User talk:JBW/Archive 26

Warning
You gave me a warning on mardi gras. All I did was proper formatting. Numbers under 20 are supposed to spelled out, and that is what I did — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronfezdeath (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There must be some mistake. The only message I have ever sent you concerning anything called "Mardi Gras" was this one, in which you removed the word "Vocals". It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers, whether spelled out or otherwise. Nor has teh one other message I have sent you, about The Astronaut Farmer. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Executive Education
ElKevbo, Several colleagues at various universities have been looking at the Wiki-Executive Education site with concern that it wasn’t doing full justice to the category. We felt that it didn’t fully capture the history, the relationship between companies and providers, and the strategic business value the category provides. It also concerned us that it mentioned a few US providers, but overlooked a sizeable group of top tier providers throughout the world. So we started working on a description that we wanted to be more complete, balanced and accurate. Once we had something we thought met that goal, we posted it. Obviously, we’ve made a rookie mistake regarding the Wiki process; our apologies to all. We didn’t know about the “talk page.” Annjeffrey Annjeffrey (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this. It clearly refers to the article Executive Education, but I have never edited that article, nor communicated with you, as far as I can see. Have you perhaps sent this message to the wrong person? If not then perhaps you can clarify it for me. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Blood on the Dance Floor

 * Replied on Ylightflight's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting for granting reviewer rights
SIR, I have requested for reviewer rights in  Requests for permissions/Reviewer 2 days ago but I got no response. Please see my request in that page. Since you are an administrator I am hoping that you will consider  my request. Reply soon.Thanks very much.

Suri 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suri 100 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded at Requests for permissions/Reviewer in this edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From Dane Youssef
All right, so be it. If this is the way you all have it, so be it. But you should know, it's been said many times that Rod Serling's teleplays on "The Night Gallery" WERE butchered--usually by him. He was known as television's "angry young man" for a reason. So much of what he did was "raped by the censors"---once again, an opinion--HIS. So... there you are. You want less, I'll do less. I'll do it real small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANE YOUSSEF (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * None of that addresses the issue, which was that no sources were cited. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

please help
plesae help me you recently deleted an article of mine oscara and i came back with more information and now it is being deleated by an unnamed user please fix this if you see fit oscarh51 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarh51 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. (Also comment on your talk page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking after blocks
I have recently discovered that you felt the need to impose a temporary block on editing for the entirety of Potsmouth University, other than those of us fortunate to already have accounts hidden away somewhere, that is. Following recent advice, I wanted to ask, just to satisfy my curiosity, what is was that made you feel what seems to me a rather extreme action was necessary. Though it seems you are very busy now, I would be grateful if you could spare a moment to explain this. HS7 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably this relates to a block on an IP address. If you let me know what IP address it was I will let you know why I blocked it. However, what you call "a rather extreme action" is actually very common, as huge amounts of vandalism comes from school, college, and university IPs, sometimes with hundreds of vandalism edits without a constructive edit among them. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The block is this one. It's a bit concerning if you don't remember blocking an entire tertiary institution yesterday. Perhaps semi-protection would have been a better option for that page? It was just one userpage, right? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving me the exact block. Yes, I remember it, but I needed the right cue to direct my memory to it. Someone had been making grossly offensive edits to a user page from a number of IPs in the range, and, from my point of view, it seemed entirely plausible that they would just jump to other IPs if tehy were individually blocked. Yes, on reflection I agree that semiprotection would have been better. I am generally reluctant to semiprotect a page, as it keeps out legitimate users In a case where there had been no constructive edits from the range over the time scale in question (as in this one) a fairly short range block often seems to me to be likely to cause less collateral damage. However, what I perhaps did not think through was that in this case it was a user page, and there was unlikely to be any legitimate reason for anonymous editors to edit it at all, so that semiprotection would have been perfectly acceptable. I am grateful to both of you for drawing my attention to this. I have unblocked, and will watch out for similar situations in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Aaahh!!! Real Monsters
Hi, JamesBWatson. I wanted to alert you that re: the back-and-forth reverting at Aaahh!!! Real Monsters by User:Active Banana and User:Kelzorro that another editor, myself, independently agrees with the Active Banana version, and that Kelzorro is now claiming that any changes to his version is vandalism. It appears to me that Kelzorro is not respecting consensus, and is exhibiting WP:OWN. As you have helped here to try and prevent edit warring, I thought you might want to be aware of this latest development. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are absolutely right. It is because there was consensus on your/Active Banana side that I blocked Kelzorro, but only gave Active Banana a fairly mild warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your response from my request in granting of reviewer rights
Thank you for responding. I shall reapply later after few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suri 100 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine page
Dear JamesBWatson,

A number of concerned professionals have been attempting to remove some offensive material from the Traditional Chinese Medicine page. One is a picture that falsely connects the TCM use of animal products with the notorious story of "Snake Oil" salesmen in the west. The Snake Oil phenomenon is not related to TCM, and snake products are rarely used in current practice.

Another picture depicts a woman in a frilly dress performing moxibustion on a man's belly while lying on a bed in a bedroom with a candle and a bottle of wine or something. It is ridiculous!

The text also contains many inaccuracies. You have reverted my edits, which while not "constructive" are an attempt to remove clearly destructive content. Can you please direct me to someone I can file a complaint with? This page has material that is clearly intended to smear a profession, not to provide unbiased information.

Thank you, Brendan Mattson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.mattson (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read the message I posted to your talk page you will see it says "Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Traditional Chinese medicine with your recent edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary." You have now given explanations of what you were doing, and I understand. If you simply remove material, without saying why, it looks very much like vandalism, but once you gave explanations I understood what you were doing. As for "filing a complaint", it will be easier to help you if you indicate what you want to complain about. If you want to complain about the editors whose edits you reverted then the first port of call should be their talk pages. If you wish to complain about my undoing your edits, then you have explained to me, and I have answered. If there is still an outstanding problem then please let me know, and I will do what I can to help. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. I understand the process better now. Any edits I make will have a rationale and/or references included. Brendan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.mattson (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The advert by User:71.131.180.27 here and here was rapidly followed by a series of <3R edits by new single edit editors, all similar in focus. Deletion of RS content Acupuncture images, flying squirrel feces, human placenta, ass hide glue pellet, and snake oil image and content: By User:Mubong here and here. By User: Sschram deleting eating “raw” flying squirrel feces here. By User: Meirish here. By User: 71.34.98.149 here. By User: Huangqi01 here. By User: Petalumana here, here. By User: Brendan.mattson here, here, here, and  here. By User: 76.102.5.245 here, and here, and here. By 76.178.243.228 here. By Tgarran here.

