User talk:JBW/Archive 28

Inciting Cognitive Disident
One would think you would have had the foresight to not take sides however that clearly isn't the case after reading your comments on his talk page April 15. It's also noted you have not done anything about his personal attacks and almost insinuating that his actions were in some way justified. Aren't admins meant to be be neutral and fair in dealing with conflicts like this ? So James I ask you to kindly NOT take sides and NOT encourage people to create further dramas that in the end you will unfortunately have to mediate. I fell sorry for you that you feel that you were under some form of mental siege when I voiced my fair and balanced opinion about you and your actions. I feel that it really isn't my fault that you felt the way you did. I'm sure you are man enough to take honest opinions for what they are without need to feel under attack or become annoyed.

I also find it rather sad that you state that it's in my interests to please admins like yourself and get them onside instead of voicing my logical and fairly balanced opinions. Like I said since you fancy yourself as a vigilant admin on here why do you not follow and enforce all the policies/rules of wiki but only some and esp only on editors you "personally" have a beef with ?

Judging by all the ongoing dramas on your talk page it seems I am not alone when it comes to questioning your actions. We can't be all wrong can we ? Fisted Rainbow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Oh can I suggest you have a read of the following and perhaps follow the guidelines ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Excuse me if placing this link isn't the correct way of putting up on your talk page. Thx Fisted Rainbow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC).
 * It would have saved me a good deal of time had you given diffs, or some other indication what you were referring to. Searching through edit histories and archives I think I have found all the relevant history. I see that I put some time and effort into trying to help and advise you, including posting an unblock request on your behalf, as you had misunderstood how to do it. I see that I also posted criticism of Cognitive Dissident on their talk page. I also see that, in my posts to you, I was at pains to point out to you that I was sure that you had acted in good faith, and that I had sympathy with you. I tried to help you by explaining some aspects of how Wikipedia works that you appeared to be unaware of. I do not see where I said "that it's in [your] interests to please admins like [myself] and get them onside instead of voicing [your] logical and fairly balanced opinions", and indeed I would be very surprised if I did. If I really did say that then please point me to where I said it. It is possible, however, that it is your paraphrase of "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." If so, then there is nothing at all to suggest that you should not express your opinions (whether logical and fairly balanced or otherwise), only a suggestion that in the course of doing so you are more likely to gains support if you do so civilly. Nor is there anything about pleasing admins to get them on your side. I do not have the remotest idea what gave you the impression that I felt that I was "under some form of mental siege": I cannot find anything I have written anywhere that I can conceive of being interpreted in that way. As for your suggestion that I personally have a "beef" with you, on the contrary, all this is about a minor incident that took place nearly two months ago, that I dealt with, moved on, and forgot about. I really have no special interest in you at all, and at the time when I dealt with it, I honestly thought, as I indicated at the time, that you were a good-faith editor who had fallen into difficulties due to a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's procedures. My final word of advice to you, which you are free to follow or to ignore as you see fit. Generally speaking, editors who assume good faith in others tend to have a better time here than those who impute evil motives to others. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

James

Allow me to refresh your memory. Take from Cognitive's discussion/talk page

"I have just posted a reply to an attack on me from Fisted Rainbow. This user has, amongst other things, accused you of personal attacks. Fisted Rainbow has been very uncivil, and has made threats and attacks, and I can quite see how they may have annoyed you. However, your own responses have also often left much to be desired. Please avoid making personal attacks, even if you are provoked, otherwise you may find yourself being blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)"

Here you clearly feel "attacked" by me however this never actually happened.

Also noted its your comment "I can see how they may have annoyed you" A clear inference justifying CD's actions or rather reactions.

Using the word "evil" is a strong word indeed and I do think is rather dramatic.

Had you actually researched CD's various personal and defamatory attacks both on the actual Earthcore article and the discussion page added to the fact that CD was using personal blogs, personal forums etc etc to attempt to smear my organisation and personally discredit me which started all this in the first place it probably wouldn't even have gotten to this point on your talk page

The fact is you turned as blind eye to all these violations of Wiki policy even after Slim Virgin stepped in set the record straight (The record being I was right in the first place and personal blogs, forums were not valid sources or references and therefore can not be used) you decided to pull me up for breach of the rules but not CD. This incredible bias is what I am talking about.

If you consider yourself a fair and benevolent admin then try and enforce "all" wiki rules not just the ones that suite your purpose at the time. If you feel this is yet another attack on you then once again I apologise if you feel that way.Fisted Rainbow (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will answer just one of your points. To take "I have just posted a reply to an attack on me from Fisted Rainbow" as meaning that I personally felt hurt is a substantial jump of meaning, and to go from there to suggesting that I felt "under some form of mental siege" is absurd. You called me "irresponsible" and "over zealous", and accused me of "pulling off power trips", and so on and so on. It was a personal attack. Contrary to what you seem to think, categorising it as such does not mean that I felt personally hurt by it. I have now wasted enough time on checking the history of what, as I have already indicated, I regarded as a minor incident, dealt with about two months ago. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:121.1.31.102
Looks like the vandal on is back again, up with his old tricks of putting unsourced info on SkyCable. Although it has been two months since his last block, it seems he hasn't learned his lesson. Just letting you know. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy's currently blocked again for a month. Graeme Bartlett must've have a sixth sense because I haven't told him about the vandal. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 05:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:List of MTA Maryland bus routes‎
"Talk:List of MTA Maryland bus routes‎ (Declining speedy deletion. Talk:List of former MTA Maryland bus routes contains messages relating to history of its article, not List of MTA Maryland bus routes, and would make no sense if moved.)"
 * Actually this does make sense, as List of former MTA Maryland bus routes is a redirect to List of MTA Maryland bus routes Lmatt (talk)
 * Yes, but it wasn't a redirect at the time the talk page messages were posted, and they refer to version of the article List of former MTA Maryland bus routes. Those messages would make no sense at all to anyone reading them at Talk:List of MTA Maryland bus routes‎, since the edits they refer to do not exist in the history of List of MTA Maryland bus routes. Much better to keep the talk page with the article the history of which contains the material referred to in that talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Asking to block user.
Hello. Sorry to bother you, but can you block ? This is surely a vandalism-only account he posts unconfirmed info on several articles, especially on cable channels here in the Philippines because tries to picture a cable company realigning its channel lineup when such news occured. Please do this ASAP. I am now reverting a lot of his edits. I've reported him to WP:AIV, but no action so far there. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also need to watch . I can't confirm most of his other edits (I don't watch soap operas such as Mara Clara), but based on his misinformation edits on Starhub TV and SkyCable, I suspect he may be a sockpuppet of Christian2941. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I should say that "I suspect he may be" is being rather cautious. An absolute WP:DUCK. Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Although you may be out right now, but I have to drop this message for a heads up: Despite the valid edits, I'm also suspecting to be another sock. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Romar9122 now blocked. I've filed an SPI report in relation to this. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fleetham
Hello, i see that you were one of the two administrators that declined Fleethams block being lifted. In the message, he claimed that he would cease his editwarring but within the same hour that you responded he begin to editwar again on the Lanix article. He has been acting immaturly over the Lanix article for months now and seems to have grudge against the compnany for some unknown reason. All of us who edit the Lanix article have tried reasoning with him yet he will not stop desptie numerous continuous citations that prove him wrong which he then subsuquently deletes or ignores. He is now trying to get the article deleted despite there being no good reason. He also keeps saying that he will revert to his opinion until a concensous is reached however the concensous is against him so he then ignores it or says no concensous has been reached. I am requesting that firmer action be taken against him as he has proven to be a liar and a manipulator. I am well aware of the magnitude of these accusations but I and several other editors and some administrators have attempted dealing with him and he always lies or uses underhanded means to advance his agenda. You can see this if you read the editing history of the Lanix page or the Lanix discussion page. I am comming to you because his agenda and underhanded ways have become problematic to the extent that he is trying to delete article just because he can not impose his incorrect opinions on them. Looking at the history on the Lanix page you can see how he deletes citations then later deletes information claiming that there was never a citation. He seems to have it out for this specific company for whatever reason and deletes information from it and also replaces cited text with uncited guess work on his part and removes important information replacing it with poorly written speculation. Please respond to me either way. Thank You 69.235.202.157 (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with some of your comments on the user's editing. However, since the latest block expired the user has made only one edit to the article, which requested speedy deletion. The user has a right to suggest speedy deletion, and, while I don't agree with the request, since you have declined it there is no problem there. I therefore don't see that there is anything to be done at this moment. However, please do feel very welcome to contact me if problematic editing continues, and especially if edit warring continues, and I will consider further action. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. I am here once again because Fleetham has not followed through on his claim that he will cease to edit war the Lanix article and has again reverted it since i posted my last complaint above earlier today. This can be seen in the recent history of the Lanix article. This behavior is outright dishonest and extremely disruptive to wikipedia. Several other editors just today within the last few hours have shown him new evidence of the company from CNN yet he still ignores it and is trying to delete the page. Please contact me with your response as soon as possible. Thank You 69.235.202.157 (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have posted responses at User talk:Fleetham and at User talk:69.235.202.157. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Creation of the deleted page, Kalyan Sundaram
I have created a new page with different content. Check the [Duplication Report] here. Thanks. freewheeler 03:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Manorathan (talk)

