User talk:JBW/Archive 29

Many thanks...
Thank you so much for lifting my ban. It was very concerning to me, and I appreciate your fast adjudication. I also have thanked Orange Mike for his support. My name change was simple and already is in effect. Again, thanks! Davidneflorida (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

About Miaris
Good Morning Mr Watson. All of my articles are Greek and they can't improve my english version.Although you can contact with the Greek administrator to ju- stify the atricle is true or not.

Thank you so much

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.226.242 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 June 2011

Good Morning Mr Watson. All of my articles are Greek and they can't improve my english version.Although you can contact with the Greek administrator to ju- stify the atricle is true or not.

Thank you so much


 * I have no reason to doubt that the information in the article is true. What is questioned is whether the subject of the article is notable enough to justify having an encyclopaedia article about him. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
That's wright! Thank You Mr. Watson! I ll be back soon! ND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanel (talk • contribs) 10:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
-- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you win
After your warning of edit-warring, this was posted on the Devsirme talk page, notice the anon IP address which later Kenzo400 or Kenzo4000 changed to his name. Statements like this, "I know you like to have the last word, but it's time to grow up.", are unacceptable, along with the other lies and personal attacks by Kenzo400 and COMPANY. But congratulations, I WILL NOT BE editing or discussing on that article again. So you win. Just another example how sockpuppetry,edit-warring and personal attacks win out over university sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, both of the two participants in the dispute have now accused me of taking the side of the other one. It's difficult to understand why I "win" because the editor that I blocked has (in your view) triumphed over the one that I have only given a warning. It's also difficult to understand how you can view it as a triumph, since the result of the edit you have linked to was that I blocked Kenzo400's account for a month. It will be a pity if you give up working on the article because of this. Perhaps you may like to reconsider your decision. Maybe instead, once Kenzo400's block has expired, the two of you could work towards agreeing on some compromise wording: perhaps something on the lines of "such and such a view is put forward by so and so, but on the other hand..." or something. That would be so much better than one editor feeling the other has "won". Or you could look at WP:Dispute resolution and see whether any of its suggestions could help. Third opinion might be worth a look, too. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Compromise"? Kenzo400/Kenzo4000/anon IP removes the referenced information only because he/she does not like it, plain and simple. He/she has not addressed any of the references in that paragraph, simply labeling them anti-Islamic. So after all the sockpuppetry, edit-warring and personal attacks, I am done with Kenzo400/Kenzo4000/numerous anon IPs. Enjoy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo
Hi JamesBWatson. I noticed that you recently blocked a troll account that had been vandalizing the Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo page, among others. As the editor who started the article, there have been some recent developments in the news regarding Farmajo's proposed resignation that I would like to update the page with if possible (c.f. ); thought I'd first contact you about it to make sure that this is feasible. Please advise. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason at all why you shouldn't go ahead with editing the article. You seem to have a pretty good source there, and a quick glance at your editing history gives me no reason to think you can't do it properly. I don't know a lot about this subject: I only came in because of a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism, and when I investigated I found that the editor had made various unacceptable edits, including threats of murder, so I blocked the account. Beyond that I have no particular interest in the article, and I have no reason not to leave you to do as you think fit. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. And your zero tolerance for vandalism is appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 freshacconci  talk talk  15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I also replied at Too much user information. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Question
Do you believe I am too bold? I noticed that I have made many mainspace edits, and rarely discuss them on talk pages. I do, however, discuss some edits on user talk pages. I have also created talk page posts for major changes such as Talk:Catholic Church. I was just wondering what your thoughts were. I was also considering putting myself up for editor review. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Shawn Storm
You previously one of the sock accounts related to this, please see Sockpuppet investigations/Shawn Storm. -- Cirt (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

