User talk:JBW/Archive 27

Olavo de Carvalho
Why did you delete Olavo de Carvalho? The article this time had references (unlike before), and I have just questioned the validity of the discussion, regarding this. Don't you think you should a little more careful regarding such administrative attitudes? You should at least have read the discussion before re-deleting the article. RafaAzevedo msg 16:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I did indeed read the deletion discussion before deleting the article. I wonder what gave you the impression that I didn't.
 * 2) In assessing a speedy deletion nomination as a repost I have to consider two questions (1) is the new article substantially similar to the old one, and (2) have any changes adequately addressed the arguments in the deletion discussion. I do not consider other questions, such as whether I agree with the decision reached in the discussion. If you wish to have the original deletion reconsidered then the proper procedure is to take it to deletion review.
 * 3) The new article had four references, compared to the 14 in the old version. Of the 4, two are books which each have one very brief mention of Carvalho, one is a highly partisan propaganda piece in an extremist right wing source, which does not look very reliable. The fourth is a reference to a Google page showing a search item for Google books. The page referenced does not mention Carvalho. It might be conceivable that the book referred to in that page does mention him, but the book in question is a Portuguese translation of Brave New World, and since Brave New World was published 15 years before Carvalho's birth it cannot mention him. It is possible that he is mentioned in a preface to the Portuguese translation or something of the sort, but that is not made clear, and in any case it is doubtful how much notability such a mention would establish. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. What gave me the impression that you didn't read the deletion discussion was that you deleted even though the article had been completely rewritten and had independent and reliable sources.
 * If you consider that a source is a "highly partisan propaganda piece in an extremist right wing source" (how you know that given that you apparently doesn't know Portuguese is a mystery to me) is not something that you should consider for eliminating the article; if that WAS indeed the case (which I totally dispute) THIS REFERENCE (and this reference alone) should be removed or discussed at the talk page, and not used as a pretext to re-delete the whole article. As for the Portuguese translation of Brave New World, the link provided showed clearly that the Preface was written by him and there was a descriptive page mentioning his name and relevance (in a book published by one of the top editing houses in Brazil, no less!). It would be interesting for you to at least consult Portuguese-speaking people when analysing such sources, since such small details obviously have 'slipped you by'. There is clearly an attempt by political opponents of this individual to completely erase any mention of him from Wikipedia; they've attempted this in ptwiki and, after being blocked there, turned their attention to the article here (in order to use the fact that it had been erased here to justify its elimination there), a clear case of abusing Wikipedia to prove a point of view. Whether someone has unpopular or right-wing views is not, in my opinion, reason alone to justify omitting his relevance. Regards, RafaAzevedo msg 15:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And BTW, I am really sorry that I did not let you know about the discussion, but first of all this is the first time I do anything of this sort here in enwiki (our processes in ptwiki are totally different), and secondly I was expecting your answer; since I hadn't heard from you since my last message, I had no way of knowing whether you had been online since I sent it or not (I still can't get used to the way people here answer messages in their own talk pages, in ptwiki we usually answer the other person's pages so they'll know instantly that there was an answer). I certainly did not mean to 'let you out' of the debate, and I'm sorry that happened. RafaAzevedo msg 15:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Prosimos
I see that you were previously involved in the deletion of Prosimos. I just thought you might like to be aware that the user has recreated it. I'm not sure if the content differs significantly enough from the previous version to warrant keeping it around. I'm also a rookie at tagging articles for deletion, so I wasn't sure how to handle this one. Jncraton (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your "advert" tag. At the moment I am borderline on deleting it. I don't have much time now, but I may come back and reconsider it. However, you could tag it with db-promo or db-spam, to see if another administrator will think it should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'm not planning to flag the page for deletion. Jncraton (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lacuna expanse
Hey, you deleted Lacuna expanse for valid reasons. It would be nice if the page would stay tagged for a bit so people (I) can address the concerns instead of wiping away all the work I did. Qchristensen (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No I didn't, TexasAndroid deleted it. It actually took me quite a bit of time searching before I discovered that I deleted Lacunae Expanse - not quite the same. Since the reason for deletion was copyright infringement, it is not acceptable to leave it there for people to work on. To knowingly keep copyright infringing material with a view to working on it would be illegal. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

NMiller96
Yeah mate whats wrong with my page Bulgunnia Station its causing no harm and its representing a part of a very big company, I have been personally asked to do a wikipedia page for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMiller96 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that this refers to my two edits to the article which were:


 * 1) removing a photograph of two people not mentioned in the article, with no explanation as to what its significance it was, and
 * 2) removing a link from the article to itself, which did not seem to serve any purpose.
 * The reasons for my edits were explained (briefly) in edit summaries. I am surprised that the reasons were not clear. Are they clear now?


 * You do not say by whom you have been "personally asked to do a wikipedia page for it", but if it was by the owners of the subject of the article then you have a conflict of interest, and probably should not be writing the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Sorry, someone was on my account. He's now Firewalker97. Plus April fools/April Fools' Day 2011. Joseph507357 (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

atomic authoringtoolkit
as you deleted this authoring toolkit article, I suggest that you delete all other articles referencing to artoolkit or augmented reality. well I suppose you know what you do. anyway in the spanish wiki this article persits. be well, enjoy life

ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed lu (talk • contribs) 06:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would like to give me links to the articles in question, and explain why you think they do not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, then I will certainly consider whether they should be deleted. Alternatively, you may prefer to propose them for deletion yourself: instructions how to do so are available at WP:PROD. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, was sarcastic ... and obset about deletion of an article that really served me much ... the fact is that I was investigating about expanded reality and virtual reality and this article you deleted represented a fantastic aproach/entrance to this field ... don't know the rules of wikipedia but I think this article should not have been deleted as it realy serves someone investigating on the subject. even more, gives an out of the box tool to enter this thrilling field ... and it does this in win as well as in ubuntu (I installed and tried in both operating systems). the article led me to the relevant pages to enter this field (I mean really installing and using programs, first step to realize my project) I am of opinion this should be enough reason for an article to be in the wikipedia ... as augmented reality and virtual reality are without doubt relevant enough to be permanant in the wikipedia. If this article does not fullfill the rules pls tag it so that someone knowing the rules edits it the way it should be ...

again I apologise for my sarcasm

have a nice weekend Ed lu (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed lu (talk • contribs) 06:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied on Ed lu's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Undelete
Thanks for the heads up on the undelete. Is it also policy to undelete the talk page? It hasn't been recovered with the original article. Sethwoodworth (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my page?
I spent all morning working on a page for my friend who is a musician only to find that all my hard work has been for nothing thanks to you. So its ok for thousands of stars/celebs to be on here, musicians, movie stars, tv actors etc but I cannot add my friend on here who is also a very talented musician who is signed to a record label?? What is the problem? --Missessjay (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you have found your efforts so ill-rewarded. I can well imagine how frustrating it must be. However, you ask what the problem is, and I will try to answer you. There are several problems. Firstly, the article was written in promotional terms. A Wikipedia article needs to be impartial, and must not be written in terms which seek to tell us that you think its subject is good. You may or may not have written with the intention of promoting the subject. If that was your intention, then I'm sorry that you have wasted your time due to not being acquainted with Wikipedia's policies on what Wikipedia is not to be used for. If, on the other hand, you did not intend to write in promotional terms, and did so without realising it, then that is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages writing an article on a subject to which you have a close personal connection. People doing so often cannot stand back from the subject far enough to see how their writing will look to an impartial outsider, and therefore very often write in a promotional way even if they sincerely do not realise they are doing to. Also, the article did not indicate that its subject had any special importance or significance, beyond thousands of people in the same business. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but only accepts articles on subjects which have established a significant degree of notability. There are several guidelines which give indications as to what is suitable, but the most relevant in this case are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people. Neither being "very talented" nor being signed to a record label is enough, unfortunately. Many people imagine that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can edit Wikipedia in any way they like", and that it is acceptable to create an article on any subject, but this is not so. Anyone can edit Wikipedia within the bounds set by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If your friend really is notable then probably sooner or later an uninvolved third party will write an article on him. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

BBPMB (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good call
At first, I was trying to stubify Purushottam Institute of Engineering and Technology without a G12 because of the different references involved. I regret it as I was close to reporting that one user in the end as well. There was also a few different editors reverting me on that article as well. I am watching the deleted article and also CSD'd two different redirects 1 2 they initially tried to recreate the article at again.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Jari River
Hi!