Hi, please could you advise on what changes iI need to make to the following text to make it acceptable? I don't understand what caused it to be removed; please could you advise on the inappropriate content and I will change accordingly, thank you

Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) Europe The Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) Europe educates the market on the evolution and application of storage infrastructure solutions for the data centre through education, knowledge exchange and industry thought leadership. It is a non-profit, vendor-neutral organisation run by its members and represents manufacturers and the channel community across Europe. It actively recruits members to maintain a balanced and valued industry forum. Its key focus areas are: o	Storage in virtualised environments o	Storage in cloud environments o	Storage and networking technologies

SNIA Europe is responsible for hosting vendor-neutral educational programmes and endorses industry magazines SNS Europe and SNS UK. SNIA Europe has formed many technical groups which provide educational resources, technological updates and help promote and develop industry standards.

Sarrahmm (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Fleming Hong Kong article
Hi, I am going to create a similar page with the same topic using my own words & remaining neutral tone. Could you please help me review before I publish it? Or could you give me some advise on it? Thanks much! Ghc.cecilia (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly if you write a draft of the article (say at User:Ghc.cecilia/Fleming Hong Kong) and let me know when you have done so I will look at it and let you know what I think. Before you do so, though, you should decide whether it is suitable at all for a Wikipedia article. I have all too often seen people who have seen an article deleted because of some particular issues (such as copyright) rewrite it, putting considerable care into making sure that they don't make the same mistake again, only to see it deleted again for some other reason, often because it does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. I am sure you can imagine how frustrating that must be. I strongly recommend looking at FAQ/Organizations, which gives a summary of many of the issues involved in writing about a business. If, after having read that, you still wish to go ahead, you should have a look at the general notability guideline and at Notability (organizations and companies). Unfortunately there are (in my opinion) far too many of these guidelines, and it is completely unreasonable to expect you to study and learn all of them before you start editing, but you need to have at least a rough idea what sort of things are covered. Some of the pages linked to from the welcome message on your talk page are quite useful, too. If, after you have looked at some of the appropriate guidelines, it seems that the hotel does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then I suggest dropping the idea, as you are likely to find any article on it keeps on being deleted, completely wasting your time.
 * I know nothing about you or why you want to write this article. It may be that you are interested in writing for Wikipedia, and just happen to have chosen this subject to start on, or it may be that you work for the hotel, and are only here to promote it. If the first of these is true, then my advice is to leave this article for now, and start by making small improvements to existing articles. That way you can learn how Wikipedia works bit by bit, and after a while you will know enough to be able to successfully write an article. In my experience people who work that way are far more likely to have a successful time here than those who jump straight into writing whole articles, which have a very high chance of being repeatedly deleted, leading to frustration and disillusionment. (Of course it doesn't always work that way, but I find the risk of that happening is much higher if you start by writing whole articles than if you start in a small way and work your way up.) If, on the other hand, you are not interested in general editing of Wikipedia, but are only here to promote the hotel because you work for it, then I urge you to consider whether you could make more productive use of your time and efforts elsewhere. People who come to edit Wikipedia just to promote their business, band, club, or any other sort of organisation very frequently have an unsuccessful time here. If you are closely involved in an organisation it is very difficult to stand back from it far enough to see what your writing will look like from the perspective of an outsider. Time and again I have seen people in that situation having their work undone for various reasons such as that it always looks promotional. Often such people seem to be sincerely unable to see why their work is being destroyed: they honestly cannot see that their writing is not written in a neutral way. This is, in fact, why Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages writing on a subject to which you have a direct connection. The problem can be at its worst if the person doing the editing is a professional in marketing or PR, as such a person is so thoroughly immersed in marketing speak that they become blind to it.
 * I hope that at least some of these remarks will be of some use to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you so much for your advice. This is very useful. I'll look at the guideline once more and try to do it properly. Will let you know if I need further assistance. Thanks a lot! Nice meeting you by the way! Ghc.cecilia (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for putting the unblock through. Is there a way for me to archive my talk page? Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, can I use Twinkle? That issue arose too. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to go offline now, but I'll try answer your questions within 12 hours or so. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied at at Ryan Vesey's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Pimp of the City page was Deleted wrongly....It was airred on BET:Uncut and the first single off hidden adjenda
http://vodpod.com/watch/5738168-natalac-pimp-of-the-city-bet-uncut-version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.97.136.26 (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pimp of the City has never been deleted as such, but you are no doubt referring to the fact that it was redirected to another article on 13 April. However, since I had nothing to do with that redirection, and have never edited the article, nor, so far as I recall, ever heard of either the article or its subject before, I don't know why you are telling me about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Florence Peake and A7
Hi, you speedily deleted the article Florence Peake under A7, as a person that does not indicate the significance of the subject. I have long used the following guidelines in my interpretation of A7:
 * Claiming and establishing notability are two separate things. As long as a notability claim is credible (i.e., not something obviously false like "JamesBWatson is the king of California") that's enough to get past A7; an article that credibly claims but does not sufficiently establish notability must go through prod or AfD.
 * Making a credible claim to be descended from or closely related to a notable person (and I did verify through one independent, reliable source that this person is a descendant of Charles Darwin) qualifies as a claim to notability and therefore does not qualify under A7 but is not necessarily enough to establish notability; that scrutiny is what the AfD process is for.

