally, there was (presumably unintentional) misrepresentation of guidelines, as where it was stated that WP:UP#POLEMIC "states that it relates to material not related to the encyclopedia", whereas in fact what it states is that it refers to "Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals". "Not closely related to Wikipedia's goals" is a good deal broader than "not related to the encyclopedia". Much of my time is spent dealing with matters which are related to the encyclopaedia but not closely related to its goals. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect, I bring to your attention the following points:


 * "As Beeblebrox pointed out, it is clear that the page was being used to identify users that you considered to be "pigs" that "enjoy" getting "covered in crap". This is a personal attack, which is against Wikipedia policy."


 * That is not only a literal (and in my opinion incredulous) interpretation of what is clearly a metaphor (and a well-known one at that), it is also blatantly incorrect. No-one at all was singled out in any way on the page concerned.  Every contribution (which I could find) related to the talk page of the biography concerned was listed, no commentary was offered, and those edits included edits of people I would not seek to characterize in a negative manner.  How could such be regarded as attacking any editor or group of editors?  The matter of my admitted lack of good judgment in linking it from my pigwrestling metaphor and thus titling it /pigwrestling could and should rightly be corrected by a renaming of the page, as I clearly indicated I would undertake to do the moment the MfD was closed, and by removing the link, which had already been done, in good faith, by the completion of the discussion.  This was ignored.


 * "There was also reference to the discussion to WP:UP#POLEMIC, which indicated that the page violated a Wikipedia guideline."


 * A matter which I refuted citing the context within which the quoted guideline is supposed to be considered. This was ignored.


 * "There are other mentions in the discussion for guidelines or policies."


 * Each of which was refuted with the citing of the context within which each quoted policy or guideline section is positioned.


 * "I am not particularly willing to spend my time discussing or defending my use of the word "Wikilawyering"."


 * This is a matter which you are obliged to discuss, given that wikilawyering is usually a pejorative term. WP:Wikilawyering: The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations, much like the term "meatpuppet"; those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL). (my bold - DS).  WP:Wikilawyering:  In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations. (my bold - DS).  If you are using pejoratives, I cannot help but conclude that you are exposing a  bias which should not be part of either your final decision, or the closing statement of said decision.


 * "The point I was trying to convey was that there had been attempts to argue that there had been no identifiable violation of a specific policy requirement, but that it was not worth addressing all the details of those arguments, as the overall picture was clear, and in that overall picture there were such violations."


 * Please revise the discussion in full as it relates to the page now deleted, (did you even look at the page concerned?) and you should see that in fact the policies quoted were taken out of context, a point brought up in the discussion several times.


 * It would appear, by all accounts, that any Wikilawyering:-


 * 4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.


 * In other words a "wikilawyer" is an image drawn from a poor lawyer, and the term may also be used in other cases, e.g., when a person superficially judges other editors and their actions by jumping at conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution. (my bold in the second and susequent instances - DS)


 * - was NOT undertaken by those arguing to keep the page, and it appears to me that if anything, the contrary is the case.


 * "... Finally, there was (presumably unintentional) misrepresentation of guidelines, as where it was stated that WP:UP#POLEMIC "states that it relates to material not related to the encyclopedia", whereas in fact what it states is that it refers to "Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals". "Not closely related to Wikipedia's goals" is a good deal broader than "not related to the encyclopedia"."


 * Here you appear to be mistaken again. Quite clearly, in the discussion, the passage quoted is the passage I refuted with my assertion that it was taken out of context.  The passage quoted in support of deletion does indeed fall behind the heading "not related to encyclopedia editing".  The passage you are quoting (re: WP goals) regards the preceding section, none of which was quoted as policy which was allegedly violated, nor could any of it be.  And even then, THAT still falls under the heading of "Excessive unrelated content" as a perusal of the section concerned confirms.  Furthermore, it is not the place of a closing admin to add further evidence which was not in the discussion.


 * Considering the above, I respectfully ask you to read through the discussion again, taking into consideration the content of the (now deleted) page concerned, and review your decision to delete. Davesmith au (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have, as you requested, looked back at the discussion and at the deleted page.
 * When I came to the MfD discussion it was already well past its due closing date. I looked at the discussion, and decided that, although it was not one of the most clear cases, there was an overall consensus. Because a couple of editors had expressed strong (in one case very strong) dissent from that general consensus, I took the trouble to write a few sentences explaining briefly what I thought were salient points which contributed to my decision. Subsequently I was asked to expand on my explanation, which I did, at some length. The central point of my explanation, I think, was that the overall character of the deleted page was clear, and that being so it was not desirable to get bogged down in arguing the details of the claims and counter claims over policies etc. I stand by that view.
 * In my closure comment I used the word "Wikilawyering" to refer to the detailed argument as to whether there were specific quotable details of policy which had been violated. The first post above on this page on this matter asks me to comment on that. The word "Wikilawyering" may or may not have been a good one to use in the context. In my response to that comment above, I conceded that I was not prepared to defend the choice of that word, but i am now told that I am "obliged" to do so. I find this puzzling, for two reasons. Firstly, when I conceded that the choice of word may not have been good, why does anyone insist that I have to stick with it? Secondly, I was under the clear impression that all of my work for Wikipedia was voluntary, and that I was not obliged to do any of it.
 * Although I said I would not defend my use of the word "Wikilawyering", I have now decided to do so. You have quoted from Wikilawyering in a manner which suggests that you think that is definitive, and that somehow if I use the word I am committed to intending everything which the writers of that "essay" expressed. The part of the description in that "essay" which is most relevant here is "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles" which is approximately what I was referring to, though I think that "claiming to abide by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles" might be better.
 * The fifth of the five pillars of Wikipedia says "Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule." I think that the page in question violated the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and do not care whether or not anyone can pinpoint an exact piece of wording in any documentation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which was violated. What is more important, however, is that I still think that there was a substantial (though of course not unanimous) consensus in the deletion discussion that the page should be deleted. If, however, there is consensus that I was mistaken, then so be it. I have no intention of getting into fights over this. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect JamesBWatson, I am merely taking the first required step of deletion review, which is to discuss the closing with the closer. I am not trying to pick a fight.  I apologize for using the word "obliged" in the manner I did, I should have said "which I feel you are obliged to discuss", as regardless of your volunteer status, surely being an admin has some "obligations" (either expressed or implied or both) carried with it. Regardless of the rules not being set in stone, had I proceeded to deletion review without having made a reasonable effort to discuss and understand your closing, I have no doubt that such review would have been squashed before it got started.