Just wondering whether a redirect instead a deletion is really the best choice here.

Does a redirect for a name with brackets really make sense? We'd need some verification that Jari River is really used as an alternative for Purus river/Rio Purus the map the article provided didn't seem to use "Jari River". Also under the assumption the term Jari river for Rio Purus is actually correct it should be mentioned in the article on Rio Purus (the target for the redirect).

regards,

--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling my attention to this. I had checked that both names existed, and taken the word of the author of the article that they were synonyms. However, I have now checked further, and can find no evidence that the two are synonyms, except on Wikipedia mirrors, so I have deleted the superfluous redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Update. I'm indeed aware of a Jari or Jary river that Amazon region, that one however is northern tributary in the far east (contrary to the Rio Purus wich is a southern tributary in the west).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hardwick Football Club
Hello.

I am looking to create a page for hardwick football club.

I am a commitee member and the club has reached the Cup Final.

See website www.hardwickfc.com

PLease can you reply?

Thank You

gdaniels86 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdaniels86 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking most amateur sports clubs do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. You should look at the general notability guideline to see what sort of thing is required. You may also like to look at the guidelines on notability of organisations and of sports people. Neither of them deals specifically with sports clubs, but they give some indication of what sort of standards are generally expected for notability. In addition to this, as a member of the club you will have a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from writing an article on the subject. I will not delete the article again just now, but I will tag it to invite another administrator to give a second opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of entries
Hello James

Thank you for your interest in my autobiographical entry.

However, although the above is true I am most disappointed you have stated that this unbiased and factual entry is to be treated as spam and deleted.

I am offended because the carefully checked information has been volunteered in good faith and the organizations and people I have been privileged to work with would probably not have worked with me if I was prone to creating spam as you imply.

Although I understand you are very busy I hope you will appreciate my request to consider the information given carefully and perhaps open a stub if that would be more appropriate.

Kind regards

Simon Corry

Musician and photographer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.102.64.233 (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * James - note this conversation is occurring in multiple venues. -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 13:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comments have been answered on other talk pages to which you have posted. However, I will say just two thing. (1) I see no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria see, for example, WP:BIO. (2) Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)]

My Talk Page
Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank for the assist! Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Iasiii
I dont think I trolled there...Is it trolling, if I inform somebody about an existing information about his name? Or is it rude behavior by him, if the guy 1. dont even answer 2. revert my information and label it like "vandalism". What is vandalism in telling an information? I think vandalism is, when this (Iasiii) guy put a picture on his main page, and writes completely incorrect informations for example about the "liberation of Budapest". No Hungarian can bear these sovinist lies, neither do I. It is like as if I said, Irish want to liberate London...or germans liberated Paris in the WW2...What would you say, would these be clear lies and provocations? Iasiii provokes the same way with this picture on his main page. Ok, I admit I provoked the guy but very nicely and following the rules...all I said his name is Hungarian (which is basically true, and I thought it is the biggest offense for him, if he is a nationalist, and I was right, he was angry enough even to ask you to make steps against me). I saw he (Iasiii) has a lot of bans (all because of sovinist and nationalist acts) and I was hoping he gives me an answer like based on what he will be banned forever from being an editor on Wiki. I think editors like Iasiii are far from objectivity in any means, talking about Romanias or Hungarian history. When I see that he is free to edit articles about these topics, can revert others's wriitings (that are not enough nationalist for him)and able to put his nationalist lies which are far from even the mainstream Romanian opinions, made me to do something against him. But I think I never did nothing against the rules of Wiki, I try to make Wiki better, because its clear that he is not the best to make decisions, because of his subjectivity. I think you need to think before threatening me with banning, I think you try to show power to the wrong guy. The same amount of energy against him would be beneficial for all the Wiki communitiy. Have a good day.Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly I have no time for nationalism of any kind from any source. I have little or no sympathy with either of you. The only legitimate reason for editing Wikipedia is to contribute to the encyclopaedia, and messages such as you posted to Iasiii are not aimed at that purpose: nor are messages such as the one above or similar messages you have posted to other users. You put the word "trolling" into my mouth: I have never yet accused you of trolling. However, the word you have introduced is indeed appropriate. If you continue to post messages to user talk pages (or elsewhere) which are intended to express your feelings on this matter then you are likely to be blocked from editing. If you are here to improve the encyclopaedia then please do so, and leave off all other activities. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome back~! Please, ignore the troll, we got better fish to fry... don't we? Cheers~! -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback from Nfitzmaurice
Nfitzmaurice (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rant by Zoltan bereczki

 * I sent the same message below to Floquenbeam but he deleted my comment. Now I write to you to ask you for help. Sorry for posting it here, but poor Wiki culdnt find out a better way to contact eachother, so I use this only way left for me to contact you.

I sent this letter to him: "The way I see the problem you mentioned a little different from you opinion. I think the main problem on Wiki is that, editors on Wiki are not scientist, not expert of topics, but some ways amateurs. The ones who want to contribute Wikipedia (like me), and want informations up here be free from nationalism and lies (like me), are told "trolls". This is also the situation in many other cases. Tell me how an amateur editor can decide in a scientific problem, that he doesnt completely know? How can he decide, it can be reverted or not? I think for someone, who wants to edit wikipedia as a user, and knows that editors are not experts, logical to have doubts and if these reversions are based on scientific/lexical knowledge, or personal opinions, religious, political or other reasons, that  influence the editor who makes the reversion.  Tell me how an editor, who "doesnt have the time to look into the Hungarian/Romanian bitchfest" (this line is a quotation by You, from your talk page)can be trusted, when he reverts some editings on Hungarian/Romanian pages? And would you trust a guy (Iasiii) if you know HE WILL revert ANYTHING that isn't fit into his thoughts, and would you say, its okay? It was not okay for me, and I was called a troll for that. Unfortunately there is no "super-wiki council" where people can turn to, when they feel their editings are reverted based on personal feelings. If there is one like that, all I would like you to do is to turn their attention to Iasiii and his former editings/reversions on Romanian-Hungarian pages, if not, please to it yourself. Iasiii on his editor page has a picture, with a subscription:"Romanian army liberates Budapest". maybe this is a bit of a "bitchfest" for you, but you should accept the fact people aroundf the world think differently about the importance of different things. I would like you or anyone able to do this to make him to remove this sentence from his page. When I said I "provoked" him (I called him a Hungarian, after I called him a non-Hungarian), you said its forbidden. Why is not forbidden to provoke with pictures and sentences like this on Iasii's page? I think it absolutely the same. Imagine if an Irishman put a sentence on his page about "liberation of London" - what would you say as an Englishman? Would that be an Irish-English bitchfest also? Or a german guy would put a sentence about "liberation of Paris by German troops in WW2" - would that be okay for you, and the one who tries to do something against this, would be a troll for you? I think I didnt choose the best way to reach this goal of mine with this Iasiii guy, when I did what I did, but I still think I didnt do wrong, cause I did it for removing Iasiii form Wiki as an editor, and removing his provoking sentence - which - it seems to me - is well defended under the umbrella of "editors-cooperation". You warned me last time and said, I shouldnt do AGAIN to write on Iasii's page, and so I did, I didnt write there again. About your warning and thretening me with ban: It wouldn't be really fair if you banned me for this same thing "backward in time". It would be like when the referee doesnt give a player a yellow or red card on the field, but warns him, but 2 months later he changes his mind and gives a guy a red card for the same fault. I didnt stop writing there because I got scared, I've never bothered getting a ban here or elsewhere for fighting for the truth and for telling the truth. I stopped, because I saw that, Iasiii is too much a nationalist Romanian, to ever believe a Hungarian (even if he is right), and you will never believe me because you think I'm a troll, and all I did is vadalism. I was raised like I was told I tell against nationalism and lies. This is what I've done and what I'm doing now, writing this for you. Next time when you'll try to get someone scared off of an act, please take the time to "take a look into their bitchfest", as deep as possible, before you do anything, or call someone a troll. You admitted you dont know nothing about our quarrel, and btw the word "bitchfest" on your talk page in connection with Hungarian/Romanian quarrel could be meant arrogant and offending by some, who may kick your ass for this, but I think, we are gentlemen and a "sorry" is enough for me and my country and the Romanian country for that from you."