Truth be told I don't really miss the article ( I'm not going to DRV it or anything ), and the only person advocating its retention (i.e., its creator) held a very standoffish attitude that I interpreted as "the rules don't apply to me because you all are idiots," despite several users including myself calmly and politely telling him to calm down. I'd just like some clarification on your interpretation of A7 in light of what I said above. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I came here to bring this up with you too, Kuyabribri has made virtually every point I intended to. The article was most likely going to be deleted anyway which I don't disagree with, but it clearly did not meet the criteria for a7-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly claiming and establishing notability are two different things. The difference is that establishing notability requires sources. However, the only thing, as far as I am aware, that has been put forward as a claim of notability is that she is a great great great granddaughter of Charles Darwin. I wouldn't like to guess how many times I have seen people in AfD discussions claim that notability is inherited from a notable parent, but as far as I recall this is the first time I have ever seen a suggestion that notability or importance can be inherited five generations on. Notability and importance are not inherited at all. In order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, the subject of the article has to be significant in their own right, not to be the son of someone significant, the personal assistant of someone significant, someone who once played in a student band with someone who was later destined to be significant, etc etc. (All of those are examples that I have actually seen put forward as justifications for keeping articles.) The principal that notability is not inherited is well established, and has been accepted in goodness how many discussions and debates when someone or other has tried to use association with some notable person as grounds for keeping an article. It also makes perfect sense. I wonder how many people are children, grandchildren, etc down to great great great great grandchildren of people notable enough for Wikipedia articles, but not notable in their own right. Certainly many millions of them, and far more than the number of people who are notable in their own right. If Wikipedia's guidelines were changed from "we can have an article on a subject if there is evidence of notability of that subject" to "we can have an article on a subject if there is evidence that the persons is related to someone notable, up to five steps of relationship away" would open up Wikipedia to have articles on huge number of people, only a small minority of whom would be notable themselves, which would radically change the character of Wikipedia. you are, of course, free to propose such a change in Wikipedia's guidelines if you like, but it would be a change, as every precedent I have ever seen supports the view that notability is not inherited. (My father in law is the subject of a Wikipedia article, but it has never even occurred to me to use that as a reason why there should be articles on my children.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All of that is true and I'm not disputing it except that it still does not justify deletion under a7. Notinherited is ultimately an essay not a guideline or policy, and to be descended from someone of great importance while not evidence of notability is clearly enough to pass a7 when there are other factors involved as well such as being an exhibted dancer. I'm not arguing the article should be restored, I simply fail to see why you would close an afd that was heading for deletion anyway as an against policy speedy deletion-- Jac 16888 Talk 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The particular document Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which includes WP:NOTINHERITED, is an "essay", but the principal which it espouses is well established, with plenty of precedents. The fact that that principal is described in an "essay" does not invalidate the principal. I also cannot find any way of reading either Notability or WP:BIO which admits of the "notability is inherited" interpretation, even if neither of them specifically mentions it. To be descended from a significant person is not "clearly" enough to pass A7, at least it is not clear to me. If it is so clear to you then you should be able to explain why, and since it must be evident to you that it is not "clear" to me then perhaps you could do so. As for failing to see why I should make this "against policy speedy deletion", what policy is it against? Why is it against that policy? It does not seem to me to be against any policy, but if you think it is then please point me to the relevant policy so that I can avoid making the same mistake again. The one point of yours which does seem to me to have some validity is that the deletion was unnecessary, as that was the way the AfD seemed to be going anyway, and I accept that in that respect perhaps I made a mistake. Anyway, since this deletion has turned out to be far more controversial than I expected, I shall restore the article and reopen the AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I quote WP:CSD (all original emphasis):
 * "[A7] does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines...It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article falls below the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied."


 * I particularly call your attention to the second and third sentences (which appear in the footnotes of the original policy page). I completely agree that claiming to be closely associated with notable people or entities does not by itself establish notability under WP:N. But an article does not need to meet WP:N in order to pass A7; it only needs to credibly assert why the subject is important. Your citing of WP:ATA and WP:NOTINHERITED is completely accurate – if we were talking about a deletion discussion, which is where we were with the Peake article. But you cited A7 when you deleted the article. And as I said already, A7 does not apply if some significance is credibly asserted (and I believe being a verifiable descendant of notable people is an assertion of significance), even if such an assertion falls short of WP:N. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Kuyabribri has taken the words right out of my mouth (Thievin' git ;) )-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, such ideas as "being a verifiable descendant of notable people is an assertion of significance" is the sort of thing I have come to expect from inexperienced Wikipedia editors desperately trying to keep their own non-notable articles, but I am frankly astonished to come across it being used by an experienced editor and supported by an administrator. However, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. In my opinion the single weakest part of WP:CSD is the lack of any clear indication of what exactly constitutes "importance or significance", which leaves open room for disagreements of this sort. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was unable to make any response at Articles for deletion/Florence Peake because I was unfairly banned for @vandalism@ - note that I have NEVER vandalised Wikipedia. I think Florence's notability is quite apparent. I'm not being @standoffish@ - I'm contributing, generally minding my own business, despite the best efforts of some people who really ought to know better to intimidate me and undo my good work. Flying Fische (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Glitch art
I was wondering if you could userfy Glitch art. I hadn't had the time to work on improving the old article and didn't contest the prod as it appeared valid for what was there. I do think there is an legitimate article there. Over the next few months I would like to give it a shot as the term is used in art and I know there are good sources out there. Thanks.  freshacconci  talk talk  12:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jolie Vanier listing
Mr Watson,

I am confused; why was Jolie Vanier's website deleted, and what steps do I need to take to reestablish her page?

Thank you in advance for your advise.