The editors seem to only have a couple of edits each, and are coordinating deletions of RS content that they think makes their profession look bad (if they are not the same person). The main objection is that RS content make their profession look bad, and they want their own view of the profession in the article, not one supported by the RS. For example, the image of a standard TCM acupuncture-moxibustion clinic in the west has what these Chinese medical practitioners have determined to be unprofessional dress by the woman doctor, who is immodest by Chinese standards. One of them objects to the National Geographic article on the prevalent use of tiger's penis because it was banned in China, but Nat Geo says the problem still exists. WP is not a place for opinions, just MEDRS and RS based NPOV assertions. PPdd (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Tiger penis use is a cultural problem in Asia, and just because the nature of animal products are described in TCM literature does not mean that tiger penis use is common in the contemporary professional practice of TCM. That would be akin to saying that ice-pick lobotomies performed in vans are a common intervention in psychiatry. You are right, this is not a place for opinions. As such it is inappropriate for you to place the word medical in quotation marks, implying that TCM is not medicine (in Washington state the word medicine is part of the legal name of the profession). It is also opinion to suggest that the logic behind TCM stems from "hazy recollections" of metaphysical ideas. It is also disingenuous of you to assert that the photo in question represents a "standard TCM acupuncture-moxibustion clinic in the west". It does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.mattson (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 March 2011

I am under the impression that several editors attempting to correct the inaccuracies on the TCM page are being bullied and their voices suppressed by PPdd. The intent of my edits has been willfully misinterpreted on several occasions and my objection to an uncharacteristic depiction of TCM practice has been derided as culturally and sexually chauvinistic by PPdd. I would like to know - is there any serious authority figure at wikipedia or this a club of people who know how to win at a game? Honestly, this seems like a game to me rather than an honest attempt to present consensus information on a subject. So far I have seen evidence of multiple people attempting similar edits to my own, but the offending image keeps coming back and I have been threatened by PPdd with having my right to edit revoked. I understand now that it may be "easier" to add referenced information into the page, but there must be some recourse to having biased and inflammatory images and language removed as well. As a newcomer to the wiki process I am very disappointed and I get the impression that PPdd has "ownership" in some way of this page, and that does not seem to be in keeping with the mission of wikipedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I have pasted the dialogue between PPdd and myself below:

I take offense at your comments. Did I ever say anything about the skin being "alluring"? No, you are seeking to insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting that complaints about the misrepresentative nature of the photo are based on "personal reasons". My reason is neither personal nor irrelevant. (unsigned by Brendan.mattson

I believe the words in the edit summary were "wearing seductive, unprofessional clothing". Not liking what professional women wear in cultures other than your own wear is not a basis for deleting content. Please stop edit warring. You will be blocked from Wikipedia if you continue to vandalize articles. You have made more than 3 reverts. See section below. PPdd (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I stated that she appeared to be wearing a prom dress, and that did not represent common work clothes for a TCM practitioner. Imagine if the page on dentistry showed someone doing dental surgery while wearing nothing but a chainmail vest. Do you think it would be unjustified to call that misrepresentative of common practice? Also, I find it disturbing that other editor's good-faith efforts to correct inaccuracies in this article are being dismissed as vandalism. Why? Because your assessment is superior? The continual inclusion of the snake oil poster that has nothing to do with TCM seems slanderous to me. Is slander something you and wikipedia seek to promote? Brendan

One of your edting group that you referred to said "seductive". In any case, TCM is widely practiced in the new age culture, and we do not allow tradtional values for women's dress to be used to censor photos. If you have photos of women in white lab coats who are not treating bare chested men, please add them. The snake oil content, historic and current, was widely discussed and well sourced by Wiki standards. It is not slander for an encyclopedia to use reliable sources for reporting content. Your opinion does not outweigh Wikipedia policy on sourcing. You violated teh 3RR rule on deleting content, then violated it again twice after you were warned. Please stop deleting content or you will be blocked from editing at all. PPdd (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please cite where the "snake oil content, historic and current, was widely discussed and well sourced by Wiki standards". "Snake Oil" is not commonly prescribed in the United States by TCM practitioners (please see the standard textbook "Formulas and Strategies" by Bensky et al for a reliable reference). A product derived from snake bile is occasionally used for certain lung conditions, but it is neither referred to as "Snake Oil" nor, more importantly, is it associated in any way with the snake oil poster repeatedly posted into the TCM page. It is completely indefensible to include a Clark Stanley snake oil poster in a page that has absolutely nothing to do with that product or the questionable western phenomenon associated with "snake oil". Moreover, you have made accusations about my posts using the terms "alluring" and "seductive" which are terms that I have never used in the notes to my edits. Please be more accurate. I have repeatedly referred to the photo in question as a misrepresentation of contemporary practice. Your complaint about my posts seems to show frustration with the posts of other people, of which I am unfortunately unaware. I am not part of an "editing group" but I am aware that there are others who are shocked at the defamation of TCM presented on wikipedia right now. It seems clear to me that there is consensus that these images are inappropriate, and that you are choosing to ignore and suppress the good-faith effort of other editors. If wikipedia is in fact a tool to present consensus, it seems that you are either obstructing that mission or the mission itself is a failure. It is completely indefensible to threaten concerned citizens attempting to correct inaccuracies and label them "vandals". I will encourage the authorities at wikipedia to consider this a challenge to the credibility of the project. Brendan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.mattson (talk • contribs) 07:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully appreciate your concerns. However, at present I do not have time to get involved in this. You may like to look at WP:Dispute resolution and Editor assistance/Requests. If there is a significant amount of edit warring continuing after suitable warnings and attempts to discuss the matter, then a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring may be appropriate, but I have not studied the history of the dispute in detail, and do not know whether it has reached that stage. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

List Of Notable Trip Hop Artists - Deletion
I understand the 'list of notable trip hop artists' page was deleted because it was apparently created by a band / blocked user 'Dr. Zombieman'. However, it would still be a useful page to have, and the deletion of it means the entire compilation of artists featured on it, contributed to by a multitude of people, has now been removed. Is there any way to retrieve this information so I can remake the page, or will it have to be collated all over again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebuliser (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The material was substantially taken from the article [Trip hop]], and apart from a few details is still available here. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Rainer H Straub
You killed my homepage "Rainer H Straub". You proposed that it is a copyright problem. It can not be a copyright problem because I am Rainer H Straub. This is my personal material and I have the rights on these material. When you mentioned the homepage "http://www.biologie.uni-regensburg.de/RIGeL/Faculty/staff/StraubRainer.html" then you must now that I created the material for that homepage. Similarly, I created the homepage "http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/Medizin/Innere_1/aknei/rheumanet-rba/Straub.htm" where you find all the information on Rainer H. Straub. How can this be a copyright problem when you present your own material? Please give me the homepage back and instruct me how to improve it so that deletion is unnecessary. Can you communicate with me via my email address "rainer.straub@klinik.uni-regensburg.de" which also indicates that I am the wanted person because this email address can only be given to one Rainer H Straub in the University Hospital Regensburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldovai (talk • contribs) 04:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You've been advised to read Donating copyrighted materials. If you comply with this, you can use the material appropriately. That doesn't mean you can create your own autobiography however. I'll post more on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You will also see that copyright was not the only reason given in the log entry for the deletion. Personally I only rarely advise new users to go through the process of donating copyright, because it is almost always a waste of their time. Articles which are deleted for copyright reasons usually would have been deleted for other reasons, such as promotion, or, as in this case, lack of notability. Have a look at WP:Notability and WP:BIO. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Advait.ghaisas (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently deleted page-TechXetra
sir, on 3rd march, my published article TechXetra was deleted due to blatant publicity of some sponsors of the technical event- TechXetra. sir please kindly note the fact that i have lost all the writings i had and now it will be a great problem for me to compile all of them again. so was it possible for you to kindly undelete the article and put in my space again, so that i can edit it and make it appropriate for publishing it later on wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Git dev (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "sponsors" have anything to do with it. The article was blatantly promotional, using such language as "A stupendous blend of different events", "It is the fun-filled Kurukshetra (battlefield) of knowledge and intellect, encouraging the creative, the innovative and the genius in everybody’s mind", "The epic has its illustrious dawn in 2008", and "TechXetra rightly creates a common platform for the showcase of one's mettle by easily and efficiently reaching out to larger section of students", and so on and so on. Wikipedia's policy is that promotional material has no place anywhere, including in user pages. Nevertheless I will reluctantly userfy it at User:Git dev/Techxetra for now, but if it is not radically rewritten soon it will be deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you sir.,,so sir i will rewrite the article and make it appropriate for wikipedia ... but still this speedy deletion tag is showing above. can you remove it??? and also i had a doubt, after everything is ready and when one search for Techxetra in wikipedia, what page will show?? the new good page of techxetra or that deleted message?? Git dev (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you sir.,,so sir i will rewrite the article and make it appropriate for wikipedia ... but still this speedy deletion tag is showing above. can you remove it??? and also i had a doubt, after everything is ready and when one search for Techxetra in wikipedia, what page will show?? the new good page of techxetra or that deleted message??