Now he formatted his talk page - I think because of our quarrel or "maybe" it happened automatically - and I didnt get any answer. Now I'm more than sure this is something personal against me. All I've been trying is achieve is to get Iaaassi in any possible and legal ways to change the subtitle of the picture he put on his wiki page "Romanian army liberates Budapest". Thats all I want. I dont really care what you call me next for that, are you sad or are you disappointed because of the existence of mine or not. All I want to see, when I ask a Wiki editor for help, that he DOES something about it. For the ones who has eyes it unambigous it's not right the way it is now. If nothing happens I' ll go to the highest places possible to find truth for myself in this case. I think the case is clear, this lie is the same provocation like the one formerly I was called a troll for (not by you, by Floquenbeam, but this also doesn't matter for me, you can call me as many names as you want). Thank you Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you really cannot see what is wrong with posting irate rants like that to users' talk pages then you probably will never understand how Wikipedia works well enough to edit constructively. I will not waste my time trying to answer all of what you say, but I will just answer one point. If an Irishman acted as you suggest then I would consider it every bit as childish, pointless, and unworth my time responding to as I do when similar nonsense comes from Romanians, Hungarians, Palestinians, Israelis, or members of any other nationality. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "I will not waste my time trying to answer all of what you say" - as a wiki editor, is this the right way to answer to a question I asked decently? You had the time first when you reverted my post, and you also had the time when you put warnings on my page. This "I dont have the time" is not a scientific answer for a scientific problem I think.

- "If an Irishman acted as you suggest then I would consider it every bit as childish, pointless, and unworth my time responding to as I do when similar nonsense comes from Romanians, Hungarians, Palestinians, Israelis, or members of any other nationality." - strange that you think I am a nationalist. I am rather a "truthist", which is independent from nationalist ideas (which I dont share at all). I see your point, but its strange that a Wiki editor suggests me not to waste time on correcting a false information on Wiki - even on talk pages, which is also visible for students, children, etc, who cannot make a difference, what is true and what is a lie. I'm doing this for them. - And furthermore, I dont understand the warning you put on my talk page - I haven't made any disruptive edit on talk pages, and I don't plan to do such things. All I did was to ask you for help. I didn't know it is forbidden to ask help and having a quarrel on talk pages, which are for quarrels - as far as I know, but please quote me the rule that I violate with talking to an other editor on his talk page (I haven't made any chages, only on your talk page since your last warning, but here I was not disruptive in any ways). And finally, I dont remember I titled my comment like "Rant by Zoltan bereczki". That was my post and I have the right to give it a name. Or anyone can rename other's comments on his talk page? The expression "rant" reflects your personal opinion, and it is offending for me. Wiki - as far as I know - is not a place for that. Maybe I should warn you about that, because it seems you talk a special "policeman-language" every post of you contains the word "warning". Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course "rant" reflects my personal opinion, I would have thought that went without saying. You didn't give the section you started a section heading, so I gave it one that I thought appropriate. Please don't post more messages of this kind - call them what you will, if you don't think they are rants. If you do so you will be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

camp tamakwa
why was the Camp Tamakwa wiki page removed ?? thank you... cperl1971@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.117.49 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was proposed for deletion by an editor known as TenPoundHammer, who thought that there was no evidence that the subject of the article satisfied Wikipedia's notability guidelines, This was because the only sources for information about it were from the camp's web site or other sources associated with the camp, rather than from independent third party sources. When an article has been proposed for deletion, if nobody expresses a disagreement with the proposal within a week, it is normally deleted by an administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Username? "KeepCup". Article name? "KeepCup" Product name "KeepCup".  Possible COI?
Greetings, I'm doing Request for Feedback, but I'm not really a "heavy" (except on garage-band articles). Would you care to address this guy? Requests_for_feedback/2011_April_13. Thanks, MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks like a conflict of interest, and also a username policy violation. I have posted a message to the user explaining the problems involved. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

HiQ Wikipedia page speedy deletion!?
"Dear Wikipedia Community,

We registered a Wikipedia account as “HiQ Expert Team” some days ago. We are a team regarding Specialty Gases & Specialty Equipment & related services from The Linde Group. We have many years of experience, expertise and knowledge about the gas handling safety & gas applications, etc. We would like to contribute and make those knowledge available to the world. And obviously Wikipedia is the best platform to share those knowledge and experience. Therefore, we will create/add some copyright-free content for Wikipedia, and of course in a neutral, non-interests-conflicting way, so that it will be real encyclopaedia content. We are also learning very hard the Wikipedia policies, and would really appreciate if you can provide us some guidance. Many thanks! And we are looking forward to hearing from you!

Best Regards, HiQ Expert Team"

Dear JamesBWatson, Above was a message communicated to Wikipedia Community some time ago. For all the good reasons mentioned above, we were trying to beam up the HiQ Wikipedia page. It is NOT unambiguous advertising. It is more knowledge contribution. And there are also quite some silimar Wikipedia pages talking about brands, products, etc, some are even really long page. We do not really understand why our contribution was treated this way. Would you please review the case? We appreciate your time and piont of view about "Knowledge sharing"!

Best Regards, HiQ Expert Team" — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiQ Expert Team (talk • contribs) 11:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't find the article you are referring to. There is no record of there ever having been an article titled HiQ, and your account has never edited any article. Can you give me a more exact pointer to the article? JamesBWatson (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Tips from you
Hi JamesBWatson.I would like to have a tip from you.How can one's contribution would raise a stub-class article to a featured class article?.As an administrator can you give an instance in which your contribution paid an important role in raising a stub-class article to a featured article?. Thanks very much! Suri 100 (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I am not the right person to ask, as I have no experience of writing featured articles. I have done a little article writing, but substantially my work on Wikipedia has been about cleaning up, ranging from correcting details to vandal-blocking, spam-deletion, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ruin, city state South Eastern Turkey for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruin, city state South Eastern Turkey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ruin, city state South Eastern Turkey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. andy (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Domestic Fair Trade Association
Hello,

You recently deleted a page for the Domestic Fair Trade Association that I started. I posted information provided to me by someone who was familiar with the history of the organization and I felt like she had written it in a neutral way. Although I am associated with the organization, I read the conflict of interest policy and believe I acted in good faith in opening up an information sharing page about the history of the organization and was not advertising or soliciting and adding any bias. There was also a warning about copyright infringement from a page on Equal Exchange. Equal Exchange was a founding member of the association which is why they also have a copy of the same principles I included on their website. I did not copy them from Equal Exchange. I certainly don't want to violate any wikipedia policies but I was surprised that it was deleted for these reasons.