Best,

David Tooker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.117.215 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming you mean the last time it was deleted, the immediate cause was the fact that the article had no sources to verify any of the information it contained. However, even if it were given sources, I doubt that it would last long, as I see no evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That was, in fact, the reason for the last deletion but one. "What steps do I need to take to reestablish her page" is not the right question. You should first ask "Does she satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria" and only if the answer is "yes" should you then consider how to do it. You need to look at the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people, especially the section on entertainers. If you think she qualifies then you need to make sure that you have reliable sources. If you can do that then good luck with rewriting the article, but I think it is only fair to warn you that my impression is that she probably doesn't, and if not it is trying to do so could well be a waste of your time. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
Could you comment on my proposal in the idea lab? Also, is there a way I can make the link go directly to the section I created (related to nudity in images)? Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am getting pretty disgusted with the incivility of Roux. Should I bring up the subject of bringing him to ANI, bring him directly to ANI, or develop a thick skin, ignore it, and not cause more problems? Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Even before I left you this message, I had looked at some of his other recent edits, otherwise I wouldn't have considered the possibility. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle adding pages to watchlist
If you aren't watching the twinkle page, someone posted the coding on the talk page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega RfC
for your help in closing the RfC on Chevrolet Vega. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Writegeist (talk)

Zero Energy Design - invalid speedy deletion
I've gone through this before, and now it comes up yet again. Is this going to go on forever? I formally submitted the CCA statement about use of copyrighted material to Wikipedia. It is NOT in violation! You have to explain to me how Zero Energy Design is any more of an advertisement than the peacock-term entry for Texas Instruments, and many other articles about corporations. Zero Energy Design was deleted before I had the first chance to dispute the incorrect tag. Escientist (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you mention copyright, since that was not the reason I gave for deletion. As for other articles, read WP:OTHERSTUFF, and free to nominate them for deletion if you think they are unsuitable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's back at Zero Energy Design. – ukexpat (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE be helpful editors
I mentioned the copyright issue because that was the false excuse used for previous deletion of Zero energy design by SchuminWeb - He was clearly wrong. He said that I violated copyright, when I had done everything correctly with a CCA. WIKIPEDIA EDITORS DO MAKE ERRORS.

The reason I brought up the Texas Instruments article, is that I cannot see how this private company peacock advertisement is better than a referenece to 30 years of U.S. government-supported R&D on such a timely subject, which aligns with the current Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings program.

The simplified article I created at Zero Energy Design removed almost all of the Zero energy design text - It only had four lines of text.

I am honestly and sincerely trying to find a mature helpful respected editor make specific suggestions to make it better.

This newest version deletes the ZeroEnergyDesign.com website reference and only uses the reference from the U.S. DOE and ORNL.

Zero Energy Design is a Holistic System Integration Engineering Process developed in 1979. The work has been supported by the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and the U.S. Department of Energy for over thirty years.

How can editors complain about a reference to work funded by U.S. government agencies? How is that an advert ? ? ?

PLEASE BE SPECIFIC - How can I make it better ? - I AM trying hard to learn how to to accomodate the Wikipedia rules Escientist (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

deletion of article SNIA Europe
Please could you let me know what was unacceptable about the content in the following article:

(Copyright infringing material removed: please do not repost it anywhere in Wikipedia.)

If you could let me know what I need to change I will make the necessary changes; thanks and I look forward to your feedback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarrahmm (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I can only assume that you have come to me because you have seen from the deletion log entry that I deleted the article. If so then you will have seen that the reason given for deletion was that it was a copyright infringement. I am not sure what clarification of that you want: you can scarcely have been unaware that you copied the information, rather than writing it yourself. I even posted a link to a source of the material to your talk page, so I am quite bewildered as to what is not clear to you. Versions of the text appear in several places, including a press release from SNIA Europe. I will say also, though, that the article reads somewhat like promotion (not surprising, for material which appears in a press release) and lacks references to sources, so it might well have been deleted for those reasons even if there had been no copyright problem. A Wikipedia article needs to be written independently, not copied from a copyright source. It needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and not look as though its purpose is to promote its subject, and it needs to cite reliable sources so that the information in it can be verified and so that notability is demonstrated: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything. In addition, you are not the right person to write the article if you have a close connection with the subject, such as to give you a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - cmcase
Cmcase (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Cmcase (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Cmcase (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Migrantas-Berlin
I've modified your block of to permit creation of another account. We've discussed this matter on the Gendergap mailing list. Hopefully if the article Migrantas-Berlin created is recreated it will not be a copyright violation and have reliable sources. It is certainly interesting and seems marginally notable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User Flying Fische still vandalizing templates, despite warnings and two previous blocks
Despite multiple warnings from three different editors to Flying Fische about removing templates without addressing the issues they raise , and despite two previous blocks for this offense  , he removed yet another maintenance template today. Since he has ignored all warnings and learned nothing from his blocks, I believe a permanent block may be in order. Qworty (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Further note. He's deleted another template since I wrote to you  and is contentiously bragging about it. Please help! Qworty (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Return of vandal
Hi. This vandal has returned, with new IPs, doing the same-old thing to the same-old articles. Could you re-semi Pat Buttram, Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series), Shining Time Station, Thomas and Friends, The Little Engine That Could (2011 film), Firebreather (film) and Michael Dorn? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Pat Buttram, The Little Engine That Could (2011 film), Michael Dorn and also three other articles the same vandal has edited.
 * ❌ Firebreather (film), Thomas and Friends, Shining Time Station, Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series), as there has been no return to vandalism yet. It is not Wikipedia policy to protect pages on the basis of potential disruption that is not actually happening, as it obstructs legitimate editors. However, these articles can be protected if the trouble does start up here. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll drop you a note if he or she starts hitting those articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The vandal hit Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series) today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for semi-ing the article and blocking the IP. The vandal just hit The Little Engine That Could (1991 film) using 166.137.136.237.  Other articles hit: Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's, Andrew Rannells, Corey Burton and Jim Cummings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. All the pages you have mentioned are now semiprotected. It is now clear that this is necessary. Let me know if other articles come up. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

can't log in
James you have blocked my account. You've misread the evidence. yes it was my IP but the information posted was not about me. I tried to contribute to the debate and assumed good faith, sadly nobody else has. So now the only way I can post is without logging in which will inconvenience everyone. Go on James, be a nice boy. oh- also I'm on a dynamic ip so please don't post on the ip page as I'll lose it next time I turn my router off :-)

Catherine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.245.221 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) To be precise, I haven't blocked your account. Jfdwolff did. However, I was one of four administrators who declined your various unblock requests.
 * 2) If you log in you should be able to select "my preferences" at the top of the page and enable email. If you do that you can send me an email explaining where I have misinterpreted the evidence. At present I think the evidence looks convincing, but I am sincerely willing to consider what you have to say, and be proved wrong if necessary. I have been persuaded to change my mind about blocks in the past. However, I am not prepared to enter into on-wiki discussions with someone who is certainly evading a block and quite possibly evading a ban. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin abuse, BLP: Arbitration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Does_WP:BLP_forbid_criticizing_people.3B_Administrator_abuse:Sandstein.2C_JamesBWatson Mindbunny (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, an arbitration case... I think I've managed to avoid that honour. At least it was kicked out nice and easily! Keep up the good work James, you're doing a great job of making me glad I nominated you. Peter 20:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Per User talk:Thonos
This user added "brutal anal sex" three times to the article on rectal pain. Thus more than one out of place edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly questionable editing, but I don't see it as vandalism. It could well have been done in good faith. I was using a good deal of WP:AGF and some WP:ROPE, and certainly intend to keep an eye on the user. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Celgard Page Speedy Deletion Contest
Batteryseparator (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Humble High School
Can you remove edits from Awesomestudent54 from the revision history of this page? They are offensive. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We need your help to not get an informational page about Teambox deleted.
We want to get listed on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software

We have tried numerous times to achieve this goal by creating a basic informational page about Teambox as this is a prerequisite to get listed. Every attempt has been flagged and deleted by an admin.