 * "In my response to that comment above, I conceded that I was not prepared to defend the choice of that word, but i am now told that I am "obliged" to do so. I find this puzzling, for two reasons. Firstly, when I conceded that the choice of word may not have been good, why does anyone insist that I have to stick with it?" (My bold - DS)


 * Saying you were not prepared to defend the chioce of the word is not a "concession", nor did you indicate that the chioce of the word "may not have been good". In refusing to defend it, I took it to mean you stuck by it. If you now concede that is was not a good choice, that's fine but it would have saved much discussion had you made that point clear.


 * With regard to the now deleted page, I still fail to see how it violated either the letter or the spirit of any policies or guidelines (apart from the title and the section of my user page it was linked from which I have already conceded several times was in poor judgment and was quite willing to fix), and this is what has me puzzled. It appears, to me, that the content of the page has been ignored, in that no single editor or group of editors was singled out in any way (as I have also said a number of times now).  As it appears you are not going to reverse the decision and that further discussion would be fruitless, I thank you for your time. Davesmith au (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that my use of the expression "defending my use of the word" was not clear. I did not think that my exact choice of word was critical, and if you did not think that "Wikilawyering" was appropriate then I did not think that it really mattered, and was prepared to drop the word, rather than defending it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic Yoga deletion
Hi James,

I was surprised to see that the informative listing about Dynamic Yoga has been deleted from Wikipedia by you due to "unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person"

Although the term 'dynamic yoga' is often used to promote a vigorous physical style of yoga, the capitalised phrase "Dynamic Yoga" was used in the Wikipedia listing with reference to a unique system/method of yoga that has its own form and philosophy and is significantly and inherrantly different from other styles and forms. The listing did not appear to advertise a particular person or product.

Other systems of yoga are listed in Wikipedia including Astanga Vinyasa Yoga; Yin Yoga; Hatha Yoga. Therefore I can see no reason to discriminate against Dynamic Yoga as such.

Please reinstate the listing. It adds factual relevance and is not to be confused with a an advert for 'dynamic' style yoga. If it needs to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article, then I would be interested in researching the necessary content.

Kind regards

Jonathon Miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothanoj (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The presence of articles on other forms of yoga is irrelevant, as this one has to be considered on its own merits. The articel was full of language such as "The Dynamic Yoga Training Method is a re-education of body, mind and spirit", "The methodology of the Dynamic Yoga Training Method constitutes a progresive process of integration", and "it treats the wisdom of life expressing itself through the intelligence of body, mind and consciousness as the root guru and guide in practice", which is the language of someone trying to promote the subject, not the language of an impartial outsider giving an objective description. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

An old friend of yours?
has claimed on his user page that there have been attempts to "eliminate [his] name from wikipedia". He specifically attacked you in the now-deleted article Barss brian. Could this be a sock of someone you know? &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems that this is one of several sockpuppets of a user whose first account I had the honour of blocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Teambox article
Hello, James! I'm writing you to discuss the deletion of the Teambox article one year ago.

It was then Jan 2010. The discussion had some Keep and some Deletes, mainly because it was a new project. While I agree the project was not notable enough back then and we did it wrong by pushing it, things are different now.

I would like a chance to reopen this discussion for a number of reasons:


 * We are a FOSS (free open-source project) with 689 watchers on Github and 155 forks.
 * The project has an active community and installation guides.
 * It is currently used by 65.000 companies on our hosted version, and an estimated 2.000 deployments in the wild.
 * The parent company has received over $500k in funding, and has 10 full-time employees.
 * It is a top rated app in the Google Marketplace.
 * Hosting provider Heroku (recently acquired by Salesforce) covers our project in their blog.
 * Hosting provider Mediatemple detailed the process to install Teambox on their servers.
 * It would help completing the Comparison_of_project_management_software article.

I consider the notability and circumstances around the project have changed over time, and I would like to ask how could we open a new discussion for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michokest (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This talk related to a previous thread in this Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michokest (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The subject may or may not have increased in notability, but none of the reasons you give relate at all to Wikipedia's notability criteria, so as far as justifying a Wikipedia article is concerned, they are irrelevant. You should also consider the guideline on conflict of interest, since you are clearly an involved party. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * James, it's obvious that there is a conflict of interest, as I work full-time in this project. I am not requesting to edit the article, but I am requesting for it to be acknowledged as the existing piece of software and community that it actually is. I consider it worth of mention at least in Comparison_of_project_management_software. This listing contains 113 entries for software projects, of which only 31 are open-source. It is also missing from categories like Category:Free groupware. There is good evidence that Teambox is used in its open-source edition by serious organizations, including Penn State University and the Wikimedia foundation itself (I can prove this by email). I'm not requesting to keep the article I proposed, all I want is a chance to re-run the vote and have it at least a placeholder like many other projects of our category do. Michokest (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of O'Dwyer & Bernstien
I asked that the post not be deleted immediately, that I was building it. Can you explain your deletion? Thank you. Wittylou23 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Some time had elapsed between your talk page comment that you were "making updates" to the article, but still no independent sources had been produced. If you can provide sources to indicate that the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines then I will consider restoring the article. However, if you have any personal connection with the subject you should consider whether your conflict of interest means that you should not be writing an article on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Block evading IP
is a returning sockpuppet, obviously the blocks on and  are still current, so it would appear to be block evasion. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also RashersTierney (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although indefinite blocks are not generally applied to IPs, perhaps it is time for this editor to be considered indefinitely blocked for persistent block evasion? O Fenian (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from any other considerations, that would serve little purpose, as the editor just keeps coming up with new IPs. Much as I would love to effectively block this person, unfortunately there really is no way of doing it. We just have to revert and block as each new IP comes up, and semi-protect the articles most affected, and hope that eventually the person will find something else to do with their time. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps you mean the user should be considered indefinitely banned. It would be possible to suggest this at Administrators' noticeboard if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not necessarily suggesting a ban, but it might be something that needs community discussion so I will take it to Administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you help!
Much appreciated :) 86.178.52.148 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks again 86.178.52.148 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Rowing Man
How was it advertising? The referencing?