wrongfully deleted
My page Seth (pianist) has been wrongfuly deleted and i wish for it to be put back up. you said that there was no reason why i should be noted but i am a performer with an album coming out i have already sold over 4000 albums the digital download is released in summer as physical copies stopped being produces. and i also said that no references were currently avaliable and it says in your terms that as long as you will put them in at a later date that it is ok. my page did not brake any of your rules and i want my page back. i know that wikipedia keeps copies of all its pages in cached form so i want my page back as i havent broke your rules you have wrongfully deleted my page. it wasnt advertising, or spam or hoax you have wrongfully deleted my page and i want it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZSETHZz (talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A student who has performed in various churches and town halls, as many music students do. Someone who was going to appear in a documentary but now isn't going to. Someone who is going to release a record. I don't see a plausible claim of significance there at all. If it were undeleted it would be immediately nominated for a deletion discussion, and the fact that searches have failed to find any significant coverage in third party sources would be pretty likely to mean that it was deleted again. You say that no references are currently available. Contrary to what you seem to think, that is sufficient reason for an article to be deleted. You will be much better off realising that Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself or to publish your CV, and instead put your efforts into using a social network site or a personal web host. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am a recording artist and i have released the record it is now going to digital download as the physical copies stopped being made. and wikipedia stated that REFERENCES MUST BE INCLUDED EVEN IF THAT IS AT A LATER DATE BUT IT MUST BE STATED THAT THEY WILL BE ADDED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. and i am not promoting myself and also there used to be a page on here about lim hyung joo a world famous singer but that was removed because he isnt notable WTF!!!! hes world famous. my page did not brake any of your rules and i can provide some references but i didnt do so as they are out dated and would be even worst if i added them. if you can tell me one thing my page did that it was not suppose to i will say ok but i did not do anything to break your rules. i can provide evidence of the documentary claim that i was asked to appear through several emails. and i am not currently in the third party information because: APR is now doing my music where as before it was EMI so i am not currently in apr's pages as of this moment. i also had not finished the page i have yet to add lots of information as i wanted something to work with and was going to add to it in about 2 hours but it has already been deleted. my page did not brake your rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZSETHZz (talk • contribs) 02:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First, do you understand conflict of interest? If you are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, someone will write one about you.  Writing an article about yourself leads to bias and a non-neutral point of view.  Another major policy of Wikipedia is that the encyclopedia must be based on verifiability, not truth.  These are two of the three core policies of Wikipedia.  If an outside observer were to write an article about you, with references, which established notability, it could be included; however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and cannot write about future events.  I do not believe, from the information I read here, that an article about you would meet the notability requirements of a biography of a living person at the present moment.  Here are the notability requirements of a recording artist or band. Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ok thats understandable. is there anyway u can send me my page as txt so when the upto date information is avaliable i can remake the page with all the valid information and 3rd party information? and i will also include all the other information that i did not have time to include and also wikipedia says you can write about yourself they just advise against it and if that is so i shall get someone else to do it instead without my input. also as i live in elgnad it is no 3:49 am so im going to bed and shall carry on with this tomorrow that you for your input and correcting things — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZSETHZz (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a lot more that I could have said, but since you seem to have accepted Ryan's answer I will leave it at that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have enabled the email. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZSETHZz (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have emailed you the text of the deleted article. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Anger
If you check my contributions, you'll probably notice the recent arguments I have gotten in. I am going to step away rather than further any issues. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Niche market article
I noticed you reverted an external link I inserted in the niche market article without making any mention on the talk page. The site does comply with the policy mentioned in your editing reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_market

I have restored the link. Please commence discussion on the talk page why this external link isn't suitable. Thanks.180.191.82.41 (talk)
 * It's spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What an outright abuse of authority. Are you the Holy Father Almighty? Is this what Wikipedia has become? A boys club of meglomanics? It is not spam. Read it, then discuss what about it is spam. That is the proper way to conduct things instead of announcing your heavenly authority as being the final word. What a dictatorship this site has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.113.106 (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not announced "heavenly authority", I have just expressed an opinion. I have not abused, nor even used, any "authority": I have simply done what any Wikipedia editor could have done. If you would like me to enlarge upon my reasons then you are welcome to politely invite me to do so. I will then be happy to oblige. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe I made that intent clear with my original message here, hoping we could continue discussion on the talk page. Please do remove the link, and then let's commence discussion on why it is not a useful resource for the stub until it is expanded further. That is all I'm asking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.145.67 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your nonsense about "heavenly authority", and "dictatorship" does not fall under what I call politely inviting me, and your first post, despite containing the word "please", reads to me more like an instruction than an invitation or request. Incidentally, I find it interesting to see your use of the word "dictatorship". When one person persistently tries to enforce their view by edit warring, while several other people independently indicate that they disagree with that view, which of them is trying to act like a "dictator"? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Son of return of the vandal
This vandal is back again, adding non-factual actors to cast lists, using User talk:64.75.121.3. Articles hit this time:


 * Yu-Gi-Oh! (1998 TV series)
 * List of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters
 * Yu-Gi-Oh! 3D: Bonds Beyond Time
 * Yu-Gi-Oh! (1998 TV series)
 * The Berenstain Bears (1985 TV series)
 * Night at the Museum
 * Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
 * John Fiedler
 * David Ferry (actor)
 * Dub Taylor
 * George Carlin
 * James Cosmo
 * Daniel DeSanto
 * Brian Cummings
 * Tom Wayland
 * Peter Linz

Maybe a block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just butting in: they seem to have stopped, for now. JBW, you know I'm new to this job--these edits are disruptive, clearly. In my opinion this rises to being blockable, and I'd very much like to hear what you have to say. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the IP address and semiprotected the articles for 3 months. I really don't like protecting pages for that long, but this vandal keeps coming back, and it really is necessary. Many of these articles have been protected before, some of them more than once, but the problem has just come back. Usually "they seem to have stopped, for now" is a good reason for not blocking an IP, as blocks are meant to be preventive, and you can't prevent what has already stopped. However, it is clear from this vandal's history that the stopping is likely to be only temporary. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the fast action on keeping this person at bay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Back again as User talk:166.137.136.81. Articles hit:


 * Firebreather (film)
 * Groundling Marsh
 * ‎Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!
 * Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal
 * The Perfect Score
 * Caren Manuel
 * Jennifer Love Hewitt
 * Glory Road (film)
 * Yu-Gi-Oh! Capsule Monsters
 * Caren Manuel

Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked/Semi-protected. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Cutter Aviation deletion
After being advised by other administrators and reviewing the Wikipedia policies, I now understand your rationale behind the deletion and agree with your action. Thank you for your work to maintain standards on Wikipedia. --Avolareaz (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for deleting the text of my previous contest of the deletion - I was not completely familiar with the proper etiquette for talk pages and have been advised accordingly. I will use the strike out text edit in any future retractions. --Avolareaz (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing username
Thanks for showing me how to change my username! However, I have a little problem: I need easy4me to accept my usurpation request. How can I have him/her accept it if it's never been used? Please help me.

Hard4me (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know what you have done at User talk:Easy4me is fine. The message there says "If you do nothing: the request may be filled shortly, and your account will be moved to a generic username." Since the user has not edited in several years I think it's a pretty good guess that they will do nothing, and the change will go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats
Does the edit summary on this page count as a legal threat? Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, very much so. Thanks for the pointer. Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was from three years ago. I assume you did the same thing that I did and read that to be June 7 of this year. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I saw your message just as I had to go offline, and acted perhaps too quickly. Technically speaking, it is an unretracted legal threat, so by the letter of the rules the block was correct, but it is probably not to be taken seriously at this date. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fleming Hong Kong
Message moved here from archived page. It refers to discussion at User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 28. Although it makes sense to keep discussion of one topic together, editing archived talk pages can make it difficult to keep track of current discussions, so it is better to open a new section and link to the old one.

Hello, hope all is well. I have rewritten the article and hope that you could review it before publishing it at User:Ghc.cecilia/Fleming Hong Kong. Thank you so so much! Ghc.cecilia (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the article, and also searched online for information about the hotel. Neither of those has given me any evidence that the hotel satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are no independent sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cambodian Children's Trust
Hi. You PRODded this, and it was deleted: undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so I have restored it, and let you know in case you want to consider AfD. I have explained about notability and pointed the requester to WP:NOBBLE. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My thing on edit warring...
...was not a complaint with an administrator, it was a complaint with an apparent "good practice" here of blocking people hours after they have stopped. It's a policy thing, and as such I thought it would be appropriate to address it on the policy page. Considering it is not a complaint about an individual administrator (something which I did specify there iirc), where should I bring it up? VP/policy? Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about Village pump (policy)? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for your help :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (on a slightly-related note, it appears that you got to be the "exasperated admin". Unfortunate all-around) ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

speedy decline Castanheiro
Hi, you declined my request for speedy deletion of the disambiguation page Castanheiro. IMO it meets the requirements for speedy deletion: it does not link to any pages about places, persons or objects named Castanheiro. It does link to two articles about municipalities that contain a village named Castanheiro (no further info about those villages in those articles), but is that enough to keep this disambiguation page? Markussep Talk 08:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see several possible ways of looking at this.