If I look at the pages of the other products on this page, I do not see why they are allowed and ours is denied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5pm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basecamp_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavenlink

As the last person to deny us, I was hoping you could shed some light on the matter. Each time we tried to get some assistance in understanding this decision and no one has responded.

Some answer would be fantastic.

Thanks you in advance,

Karl Goldfield — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.69.138 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of the issue is a conflict of interest. You should not be trying to get "your software" listed anywhere. Wikipedia is not an advertising or promotional platform. Active Banana    (bananaphone  04:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean to tell me that all of these 50+ companies had an independent user write their detailed wikipedia page? I doubt it.

Karlgoldfield (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

James,

I apologize, I just found this note on your archive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_22

It still does not explain why others get to post and we cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlgoldfield (talk • contribs) 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said in the archived discussion which you mentioned, "If you have a specific question I can try to answer it, but I see no point in repeating what has already been said, so please let me know what needs to be clarified." What do you want clarified that is not made clear in that discussion, or in the other pages that I took the trouble to link to? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard Burbidge Deletion
Hi James

I see that you deleted a page I created yesterday for a historic UK balustrader. I'm a student of product design and couldn't find any info on the web about their history and their FUSION product - I thus thought the research I found would be a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia.

Obviously I'm keen not to make it sound like a 'sales pitch' and, as it's my first post, I'd really appreciate your feedback on how I can amend the article so its good enough to stay on the site.

I know that for the course I'm doing at the moment the information I've found on innovative balustrading and decking systems has been really useful and I think it would be useful to others.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Kind regards

Michael Funtimemickey (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I see that one of the reasons for deletion given in the deletion log is "Unambiguous copyright infringement", but I have not specified where the material is copied from, which is strange: I normally would do so. I also cannot now find a source it was copied from. I think it is very likely that I clicked on the wrong button, and meant to select "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" (the two are right next to one another). If so I apologise for the mistake. Although the article was largely factual, it was to a significant extent written in promotional terms (e.g. "Richard Burbidge is renowned for the development of the innovative balustrading system FUSION®" and so on). In addition, the article gave no clear indication that the business was particularly significant or important: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and does not include any company just because it exists. You say that you "couldn't find any info on the web", and refer to "the research [you] found". However, Wikipedia's policy is that it is not a medium for publishing original research, and an article is only accepted if its subject has already received significant coverage in existing reliable sources, so that notability is demonstrated. There are, in my opinion, far too many guidelines and policy documents on Wikipedia, and it is not reasonable to expect anyone to read and absorb them all before starting to edit, but you should certainly have a look at FAQ/Organizations. If you want more information beyond what is given there, the blue links I have given above will take you to other relevant guidelines, and there is also Notability (organizations and companies). I do sympathise with how you must feel, having come here and put a significant amount of work into an article, only to see it deleted. I remember that when I first started editing Wikipedia significantly, several years ago, I found people were reverting what I did in ways that at times seemed quite arbitrary and destructive. I now know much more about how Wikipedia works, and I can see there were reasons for what happened. My experience is that the people who have the most successful time here are mostly the ones who start by making very small changes to existing articles, rather than writing whole new articles. That way, when you do things which are not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, you do not lose significant amounts of work, and so the experience is not so frustrating. Quite soon you start learning what is acceptable, and after a while you can successfully write new articles without serious danger of seeing them deleted. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia I suggest following that line. I will also post a (somewhat belated) welcome message to your talk page, which will contain links to other information about editing Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:IHateMarmite restore
done. thanks. Dloh cierekim

zeibekiko's source
There is a source that has been citied in article zeibekiko this is "Babiniotis, Georgios (1998). "ζεϊμπέκικος". Lexiko tis Neas Ellinikis Glossas. Athens: Kentro Lexikologias. p. 709". I read You exactly the line - Zeibek were Greek warriors of Asia minor- .So I d like to explain in public  the reason that You reverted the edits from ip 79.130.92.92    without warning please:}  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.45.206 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the edit was made as part of an extended edit war by one editor acting against consensus. "Without warning" is inaccurate: the editor had received warning about edit warring on their talk page, and the same edit had previously been reverted more than once by other editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont speak about what other ips does, I talk about the worlds, the line says exactly: The name of the dance derives from the Zeibek who were Greek warriors of Asia minor so,whats the reason editing war or distorting the same source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.45.206 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that. Your English is very unclear. Perhaps you would care to clarify it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I thing I m talking to smart persons: more clarified from this? The name of the dance derives from the Zeibek who were Greek warriors of Asia minor  You can buy the dictionary of Babiniotis,also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.45.206 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I understand that. Evidently you think there is a source which supports the change you have made. However, I still don't understand your previous message. For example, what does "whats the reason editing war or distorting the same source" mean? The best guess I can make is that it means "I am so convinced that my source justifies the edit that I believe it overrides any consideration of edit-warring", but I am honestly not sure whether that is the correct interpretation. If that is what you meant, then the answer is simply that Wikipedia works by cooperation and consensus, not by one editor persistently trying to impose their preferred version when several others disagree. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(distorbing its not alway a good idea) I got the book of this reference its says it clearly and its exactly the same thing Im trying to explain you-end.Any reverse of this by this time it d be considered as vandalism and will be noted at "user talk-page" and wikipedia.Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.45.206 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protecting Sandbox
An IP adress, (71.96.192.153) posted a wrongful message in the sandbox. This may be uncommon, I do not know. Is their any way that the sandbox can be semi-protected so that people must register to use sandbox? This would make them able to be blocked.