Can I just delete the referencing and then is it ok to publish?

Thank you.

Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.42.208 (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry i was confused. I did put a case in the talk part but missed where it said not to delete the notice. Apologies.

Can you reinstate the article and I will rejustify its place on Wikipedia again for you to review? I don't really wish to go through the whole adding process again.

Thanks

Simon

Ps i will remove the external link if that was an issue also. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syminborn2001 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article was clearly written to publicise or promote a little known subject. However, even if that were not so the article would have been deleted sooner or later, as the subject is not within a hundred miles of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Kel Spencer article
On Nov 13th you deleted the Kel Spencer article for the following reasons: "Kel Spencer" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I would like to repost the page, as Kel Spencer/Lennie Bennett is an established ghostwriter having written for quite a few American artists who have have wiki pages. What can I do to ensure the page will not be deleted again?

Thank You,

D.Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelspencer (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You can look at WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:RS to see what sort of evidence of notability is required. However, I looked at the references given in the article, and also did a little searching of my own, and my impression is that such evidence does not exist, in other words that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. If that is so then the answer "What can I do to ensure the page will not be deleted again?" is that you can't. No amount of rewriting of an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. Finally, you may have a conflict of interest, in which case you are probably not the right person to write on this subject at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

deletion of "Christopher Tsai"
Dear JamesBWatson,

I noticed that on the 31st of December 2010 the page for "Christopher Tsai" was deleted. The page was deleted a couple of years ago and then was re-created. I have been editing several articles of which the subject is now mentioned. In addition, I have come across mention of Christopher Tsai in at least a dozen more articles. The subject is a prominent business figure and noted art collector. He is integral to the content of a number of articles in which he is mentioned; because of the deletion, the public can no longer click through. I believe that the page should again be re-created. Perhaps it should be put up again for public discussion?

Cayto1 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Cayto1


 * The essential question is whether the new article addressed the reasons for deletion of the old ones. Certainly it has numerically more references, but are they better? Apart from a couple of dead links, and subscription articles that i can't verify, most of them either didn't mention Tsai at all or just briefly mentioned him. The only sources that even look roughly relevant are the Barron's one and the article from the New York Sun, both of which were mentioned in the AfD discussion on the original article, and described there as puff. The Barron's piece is certainly puff, and even if we give the benefit of the doubt to the New York Sun piece we have at most one reliable independent source that gives more than passing mention. My conclusion is that the situation is not changed from last time. The fact that you "have come across mention of Christopher Tsai" in articles is not significant: as pointed out in the AfD discussion, one can find mentions of "about just any CEO/MD of a medium to large company, it does not make the subject notable". As for mentions of him in articles about other subjects, notability is not inherited: we need evidence that he is notable in his own right. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Defleshed
Hi, you nominated this article for A7 deletion. The group meets WP:MUSIC with albums on Hammerheart Records and Regain Records and is thus ineligible for A7. The deleting admin (User:RHaworth) said he had no objection to restoration but wanted you to do the undeletion as you are an admin and the initiator of the proceedings. Could you please restore it? Chubbles (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am much inclined to echo RHaworth's comment "So how come in three and an half years no-one has managed to add any evidence of notability?" However, I will restore the article. Whether it will stay restored I will leave to others to decide. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to stop by and leave a thank you note for your support at and during my RfA which was (in case you haven't heard) successful. Firstly, I suppose I should thank you for your !vote, which was so convincing as to be a key factor in the success of my request. More broadly than that, though, I would like to thank you for your support and kind words on my talkpage. I've used this line before, but what for most is hell week, was for me hell fortnight, and going back and looking over your talkpage comments as well as your !vote was some comfort, and one of the things keeping me sane. Please let me know if there's anything I can do in the future to return the favour. -- Lear's Fool 02:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Replied on Charles Matthews's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi James,

I just wanted to thank you for blocking someone yesterday. It's. I had requested that they be blocked five days ago at WP:UAA, but the notice was removed with no further action being taken, I then placed a request with admin HJ Mitchell on his talk page but got fobbed off and ignored. I'm just glad to see that I wasn't wrong about our policy regarding this user and thank you for eventually blocking him from using Wikipedia. --  role player 15:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that HJ Mitchell saw that there was a user who had had their name changed from this to something else, and didn't realise that a new account by the same name was in use. Whether the new account was the same person or not is not clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Resistance Stretching - Deleted
Sir,

I note that you have deleted the page on Resistance Stretching.

Is it possible to see the page that you have deleted to determine if I agree with your deletion, and if so, that I might at least start a stub with the hopes of building a page without the issues you noted.

Resistance Stretching is a very real and will likely becomes common knowledge within the next ten years. I am not affiliated in any way with any organization that would be considered a conflict of interest. I am simply someone who has learned and uses this technique for my own benifit and am disappointed that Wikipedia has no mention of it to provide independent information on the topic.

Could you please comment on the deletion and my question above.

Regards,

Kurt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.106.33 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that the article was tagged for speedy deletion as promotion, and I accepted that reason for the deletion log. The article did seem to be written to promote the technique, though perhaps it was not as blatantly promotional in its final version as in earlier versions. However, a more fundamental point is that there was no evidence of notability in the article, with no references at all. I did my own searches, and found quite a lot written about the subject. Most of it, however, was in sources which were promoting or selling courses, books, or whatever, or unreliable sources such as Wikipedia. There may be enough in the way of independent reliable sources to indicate that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's otability criteria, in which case it should be possible to write a neutral, non-promotional article about it, but it might need some work to find such sources. You say that you are "disappointed that Wikipedia has no mention of it to provide independent information on the topic", and I fully understand that, but the essential point is that it would have to be independent, telling us what the technique is, not telling us what a great service to mankind Bob Cooley has done by inventing it. (OK, perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement, but you no doubt get the idea.) You say that "Resistance Stretching is a very real and will likely becomes common knowledge within the next ten years". However, being real is not a guarantee of notability (see Existence ≠ Notability), and to justify an article on Wikipedia a subject must be notable now: it is not enough that it looks as though it may become notable at some time in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Eric not Erik
Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cavanaugh (actor)
Hi James. In November you  deleted this: 23:23, 29 November 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted Michael Cavanaugh (actor) ‎ (G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban) It was recreated today : Michael Cavanaugh (actor) by User:Mightbeginnings. Can you check if this is the same banned creator, it  might  also possibly be a sock. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark Noyce
You have deleted a page on a former 3 times world martial arts champion, this is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone involved in competitive martial arts recognises the impact this man had on the sport.