Git dev (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

sir, these are extracts that i have forwarded for you,,so that you can look into it and say if still i am doing blatant advertising of the techxetra event. i did the radically edits you wanted me to do.sorry for creating inconvenience to you, but i dont want my techxetra page to get deleted again.

1. TechXetra is the National Level Annual Technical Festival of Tezpur University, India. TechXetra is a combination of two words- Tech and Xetra. ‘Tech’ refers to Technology and ‘Xetra’ meaning terrain. TechXetra symbolises the terrain filled with new technological trends and vistas. It is a common platform in North-East India to showcase knowledge and intellect, encouraging the innovative and the genius in everybody’s mind. A blend of different events, it has always been the hotspots for cultural events as well, where nationally renowned artists showcase themselves. TechXetra attracts enthusiasts from various parts of India. It is the one of the biggest University Events of North-East India and reaches out to both engineering and non-engineering students.[1]

2. TechXetra saw the light of the day on 17th October, 2008 and since then it had made a mark of its own. On its year of inception, public and sponsorship houses gave an able response. It got appreciable media coverage. In 2009,[4] it competed with the best by bringing in the resources necessary and innovative events. TechXetra’2010 [5] emerged out to be the one of the most technically sound events of the region. It had the perfect blend of science and technology coalesced with fun filled cultural events. There were thirty-five sponsors and massive media coverage. It witnessed nearly 6000 footfalls. TechXetra’2011 [6] is planned to be organised with 45 plus events including workshops conducted by prestigious firms, guest lectures of renowned personalities, high voltage debate competitions, quizzes with genius quizmasters in the national circuit, etc.

Git dev (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

sir please kindly look into User:Git dev/Techxetra []. i edited the article as much as i can and thought it best for wikipedia interest. you had previously deleted techxetra from wiki main page..so could you please kindly help you out and say if it is ok or not now...if ok then only i will publish it.

Git dev (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

sir the TechXetra page that i published on 5th march, after making the necessary edits to make it encyclopedic , is again showin db-g11 tagging. m very worried sir that inspite of my best efforts to keep it free of advertising or promotion, i am still not achieving a tag free article. please help sir., kindly bring the wrong statements to notice. i am ready to radically edit it again. the main purpose of the article is too give the reader a knowledge about the events and its history, which was done according to me in encyclopedic way.its worth mentioning that on 3rd may you deleted my earlier techxetra page owning to blatant advertising.i immediately edited it and now i am facing this. sir please remove the tag db-g11. and do not delete the page.eagerly waiting for your reply Git dev (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the time I saw this message the speedy deletion had already been declined. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

sir, can i display the sponsors subheading on the article. as we know this is also a information of the event only. and i am ready to give just the link to the sponsors web page in our offical website,,,and thus without citing the names of the companys in the wikipedia article. Git dev (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "display the sponsors subheading". If you mean can you put a section in the article mentioning the sponsors, then I see no reason why not, provided you provide suitable sources and do not do so in a way that looks like advertising or promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia addiction test
I have recently got 13994 score in Wikipediholism test. It is used to test whether you are addicted to Wikipedia or not if you are not sure.You can take this test if you want. Please see my userpage Suri 100 Suri 100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.58.237 (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen it, thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied on Graduate researcher's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrid Bryan deleted article
Hi James, I would like to create the Astrid Bryan article. It has been previous deleted. I would like to have your permission to recreate the article with more notable content. Vispondvijver88 (User talk:Vispondvijver88) 05:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because a discussion at Articles for deletion/Astrid Bryan came to the conclusion that there is no evidence that Astrid Bryan satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. It is not a question of having permission from me or anyone else to recreate the article. If you can find evidence that she satisfies those standards then the article can be recreated, if not then it can't. (Or at least, if it is then it will be deleted again.) Before considering whether to write an article on the subject you should determine whether she does satisfy them. If she doesn't then writing an article about her is likely to be a waste of time. Bear in mind that no amount of rewriting will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. The relevant guidelines are at WP:Notability, WP:BIO and WP:RS. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers of Wire
Hello JamesBWatson

I was not all sure about, why the Soldiers of Wire wiki was deleted. Is there any way I can use it for the purpose i was suppose to?

- Jespercallesen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespercallesen (talk • contribs) 10:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That depends on what the purpose was. The article gave too little context for its purpose to be clear. If the purpose was to promote a group then the answer is no. If the purpose was to use Wikipedia as a free web host to hold a page for the use of a group as its own web space then the answer is likewise no. From what very little information was given in the article, it seems very unlikely that the group satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, in which case there should not be an article about it. Furthermore, even if the is notable, the use of the word "we" in the article strongly suggests that you have a personal involvement in the group, in which case you are not the right person to be writing about it, as you have a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was suppose to type some info about a Steam Community Group called Soldiers of Wire and what it stands for, But I am not sure if it is legal.

-Jespercallesen —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

blp prod on Hamid Arzulu
When an article on a writer has counterparts in that language's WP and also in another major WP, it is not really a good idea to prod or BLP prod it without checking those articles, though I suppose it is technically justified if there appears to be no reference. BLPPROD is possibly useful, but the careless use of it to remove articles like this would be a reason to eliminate the process as excessively dangerous. I added back some of the material, & references, and that's lots more to translate and add also.  DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The author of the article (Hamid Arzulu) presumably knows about the subject, and could have reasonably easily added references. I am well aware that there is a school of thought that maintains that i such a case it is my duty to spend a lot of time searching to find relevant references, rather than informing the editor who is knowledgeable on the subject that there is a need for such references. However, I do not agree. Having a finite amount of time to spend on improving Wikipedia I make decisions as to how best to use that time, and my judgement in this case was that the same amount of time could more usefully be spent elsewhere. You made a different, and perfectly reasonable, choice as to how to spend your time. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of two non--overlapping schools of thought. For me, it depends on the perceived importance of the article and the expected ease of finding material and the apparent good faith. I no longer do as many of these as I used to.   DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Dunhill
Hello James, I am wondering if you might be able to help me with the Dunhill page. I find it needs to be completely changed to reflect who the man is, not to advertise some company. In my previous edits, I copied material from reliable sources. I plan to get permission to use the material from the owners if possible, since it's written out so well. I would like to be able to update the page without any issues, so if you have the time to oversee the changes, I would be grateful. Best --Jsderwin (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to be adopted if you are accepting adoptees :)--Jsderwin (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally I would have been happy to respond to both these requests, but unfortunately for personal reasons at present I have to drastically reduce my amount of activity on Wikipedia, so I'm afraid I am going to pass on them. Sorry about that. You may like to look at Adopt-a-user to try to find another adopter. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I need edit List of Hannah Montana episodes!
I need change the 4 season episode 6 total of viewers, it says "Wherever I Go" episode earned 6.2 million viewers, but real it earned a total of 6.89 (aprox. 6,90) million viewers according to TV By The Numbers in the "January is Disney Channel’s Most-Watched January Ever in Total Day" post, please unlock the page for edit that! --Juandy004 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have two comments to make in response to that. Firstly, the source you give a link to clearly says 6.2, and as far as I can make out does not mention the figure 6.89 anywhere. Secondly, you seem to have basic misunderstanding of decimal numbers, judging by other edits you have made. For example, an edit summary you gave appears to think that 5.072 rounds to 5.7 to 1 decimal place, whereas it in fact rounds to 5.1, and the same edit summary suggests a confusion between 5.7 and 5.07. I strongly suggest that you leave this kind of thing to editors with a better grasp of basic arithmetic. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Iamthelolrus
Hi, I reverted some vandalism by User:Iamthelolrus on the Konami page using Twinkle. When it came to giving him a warning on his talk page, I saw that it had a notice that you had previously deleted the page for vandalism. I added the warning as if it had been an empty page (after having read the notice). Because I had never encountered this situation before, I just want to make sure if that was the preferred way to proceed. -- Nczempin (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you did was fine. The vandalism was by another editor who has now been indefinitely blocked, and you can safely ignore it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I nuclear accidents
Hi, James