Thank you, Winliveuser. Please reply at User Talk:Winliveuser —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
 * No, because the whole point of the sandbox is that it should be available to all new users, with or without an account. Individual IP addresses can be blocked if they persist in unconstructive editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Seen and responded. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Again
I just wanted to say thanks again for trusting me and helping me get unblocked. It is sort of weird to see that just a week ago I was blocked and now I am on Huggle's whitelist. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ironwood Pig Sanctuary
You recently speedy deleted the article Ironwood Pig Sanctuary under G5, whilst the page may well have been created by a banned user (I assume this was the case but don't know for sure) the content seemed to me to be legitimate, the sources checked out and it even made the main page as a DYK. Seems a bit daft to delete decent content just because of who created it so I'd like to request that the article be restored. Thanks - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 13:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether it is "a bit daft" to delete under these circumstance has been debated at length, and consensus was that the pros outweighed the cons. However, looking back I see that substantial amounts of test were added by other editors, so I have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Probably could have worded it a bit better than daft -I knew that numerous editors had worked on it to get it ready for DYK but wasn't sure what the rules were on this type of issue. Can you restore the talk page as well? I'm not sure if it was tagged for any WikiProjects etc - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Actually I think "daft" is a reasonable word to use. I can see both the pros and the cons, and if you look at only one side it does look daft. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Transformice
I see that this article I re-created was deleted as per WP:SPEEDY quicker than I could even say anything. However, I only re-created it after contacting the Admin who last deleted and subsequently WP:SALTed the page. I informed them with the following message:
 * "It's been over eight months since the article has been deleted and I feel the game has become much more notable now rather than in June 2010, which was a month after the game's release. The site now ranks in the top 40,000's of Alexa's Traffic Rank. It's won a Mochi People's Choice Award in its Flash Gaming Summit 2011. The site polls over 1,000,000 results in Google and is recognized by Newgrounds, Kotaku, Kongregate and has over 180,000 likes on Facebook. Back in June 2010, the game was solely French, running on French servers, but has since expanded to English, Russian, Brazilian and Chinese. The game has garnered a much larger fan following in the past eight months. In addition, the main instigator for the WP:SALT placement during the AfD Discussion was identified as a sockpuppet and subsequently blocked from Wikipedia." (User talk:Courcelles/Archive 69)

I was then instructed to make a sandbox page, which I did, outlining each of the aspects of notability and creating what I felt was a solidly-written article with as many sources as I could dig up. Courcelles then un-salted it and said that while it may not get G4'd (as it just did) it may go back into AfD.

That being said, the message left on my channel states that I created a "repost of material that was previously deleted." That is untrue. Everything in that article I wrote myself. I had no access to the original material anyway since the article was deleted. It is different from the original because it deals with the sourcing issue (as per what I've read from the original AfD) and adheres to Wikipedia standards. ☆ Antoshi ☆ T 13:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the wording of the article was quite different from the old version, the content was largely similar. However, I accept your other points, and have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. ☆ Antoshi ☆ T 13:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, I have a new question though. Actually, two. What should I do about the Speedy deletion tag as it says "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself," even though the article's been restored? Also, does the talk page get restored as well or do I need to re-make it? ☆ Antoshi ☆ T 13:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now done them both. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks again! ☆ Antoshi ☆ T 13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Glitch Art
Hey James,

I'm an open-source practitioner and a big fan of wikipedia. I also happen to be a glitch theorist/practitioner and an active member of that community. I created the first Glitch Art wiki page some years back. I realize the page was flawed, I'll admit I'm not the most encyclopedic writer and I have a lot to learn about the rules of this community but I don't know that the page's imperfections (no pun intended) was cause for deletion. I've been meaning to work on the page for a while, but have been preoccupied with life stuff. Many others have worked on the page while its been up and have helped with its shortcomings and many more have used the page as a resource (both are contingent on the page remaining up and accessible).

Is it possible to reinstate the page, and if not what needs to be done to make that possible?

thanks, -Nick Briz- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.3.131 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already restored and userfied the page in response to a request from another user. It is at User:Freshacconci/Glitch art so that it can be worked on until it is ready to be relaunched as an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank You (Windows Live Skydrive)
Thank you for the help with the Windows Live Skydrive Article. I do however, not see how I damaged it. If you could please contact me with further information, that would be a big help.