It's things like this that make wikipedia a joke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.110.130 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no third party sources of him on google. Only a bio written by him. Article needs sources to verify his notability- even if we believe it to be true. Notable publications are used as a litmus test to absolve us of bias :) Genjix (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I find this very frustrating, I've attached some links below to articles in reputable martial arts magazine, unfortunately without logging in to the magazine online you'll only be able to read a preview. (http://www.martialartsltd.co.uk/mai/themagazine.php?style=134),(http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/features/champ_mark_to_kick_it_with_thestars_in_workshop_1_87730),http://www.martialartsunltd.co.uk/images/flippingbook/nov08/mag_000.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.110.130 (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was nominated for speedy deletion by the user Wuhwuzdat on the grounds that it failed to give any indication of significance. Looking at the article, I agreed. The article was a brief three sentence stub, and the only reference (apart from an IMDb page) was a two sentence mention which gave no indication of significance. Searching, I found numerous references to him, but most of them were either not independent, not reliable, or both. If you can find verifiable sources indicating notability then there will be no problem at all in resurrecting the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi James and many thanks for your feedback. I apologise for the article being short, I have reliable access to much more information regarding his world titles, film projects etc which I can put down. I have also attached some links below which show 'reliable' articles about Mark. MAI magazine (http://www.martialartsunltd.co.uk/) is one of the UKs leading martial arts mag.

Article and interview with Mark by Bob Sykes, editor of MAI mag - http://i54.tinypic.com/312tgup.jpg BBC radio interview http://www.kewego.co.uk/video/iLyROoafIIXx.html Another article - http://i55.tinypic.com/2itptw6.jpg http://i53.tinypic.com/mk991x.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/2eb7dip.jpg The articles can be viewed on the magazine site but unfortunately you need to subscribe :( New uk movie : http://www.ontheropes-themovie.com

I sincerely hope this helps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.110.141 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.kreativetalent.tv/ProfileLookup?REG:Reg_No=390&Change_btn=Change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.221.160.4 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have had a quick look, and yes, some of those do look to me to as though they are good sources, in which case it shouldn't be too difficult to write an article about Mark Noyce that does show notability. If a registered user would like me to I can restore the old article into their user space so it can be worked on until it is ready to be restored as an article. However, linking to scanned copies of copyright material is not likely to be acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes please James, I would like an opportunity to complete this article. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielle Kidman (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback request
I've requested rollback back in late October, and you denied my request due to my lack of knowledge on all of Wikipedia's policies. Since then I've continued to do antivandal work, and worked towards working on some other areas. While doing that, I had once again hit a brick wall on Wikipedia's methods for misusing a Speedy delete template. After that I started to observe some of the other editors and how they operate, and read up on some more of your policies, and would like to request rollback again.ZamorakO o (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice, I'm sure it will help in the long run. ZamorakO o (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A small request
Hey, if you could do me a favor, can you please remove the edit summary for this revision to my user page. It doesn't really decorate my user page. Thanks in advance!  The Mi ke •Wassup doc? 06:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you!  The Mi ke •Wassup doc? 17:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Symphony - Cultural Festival (KJSCE)
Sir,

I had written the article on Symphony 2011 - Annual Cultural Festival of K. J. Somaiya College of Engineering. The reason for deletion has been specified as "non-notable festival"

I disagree. Symphony is the fifth biggest college festival in Mumbai, and I only wished to establish a separate page for it.

I admit I didn't write a good article for it, but my reasons for doing so are thus:

I do not know how to use wikipedia to write an article. I do not know anybody who can help me with this.

Please help me establish a better article for my college festival, if you can find the time in your schedule.

Thanking You, Ashish Pai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.146.111.217 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be the fifth or even the first biggest college festival in its city, but generally speaking college festivals are likely to be of interest mainly to people at or connected to the college, rather that more globally. you should look at the guidelines on notability and reliable sources to see what is required to establish notability. Since you have contested the deletion I have restored the article, but I think it is only fair to tell you that there is a very good chance it will be deleted again unless you can provide sources establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Janet Hunter PROD
I believe that technically Janet Hunter was invalid for WP:PROD both for reason of being a redirect and for having been prodded before. On another hand, the previous prod result was to redirect the councilwoman to the district, where she is not mentioned. On the gripping hand, we were providing no information with that redirect, the history would not be of any particular use in starting a new article, and the only link to the page is probably referring to a different person. Since you prodded it I am guessing that you agree with this outcome, but no worries if you can figure out something better to do with it. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!


Hey Mid  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 11:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing disabled
Recently while trying to edit an article, I discovered that I am unable to edit for the following reason:

"Editing from 220.255.2.0/24 has been disabled by JamesBWatson for the following reason(s): Block evasion, Vandalism"

Can you please explain what this is about?

Now I understand why Jim Wales told BBC (14 January 2011) that people are reluctant to modify Wiki articles because of its complexity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberavatar (talk • contribs) 12:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately someone using a number of IP addresses in this range has been making offensive edits. The trouble has been going on for some time: certainly more than a month. There had been other short-term blocks on this range, but the troublesome editor had repeatedly come back. The block, for two weeks, was a compromise between the need to prevent that person form editing, which would have required a much longer block, and the need to let other users edit, which would have required no block. Administrators are always reluctant to impose a block on editing on a range of IP addresses because of the collateral damage on innocent editors, but sometimes there is no reasonable alternative. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Darleen Gruben. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

HAPPY TENTH!