Need your opinion on what happened at Fukushima I nuclear accidents, article that was redirected after a less than an hour discussion. On Talk:Fukushima I nuclear accidents, Special:Contributions/Rememberway started a new section suggesting merging article into Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, then only less than an hour and a half later Special:Contributions/184.144.160.156 closed the discussion and User:Rememberway proceeded to redirect the entire Fukushima I nuclear accidents article to  Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. Users participating in the discussion after the closure oppose the redirect, but they were not given the time to participate in the ip-closed discussion. What should be done here? Reopen the discussion closed by the ip? --John KB (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted this same concern on User:Fram talk page and he seems to oppose reopening the discussion, even if the process wasn't the best. Thank you, James, and I hope you get better soon.--John KB (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was drafting a response to your first post here when you posted your second one. You can see the results of my deliberations at Talk:Fukushima I nuclear accidents and at User talk:Fram, where you will see that I don't agree with Fram.
 * I feel it was too hasty also, and it reminded me of Jared Lee Loughner and the 2011 Tucson shootings, when there was a heated debate where some users really wanted to turn Loughner into a redirect, but consensus was against it. Will proceed with reopening the discussion and adding a RFC in the article's talk page. Hope it works out for best. --

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John KB (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 March 2011

Prince Joachim Albert of Prussia
So, after now all this removal of actual facts, supported by reference, I would like to know your position on this, as a Heir I may not have a conflict of interests, but to add to this project as it is incomplete and is missing so called family skeletons, which are not fully known to the public, but may be important for historical purpose. People who currently believe that they know all the facts, maybe surprised to learn that somethings are not exactly of what they appear to be. Question is, how accurate and truthful is the article of present and do the added items by USER:PEAMM and USER:PEAMM2009 matter or not - so far they have been only be removed, but not properly challenged or questions, never mind discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.231.131 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Under normal circumstances I would be happy to examine the article and its history and give you my assessment, but, as I have indicated elsewhere on this page, at present I am unable to spend as much time on Wikipedia as usual, and unfortunately I don't think I can afford the time it would take to give your question a proper answer. I don't think a rushed answer would be helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion query
Hi there, I see you deleted Brain Shrinking as a hoax. I had originally tagged the article as db-hoax, but changed my mind a bit later on. I think you were right not to delete as A1 (there was context), but my real question is, even if an article is on a real topic (as this one was), is it still ok to be deleted as G3, even though one of the two sentences in the article was true? And therefore, if I saw something similar in the future, should I tag it as db-hoax? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no simple answer to this. I thought quite hard before deciding to delete the article. It seemed to me that some of the content was questionable but conceivably defensible as factually correct, but overall it was nonsense, and even the element of possible truth was expressed in a form which was questionable. However, I can imagine a similar but slightly different situation where I might think there was enough of an element of truth to justify removing the rest and keeping that element as a stub, in which case I would decline a speedy deletion. It really comes down to a matter of making a judgement. The article was clearly not worth keeping, and if I had declined to speedy-delete it I would certainly have PRODDED it. It is worth mentioning that, contrary to a very widespread belief, there is nothing to stop you, in doubtful cases, putting more than one deletion reason, in the hope that at least one of them will be accepted. There is even a tag db-multiple specifically intended for the purpose of giving more than one speedy deletion criterion, and it is even possible to put something like No evidence of notability on an article, though that is a rather extreme example. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed response, it really cleared some things up for me. I on borderline calls like this, it comes down to a judgement call when tagging as much as deleting (although with obviously more responsibility on the deleting admin). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

May Sweet
You may find that it is the other person who are pushing POV style edits. I have already warned him and reported him. Are you not looking properly? Okkar (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The warnings I gave were about edit warring, not about anything else, and you were both clearly edit warring. In a nutshell, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for the explanation, however the other user Hybernator has just reverted the edit again (Latest revision as of 01:10, 15 March 2011) after you warned both of us to stop edit warring. Will you be taking action on that? Okkar (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Reserection of Deleted Article? Wildlife (band)
I'd like to request the undeletion of the last version of the Wildlife (band). They are a Toronto band. The band has been reviewed by Exclaim!, Chartattack , and has appeared in other third party publications. My self and Paul Erik will cite the article and address the notability concerns. Thanks. Argolin (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the references you give, at the references of those deleted articles of this title which had any references, and at the text of those deleted articles. Nothing there suggests to me that the band satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. Seven different editors including four administrators have indicated that they think the article in its various versions qualifies for speedy deletion because of lack of significance or notability. (I am ignoring a 2007 article about a different band with the same title.) Thus I see no justification for restoring the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi JamesBWatson. Could you re-consider this undeletion request please? Or, with your permission, could I undelete it? Or could one of us put it in Argolin's userspace to allow for sourcing before moving back to mainspace? I'm not sure if you saw my and Argolin's discussion here, but in addition to some coverage in Exclaim! and Chart (both national Canadian music magazines), there is some coverage in the National Post, Voir, News Durham Region, and Now magazine. There has not been a consensus, in an AfD or otherwise, that this coverage is insufficient to pass WP:BAND criterion #1. An AfD after Argolin and I add some sources might be a reasonable next step. Thanks in advance,  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

first article rewritten
Thank you very much for your critical reading and useful comments. I had not noticed before that there might be a copyright infringement for the text that I used as source before and I agree with your removal here:

11:46, 25 February 2011 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "ABCdb" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.oxfordjournals.org/nar/database/summary/157 Despite rewriting, much is still a close paraphrase.)

Now I have removed the part that contained the citations and summarized it briefly. I have reformulated the parts that contained explications and internal links to (orphan)wikipedia sites and extended the specific part. Could you please help me to finalize my first article, ABCdb? I will try and resubmit it for revision, I apologize in advance if this is not in agreement with the procedures. Stone geneva (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have had a quick glance through the article and as far as I can see it is fine. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing Tru Tech Valve Page
Hello, I am writing you because I would like to edit the Tru Tech Valve page linked from the diaphragm valves page. I work in sales/marketing for Tru Tech Valve and noticed some info was deleted. Is it possible to go in and edit the Tru Tech Valve page without it being deleted?