~WinLiveUser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winliveuser (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have got the wrong person. It was FleetCommand who reverted your edit to that article and said you had "damaged" it, not me. In fact I have never touched the article, nor commented on it to you or to anyone else. However, to help you I have looked at your edit, and I think I can see what the problem was. There was a reference in the article, beginning with  . You placed text inside this reference, and also put a closing "}}" inside the reference, so that it began '' unless it is part of the reference, and (2) always click "Show preview" and check that your edit produces the effect that you intended before going ahead with clicking "Save page". JamesBWatson (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Where to make huge changes to a page at
I am trying to completely overhaul the page Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary). Right now I am doing it at User:Ryan Vesey/sandbox 2. The only problem I see with that is that if I copy it on to the mainspace, all of the individual edits and summaries are lost. Is it better to do it the way I am doing it now, or add a under construction template to the page? Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you copy and paste your sandbox copy you will, of course, lose your own edit summaries, but you will just have to judge how much you think that matters. I do think that having individual justifications for particular changes is very helpful, and sometimes it can much reduce the risk of another editor seeing a whole load of changes they don't see the reason for, and reverting the lot. You will also write over edits from other people, which may sometimes be more important. If there are just a few edits from other people then it probably doesn't matter much: you can make a judgement as to whether those edits are worth keeping, and if they are you can restore them with an edit summary saying you are restoring other edits which were overwritten by your big edit. The worst problems, I think, arise in cases where, while you have been extensively editing your userspace copy of the article, others have been extensively editing the article itself. It can sometimes then be very difficult to transfer you edits to the article and avoid unreasonably losing good work from other people. There is no absolutely perfect answer, but my own opinion is that it is generally better to edit the article where it is than to work on a private copy and then transfer it. Really, using a private copy that you intend to later paste into the article is only workable if nobody else is making significant contributions to the article, and in that case it is perfectly easy to just edit the article in place anyway, so there's not much advantage in using a private copy. Editing a userspace copy and then copying it over runs the risk of riding roughshod over other people's work, giving the effect of taking ownership of the article. I am not suggesting taht that is what you intend, because if so you wouldn't have asked about it, you would have just gone ahead and done it, but I think that, whatever the intention, sometimes that can be the effect. My preference is therefore to edit the article in place, with or without an "under construction" template, as you see fit. There is a risk this way that other people will make edits that unintentionally obstruct your plan, but that is by no means certain to happen, and in any case that is a hazard you just have to accept if you edit Wikipedia. "Better to edit in place" is, of course, just my opinion, but it is based on seeing problems that have arisen in the past with this sort of thing. My own editing has usually been making lots of little improvements, and I have not often made major rewrites of articles, but on the few occasions when I when I have, I have found that editing the article in place has worked OK. In fact occasionally this has even had an advantage, because others have improved my editing as I have gone along. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, do you think then that I should bring over what I have so far? Or do you think it would be better for me to just examine my edits and redo them? Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that you've done it I would suggest just copying it over. It isn't the way I would have recommended, but it doesn't look to me as though there is any serious risk of problems. There has been scarcely any other editing of the article, and the couple of tiny changes there have been have been included in your own editing anyway. The loss of individual edit summaries is a disadvantage, but only a minor one, and not enough to make it worth the extra trouble of making loads of little edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it better to use a relatively poor source or no source at all? A lot of the information in the article I am working is either unsourced or missing in-line citations. I have been searching the web for more; however, most of my academic databases I use bring up little information. One of the first websites I can find is [this one] and it is also listed under external links. While the page is a little less than desirable, it would allow me to source much of the content on that page. Should I use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 May 2011
 * I think I am probably more concerned about quality of sources than a lot of Wikipedians, and I tend to take the line "if there are no reliable sources then the information should not be included". However, even I don't think it's reasonable to be totally dogmatic about this, and each case needs to be judged on its merits. I have had a quick glance at the source you mentioned, and I agree it doesn't look all that great, but I have not studied it in depth, and don't intend to spend the time doing so. Having said that, for what it's worth my feelings are as follows. If you mean "should I use this source or include the information without a source" then my answer is that some source is better than none, assuming of course that we are not talking about a source of no value at all, such as a hoax. If you mean "should I use this source or leave the information out of the article because there is no good source" then you will just have to use your judgement. If I were doing it, and I was really confident that the information was reliable, even though I couldn't find as good a source as I would like, I would be inclined to include it. However, if you do include information for which you think the sourcing is less than perfect then I think that if anyone contests it you should be willing to back down gracefully, and not try to defend it. An editor can do much more constructive work for Wikipedia by accepting that in a particular case there is not a good basis for their version and moving on to other work than by wasting loads of time battling to try to keep their version. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sexyking54321
This user is continuing to recreate hoaxes on his talk page, despite warnings. Would it be possible to change his block settings to prevent him from editing his talk ? Anthem 10:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of English
Hi, I was wondering if this is an advice or a rule. To be exact, What happens if you ask a user to use English and send him/her a warning, but he/she does not listen to you and keeps on using other languages. Are they going to be blocked by an admin ? Regards, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  11:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. However, the idea that English Wikipedia uses English is a pretty firm principal. Wikipedia works by discussion, consensus, and agreement, and it is impossible to achieve those if an editor persists in using a language which most of us don't understand. If an editor does it a couple of times despite being politely informed that it is not a good idea I would remind them a bit more forcefully. I would only take administrative action in the case of someone who was so persistent as to be obstructive. However, as a last resort I would be prepared to consider blocking as an option. If you have a particular case in mind please do feel welcome to point me to the particular editor in question, so that I can let you know what I think, and try to help if appropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Fortunately the case I'm following is not in the English Wikipedia. I just want to use it as a reference for another wiki. Cheers, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  04:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Awatef Rasheed
I wrote autobiography supported with links and references, why would I get messages from you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awatef Rasheed (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give more information about your question? Which of the two messages I have given you is not clear, and in what way? The one about removing maintenance templates was given because, at it says, you removed maintenance templates without explaining why. the one about writing an autobiographical article was given because, as it says, you did so, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines. I am honestly not sure what clarification you need. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary)
Can you help me format the picture I added to the page? I would like it to appear on top of the protestant missionaries template. If I place it directly above the two appear side by side, so I added spaces between the image and the template.; however, when I did that the text got pushed down. I believe there is a workaround to this. Currently, I have it placed below the template on the screen, I think this is less visually appealing and it hides the "Edit" button for the section "Missionary Work." Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know how to deal with this. I suggest asking at Help desk. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Happysailor  (Talk) 13:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Troll attack
For me it is clearly a troll attack what user Intoronto1125 did. I met this guy already once, when he made around 20 Afds within 5 minutes on badminton articles, with the result, that a lot of people had work with discussions and so on. The result was, that all the articles were kept. I talked already this time to him, that what he is doing is not the right way - I think in a very civil way. And now he nominates me on the administrators noticeboard for vandalism, because I reverted 20 edits within 2 minutes? Without looking at the content of the reverts! These (mass) reverts happen daily very often, why he'd chosen me? "Perfectly good faith"? Never! I would call it revenge foul. --Florentyna (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My comment on ANI - I think you can close it: Please simply close this debate, again a lot of time lost for nothing. User:JamesBWatson (if I understood him right) agrees, that such reverts can happen, so nothing more to discuss about. --Florentyna (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Florentyna, the discussions were closed by me after your provided me the source. Those articles had to valid source so I nominated them for deletion, after you stepped up with a source I removed the AFD tag. Secondly, I am not targeting you, rather I when I clicked see contributions on your name, I saw this huge block of reverts and I decided to report it. Intoronto1125   Talk   Contributions   19:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Winliveuser
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Winliveuser (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 May 2011
 * Replied. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hi! looks like you blocked User:Sreekar akkineni for Sockpuppetry. But see Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh a new user User:Navelcleavage has requested for the same edit request what "Sreekar Akkineni" did just before he got blocked. I suspect the new one might be a sockpuppet. -- Thalapathi  (Ping Back)  13:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give a pointer to the edit by Sreekar akkineni that you are referring to? That editor has never either Cinema of Andhra Pradesh or Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh, and I can't see any other edit you may be referring to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well he was actually editing those pages without registering. Looks like he created this account yesterday only. Also |just have a look at here. He himself has confessed that he was the IP user who made such edits. It's obvious that he is the same IP user. -- Thalapathi  (Ping Back)  14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

156.61.160.1
Thank you for blocking. I see from its block log that it appears to be a stable or fixed IP for that indef'd user, and that it's not the first time he's evaded his block this way. You might want to consider a longer block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did seriously consider a longer block, but there were a lot of edits that were not obviously from the same user, and some of them were constructive. However, I will certainly be willing to reconsider this if problems recur when the block ends. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it's all him. But we'll see how things work out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
sonia ♫ 09:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Seen and responded. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thanks for helping me with my account till now...I will take care of notability with my articles as you have requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsguc (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Novia Financial/Wrapp Accounts/RDR in the UK
Hi JamesBWatson. I am interested in adding and editing content regarding the big regulatory changes taking polace in UK retail financial services (RDR) and the way that they are having a seismic effect on the commercial landscape, like Bog Bang in 1986. However, I see that you deleted a page on Novia Financial when I was about to create one (I would like to cover all of teh key emregent protagonists in this area). I'm not sure whether you deleted it primarily for reasons of G11 or A7 - if the former, I would like to recreate without the advertising element. If it was primarily A7, I would like to ask you to reconsider - please see my edit of Retail Financial Services within FSA, where I have started to cover the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshmeister (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Toshmeister JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi JBW. This page is up for deletion again (I nominated it). I noticed you participated in the discussion last time, and your comment from that discussion was quoted this time around. Please feel free to weigh in a second time if you wish. All the best, Neutralitytalk 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you see who is in the right, if anyone?
I recently tagged a couple of articles for deletion through various methods. There is a discussion on my talk page left by an admin who is a self described inclusionist. Could you offer some analysis of this? Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: Klim3k
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Klim3k (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 June 2011