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Perseus, Son  of Zeus  has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 19:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC) -- Perseus, Son   of Zeus  19:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

why would you delete Revit Dazio page
There was a "HOLD ON" tag on the page. Content was being added to show significance. What are you doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevitDazio (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The only claims to significance were that he is making an "upcoming" digital short series and has 2 patents pending, which is to say that article did not suggest that he has yet achieved anything, only that he may do so in the future. I therefore agreed with the editor who had suggested there was no plausible claim of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy delete
Are you sure that a page at | Ammo (RPD machine gun) has existed under this title since 27 February 2004? I think the page title was freshly created by this move by a newish user this year. Happy to be proved wrong, I find the display of edit history leaves a lot to be desired. Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was mistaken. Thanks. I will delete it. I agree that the display of edit history leaves a lot to be desired. When a page has been moved around it can sometimes take quite a bit of searching around to see what has happened, and although I had spent some time checking the edit history I missed that one. It would be so much better if there was some easy way of seeing the name by which the page was known at the time of a particular edit, or at least the name under which the page was first created. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New Article For Perfect Wellness
Hello James

I am writing an informative article for the Perfect Wellness (Which I found you previously deleted), It is a Healthcare company based in India and specializes in Eye, dental, optical and physiotherapy services.

Can you please tell me why it was deleted and what I should be taken care of so that it remain on Wikipedia,

Although I have read all the guidelines of article publishing on Wikipedia

Thanks and Regards Rajesh Kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk1708 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As you will have seen if you have read the deletion log entry (which I assume is how you found that I deleted the article), it was deleted because it was unambiguous advertising. Here is one sentence to give you the idea: "The Eye Care hospital of Perfect Wellness in Faridabad has built up a formidable reputation over the years". The whole article was written in that tone. Before deciding whether or not to write an article on the subject you should determine whether or not it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If it doesn't then writing an article on it is likely to be a waste of time, as it will probably be deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You James for the information but this time I write just an informative article about perfect wellness but It was also deleted because it was not meeting the Guidlines in CSD A7 which does not allow to write an article about a company or individual (Only just the information) but I found there are some articles about the companies or the individuals on Wikipedia, can you please explain why these exists or simply how I can have perfect wellness back on Wikipedia

Thank You Rajesh Kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk1708 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion criterion A7 does not say that you can't write an article an article about a company or individual, only that you can't write an article an article about a company or individual without any indication of importance or significance. Apart from the general notability guideline, to which you have already been given links, Notability (organizations and companies) and Identifying reliable sources indicate what is required. FAQ/Organizations is also very useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User tagging pages for deletion
Hi James, it looks like this ip is delete-tagging the pages he created himself. See this SPI case which strongly suggests that he is a new IP-sock. DVdm (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. In fact when this message came I had just finished investigating this IP and decided it was a sockpuppet. I was about to block it when I saw the "You have new messages" notice announcing the arrival of your message. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. When I noticed your message at his talk page, I was wondering whether you were talking to me or to Ryan, and I also wondered whether you didn't forget a word in the sentence "..should be deleted has been discussed at length and consensus is that they should." Shouldn't there be a "not" at the end? I would assume that articles created by a banned user should not - in general - be deleted, but I could be mistaken. Can you point me to some relevant talk on some policy page? I'd be interested to read to pros and cons on this. Cheers and TIA. - DVdm (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know quite what the user was up to. They have been tagging some of their own creations for deletions, and removing similar tags from others of their creations put there by other people. They have also argued on talk pages (in very illiterate English) that being created by a banned user is not a reason for deletion, despite also using exactly that reason for tagging for deletion. It looks to me like disruption to make some sort of point, though I don't know what that point is.
 * Policy is certainly that a page created by a banned or blocked user in violation of their ban or block should be deleted, as you can see at Criteria for speedy deletion. Originally this applied only to banned users, but some time ago there was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion as to whether it should apply also to blocked users, and the end result was consensus that it should be. No doubt the discussion is somewhere in the archives of that talk page. I have also seen more than one discussion on the earlier version of this policy, applying only to banned users, but unfortunately I don't remember where they took place. If I find any of them I will let you know. I think every time the issue is debated the point is brought up that if a perfectly good article has been written by a user who was avoiding a ban then it is a loss to Wikipedia to delete that article, and that who wrote it is irrelevant to the value of the article. However, counter-arguments are brought up, which invariably gain consensus at the end of the discussion. I think the essential idea is that if we didn't have that policy then banning would be meaningless, as the user could simply ignore the ban, coming back with sockpuppet accounts, and make exactly the same edits as they would if they weren't banned. If, on the other hand, they find that their edits simply disappear, there is some degree of disincentive. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the point and it makes perfect sense. Of course I can imagine that an article, created by a (later) banned user, and that was extensively edited, modified and built upon by other—legitimate—users, is sometimes re-created, perhaps with a new name. Interesting. Anyway, don't bother to look for these discussions anymore - I can perfectly imagine the pros and cons now. Cheers and thanks for your comments! - DVdm (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From that comment you probably don't care, but in the interests of accuracy now I think about it I'm not sure that the discussion I mentioned was at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, it may have been at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy or Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Young Riot Page
Hi!

I'm wondering how I can improve the notability of the Young Riot page that was deleted. Can you help me out? I don't have a copy of the original page unfortunately.

Thanks! -Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicindustry101 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 18 January 2011


 * User:Musicindustry101/Young Riot is a copy of the article, with scarcely any difference between that version and the final version of the article before deletion. How you can "improve the notability of the page" is really the wrong question. The question is whether the subject of the page is already notable. If it isn't then no amount of rewriting an article can turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. As for what sort of evidence is required to establish notability, the most relevant guidelines are probably Notability and Notability (music). You should also take a look at Identifying reliable sources, and Notability (people)Identifying reliable sources is also of some relevance. (Sorry there are so many of these guidelines: in my opinion Wikipedia would be better if we simplified things by cutting out about 80% of them.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