Separately, it looks like my account is blocked. I had actually already followed directions to change my user name as soon as I got an alert saying I might be in violation of a user name policy. I had not seen that policy before and I'm honestly just not that creative at choosing user names and did not intend to choose something that was misleading at all.

Thanks

TheDFTA (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

TB

 * Seen and read. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Castling article
Castling is under attack again by an IP user - the same issue about the legality of castling when in check. (You blocked an IP user for 48 hours about 48 hours ago. This one has a different IP address but sounds like the same person.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for protecting the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Seen, and replied on Cognitive Dissident's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sock question
Sorry 2 disturb you bloke--Saw you stepped into an edit war earlier, hoping for questions answered about a 'new' disruption/annoyance given ur familiarity w/situation/conflict-->Experiencing conflict w/ editor whose engaging in classic sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry to resume edit war--CyberGhostface (talk)--Wouldnt have reported the mate, not my style, but he is now exploiting notorious "meat puppet" justification w/o understanding that doesnt fly here as well..The suspected ip sock 67.212.81.168 (talk) claims to know CyberGhostface and claims innocence when resuming his previous edit war w/ confession that he is naively doing this for his "friend" CyberChostface which is a meatpuppet violation-- moi don't have time to report this myself and not sure how--hope you can help--thx mate! cheers Games Junn (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * i said i recognized him from imdb because he posted on the super and ellen page boards. but he didn't ask me to do anything and i didn't even know he was blocked until now.--67.212.81.168 (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The funny thing, mate, is that I never said he was blocked. How do you know this unless you are him? cheers Games Junn (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * because i checked his contributions after you accused me of being him.--67.212.81.168 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you have nothing 2 worry about, anon, and these self-conscious posts & knee-jerk self-defensive retorts are not necessary since the truth should speak for itself--Correct, mate?--Word of advice: when you're digging yourself into hole and you get stuck, the way you get out is to stop digging. cheers.Games Junn (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Toby Scott Ganger
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so I have restored it and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

SPI Template

 * Seen and read. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ateeq Hussain Khan Bandanawazi
Hi James. This seems to be a re-pasted copy  of an existing  Wikipedia article, taken from  a mirror site. By the time you  get  this message, it  may  already  have been deleted by  another admin. I'm curious to know what  CSD criterion  should apply. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote a reply to this yesterday, but then there was some strange problem with my browser which prevented me from posting it, so here's attempt number two. Yes the article was deleted before I saw your message. I think without a doubt the most appropriate speedy deletion criterion would be A10 (also db-same), i.e. "recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". Technically speaking it is also a copyright infringement, as we license our contributions to Wikipedia for reproduction only subject to attribution being given. However, I think that using CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement) in a case like this would not be a good idea. Doing so would run the risk of being accused of pedantically following the rules where all that was required was to add an attribution. However, there are occasionally situations where copyright infringement of a Wikipedia article may be worth considering giving as a deletion reason. This can occur, for example, where someone has taken an existing article and changed a few details such as the name, making A10 doubtful, but still leaving problems. However, in such cases there are, in my experience, almost always other problems with the article too: an editor who uses such a crude method of article creation rarely bothers to take the effort to get it right, and the new article is usually grossly inaccurate, often enough so to make it a hoax article. (This is sometimes used as a way of writing vanity articles, in which one claims for oneself distinctions really belonging to another.) However, to return to the situation you described, something which is definitely not correct, but which occurs quite often, is to delete it as a copyright infringement of the mirror site. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply James. It's an interesting  case, because I  couldn't  find a Wikipedia article anything  like it. Perhaps I'm  not  using  the right  search  expressions. There's also  the possibility  that  it  could have been take from  a Google cache of a deleted article. Anyway, it's not  a common  occurrence and it will probably  be a long  time before I come across another one like it.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The first version of this article was a copy of Warsi Brothers, which I found with no trouble. I guess you must be referring to a later version. I think it is almost certain that what happened was that the editor took a mirrored copy of Warsi Brothers and edited it by replacing the body of the text with text copied from another web site. There are various bits of evidence suggesting that, such as the fact that the new article said "This page was last modified on 25 February 2011 at 16:37", which is exactly right for Warsi Brothers. In this case the thing to do is to speedy delete as a copyright infringement of the site where the bulk of the text comes from: the bits copied from Wikipedia are a red herring.
 * So you were referring to a different situation than I thought when I wrote my reply above: it looked as though it was a copyright infringement of a Wikipedia article, but you could not trace the original source. Well, if you can find a source, even if you think it's an intermediate source on a Wikipedia mirror, then I think that would be enough evidence that it is a copyright infringement to justify a G12 speedy deletion. I would say a large proportion of CSD G12 deletions give sources which are not the original sources, but copies on other internet sites. Although obviously the original source is what one should ideally cite, as long as there is unambiguous evidence that it is a copyright infringement it can be deleted, whether or not we can point to the source. The situation in which you can't find any source, not even a mirror, but internal evidence suggests it is a copy of some Wikipedia article somewhere is a much more difficult one, and I have been in exactly that situation a number of times. You can't really claim it is an "unambiguous" copyright infringement, so you can't use CSD G12. There must always be the suspicion that it is a repost under a new title of a deleted article, in which case it would qualify for db-repost (CSD G4: recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion), but you can scarcely use that one just on the basis of suspicion. Sometimes there is some other deletion criterion that applies, but all too often I find that, having wasted time searching for sources, I have to just give up on it, and leave the article in place. (Of course there is always the option of trying PROD or AfD instead.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks again  James for all  your help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Infiniminer?
Can you explain what happened with the Infiniminer article? I've got two speedy notifications on my page, it was deleted and then redirected by you with a note that there was a deletion discussion somewhere. I've no real memory of the page (in fact I've no clue what it was), but would like to know what happened, why I was notified and where that discussion was. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was an article of that title which was deleted following this AfD in October 2010. You took part in that AfD discussion, as you will be able to see, and after it was closed and the article deleted, at 12:32, 29 October 2010, you created it as a redirect to Minecraft, giving the edit summary "redirect per discussion with closing admin". Since then the page has been edit warred over, being alternately rewritten as an article and reverted to a redirect, until eventually it was tagged for speedy deletion as repost, and I deleted it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I should have looked for the AfD. Just got confused since I couldn't see the history. Hobit (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That deletion was too fast. I was about to contest the speedy and suggest AFD, where I would have voted for merge and redirect. Please restore the original article history so that we can do this. Or restore and do the redirect, as that is what I was going to do anyway. -84user (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was tagged for speedy deletion at 11:16, and deleted at 13:07, i.e. after 9 minutes short of two hours. The text of the article before its deletion was "Infiniminer is a game where the world is made up by blocks. The world can be digg and build by blocks, which makes the map dynamic. The player uses gun like device to create and destroy blocks. The aim in the game is to mine valuable minerals from the deep of the game. The team who reaches the goal amount wins the round. Infiniminer was developed by Zachtronics Industries. The game opened new inspirations for future games, such as Minecraft." If you think any of that is worth merging anywhere, the author to give attribution to was Kirov Airship. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I was reading the article just before it got deleted, considering the best way to deal with it, there were three references too which I might use in any merge. Please just restore it and AFD it, or better (less work) restore and do a redirect and I will see what can be merged and attributed (in the summaries of any edit I make). -84user (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored all the edits from when Kirov Airship turned the redirect into an article, and userfied the page at User:84user/Infiniminer. I can't see any point in initiating another AfD if the only intention is to merge it elsewhere anyway. Probably you already know, but to make sure I will point out that userfication of a deleted page is a short term measure to give you time to work on it: it is not a long term way of preserving a copy of the deleted article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