LiveChat
Hello JamesBWatson. I saw you reverted the AfD on LiveChat article. As I am the one who contributed to it the most and worked on it after it was initially listed as AfD, I feel obliged to ask you for comments or ideas on improving it. I am willing to work on the further improvements. Klim3k 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klim3k (talk • contribs)
 * I really don't know about the article, or ahve any particular opinion of it. I restored the AfD for purely proceduarl reasons, because it had been improperly closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Stabile
Vic49 tagged Anthony Stabile as a G12. I declined it, because I think the license status of is unclear (and I've said so at Copyright problems). Vic49 wondered if Anthony Stabile had been deleted earlier, and it has been (by you, which is why I'm here.) Had it been deleted via AfD or CSD, we could CSD the current version with G4, however it was a PROD, which I believe means it can be recreated. I think what happened was that someone copied the Prodded article into http://wiki.thesopranos.com/ which was then used as a basis for the most recent WP article.

I think the article has many problems; lack of proper attribution even if the licensing of the source is resolved, not to mention lack of references anywhere. However, I don't see that G12 applies. Just checking with you, because you were previously involved, to see if you have any additional thoughts.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to use AFD and I would like nominate the Anthony Stabile article up for deletion. Can you set it up? I would like to have a discussion about the articles credibility, the referencing and the notability of Stabile. Thanks --Vic49 (talk)  16:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

67.70.153.125
Please block this IP for several more months than you already have. He is an individual that we have been dealing with on Wikipedia since at least 2006. For more information, see my Sandbox page's first entry.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Question
Can you tell me if it rises to the level of an attack page and/or a BLP violation when an indefinitely blocked editor devotes a large section of his talk page to complaining about another editor or editors? I am one of the editors being complained about and I am curious what steps I can take to have the harassing materials removed. I brought this to you because you were the editor that blocked Mindbunny for comments on his talk page & the cases seemed similar. Any guidance you could offer me would be appreciated. Thank you. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 11:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether it amounts to an attack depends on the nature the complaints, and how they are expressed. By default an indefinitely blocked editor is allowed talk page access in order for them to be able to post unblock requests and other material relating to their block. If they use talk page access for other purposes it could be considered abuse of that access, and if it is carried to excessive lengths could lead to talk page access being removed, but each case would have to be judged on its own merits. If you are referring to Jake Fuersturm, my assessment is that the edits are not helpful, but don't at present amount to a personal attack. My advice would be to walk away from this editor and ignore them. However, I will watch the editor's talk page in case things develop in any other directions. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll do that. Thanks James.  Erikeltic ( Talk ) 12:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: 86.0.41.189

 * Replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomorerainplease
How are they evading a block? As far as I can tell, the other account hasn't been used since March. They agreed, when we allowed the name change, to use only that account. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I saw an indefinitely blocked account which had never requested a name change. I saw another account which was clearly the same person, originally called "Greenarama ", later renamed to "Nomorerainplease". I saw no evidence that the name change was granted in the knowledge of the existence of the first account that I saw. It looked exactly like a case of block evasion, but I now see that it wasn't. How far this should be regarded as my fault, and how far it can be seen as an understandable mistake under the circumstances, I'm really not sure, but either way I have unblocked and apologised to the user. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it was an honest mistake (which is another way of saying "learning experience" :-)). Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:In use
I considered nominating this template for deletion, but I wanted to get some thoughts on it first. I think it creates a sense of ownership in the article and discourages new editors. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never been happy with this template. It seems to me to be contrary to the whole spirit of Wikipedia to suggest that an individual user has the right to tell others not to edit an article for an unspecified period. "To help avoid edit conflicts" on the face of it seems like a good reason, but edit conflicts can always happen, and it's not clear to me that effectively giving one editor special priority is a good way of avoiding such conflicts. If editor A is making extensive edits, why should that prevent editor B from making an occasional edit? There is the slight risk of an edit conflict, but that is not a big deal. Only if editors A & B both want to make extensive edits at the same time is there a significant risk of lots of edit conflicts, and in that case I'm not sure that giving to one of them the right to edit to the exclusion of the other is a good idea. Another point is that in my experience the template is often misused by editors who put it into an article and then walk away and leave it there. Of course the template says "Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited in several hours" (in small print), but the presence of the template is likely to frighten people off editing, especially inexperienced users. However, having said all that, which is just my opinion, this template is very well established, having been around since December 2003, and is used by Twinkle. I therefore think that there would be a good deal of opposition in any deletion discussion, and I am not sure how good would be your chance of success. However, that again is just my guess, and if you do want to try taking it to Templates for discussion and suggest deletion then by all means feel free to do so. If you do then please tell me, so that I can contribute to the discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominated Please leave a notice on the page for the template, I cannot as it is has full protection. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thepoliticalmaster
Please see my reply at WP:AIV. Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes!
No more vandalism, I get it I'll use the Sandbox!

--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Trumpkin
This user admitted to being a sockpuppeteer of over 80 puppets. I believe he needs his talk page access rights revoked. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Woops, it seems like he already had that revoked, another one of his socks posted on his page. Is there a way to figure out his IP and block that? Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Not even administrators can find out a user's IP address: only checkusers can do that, and they will do it only under very specific circumstances, of which this is not an example. However, for a short time the IPs recently used by a blocked user are automatically blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Updated message from zozimus43

 * Replied at User talk:Zozimus43. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hard4me
The socking issue has been resolved. I've followed up on Hard4me's talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Mechanical System

 * Answered at User talk:Prof McCarthy. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Page Protection Request
I made a request for page protection of the page Nair. It has not been dealt with at all, (presumably because it might be controversial?) and I was wondering if you might like to take a look. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have sent this message just as I have to go offline. I will try to find time to look at it tomorrow, if it hasn't already been dealt with by then. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now had a quick look at the history of the article. It looks quite complicated. Rather than spend a lot of time checking to see exactly what has been going on, I am going to suggest that you might like to contact one of the administrators who has taken action before. They will already have some idea what has been going on, so they will be able to get up to date on the current situation more easily than I could. The last admin to protect this article was Boing! said Zebedee, and the previous one was CirtBoth of them are, in my opinion, good administrators, and should be able to deal with the issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a few editors on that article who are trying to turn it from the mess it was into a decent article, and they're doing a pretty good job of it - but they are encountering a lot of abuse from caste warriors. I'm trying to help as much as I can, but ideally without protecting the page as that would defeat the attempts to improve it. I've warned a few of the warriors and have blocked one for abuse already - and I think that strategy is generally working ok -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)