unblock purgatory: User talk:General Hindsight
Unblock was placed on hold by you over a month ago. An up or down answer seems in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I put the unblock on hold and waited for a response from the blocking admin, which never came, and eventually it was just forgotten. I have no unblocked, and will make sure in future i create a link back to any unblocks i place on hold so they don't get forgotten. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Chimpanzee
Hadn't thought about removing that from the edit history, great idea, thanks! --Crusio (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your willingness to look through what had become a pretty convoluted issue. I also appreciate having another chance. Thanks for believing in me. Peacewashlove (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hammarplast
I made the db-hoax assumption off of the claim "last day. the owner, ceo , and financil director of starbucks Howard Schultz worked there . nowadays people think that hammarsplast is changed to starbucks but they are wrong." Wasn't really based on the verifiability of the subject.--v/r - TP 20:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's an appallingly badly written article, and needs to be either completely rewritten or deleted. Some of what it says is unverifiable and perhaps wrong (e.g. "nowadays people think..." What people think it? Where is the evidence?). However, there is a basic layer of true facts, so I think it is just very badly written (probably by a child) rather than being deliberately lies, so I do not think it can be regarded as a hoax. As the article stands it qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but I am not 100% happy about deleting it on those grounds as I think evidence of notability may perhaps be out there somewhere. If you choose to tag it for A7 I will neither delete it nor decline the nomination, as I am borderline, so it will be up to another admin. Alternatively if you would like to PROD the article I will certainly not contest it, unless of course someone comes along and dramatically improves the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's alright, if it's borderline then I tend to leave on the inclusionist side (scary for a CSD tagger to say) so I'll leave it alone. It'll either improve or be discovered and deleted another day.  I just wanted to explain why I tagged it.--v/r - TP 20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:85.12.88.17
Re. your saying previously, repeatedly explained to you wastes people's time (whether in unblock requests, "helpme" requests, or otherwise). Your talk page access will be revoked if you do it again. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC) - see - it might be time for that now. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 12:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Done. Thanks for pointing this out. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Deletion of Cardiovascular Credentialing International
Dear JamesBWatson,

I see that a page I created a while back (Cardiovascular Credentialing International) was deleted and I would like to have it reinstated as I am not only about to add new information, but I am also seeing more and more Wikipedia pages referencing Cardiovascular Credentialing International (CCI).

What is the process of getting this page reinstated?

Best wishes,

RalGuy22 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Aaron White Executive Director CCI


 * 1) If you created the article can you explain why you are now editing from a different account? Also, please declare exactly what other accounts you have used. Unfortunately if you don't there is a likelihood that people will suspect that you are using another account for dishonest purposes, so a full disclosure is in your own interests.
 * 2) Since you created the article the first time, you will be aware that the reason given for deletion ("Article that has no meaningful, substantive content") was perfectly valid, and since you are aware how little content it had I wonder what purpose you think would be served by restoring it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response back. As for your 1st question. It was a few years ago that I made the CCI page, but I could not for the life of me this morning remember what username or password I had. I don't even know if I am doing this reply correctly as this is my first time using the "talk" feature. As for the validity of the deletion, I don't dispute that. You are correct that the amount of information was small, but I do want to update the page with additional information and we are integrating the Wikipedia page into our new communication plan. Thanks, Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalGuy22 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In answer to "I don't even know if I am doing this reply correctly as this is my first time using the talk feature", yes you are doing fine. There are just two small points that may be useful to you: (1) You should end any message you write on a talk page with four tildes (i.e. ~ ). This will be automatically replaced by a signature, which shows who wrote it, and also gives a link to your talk page, which is very useful if anyone wants to get back to you. (2) The usual convention is that if your message is a response to another one, then you put a colon at the start of the line. This is displayed as an indentation of your comment. A response to that indented message is started with two colons, and indented further. This is not important in a brief exchange of two or three messages, but it can be very useful in keeping track of things if and when you ever find yourself participating in longer discussions.


 * If it was a few years ago that you created the article then it must have been under some other title than "Cardiovascular Credentialing International", as that was created just over 3 months ago. The full and complete text of the article was "your cardio is very,very important", so perhaps you can see why I wrote "I wonder what purpose you think would be served by restoring it". If you can remember what title you used for your article then it will be possible to check whether it has been deleted, and if so what it originally contained. Also, if you had seen the other edits of the editor who created that article you would realise why I was perhaps a little curt in my earlier comment.


 * I think I have covered what needs to be said in answer to your query, but I think it only fair to also give you a warning which may save you a lot of wasted time and work. Since you work for the company, you will have a distinct conflict of interest in writing about it. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages writing about your own company, and FAQ/Organizations is worth looking at. In addition, your reference to "integrating the Wikipedia page into our new communication plan" suggests that your intention is to use the Wikipedia article as promotion for your company, which is against Wikipedia's policy, and any article which appears to be written for promotion is likely to be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I wonder if it is possible whatever was posted 3 months ago overwrote what I had done years ago? If so, I assume it is long gone.