IPs problematic edits
Please see this on AN/I, which may interest you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

...
i was not looking for some trouble, i was going to say on the talk page that i could use some help. anyways. --Singingenie42 (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OpenSystemsPublishing
Hi James, thanks for contacting me. I had decided against a spam block, because the links didn't seem promotional and were relevant to the articles. However, I now see that all the sites linked to are owned by Open Systems Publishing. I would ask the editor if his intentions are to improve the encyclopedia. If so, allow them a name change on the proviso that he does not link to OSP sites. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Promotional Edits
Promotional material was added to TP-Link again on April 13, 2011 by 207.204.237.160. I had reverted the edits and leave a log in the discussion page of the article. Just a friendly FYI as you had reverted previous promotional edits in that article. >>g2g886 (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, I greatly appreciate you doing this. I'm going to reinstate my edits but if I get any trouble I'll bring it to a WikiProject for further discussion as opposed to dealing it with myself.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know that the other editor and I have reached a compromise.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends
Thanks for deleting the Voice Cast (Actors) section. The number of edits were starting to get me down, and I'd added the 'unreferenced' banner as a first-line warning (although some of our dear IP friends occasionally removed it - hence the inline comment). I'd come close to deleting the section myself, but not quite had the courage.

I suspect that now I should visit all the character/episode pages, and the corresponding actor pages, to remove all the unreferenced material -- could be 40-50 pages :o(. Trouble is, this kind of stuff has a habit of re-appearing. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

TP-Link page
I understand you guys are busy, but reverting the entire page was inconsiderate. I did address the issues present and provided third party sources, which you are welcome to check for yourself. Please note that I followed the format used for the D-Link page so as to ensure that there were no mistakes or arbitrary actions taken by the administrators. If you have a problem with the page, cite specific examples so that it may be improved upon (that is the goal, is it not?), but I've gone through it once more and see no problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.237.160 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD on bus routes
Hi JamesBWatson

As you commented on a previous AfD I thought you might be interested in this one.--Charles (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Watsen?
Just wondering, does this user have anything to do with you? I ask because it looked fishy to me :P.  Yes Michael? •Talk 12:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very fishy indeed. I have blocked the user and deleted their copies of my user page and user talk page. Thanks for pointing this out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, technically I blocked them. I figured if it was a legit alt, you could unblock it yourself. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see you did. I thought I did. I see the time stamp on my block notice is the same as the time of your unblock, so presumably we had a sort of "unblock conflict" and you beat me to it by a second or so, and I didn't notice the message telling me the user was already blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anytime  Yes Michael?  •Talk 12:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Message from Snthakur (April 2011)
Your Highness,

Your authority have wished me to stop my disruptive editing in Wikipedia. However, it should have even been okay with me if your highness would have ordered me NOT to come to Wikipedia to make any more edits here. It is my pleasure to abide by the orders made by your highness and also not to come to Wikipedia any more.

I have started believing SO since, I was being stopped from expanding the articles Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math or Sri Devananda Goudiya Math by some biased Wikipedian administrators - who preferred ISKCON than it's root like Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math - and further when they have prejudicial deleted said articles without proper considering my submissions about it's notability or importance. Besides that, there is no mechanism in Wikipedia by which I can raise my voice against those prejudiced Wikipedian administrators rather, abiding by whatever their decisions are.

I thank you for your order sir.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for calling my attention to your editing. I posted a message to you on 7 March, since when I have made 1517 edits, and had long since forgotten your existence. However, this piece of trolling has prompted me to look back at your history, and I see you have been creating unhelpful articles and having them deleted since 2006, so I will watch your editing from now on. I am most grateful to you for calling my attention to the extent of this problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be amused to know that this person is also User:Telitnetwork. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, as you can see here. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kermanshahi
Thanks for "un-holding" that, sorry for my sloppy work. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The user name "lolwutsdis"
Would you mind unblacklisting it for me? I use it for almost everything, thanks. 72.24.78.194 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Scott


 * That name is not explicitly blacklisted, so there must be some blacklisted pattern which includes that name. I'm afraid I don't know enough about how the blacklisting works to be confident of doing it without unacceptable collateral damage. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

gymu
user konstantin ts

please bring back the GYMU, you keep deleting it for some reason that aprears to me unreasonable. this is a non govermental organization, and i need to have some information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstantin ts (talk • contribs) 07:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't "keep deleting it": I have deleted it once. I gave three reasons for deletion: do you consider all of them to be "unreasonable"? All three of them seem to me to be quite clear and unambiguous.


 * 1) Criterion for speedy deletion A7 "An article about an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc.) that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." The article told us that the organisation exists, and what its aims are, and that was all. I saw no indication at all of significance or importance. Wikipedai is not an indiscriminate collection of information about everything: for a topic to qualify for an article there must be evidence that it satisfies Wikipedia'a notability criteria.
 * 2) Criterion for speedy deletion G11 "Pages that are exclusively promotional." The article appeared to exist entirely to promote or advertise the organisation. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service.
 * 3) Criterion for speedy deletion G12 "Unambiguous copyright infringement." The text appears verbatim at http://www.linkedin.com/in/irinachochua. No doubt you have read the copyright message on your talk page, so you are aware of the link from there to instructions to how to donate copyright if you are the copyright owner. However, I think it only fair to tell you that in my experience it is almost never worth the effort of following those instructions. Time and again I have seen new editors go to the trouble of doing what those instructions say, only to find that their work is then deleted again for other reasons, promotion being the commonest one. Text taken from an organisation's own web page is almost never written in the detached, objective tone that is required for an encyclopaedia article.
 * If points 1 & 2 were the only concerns then I might be willing to restore the content to your user space for you to work on to see if you could rectify those problems before republishing it as an article. However, for obvious reasons it is not possible to restore an article which appears to infringe copyright. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Expressways in Santa Clara County
I had to take a break for taxes. Where we left off, here is a copy of your last message to me:
 * 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)

Some of the people who voted for deletion of the original page Santa Clara County Expressway System oppose any mention of non-motorists (bicyclists, pedestrians and transit patrons) on expressways in Santa Clara County (and probably, highways in general). Someone else deleted all photos showing bicyclists and pedestrians on these roads, but kept all photos showing only motor vehicles. Regarding my User article, one person tried to delete that entirely but was out-voted.

Quoting from your prior message: The closing administrator said that "the consensus appears to be to delete the article, as a subject which does not meet notability/NPOV criteria". The vote to delete was almost split, by 4 to 3, which you agree was not "clear consensus". Furthermore, at the time, I didn't know what notability meant, so I didn't make the proper argument against deletion, which should have been that this subject is notable: It is noted in the Wikipedia page California County Routes in zone G, as well as State road maps. The route numbers are unique within the State. Here is what USRD/NT states regarding unique roadway articles (which this is not, it is a list article):
 * Secondary state highways and county highways that are part of a statewide system (i.e. the highway numbers do not repeat themselves across the state) may or may not be sufficiently notable to merit a unique article. Highways that have very little to say about them (i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) are better suited to a list.
 * While for the most part, county highways should be in a list article, there may be a select few major county highways that are notable enough to have their own article. These include freeways/expressways, ...