 * 1) The wording of the speedy deletion tag which you added said disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"... or disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Clearly the article does not satisfy either of those criteria.
 * 2) You say that the page "does not link to any pages about places, persons or objects named Castanheiro". However, there are plenty of useful disambiguation pages that link to articles where the title of the disambiguation page is not included in the title of the linked article. Disambiguation gives this example which illustrates such use: "the Canton disambiguation page legitimately has an entry for Flag terminology."
 * 3) In my opinion, however, rather than quoting wording of guidelines as though they were some sort of rules, much more constructive is to consider whether the page has the potential to be useful. Is it plausible that someone or other may one day search for "Castanheiro" on Wikipedia? Yes, certainly. If they do, will it be more helpful to give them links to pages that mention Castanheiro, or to give them nothing? Clearly, to give them the links. Does keeping the disambiguation page do any harm at all to anyone or anything? Not that I can see. So, we have a page which might be useful to someone, and does no harm. Why delete it? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess you're right. Thanks for your advice. Markussep Talk 07:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thousand Kites
Hello, you recently speedily deleted a userspace page about Thousand Kites, and I wrote my question on my own talk page as you requested. You stated that the article was too promotional. It was intended to be informational--as a new intern, one of my first responsibilities was to create a neutral, informative wiki page about the organization. If you could respond to my inquiry directly on my talk page, it would be greatly appreciated.


 * Replied at user's talk page, as requested. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Voice Cast Vandal"
I'm getting tired of reverting this character. He seems to have a particular obsession with Glenn Shadix, persistently adding him to the Frankenweenie film. Evidence of him playing games and trying to rewrite the career of this actor are his edits to Sleepy Hollow (film): he just reverted Shadix's "role" there (which is correct), but seemed to have no problem when he added it back in March. Annoying? Pretty much... Doc  talk  20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Huggle
Someone said that there was a manual for Huggle, where can I find it? Cheers ;-).--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Huggle/Manual JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail
- JuneGloom    Talk  22:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Up the Ridge
While I am an intern with the company that holds the copyrights for up the ridge, the wikipedia article I created was completely neutral, and the material in it was notable and informative, not promotional. What do you suggest I do? Are there any specific parts of the page that seemed to be slanted to you? I will gladly edit them. I have only been with this company for two weeks, so I am not in a position to provide any opinionated information, I am simply stating the facts as they are. Please respond with a message to me instead of on your talk page. Jimbrey (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Jimbrey
 * The page was deleted as a copyright infringement. While the tone may have been a little promotional, I didn't see that as a significant problem, otherwise I would have mentioned it in the deletion reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am authorized to license any of the content that the plagiarism detector flagged for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markkidd (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean copyright, which is a very different matter from plagiarism. You may have a conflict of interest, in which case you are probably not the right person to be editing on this subject. However, if you do put copyright material in an article, if you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions. If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The necessary copyright info for Up the Ridge has been sent to wiki, so I am going to repost the page. Please let me know if there are any other problems with it instead of deleting it and banning me for a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbrey (talk • contribs) 14:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Banning you for a day? Your account has never been banned or blocked. Do you mean that you have used another account which has been blocked? If so, what account? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say, probably User:Thousandkites and User:Thousandkites13. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought of those, but neither of them has ever been blocked for a day. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable people in Wilmington, Los Angeles
An IP added Synthetrix to the page of Wilmington, Los Angeles about two weeks ago. I reverted the revision. He just added it again, and I reverted it. I don't want to get into a slow-speed edit war and would like to affirm that because the page Synthetrix was deleted in the past, he cannot be added as a notable resident. This can then be seen as clear vandalism, and would not be considered an edit war. Am I correct? Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that Synthetrix was deleted under CSD A7 certainly suggests that the person was not notable, but it doesn't necessarily follow, since it could just be that the article failed to show notability which could have been shown. However, the onus is on the person adding the information to provide evidence of notability, and if there is no such evidence then you can certainly remove it. In this case, I have looked both at the deleted article and at a Google search, and I see no evidence of notability, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to remove it. Your edit summary for the first revert was better than the second one, as the editor may well have done it in good faith. I suggest that if it happens a third time you post a talk page message questioning the notability, and mention the talk page in your edit summary. It looks to me as though the anon editor may well be none other than "Synthetrix". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I probably would have chose a different edit summary if it hadn't been the third time synthetrix was added. Especially since I had previously warned the user and he/she had not used an edit summary.  If the anon is Synthetrix we may have a sockpuppetry issue because it was added the first time by User:Synthetrix.  I am not sure how important it is to follow up on this because there have only been 3 edits on the two accounts in the last month.  (All to add synthetrix to the page).  If a correlation continues it might be necessary. 174.25.210.243 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Huggle revert edit
While using Huggle I frequently find instances where dates (either days or years) are changed on an article. I saw one again just recently, and decided to contact you to ask about this. The edits I am referring to usually are written without an edit summary and no source is added. In the past, I have assumed good faith and left it, but I was wondering if an uncited, unsummarized change of date should be treated as vandalism. Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult situation. In my experience the sort of thing you are talking about is most often vandalism, but sometimes it is a legitimate correction. You just have to make a judgement. However, if you are in any doubt, you can revert, and post a talk page message asking for sources. That way if it is legitimate then you give the editor a chance to show that it is. Make sure, though, that you don't allow Huggle to give its default edit summary and talk page message, which are suitable only for unambiguous vandalism. In the sort of situation you are referring to vandalism is probable, but not unambiguous. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would choosing, failure to cite a verifiable source, be acceptable? 174.25.210.243 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I would go for. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Adine Gavazzi Page
Dear Editor/Administrator