Thank you for your time, Mitchell Valvano ljvalvano@ttvlv.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellTTV (talk • contribs) 14:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you work in sales and marketing for the business you have a conflict of interest, and are almost certainly not the right person to write an article about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocking people then taking a Wiki Holiday.........
James next time you decide to go on a blocking spree then go on a Wiki holiday consider the irresponsible nature of your actions. It's a shame there isn't a wiki policy about over zealous admins pulling off power trips like these. I have made a unblock request and it has so far fallen on deaf ears because you are too busy doing whatever to address it.

Also you asked me to dig up instances of personal attacks on me well here is just one of dozens from Cognitive Disident http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earthcore&diff=398971056&oldid=398967856

Once again you were so quick to block me when I unintentionally broke the rules yet you conveniently sit back and do absolutely nothing about the 6 months of personal attacks I have endured which goes completely against Wiki policy and procedure.

Please explain to me why one rule is enforced by you whilst another is ignored ? Blocking me is not the solution to avoiding this ongoing concern. Fisted Rainbow (from work computer) 60.242.37.151 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note; this has been dealt with, and Fisted Rainbow has now been unblocked; I can link you to the ANI thread if you'd like. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expressing your concerns to me. There are many things that I could mention in this connection, but some of them have already been dealt with by others, so I will restrict myself to just a few remarks.
 * Cognitive Dissident's behaviour towards you has indeed been unacceptable, and I will give them a warning. Frankly, I am very surprised that no such warnings have already been issued. If there is any further trouble from Cognitive Dissident you are welcome to contact me about it. I see that Boing! said Zebedee has already made a similar offer.
 * There are three reasons why I have not been as active on Wikipedia recently as I used to be. I do not intend to discuss or announce what they are, but I will say that one of them is medical, and certainly not of my own choice.
 * I did not "sit back and do absolutely nothing about the 6 months of personal attacks". On the contrary, as soon as I became aware that you said there were such attacks I asked you to point me to them so that I could deal with them. You made no response to that request for nearly three weeks, and then criticised me for not taking action on them.
 * I fully understand why you have been annoyed. However, as a piece of friendly advice, you are much more likely to get support on Wikipedia if you are civil to other editors, even when you think they don't deserve your civility. While I fully agree (as I have said above) that Cognitive Dissident has behaved in an unacceptable way, your responses have often been somewhat aggressive too, which creates the danger that you could alienate others who might otherwise have supported you. Also, the tone of your message above did not encourage me, including accusing me of going on "a blocking spree" and "pulling off power trips". I actually took some time and effort to try to help you, including posting an unblock request on your behalf because you had misunderstood how to do it, and writing a fairly long message to your talk page to clarify the situation for you. On reading your latest message to me I have now spent nearly three quarters of an hour checking the relevant history and then composing this reply. Nor have I yet finished, as I have yet to write to Cognitive Dissident. Perhaps, if you stop and think about it, you will realise that I have actually put a significant amount of time into trying to help you. However, even in the case of an editor who is not trying to be helpful, attacking them rarely if ever advances your cause, and may make things worse for you by, as I have already said, alienating potential supporters. Being civil to other editors is therefore in your own interest, as well as theirs. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection of your user page.
Hi JamesBwatson, I have noticed recently that your User page is fully protected .From history I knew that it was due to excessive vandalism. But I think you can now downgrade your protection from full protection to semi-protection. Just suggesting. Suri 100 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Why? What would be the advantage? Is there any legitimate reason for anyone other than me to edit it?
 * 2) How did you discover it was protected? Did you try to edit it? If so why and in what way? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My request was purely suggestive.Full-protection would be given normally to a page only as a last resort.Moreover there is no vandalism at your Userpage. If you feel,it is wrong, then why full protection is not given to my Userpage since I only edit it?. I knew that your page is protected as there is no edit tab at your Userpage.I have no intention of editing your Userpage. Suri 100 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fully protecting your user page would prevent you from editing it, since you are not an administrator, but it can be semi-protected if you like. My user page was originally protected because it was being vandalised, and now that it is protected I can see no advantage in unprotecting it, since there is no good reason I can see for anyone who is not an administrator to edit it, so it may as well be left as it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback from jamesooders
Seen, thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

feedback request
James

Thank you for review of the USAF Chief Scientist page. This page was created to capture the history of the professional service as well as to serve as a mechanism for the scientific community to be aware of those (current and past) serving in this capacity. I have reverted back to the original form so that details of the current serving chief scientist (which is a rotating position) are included as well as to provide consistency across the wikipedia pages ... in particular this page is intentionally structually consistent with that of the chief of staff of the USAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_Staff_of_the_United_States_Air_Force) and the secretary of the USAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Air_Force).

Thanks,

Mark (Maybury (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

User:121.1.31.102
Hello. Good to see you're back to active admin mode. Can you block ? It is being used by a long-term vandal who, although does so sporadically (every one, two, three, or more days at a certain hours in the morning here in the Philippines), consistently puts misinformation on articles concerning cable and satellite TV in the Philippines, especially on the SkyCable and Cignal Digital TV articles, never citing any reliable sources. He has already been and blocked twice, first for 55 hours, and then for 72 hours. But each time long after each block expired, he comes back to his old MO. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Expressways in Santa Clara County
Hello,

I noticed your recent statement here that you have limited time for Wikipedia editing. If that is still the case, or if you prefer, I can request a Deletion review asking for a consensus. If you do have time now, and interested in this, please continue reading.

I would like to move an article from my User page, where I worked on it since December, to the main Wikipedia section. It's titled Expressways in Santa Clara County.

I am contacting you because of a note on that page that I should contact you because of its quick-delete in December. However, the reasons for deletion are no longer applicable.

Here is a history:

There was a prior article, since 2005, titled Santa Clara County Expressway System, that was deleted in December. The basis for the AfD deletion was "a subject which does not meet notability/NPOV criteria." An editor/administrater also commented, "The notability concerns are not on the individual roads, but on the notion that they are a system. The article at issue is on this purported system, not the individual roads."

I corrected all this in the new article that's in my User area, as follows:
 * Changed the title to Expressways in Santa Clara County. This title was actually suggested by one of the editors voting for deletion of the original page.
 * Included all expressways in the County, not just those collectively named Santa Clara County Expressway System by the County. (This term was not notable, it was decided.)
 * Included public transit, bicyclist and pedestrian information because most of these roads have a train station, all have some sidewalks and all have bike lane standards. Prior to my involvement, all of this information was missing.
 * I added photos that I took which showed example components of these expressways: train station, bus stop, sidewalk, pedestrian path, pedestrian underpass and bike lane. These photos also showed bicyclists, pedestrians and transit patrons. Previously, all photos were only of motor vehicles and traffic lanes, giving a misimpression. I kept all prior photos.
 * I created a map of these expressways myself because Wikimedia does not allow maps/graphics created by local governments. Previously, there was no map.

I should have just worked on the page in my User area until it was ready. Being new to Wikipedia editing, I created the page with the new title in the main area and was working on that, when soon afterwards somebody spotted my note which I had placed in its discussion page (as per recommendation) that much of the (then) information came from the prior page. So the page was quick-deleted due to G4: recreation of the page. Now, that note is not applicable, as all sections of the article was re-written and expanded in my User area. It is also re-organized as the Contents are quite different.