I included these expressways not in a unique article for each expressway, but in a list article. The claim by freeway fans was that these expressways did not even deserve to be in a list article, let alone a unique article for each. For about 5 years, no one questioned the notability of these expressways in the list article. It was only after I added information and photos about non-motorists' use of these roads that notability questioned. This is clearly wrong, as adding missing information on the topic should not effect notability of the topic.

The title did cause controversy with one person. He made a valid (albeit minor) point, that the better title is "Expressways in Santa Clara County". I'd like to have that for the title, and then redirect the page with the original title, Santa Clara County Expressway System. This person, a freeway fan, used that as his reason for voting for deletion of the page, but in hindsight, he just used that as (an invalid) justification to completely delete the article, because the title could have been easily changed without deleting the entire article (I now realize). Another important point to make is that there are many Wikipedia articles that have links to this page (even today, despite being deleted), so it was a disservice to Wikipedia readers to totally delete all the information that existed.

The page Deletion policy states: If you believe a page was wrongly deleted ... you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Unfortunately, this matter gets complicated and confusing for others because (a) I don't want to put the page at that location, but at the location you quick-deleted, and (b) I don't want to restore the page that was deleted, because I had greatly improved it in the meanwhile in my User area.

These are the alternatives for the next step: If you object to the third alternative, then I and others will need to chug through a lot of complexity (me in explaining, others in understanding), so I hope you agree. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Try to explain the entire matter to the administrator that did the original deletion, User:Phantomsteve who is on semi-wikibreak. He is from UK which probably has a different definition of expressway which can further confuse the matter. For example, he may be thinking that I am trying to get pedestrians to walk on freeways, and therefore I'm either I'm a lunatic or trying to vandalize the page, as one freeway fan already claimed I was doing.
 * 2) Go through a Deletion review. There's a lot of complexity that the various contributors to the review would need to understand. It would be a lot simpler to abolish this complexity.
 * 3) The third alternative, since you had agreed that the original deletion should not have occurred, and if you do not now object, is that I copy the User article to Expressways in Santa Clara County which you previously quick-deleted.
 * 4) A fourth possibility, is to ask User:Phantomsteve, maybe after he returns from break, whether or not he objects to copying the User article to Expressways in Santa Clara County (that you quick-deleted), but this needs a lot of explaining since he was not involved in your quick-delete.
 * I will think about what I think is the best way to deal with this. I don't have much time now, so I will try to get back onto you about it within a couple of days. (However, I have sometimes said that to other Wikipedians in the past and then forgotten, so if you haven't heard from me again within 48 hours please do remind me.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. I made some minor edits (above) at the request of a User, as follows: The photo issue was resolved by changing the caption (although his initial attempt was to try to delete the photo rather than change the caption), I removed saying that he is a freeway fan (apparently, I got the wrong impression looking at the freeway symbol for his masthead), he is not an administrator and I also deleted his User name. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

GINADEN
WELL SIR IM 15 YRS OLD SO IM DOING THIS STORY ABOUT GINADEN WHICH WILL COME OUT IF I MAKE SUCCESSFUL SO THATS WHY I HAVEN'T EXPLAINED COMPLETELY ABOUT WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER BECAUSE I JUST STARTED ON THIS THING SO THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO SAY REALLY GOD BLESS RATED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratedk (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 April 2011
 * If you mean that the article you have now twice created is a story you are writing yourself, then Wikipedia is not a medium for publishing original creative writing. You would be better off using a free web space provider,or perhaps a social network site, as anything of the sort you write on Wikipedia will be likely to be deleted. It is also worth mentioning that posting talk page messages all in capitals is not a good idea. It tends to give people the impression that you are "shouting" at them, and is likely to make people less likely to take notice of what you are saying to them. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch
As the user with the most substantive, clearest comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch, would you take another look at WikiWitch and whether it should be deleted? If so, you would be the best user to renominate the page since your comments were the most articulate. Cunard (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Helloo.
Hi I'm just wondering why you banned my friend's account a long time ago. Her name is Macy emerald or something. I'm not mad I'm just wondering what happened.

RadioGirlDone (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is herself. Both self-identify as "Amanda". Goodvac (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

hey i wasn't adding anything promotional. i added some text on how to optimize press release for improving seo and added a ref link. is this what u call spam? regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestomerson (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RP-SMA
James,

I've spent an hour or more grappling with the "reversing" of male/female, plug/socket, pin/receptacle on the SMA connector page. I don't know any of the people who have edited it.

13 October 2010 at 11:42 you reversed an edit by Paolopasse. I agree Paolopasse had not corrected what was wrong, and if anything made it worse, but I can see what Paolopasse was wanting to fix - and in my opinion it still needs fixing.

However I am not a confident editor so I thought I'd check with you first. You might say I should just go ahead and edit it?

As far as I can see the text, and the table below it, make sense.

What is inconsistent, and I believe still wrong is in Figure 2 caption where the word "plug" is used, wrongly, twice:

"Male RP-SMA (RP-SMA-M or RSMA-M) plug connector: Male inner pin (plug) contact ..."

should be changed to

"Male RP-SMA (RP-SMA-M or RSMA-M) socket connector: Male inner pin contact ..."

in order to be consistent with the text which says:

"RP-SMA plugs and RP-SMA sockets, which are female and male respectively"

and

"an RP-SMA male has a pin like a conventional male, but is housed in a socket"

Comments? Regards, Dave E Mason (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking back at my edit from October last year that you mention, I am not sure I was right, and I certainly don't have enough confidence in my knowledge of the subject to give further advice. Sorry this won't be very helpful to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

unblock approval
Thank you so much "James", I really appreciate you giving me another chance and unblocking me. And like I stated in my request, you won't have to worry about any bad behaviour from me, and I completely understand that I'll promptly be blocked again if anything like that should ever take place. Thanks again, I look forward to being able to contribute to Wikipedia :) J.Read — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jread925 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Silkyaqua123
Hi there; as you point out, this user's talk page contained four copyvio warnings, and certainly I could have left them in place and just removed his copyviolating article. I took the view that he had (necessarily) seen the warnings and (obviously) ignored them, and thought that his finding the whole page gone might, possibly, get the point across. He is, I note, now blocked for a truly determinedly persistent approach to copyright violation. To answer your specific question, no, I have no problem with your approach; mine was simply a little more radical. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Iqinn and misleading edits.
Dear Mr.Watson, On an unblock request you made an observation that if Iqinn was incapable of understanding the reasons he was blocked he lacked the competence to edit here. I made a mental note because I thought it an accurate assessment. I have found some pretty outrageous edits which, to put kindly, are misinterpretations of the source material however, stating "On February 24 U.S. forces issued an apology admitting that the U.S. had killed seven schoolboys and a neighboring shepherd" and sourcing it to this is either a complete misrepresentation of the source or the fellow can't read English well enough to edit here. He stands by that, stating: "i always and still believe that this is true and verified".  This false admission of US guilt has been up on the encyclopedia since he created the article on 17 August, 2010.