We are not planning to use Wikipedia as a promotion for CCI, but want to allow the general public to have access to information and history of the organization. For instance, a patient has an echocardiogram done and notices a CCI certificate on the wall. They then want to learn more about this credential their physician or sonographer has earned to see how it relates to their care. Is this acceptable? I see a number of other not-for-profit, independent, credentialing agencies (in related fields) have a wikipedia definition. Thanks, this has been very helpful. RalGuy22 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On the question of whatever was posted 3 months ago overwrote what you had done years ago, the answer is that there is always a record of what went before. I have known cases where several articles with the same title have successfully been created and deleted one after another over the course of several years, and it is still possible for anyone to see the deletion log showing this has happened, and for administrators to look deeper and see the details of the different creations. In this case the record shows only one page of this title has ever existed. I am confident you must have created it under a different title. I have checked a few obvious possibilities, such as Cardiovascular Credentialing and Cardiovascular credentialing international (without capitals) but not found it. As for your other question, there is nothing wrong in principal with writing an article such as you suggest, though I personally would not encourage you to do so because of the conflict of interest issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal again...
The Indonesian misinformation vandal has reared his ugly head again. The address he used this time is and he seems to have now infiltrated Pokemon territory. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: The address is part of the 114.79.0.0/21 range. The block on the said range just expired yesterday. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked again. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Velella
I don't know if that user is able to post on your talk, but says the block remains in effect. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am now unblocked again - and thanks for your efforts in restoring normality. These things happen in the best run systems. Could I ask a favour? I would prefer that the record of this was neither in the logs nor on my talk page. I can do a simple delete but the record will remain in the history. Do you have any magic buttons as an admin to "Disappear" the recent history ? Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk 12:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes please (and thanks!)  Velella  Velella Talk 12:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Move request
Hi James. I wonder if I could prevail on you to  do a move request close as an uninvolved party at Talk:Petroc College. It's been up for  7 days, and I  think  a consensus has been reached. How you close it is up  to  you. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Renamed user 1499
WP:DONTBITE! I should have benefited from WP:AGF, as well. With respect to the entry that I've desisted from (in other words, I have no intention of reposting), it was notable (based on Wall Street Journal references) and contained basic information. Did you really need to WP:Block me indefinitely for trying (in good faith) to relaunch it? Swim900 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Assume good faith" is a misnomer: it really means "presume good faith", i.e. assume good faith until there is evidence to the contrary. You had received three warnings,(not from me) and had continued to make spam edits, ignoring those warnings until you were blocked. When the article you created was deleted you recreated it under a different title. I am perfectly willing to believe that the first creation was done in good faith, under the common misapprehension that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can edit Wikipedia in any way they like, including using it as a free advertising service". Although this view is mistaken, I am well aware that large numbers of people sincerely believe that it is Wikipedia's policy, and I fully accept that editors frequently come here in all good faith to advertise or promote their business, charity, garage band, self, etc etc, with no intention of doing anything wrong. However, to believe that you were still suffering from that misunderstanding after you had been informed that advertising was not acceptable and the article you created had been deleted requires assuming more than just good faith. It was perfectly clear that your only purpose on Wikipedia was promotion of your company. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My article was QP:SD before I even knew what that meant, much less how to respond or appeal that. Furthermore, the loophole in WP:A7 seemed to fit my article precisely (regarding WP:Notability) so I made significant effort to establish WP:Notability during one of my later edits; because of that loophole I struggled to accept what seemed capricious. I wasn't aware either that you could delete and then protect from creation a page. Though written from an inappropriate perspective (WP:Conflict_of_interest) my website was one of the few advertisements that falls under WP:Notable. Swim900 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I am genuinely sorry that you feel you have been wrongly treated. It seemed to me that your only purpose was promotion, and that you were ignoring warnings, but it is evident from what you say that that was not the way you perceived it. You are back now, with a new account, and I hope things go more smoothly for you in the future. Please do feel welcome to come here to ask for advice or help in the future. I do know that Wikipedia can be perplexing and intimidating for newcomers (yes, I really do, because that's how I found it when I first came here), and although I have unfortuantely contributed to a bad early experience for you, I am willing to do what I can to help you have a better experience from now on. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

fire accident deletion
hai Mr.Watson,

This is Sandeep. I have posted an article on fire accident. But it has been deleted. Can i know d reason please?

Regards, sandeep Sand.chinni (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The page did not appear to be written as an encyclopaedia article, which led Timneu22 to view it as a test page, and to request speedy deletion. In addition, the content of the article was a direct copy of an article from the Deccan Chronicle, making it a copyright infringement. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Warwick Investment Forum
Hello, having read the Wikipedia guidelines I cannot understand why the WIF page was deleted. Please may you allow me to repost it as there is no intention to break or bend any wikipedia rules in doing so.

Sincerely, Srijan Katyal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srijkatyal (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you sincerely could not see that the article was written in purely promotional terms then I can only assume that you are so closely involved with the subject that you are unable to stand back and see it from the detached viewpoint of an outsider. This is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing by anyone with a personal involvement in a subject. To illustrate teh matter, here are two sentences from the article: "The Warwick Investment Forum was birthed out of a strong desire to facilitate interaction and the sharing of ideas, right in the middle of the Great Credit Crisis. Our aim is to establish an internationally recognised first-class forum on current issues within the investment and financial sector."


 * The whole article was written entirely in such terms. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hello, I am peter Albrecht von Preussen and I saw that you were so kind and corrected some entries. I would like to know if you could help me to setup the missing pages for my father, Grandfather and myself for correct chronologie. I have to contact my parents to get the name of my fathers mother as she passed away in 1939. Thank you1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peamm2009 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know exactly what help you want, but you are welcome to let me know, and I will consider whether I think I can help. You should have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline before doing any more editing relating to your own family. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied on Darleen Gruben's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Hopkins
I saw that my article about my god Peter Hopkins, whom we all worship where I come from,had been deleted and I wondered why because It was in no way finished and I you had allowed me to continue working on it then you would have seen how significant this person  is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiedwi (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it that is supposed to be a joke. Try using Facebook or MySpace. Wikipedia is not for this sort of thing. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Thank you for your feedback. I read the guidlines on conflict of interesst and I can assure you that I have only one goal and that is the unbiased family history. My question for you was on how I can create my own page under these guidlines and how pages for my grandfather and father could be created. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peamm2009 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

request for a new page..
hello sir i was trying to create a page for my school anglo arabic sr. sec. school n that page was deleted i m new on wikipedia can u please tell me how to make a valid page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.abdullahali (talk • contribs) 06:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Md.abdullahali JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Message from Universalstonecutter
This not spam -

please follow the rules for Quit deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Universalstonecutter

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page So Goes My Love do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This statement is false -Quaity article require external links and reference your have violate the base rules of wiki you must permit edits  follow deletion rules I have been on this website for many years The five pillars of Wikipedia please reread the late two about ownership of a page auto delection is not fair to menmbers - you should discuss statements which are incorrect

Dennis Dickens universalstoinecutter2002@yahoo.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalstonecutter (talk • contribs) 11:45, 25 January 2011


 * Thank you for that message. There are, unfortunately, many parts of it which I don't understand, but your main point seems to be that some links which you added to So Goes My Love were valid and should not have been removed. I have restored the links in question. It does help to give an edit summary to indicate the nature of your edit, especially when you are adding links to sites such as flickr, as such links are very often unconstructive, and with no explanation of the edit it can be very difficult to see what is going on. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Dickens please read the external links they contain research materials and references to the books and website that have published my research photo links can validate the facts i placed on IMDB Triva etc universalstoinecutter2002@yahoo.com http://picasaweb.google.com/home http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalstonecutter/ www.theatrecrafts.com/studiotourforum/viewtopic.php?p=572 http://www.thestudiotour.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=247 http://www.thestudiotour.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=719 http://www.thestudiotour.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=643&view=previous http://www.thestudiotour.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=959