This article should be included in Wikipedia because:
 * There are several pages already with the title, Expressways in [location name].
 * Items, including roads, can be grouped onto one page if they have a common history and/or other traits, as these do.
 * Various Wikipedia articles still have links to the original article. Therefore, this old article should be redirected to the section of the new article, titled, "Administration, Expressway System designation".

Can I copy and paste this article to Expressways in Santa Clara County?

Thanks! AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your very clear account of the situation. I have looked back at the history of this article in its various incarnations. Neither my deletion nor the following remarks are based on any personal opinion as to the value of the article. Rather they are based on the deletion discussion and consideration of the questions "is this article essentially the same as that which was discussed?" and "has the article addressed the issues which were raised in the discussion?"


 * Both the article I deleted and the current userspace draft are very similar to the article considered in the deletion discussion, including substantial passages which are identical or nearly so. You have made changes to present some of the features of the article in a different light, but in doing so you have not addressed the essential reasons for deletion. The closing administrator said that "the consensus appears to be to delete the article, as a subject which does not meet notability/NPOV criteria", and that appears to be no less so now than at the time of the deletion discussion. I do not see the inclusion or exclusion of the word "system" as significant at all. As far as I can see the rewording was suggested by one editor, and received no support from anyone else, and in any case the notability of the subject does not depend on what form of words is used in the title. There was a feeling expressed in the discussion that the particular group of roads did not have notability as a group, and that seems no more nor less so under a new title. Nor do I see that including further roads changes that situation. You certainly have put a considerable amount of work into developing the article, but many of the changes you mention were already made before the deletion discussion, and therefore were already considered there. Indeed, your changes were explicitly mentioned in that discussion. Such further changes as adding a map, while perhaps in some ways improving the article, do not address the reasons given for deletion at all.


 * On the basis of those considerations I cannot see any justification for reversing the deletion decision.


 * Although the decision I have just given is not in any way dependent on who wrote the article, it is worth mentioning also that you are very much an involved person, and have a clear conflict of interest, so that you are probably not the right person to be writing an article on this subject. One does not have to accept, nor even to consider, the opinion expressed by one editor that you are an "extremist" or that your views are "bizarre", in order to see that you are attempting to use the Wikipedia article to give publicity to a particular view.


 * You are, of course, free to take this to deletion review if you wish to. If you do choose to do so, please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time. Maybe I can change your mind with these points. These roads are already notable because they are noted in a Wikipedia page, titled, California County Routes in zone G.


 * However, if I would add the same quantity of information to that page, it would overwhelm the page. It's better to use a separate page, especially considering that these expressways have a commonality that I described (history and attributes) that makes them different than other roads on the California County Routes in zone G page.


 * I don't know how to check the deletion discussion, but I think nobody questioned notability of the roads, just that they are a System.


 * You say I give publicity to a particular view. I say information was severely lacking to the point of distortion. There was absolutely no mention of bicyclists, pedestrians and transit patrons, nor their facilities, along these roads. There were no photos of these. Anyone reading the Wikipedia article previously, or merely looking at photos, would get the perception that only motor vehicles use these expressways – especially considering that in some states, where an expressways is a freeway, that is the case. I didn't delete information about motor vehicles, nor the photos about them.


 * People are free to add more information about motor vehicles, such as a history of when traffic lanes were added, HOV lanes, signal synchronization, etc. I leave that to others. However, the details I did add about other modes should not be deemed one-sided, just because, at the present time, it is greater in quantity (due to more details included). All modes are included, and no distorted perception should ensue, as occurred from 2005 to last December on that Wikipedia page.


 * Some people think it is "bizarre" to allow bicycles on expressways, and "extremist" to write about it. You quoted one. However, that does not change the historical fact that all cities and the County voted for allowing bicycles on all these expressways. I don't think quoting such name-calling is appropriate for this discussion (unless all such votes can be considered "bizarre" and "extremist", which is highly unlikely). Furthermore, this person calling me "bizarre" and "extremist," Username "CoolCeasar", deleted every single photo of a bicyclist or a pedestrian on the original expressway page one week after I added them. That's in addition to deleting every single mention of bicyclist or pedestrian in the article text. Some might be able to make excuses for deleting text, but no excuse can be made for deleting a photo illustrating the topic (these particular roads).


 * This brings up my concluding point: I believe the reason for the original deletion (not yours) was that some of those voting for deletion are highway fans, judging from the highway articles they wrote, and they apparently think only motorists should use expressways. They wanted to censor all information about other users, or failing that, to delete the entire article altogether. That is what occurred: As I recall, the vote was 4 to 3, and Coolceasar, the one who objected to even a photo of a bicyclist or pedestrian, considering it "bizarre" and "extremist," voted to delete. He was the deciding vote. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a considerable amount of sympathy for what you say. I am a cyclist myself, and sometimes encounter hostility from people who for some reason think that roads are made for motor vehicles, and that bicycles are only allowed on sufferance. I think that calling you "bizarre" and "extremist" was bizarre. I think that some of your changes improved the article. However, I try hard to make administrative decisions on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and to put my own views aside. If I ask myself the questions "is this article essentially the same as that which was discussed?" and "has the article addressed the issues which were raised in the discussion?" my answers have to be respectively "yes" and "no". Consequently I still think that the deletion as a repost was correct. However, looking back at Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System, I do not see a clear consensus to delete, so if you would like to question the original deletion at Deletion review I will support you. It may seem strange to say that, while upholding my own deletion of the article, but I genuinely see the two as separate issues. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will do that. First, I need to brush up on Wikipedia policies, and do my taxes. Then the deletion review. I'll send you a notice then. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Miguel "Mike" Fernandez Article Deleted
Hello,