Again, either this is deliberate or he can't effectively communicate in English. What can be done about this? V7-sport (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

APRICO Solutions
I declined your speedy tagging of this page and replaced it with. Although it does sound a bit promotional (and I see it was written by a COI user), it's not terrible. Furthermore, the sourcing looks okay. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There must be sources! section
Since certain editors seem hell bent on excluding this from WP:ATA, I have copied it to my user space here with a view to developing it into a stand-alone essay. Would you care to help me flesh it out some more? Reyk  YO! 00:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ENPC MBA Paris School of international management
Hello Mr Watson, I would like to know why you have deleted my article on ENPC MBA Paris School of International management. My aim was not advertizing, I believe the subject deserve an article, and I just would like to know why you think the one I provided is not publishable. As you can see all the business school has a page on wikipedia and not for advertizing but for describing the educational institution, its history, its characteristics, its faculty and its courses. I just want to set up a page for ENPC MBA that reflect these other pages in its structure and content. It is the first article I write so it is important for me to understand what is not working with it. If I have to make some editing I will, just tell me what was wrong with it. Thank you for your kind reply,

Liviana Sala —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullyLiviNG (talk • contribs) 12:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An article full of such prose as "prides itself on developing entrepreneurial leaders with a strong sense of values that go beyond academic excellence" comes across as promotional. In addition, it is worth mentioning that your English does not really seem to be up to writing an encyclopaedia article in English: maybe you would prefer to contribute to Wikipedia in your own native language (French, perhaps?). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you. I will re-write it being more encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullyLiviNG (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

GHWA.
Hello JamesBWatson,

Please explain to me why the GHW Architects page was deleted. The firm is a notable architecture firm in Manhattan. I have credible sources and news articles stating their notability. It is not nonsense, spam, or copyright infringement as the help page may suggest. Nor is it up for promotion, as there are a slew of other architectural firms which have a wikipedia page (costas kondylis).

Thank you,

LC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatink (talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) An article full of such prose as "dedicated to the creation of the highest quality multiuse buildings", "design professionals with extensive experience", and "Stephen Hill and David West have a legacy of excellence in design spanning 20 years" is promotional. If you sincerely can't see that then I can only assume that one or both of the following applies: (1) You are so closely involved in the business that you are unable to stand back and see how your writing will look from the detached perspective of an outsider. This inability to see things from an impartial perspective is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing an article on a subject to which one has a direct connection. (2) You are a professional in marketing, and are so accustomed to marketing-speak that you have become desensitised to it.
 * 2) The text of the article appears verbatim at http://ghwarchitects.com/Company.html. That page bears the notice "Content copyright 2009-2011. Goldstein Hill & West Architects LLP. All rights reserved." If you deny the validity of that copyright notice then you will need to produce evidence. (However, it is probably not worth your while doing so, as the article will be deleted as promotional anyway, even if you can establish that the content has been released under a license consistent with Wikipedia's reuse terms.)
 * 3) What other articles exist is irrelevant, as this one has to be assessed on its own merits. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I will create a new page with words differing from that of the ones on the website. Would that be all right? 14:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)LC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatink (talk • contribs)
 * It may be. Without knowing more about what you will write I can't say. I also suggest reading FAQ/Organizations. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed help! I will step back and rethink how I will write this. Thanks James. -LC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatink (talk • contribs) 15:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Responded on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kumar Parakala/Kumar Parakala‎
The only reason I added the delete tag was it was created as a result of a history move. Mtking (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did understand that. However, it does not satisfy the given speedy deletion criterion, nor, as far as I can think, any other one. If you really want it deleted you could take it to WP:RfD, but I doubt that it's worth the trouble. If the user wants it deleted then that will be fine, otherwise leaving it there does no harm.  JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the U1 deletions
--Trevj (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Aidin Afkhami
Hi. My name is Yashar Afkhami, I'm the oldest sun of Behrooz Afkhami, the Iranian Movie Director. I tried to make a biography page for my younger brother Aidin Afkhami earlier, but the page i made was deleted. i was told that the page was deleted because it didn't have any reliable sources. Now i have a reliable source, a web page with an article about Aidin. i was wondering if it was possible for you to reopen Aidin's page, or do i need to make a new one? i will be waiting for your answer. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaremif (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that, while waiting for an answer from me, you have sought answers elsewhere too. The reason given by the editor who proposed deletion was lack of sources, but that is not the only issue. I see nothing in the article to indicate that he is of such significance or importance to justify having an article about him in an encyclopaedia. More importantly, on searching I have not found suitable sources anywhere that indicate such importance, which suggests that it may not be possible to rewrite the article with sources. If a subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines then no amount of rewriting will make it notable. Finally, you are not the right person to be writing an article on Aidin Afkhami, as your close connection to him means that you have a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages creating articles on a subject to which you have such a connection. If, despite appearances, he actually is notable by Wikipedia's standards, then probably sooner or later an uninvolved outsider will consider him significant enough to write an article on him. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarina Paris prod removed
Hi James BW. Just letting you know I put some work into this article and have now removed the prod you placed on it. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Eleven pictures article
Hi James

Thanks a lot for deleting the entire Eleven Pictures article. Now I have to reproduce the non-copyright violating bits and pieces from scratch. How about you just deleted the violating stuff?

I was planning on re-writing the entire Biography paragraph anyway, so I just put in the Myspace description as a placeholder. Now I'm uncertain whether I even bother.

--Faerloev (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the parts of the article which were not copied from the web page were an info box, a list of members of the band, and a "Discography" section, listing three records. If you like I can happily give you a copy of those: just let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Vicguyot and Mat Hennek
User talk:Vicguyot seems to have a serious COI on Mat Hennek, as he seems to be his manager or work for his management company. Seems to be the same user as User talk:178.198.178.13 which you unblocked. He continues doing what you warned him about and has been reported at AIV. Besides the user/COI issue I want to discuss the article itself. I see it has gone through CSD for Copyvio to PROD. I am strongly considering Afd. There are lots of claims and no references. There are mentions to galleries that purpotedly show his work, but only with links to the galleries themselves (their home pages) which does not show any reference to the subject and amount to nothing more than spam for the galleries. The claims made invalidate an A7 off-hand but IMO he is not more than another professional photographer that has exhibited and been published. Before going to the hassle of AfD I'd like your opinion as you have been more involved. Note this is not canvassing, just a question on your thoughs if I should go the AfD route or is it a waste of time in this case. Cheers! -- Alexf(talk) 13:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment, and think and AfD would be totally appropriate. In fact the only thing which could conceivably be considered to be a source is his own web site, so I think it is borderline for PRODBLP, but perhaps AfD would be better. Incidentally, I didn't unblock the IP. I meant to decline the unblock request, but evidently copied the "accept" template instead of the "decline" one by mistake: my edit summary shows that I thought I was declining the request, as do the reasons I gave, which made no sense as reasons for unblocking. A stupid mistake. As for the user, he/she has only been severely warned recently, and has not edited since then, so I think we should leave it at that for now. If the trouble continues then we can consider the possibility of a block. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean about the unblock. Didn't realize at the time. As per the user, I agree and that's why I did not block from AIV. Article goes to AfD then. -- Alexf(talk) 13:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nils Schmid
You deleted the Nils Schmid article because of a banned or blocked user. The issue now is that he definitely would meet notability since he's the Deputy Minister-President of Baden-Württemberg. What should be done about this. Kingjeff (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I find this a difficult problem, but not this time. There is often a conflict between "we should not allow blocked or banned editors to get away with evading their block/ban, so we should delete any articles they create", and "no matter what the origin of the article, if it's a perfectly good one we should keep it, rather than putting someone to a lot of trouble recreating it". The issue has been debated a number of times, with the first of these two gaining the greater amount of support. I too tend to go for that one, though I do have misgivings about it, and I have occasionally gone against that line, when I have thought there is a strong balance the other way. However, in this case the article was quite short (nine sentences), and I really don't think that the amount of work needed to rewrite it is enough to weigh against the policy that banned users don't get to create articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Nine sentences is very little. Would you be opposed that I start the article over again? Or do I have to go through the review of the deletion on that? Kingjeff (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why you shouldn't just go ahead and rewrite it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my account
Thank you for fixing it so that I'm no longer affected by the open proxy block on 153.65.16.10. I appreciate it. I do have a question though. Is there someplace where I can see what lead to the block request in the first place? Also, unless I'm going crazy (which is a reasonable possibility) I originally couldn't even edit my own talk page. What changed to allow me to edit my own talk page? Thank you again, Bill Huffman (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you go to Special:Contributions/153.65.16.10 you will see a link near the top of the page labelled "block log". If you click on that you will see "13:59, 10 May 2011 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs) blocked 153.65.16.10 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎ ". If you want to know why that block came into existence then I'm afraid I can't help you, but you could ask the blocking administrator at User talk:Tnxman307 if you like. Tnxman307 is a checkuser as well as an administrator, and so has access to information I don't have. Whether Tnxman307 can divulge any relevant information to you I don't know, but there's no harm in asking if you want to. As for what changed to allow you to edit your own talk page, I'm afraid I have no idea. Sorry I can't offer more help, but at least I'm glad to have been able to help by enabling you to avoid the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. Bill Huffman (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Glitch Turner
Jim, I need your help. You set my page to autoconfirmed, but as I am blocked and have only nine edits, I cannot get back onto my talk page with the Glitch Turner account. So I am sending you this on a onetime login, asking for your assistance. Obviously there is an imposter that is trying to screw up my request for an unban. Please review the history on the page and you will see that the IP's and the vulgar new accounts are not the same as me. I trust that a good check user, such as Alison or someone familiar with me (such as Buggs) will spot the imposter. Please try to see that a Troll is screwing with my sincere request. thank you in advance for considering this request. Glitch Turner Temp (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied at User talk:Glitch Turner JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