 * 1) I am removing the duplicate copy of material from your last post here. Please don't duplicate posts, as it makes this page difficult to follow.
 * 2) I don't understand the relevance of the links you give here at all. Perhaps you would like to clarify your point. However, since, a I mentioned above, I have already restored the links to the article, I am not sure what further point could be relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Joe Day (footballer)
Hello. You recently deleted the page Joe Day (footballer) because its PROD has expired. While the prod was ongoing, I noticed that the article had been created at its creator's user talk page User talk:MadDogRDFC, and moved to mainspace from there, so the history of that user talk had moved with it to the history of Joe Day (footballer). I left an explanatory note for the reviewing admin on the prod notice, to ask them that when they dealt with the prod, please to make sure the talk page history got back where it belonged. Obviously now the article's gone, I can't link to a diff, but did you not spot the note? or had someone removed it without me noticing? Anyway, assuming it's possible, please could you or someone retrieve the user's talk page history from the deleted article history. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for pointing this out. Your explanatory note had been removed by another editor. I have now restored the legitimate talk page history. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Editorial assistance
I see that you are listed on the page for editorial assistance. [Here] is the most recent edit if you can take a look at a two-editor dispute. After six weeks, the sum of the other editor's edits seems to me to have only the goal of ignoring dispute resolution. Thanks, RB 66.217.118.152 (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I decided to look into this, despite having little time now to spend on Wikipedia. I found it a tortuous and time consuming task, with need to keep following links from one conversation in one place to another elsewhere in order to try to find out what the whole issue was about. It would have helped had you provided more information.
 * You have been continually posting about an issue concerning Johnuniq over a period of nearly a month and a half. As far as it is possible to make out the initial cause of this was a brief comment from Johnuniq on 14 December 2010 on an article talk page, pointing out that some comments there did not seem to be concerned with a proposal fro improving the article (which is the purpose of an article's talk page). Johnuniq has very patiently tried to respond to your continuing posts, despite having considerable difficulty understanding what you have been saying. Johnuniq has time and time again asked for clarification, as often it is difficult or impossible to determine what your point is: you clearly have some sort of difficulty in communicating, and I too have found your points extremely difficult to follow. You have raised the issue at Wikiquette alerts. (Discussion preserved here.) In that discussion another editor wrote "If three editors tell you here that they don't understand what point you are making, it should be a good indicator to you that the point you are making is not clear." You do not seem to have grasped that point,a s you have come to me without making any effort to clarify your meaning.
 * My conclusions are as follows:


 * 1) It seems that the whole thing is a reaction to one brief and perfectly innocuous talk page post about six weeks ago. While it is not entirely clear what it is you are objecting to, it does seem that continuing this battle for so long is a gross over-reaction to a minor incident.
 * 2) Very often the best method of dispute resolution is to realise that the issue at stake is not worth more of your time and trouble, and to simply leave it. That must surely be so in this case, after such a long time. You have come to me to ask for help with dispute resolution, and that is my advice. If you are willing to take that advice then no more needs to be said on the issue, and the rest of my comments after here are irrelevant.
 * 3) If you are not willing to take that advice then I have to tell you that your persistence with this issue has become harassment, even if you sincerely do not intend it that way. I note the following comment made by CliffC in the Witiquette alert discussion: "John has shown great patience and forbearance in responding to them in the face of the IP's refusal, or inability, to explain just exactly what he wants. I have considered advising John to just delete such messages as they appear, rather than waste time responding to them, but that might create even more distractions like this one".
 * 4) Your continual posts on this were described in the Witiquette alert discussion as "disruptive", and I fully agree.
 * 5) Johnuniq has been far more patient than most editors would have been under the circumstances, but there is no reason why he should be subjected to more of this harassment. As far back as 28 December 2010 he wrote "I think we are nearing the end of our discussion."
 * 6) Several editors responded to your Witiquette alert, and you received no support from any of them. Instead of accepting that consensus is against you, you have decided to forum shop by coming to me. I concur with the views expressed by all the editors apart from you at that discussion. Your further step in seeking support has therefore resulted in an even greater consensus against you.
 * 7) Please drop this issue, and leave Johnuniq alone. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Welcome
Dear JBW

Thank you for your welcome. It is appreciated as I am new to this. Possibly, like yourself, I will get sucked in to spending too much time editing and will welcome your guidance in amends that I make/would like to make. There are many minor and some major errors and incorrect or misinformed pieces of information on the encyclopedia. I use Wikipedia daily. I think it a wonderful resource and would like to do my bit to improve it for all.

Regards

Mythbuster121 Mythbuster121 (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

20:03, 24 September 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "TMNT Robots" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: WP:OR)
Hello,

My name is John, and I am an aspiring designer for a comic book based table top game, and was wondering if there was any way that this page could be undeleted or replaced. It would be a great help in gathering information expediently, as well as do a great service to the comic book enthusiast and nerd community. Information on the subject is relatively easy to find, though not with proper citations and bibliographies included. If need be I am more than willing to contribute to an edited or entirely new page, but am new to using Wikipedia to this extent and require assistance.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallMeMOTO (talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Help on Survivor: Redemption Island
I don't know if Survivor is your cup of tea, but I need on a certain user and his edits on the article I mentioned. He was already warned about adding unsourced info into said article, but he seems to reinstate his edits. His latest now has a source, but I don't think it's reliable (and it's in the External Links section as well). Can you help on this guy. BTW, I gave him a level 3 warning, but afterwards, he "reverted" my revert after that. But I don't want to 3RR on the guy. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

James Kealing
This is a fake article by a prolific sockpuppeteer: please see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jake_Picasso. Thanks, Borkificator (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar and cookie
Wayne Slam has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

 Wayne  Slam  20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User: Mysticbumwipe
Hi James. Last October you unblocked an editor because he changed his name from the unacceptable "Mysticbumwipe" to the more acceptable "Mystichumwipe". He appears to be editing again under his original name. Jayjg (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me. I have blocked Mysticbumwipe indefinitely and Mystichumwipe for a month. This was a ridiculously blatant piece of sockpuppetry during an edit war, apart from the username issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's within reason to assume that it was an accident, since he's said before he uses the other name outside Wikipedia. I'll reserve comment about the edit warring until I've looked into it more deeply.  —  Soap  —  12:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have indicated on the user's talk page, I am not entirely happy with what they have done, but the use of the Mystic b umwipe account was probably accidental, and I have decided to unblock Mystic h umwip. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi James. That's fine. There wasn't actually any active edit-war, so he probably wasn't intentionally socking. Thanks for looking into it. Jayjg (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)