I am new to wikipedia and do not understand it entirely and am becoming quite frustrated because it is now the second time the page is deleted. I have provided the copyright information and was then prompted with a tag for speedy deletion and spam because of not having references. I have been looking around wikipedia for a guide or instructions on how to get this done but never get enough time to research and find out what I'm doing wrong, to fix it. Before I know it, my page is deleted AGAIN. Can you please just tell me what I need to do on the site so it is NOT deleted and remains permanent?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compsys1 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have every sympathy with your frustration. I know from my own experience when I was new here how confusing and intimidating Wikipedia can be to anyone with little experience of how it works. However, I will try to give you some help. As far as the copyright permission is concerned, I always tell users that granting copyright permission to Wikipedia is rarely worth while, because almost invariably material copied from a web site associated with a subject is written to show its subject in a positive light, rather than to give a neutral, dispassionate account. For this reason whenever someone goes to the trouble to grant copyright permission, far more often than not the article is deleted anyway as promotional. Therefore the first part of the answer to how to avoid deletion is to make sure that the article is not written in promotional terms. The second part is not to even consider writing an article unless and until you have determined that its subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If it doesn't, then no amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. The most relevant guidelines in this case are the general notability guideline and the guideline for notability of people. Note that being chairman of a big company does not automatically confer notability, and notability of the person is a separate question from notability of the company. You should also look at the guide to reliable sources, which are essential for providing evidence of notability if it does exist. The third point is that you are very unlikely to be the right person to write on a subject to which you have a close connection. My experience is that editors with such connections are rarely able to stand back from their subject and write objectively, even if they sincerely intend to, which is why the conflicts of interest guideline strongly discourages writing articles on subjects you are connected to. I hope these comments have clarified things to some extent. Do look at the guidelines I have linked. Unfortunately Wikipedia has a whole forest of guidelines and policy documents, far too many in my opinion, but the ones I have mentioned are the ones most important for you to look at, I think. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have been asked to place the article on Mr.Fernandez on Wikipedia, and so I am here trying to do so. As you stated, it is very frustrating and difficult to understand how to use WIkipedia. For instance, I don't even know if I should be responding by "editing" this section as I am doing. I appreciate the links you've provided but they are loaded with way too much information and I simply want to get the article on WIkipedia and be done with it. The article is merely just a biography of Mr.Fernandez and has no promotion in it at all, regardless of how others may look at it. I did not write the article, it is the exact same text that is on the website under his information, which is why originally I was asked to provide copyright information (which I have done now) and now the article is still being deleted for a completely different reason. I am not the author, nor am I the person to "re-write" this article. I have just simply been given the task of placing it on Wikipedia and would extremely appreciate assistance in the simplest of ways to have the article published. Mr.Fernandez is a reputable and notable person, not just because of being chairman of a big company, he is very well recognized. I just need to know what exactly to do, how to do it, and that's it. I hope you understand the level of simplicity im requesting, and understand that it might not be your job to do so but it would be greatly appreciated on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compsys1 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have searched for information about him, and nothing I have found suggests that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. If he doesn't then he is not suitable for an article, no matter how it is written. In addition, even if he is suitable for an article you are probably not the person to do it. You say you have been asked to do this, but you do not say by whom. However, it seems probable that you are acting on behalf of Miguel Fernandez or his company, in which case you have a conflict of interest and should not be posting an article on him. If, contrary to my impression, he does satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, then probably sooner or later an uninvolved independent person will write an article on him. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Music & Opera Singers Trust
Hi there, You recently removed an article that I created before I had a chance to review your comments and amend the copy. I would like to try again but will create a subpage and ask for editorial assistance. I feel that the trust plays a significant part in helping young opera talent in Australia with money bequeathed by passionate opera supporters. It is not an organisation, company, etc. It is a trust fund managed by lawyers based in Sydney. This trust fund finances many community based (& indigenous) programs in Australia. Perhaps this was not clear in the first article? As such, it is worthy of an entry on Wikipedia. I understand that before that I attempt to rewrite the article, more notable sources will be required. Suggestions appreciated. S1nealeg (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately nothing I have seen either in the article or elsewhere provides convincing evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Wikipedia has a bewildering range of guidelines and policies, in my opinion far too many of them, but the essential point is that for an article on a subject to be included there has to be substantial coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. I have not only looked at what was in the article, but have also searched for information myself. As an example of the kinds of things I have seen, in a Google search for "Music & Opera Singers Trust Limited" the first three hits are all articles at Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, then there is a page on the trust's own web site, which is not an independent source, and the list continues with a mixture of more pages which are not independent sources, or not substantial coverage (e.g. just a brief mention in a listing). If you want to read more, the central guidelines are the general notability guideline and the guide to reliable sources. FAQ/Organizations may be helpful, and more detail still can be read in Notability (organizations and companies). Unfortunately, as I have already said, in my opinion there are far too many of these guidelines, which can be totally bewildering for someone with a moderate amount of experience of editing Wikipedia, and I would be much happier if we could go back to something more like the early days of Wikipedia, when there were far fewer of them. However, you should at least quickly skim through the general notability guideline and the guideline on reliable sources, if you have not already done so. As for not being a company, and being "worthy of an entry on Wikipedia" because it finances many community based programs, being a good cause is not a criterion for inclusion. This is explained at Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause, if you feel up to reading it. Also, although you do not say so in quite so many words, you seem to be suggesting that the trust should be on Wikipedia because it deserves to be known, which amounts to saying that you wish to use Wikipedia to promote it, which is against Wikipedia's policy.
 * Sorry that this response to your request for help must seem so negative, but unfortunately, as I have indicated, my investigations do not suggest that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. If you can prove me wrong then an article will be possible. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

EXPANSYS
Hi. My name is Cameron Murdoch and i am the marketing executive of EXPANSYS Plc. I have notice that you have deleted the EXPANSYS website. i feel as though this is a mistake, possibly on my behalf. This is a legit company wthin the UK and we are just looking to add a wikipedia page on the company. What are the reasons for your deletion and how can we get a page put on?

Thanks

Cameron Murdoch Marketing Executive Expansys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronmurdoch7 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you have no doubt seen, the reason given for deletion was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The article was full of such prose as "Why? Because EXPANSYS is first to know. Every day. Acclaimed experts in the online retail of the latest must-have smartphones and leading consumer technology, we are a living and breathing success story." The only way that anyone can possibly not see that as "unambiguous advertising or promotion" is that one or both of the following apply to them: (1) they are so closely involved with the subject that they are unable to stand back and see how their writing will look from the detached perspective of an impartial observer, and/or (2) they are professionally involved in marketing, so that they are so used to marketing-speak that they have become desensitised to it. From what you have said, both probably apply in your case. The first of those reasons is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages anyone from writing about their own company, or any other subject in which they have a similar personal involvement. Apart from people whose intention is to use Wikipedia as a free advertising medium, even people who sincerely intend to write impartially are usually incapable of doing so if they are closely involved in their subject.


 * Being a "legit company" is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion. Much of what I have just written above in the section "Deletion of Music & Opera Singers Trust" applies in this case too, and you may care to read that. However, this case differs from that in that the extent to which the sources I have found are not independent sources is even greater in this case: it is very heavily dominated by promotional material. Also the mention of Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause is irrelevant in this case.


 * For the following reasons you should not be writing this article:
 * I can see no evidence that the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria.
 * You clearly have a conflict of interest.
 * Your first versions of this were clearly purely promotional in character.
 * The fact that you are a marketing executive for the business suggests that your intention is to promote or advertise the company, which is against Wikipedia's policy.
 * Points 2 to 4 suggest that if the subject is suitable for an article you are not the right person to write it, but point 1 suggests that it is not suitable for an article no matter who writes it. You may like to look at FAQ/Organizations. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael I. Yarymovych
I have submitted my biographical sketch to be included in the Wikipedia listing of the Chief Scientist of the US Air Force. You have deleted it because of copyright concerns. The biographical information was prepared by me, it represents my life history, and it is not copyrighted. The fact that the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) used an older version of my bio has no bearing on copyrights. Their press releases are not copyrighted either. Therefore I request that you reinstate my personal bio to the Air Force Chief Scientist web site.

Some of my biographical information can be verified on Google.