An apology
Upon later rereading a comment I earlier posted on ANI regarding the block of Mindbunny, I realized it came across much more strongly worded than I intended. I did not mean to be overly critical or to accuse you of acting in bad faith; I meant to imply that the community as a whole was coming down harder on the user than other users, not that you or any other individual user was intentionally trying to subvert policy. I clarified my comments and responded to you, but I wanted to personally apologize to you here as well. Kansan (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
You've been one of the cooler heads with the dramafest around Mindbunny and Sandstein's now deleted RfC. I don't entirely agree with the sky-is-falling freakouts from the more extreme BLP fanatics (I think our actual influence over living people, especially with such set reputations like Mugabe, is usually extremely minimal to nothing; much less than many people seem to believe/want to believe), but I can understand where there would be a BLP concern and as I've said at ANI I'll take a more tactful approach from here. What I was initially worried about was something like the drama that was Herostratus' recall playing out again; that got kicked up over a similarly flippant (although in his case empirically correct) comment, but this issue seems to be dying off now. I'm trying to persuade Mindbunny to take the approach I have now, although I don't know how much success I'll have. As you're the blocking admin, please let me know if my presence isn't helpful and I'll back away before I cause more problems. And for the record, I don't believe that admins are on a power trip; I truly appreciate the work you all do. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Shonali Malhotra
sir, Why you Had Delete this Page Please Reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityccc (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As you will have seen in the block log entry, for two reasons. Firstly, the article gave no indication that its subject was of such significance or importance to justify having an encyclopaedia article about her. Secondly, the article had no sources cited, and an editor had therefore proposed that it be deleted, and after a waiting period nobody had provided sources or objected to the proposal. Either of these two reasons would have been sufficient reason for deletion. It is perhaps also worth mentioning that the article was very badly written, and if it had not been deleted would have needed a complete rewrite. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

can i see the page for example i.e which was written etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityccc (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I have restored the article and moved it to User:JamesBWatson/Shonali Malhotra. I don't think that it is remotely suitable as an article, and I intend this to be a temporary userfication, to be deleted after a while, unless you can offer a reason why this should not be so. However, you are pefectly welcome to see what is there. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Despite being blocked for 72 hours for his actions, Mindbunny is edit warring over comments on his talk page. Just an FYI... Erikeltic ( Talk ) 03:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A user has a right to remove comments from their talk page once they have seen them. However, you were edit-warring to repeatedly restore such a comment removed by the user. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia page
Hi Mr Watson

I had just made a page in april, and it got deleted but... "with the title Jai Prakash Naraine singh"

i just want to ask.. can i make a page for my dad he is a business man in india..

i just want to put his information on wikipedia, so that my friends can check it out

please do reply..

thanks!

Utkarsh Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshsingh28 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not recommend doing so, as you would have a conflict of interest, being closely related to the subject of the article. Wikipedia articles should normally be written by impartial outsiders. You should also be aware that Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and does not exist to create articles for your personal use to show to your friends. Articles should only be written on subjects which are notable enough to be of significance to the world at large, not just your friends. Look at the notability guidelines, especially the guideline on notability of people, and at the guideline on reliable sources.
 * Can you try to give the exact title of the page you created? There has never been an article with the title Jai Prakash Naraine singh, and the nearest I can find is Jai prakash naraine singh, which was created not in April, but in December 2010.
 * Your account was created on 15 May 2011, so if you did create a page in April then you must have used another account. Why have you used more than one account? And can you say what other account you have used? Are you the person who previously edited as Utkarshshreya? Unless there are good reasons you should use only one account. It would be best to state on your user page that you have two accounts, and what they are, because unfortunately some users abuse more than one account to pretend to be different people, for various dishonest purposes. I am not suggesting that you are doing that, just advising you that it is best to make it clear to everyone that you have nothing to hide, so as to avoid suspicion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Kern Precision Scales
Hi James,

Can you kindly advise me how to amend my page so it remains undeleted? This company has a huge heritage, it's a 6 generations old family business and was responsible for Southern Germany's reputation for precision scale manufacture.

So I believe is has notability. And I have seen pages of competitor companies with less heritage on Wikipedia.

Many thanks,

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.68.112 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you give me the exact title of the article in question, so I can check back and see its history? There is no record of there having ever been an article called Kern Precision Scales, and I don't remember what it was called, and without seeing it and why it was deleted I can't help you. Alternatively, if you too don't remember the exact title then if you can tell me the name of the account you used to create it then I can look through your editing history and find it. On the subject of other articles which you think are less deserving, making that comparison is natural, and therefore common when articles are deleted or nominated for deletion, but it is often irrelevant, for reasons you can see at WP:OTHERSTUFF if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure: the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_precision_scales I just googled Kern Precision Scales and the first link takes you to it, with this record:

10:33, 10 May 2011 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Kern precision scales" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Thanks for your help.

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by James nester (talk • contribs) 07:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, a simple difference in capitalisation which threw me, and I didn't think of the obvious method of Googling. I don't have time to look into this now, but I will try to do in a couple of days. If I don't get back to you on Monday please remind me. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok James, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.68.112 (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

James,

I have just had another look at the original page and can see that I didn't make it fully clear why Kern is notable. I have just rewritten the introduction and added a couple of citations. I hope this is now acceptable? If not I look forward to your guidance.

All the best,

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by James nester (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied at User talk:James nester. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)