Michael Yarymovych — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.19.74 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 March 2011


 * We cannot take the word of an anonymous editor for copyright status. Instructions have been posted to your talk page on how to give copyright permission. In addition, since you wrote the material about yourself you have a conflict of interest, and should not be posting this to Wikipedia anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

jimmy barnes
this page that i was creating was an assignment and i am kind of new at this. our assignment was to create a page about my favorite teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepjr (talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should tell whoever gave you this assignment that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on anything at all, and that assigning people to write articles on non-notable subjects is inappropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ok i will do that thank you for yur time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepjr (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI. Regards, Kudpung (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Zimbazumba FYI
Just wanted to let you know about this-- Cailil  talk 19:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with this. I'm in receipt of the same info I guess you got about the meat-puppetry. Did you pass that on to JPGordon at all? Also, just meant to ask - what's the story with User:Pancur wrt blocking?-- Cailil  talk 14:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mohammed al maiman
Hello,

Just wanted to point out this recreation of an article you already deleted many times. The contributor Ezlek might be a sockpuppet of Taztouzi. Cheers, Udufruduhu (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Gremlins
Hi James. Would you consider withdrawing the Articles for deletion/Gremlins (Atari 2600) AfD? Cuchullain's done some great work bringing it up to shape from the state it was in when you found it. I'd actually like to nominate it for a Did You Know spot. 28bytes (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is certainly much better than it was, but I still don't see sufficient evidence of notability. It looks as though the AfD is probably heading for "keep", but I see no harm in leaving it open. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A belated thank-you for the prompt response above, and for reconsidering the request after additional input at the AfD. I know we disagree on the notability but I respect both your position and your willingness to defer to consensus. For my part I'll continue to look for better sources. Best, 28bytes (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For anyone interested, that refers to the fact that, despite my comment above, it later became clear that consensus was so strongly against me that I withdrew my nomination. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

work group
HI James, I'm not sure if you're already watching this page,  but  here it is again. --Kudpung (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link - you need to read the  one above too of course but here's where we're at now. I think as soon as we have at least  10 participants I'll move the page to  project space. --Kudpung (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
BTW: the budding task  force is here. When the list is big enough  I  will  move the page to  project  space. --Kudpung (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Shobaleader One
Why was the Shobaleader One article deleted? That band happens to have a front man that's reached the UK top 20 multiple times.

Not complaining! Just wondering :) ЖимбоУайлс (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was tagged for speedy deletion as all its contents had been removed by the only significant contributor. I have no knowledge of why the author blanked it. You can ask at User talk:Domino42 if you like, but the user edits sporadically, so you may not get a reply for quite a while (if at all). JamesBWatson (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks a lot for letting me know.ЖимбоУайлс (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Phildajoin
Thanks for fixing the mess. The guy drove me crazy and I probably did not help this morning when I saw he had redirected the talk page w/o realizing. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 13:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Antmgenuine (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Please don't delete my page.
Antmgenuine (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Please don't delete my page I've created - Disney's Next Top Model, Cycle 1. Please don't delete it, I'm begging you.

Sincerely yours, Albert Seno / antmgenuine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antmgenuine (talk • contribs) 07:15, 3 April 2011

RE:Computer Aided Process-Product Engineering Center (CAPEC)
Dear James, The above title was used to create a page which was deleted. The problem was that some information was taken from the Dept.'s annual report, it was referenced but Wikipedia deleted it. Is it possible to get back the text used to create the page or can the page be restored? If using information from the annual report is a problem then I'll remove it.

The page was created with a username: ktcapec. I am from the DTU Chemical Engineering where the annual report came from hence that's why I'm doing this for one of the research centers.

Regards, Deenesh Dkbabi (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Again Vandalism on my user page
Dear Brother James,

I am very disappointed due to this act of vandalism on my user page, after your kind help that you semi protected my user page I was very happy and satisfied that now I can write and edit Wikipedia articles but few days ago some one vandalized my user page again I want to report this user User:Sajjadhunzai to be deleted as he insulted me by typing given below comments on my main user page due to these comments few people in my social circle insulted me I was never encourage to write for Wikipedia but still i keep writing for Wiki but these comments honestly made me grief, I am too sad honestly therefore I would like to request with you to BLOCK this user because if he can leave these comments on my main user page he can do this with everyone and please Full protect my page please so I and Admins only can edit my user page because I love this place and I am Wikipedia addicted now he insulted and disrespect me with given below comments which he wrote on my user name kindly tell me IS it good?

below is the story of RETARDED PERSON, please join me in saying a BIG LOL :)))

THIS GUY NEEDS SOME SERIOUS HELP, HIS ENGLISH IS TOO HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND, BUT GOOD SCRIPT TO MAKE ME LAUGH AFTER WORK

I Will be very helpful to you if you help me in this major concern because its not only my insult but also insult of all wikipedians.

Yours Truly,

Wikipedian Faizan Ali Varya Apprentice Editor

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanalivarya (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 March 2011


 * I have blocked the account for a month. If there is any continuation please tell me, and I will consider blocking it indefinitely. Unfortunately if your user page is fully protected you will not be able to edit it, as you are not an administrator. There is no facility for protecting it so that only you and admins can edit it. I could fully protect it for you, but unless there is a really major problem with persistent vandalism I think it's better to leave it as it is, and deal with vandalism if and when it happens. Do let me know if there are any further problems, and I will do what I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. I was about to go in search of an administrator this morning. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for helping me brother, Honestly I am very grateful to you, that you helped me so much honestly, I do not have any word to explain that how much I am thankful to you.--Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice appreciated on resubmitting my DraftSight article that was deleted.
Hi James -- I'd appreciate if you could please reply on my talk page if possible.

My first Wiki article on DraftSight CAD design was deleted for appearing too much like an advertisement and I would like to revise the language to fit your guidelines. I'm preparing a new version with more neutral language in my sandbox and would appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan1836 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded on Wikifan1836's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Zimbazumba
Hello James. I noticed your edit here. Though I'm not sure how it happened, Z's last unblock request (which I had declined) got reopened and my message explaining the decline got removed. Do you have an idea for how that could be fixed? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I make one mistake, and in the course of trying to correct it I make another. I have tried again to put it right. I hope I have succeeded this time. Thanks for alerting me to the problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Neo Chorio article
Hello,

Last November you deleted Neo Chorio citing copyright infringement as a reason. There has been no copyright infringement in this case and I will attempt to explain why.

The source you allege the content was stolen from is polischrysochous.net. Howeber, at the bottom of the "source" article their own source is listed, neochorio.org. Specifically the article published at polischrysohous.net is a mix of two pages on neochorio.org's website, Village Architecture and Church/Chapels.

I've spoken to Mr. Theodorou, president Neo Chorio's Council and the gentleman that commissioned the website neochorio.org and provided the content and he has no problem with the site's content being used on Wikipedia.

So there has been no infringement of copyright and, though I can clearly understand that a few paragraphs about a little village in Cyprus sourced from a single website (even if that is the village's official website) does not make for a brilliant Wikipedia article, I'm confident that given enough time other users will expand and undoubtedly improve the quality of the article, but having it completely removed is a shame as it is a decent source of information for people seeking to know a bit about the village and being on Wikipedia it ranks quite well on search engines and its very easy to find. Please let me know your thoughts on the subject

kyri (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What you say about the source of the text seems to be correct. It is unfortunately all too common, but not at all helpful, for web pages to have a copyright note at the bottom saying "Copyright [name of the owners of the web site] All Rights Reserved", but actually incorporate content from elsewhere, in which they do not hold the copyright. I will have no problem with restoring the article if you can provide evidence of copyright permission (naturally the say-so of an anonymous person editing Wikipedia is not enough). You can use one of the following three methods.


 * 1) Leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Neo Chorio and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * 2) If the owner of the original website will place a note stating that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, you can leave a note at Talk:Neo Chorio with a link to where we can find that note.
 * 3) Get the copyright owner to send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Neo Chorio.


 * The first of these methods seems to me to be the least easy, as you have to be careful to show you really do have permission. If you use method 1 or method 3 it will help if the email asks for me to be informed when it is received, whereas using method 2 you can simply post a message to this page so that I know it has been dealt with. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)