i can't see the page Adine Gavazzi any more. It does not violate any copyright and it is intended to orient scholars, researchers and students with a good bibliography on the subject. Can you pleas help me unlock the page?

Both publishers of the author - Jaca Book and Apus Graph-  are happy with it. So are the Museums Tumbas Reales and the Museum Antonini.

Thank you.

If you need more published interviews or links demonstrating the truth of what stated, I will be glad to attach them

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adinegavazzi (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge nobody suggested that the article violated copyright, nor that the information in it was untrue. The article was deleted because it was about a person, but did not indicate that the person was significant enough to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. Apart from the contents of the article itself, I have made internet searches and have not found any evidence at all that you satisfy either Wikipedia's general notability criteria or the criteria for notability of people. The fact that such businesses as publishers of your work are happy with the article is scarcely a reason for keeping it. They clearly have a vested interest in any publicity for you, and I note that another editor has suggested on your talk page that the purpose of the article was self-promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:WDTN

 * Actually the message was at Talk:WDTN, not Chaswmsday's talk page. Replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sleddale Hall
Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Stronach (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers
Sorry if I reported the [{Merry men]] thing wrongly, normally I wouldn't go down the reporting route, and I just wanted to make sure someone was aware of the situation (I had also warned in edit summaries, i thought that was enough). Anyway, cheers for your swift intervention--Red Deathy (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Leasowes Primary School (Stafford)
Hi, I have restored Leasowes Primary School (Stafford) because you should not should not have deleted it for two reasons:
 * I had redirected the page so it was no longer an expired Prod.
 * I had merged content, albeit very slight, so deletion breaches our GFDL licence.

As stated in WP:PROD it is not good practice to delete ones own Prods. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. Thanks for correcting me. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

deletion of the page Jean-Pierre Garnier-Malet
Hello Mr Watson,

I am the (French) editor of the page you deleted about Jean-Pierre Garnier-Malet. I am curious you deleted it as a hoax. I am his publisher in the US. All his scientific publications are true and can be verified. I have the paper presented at the Academy of Sciences in Paris where his demonstration, about the Laplace-Bernouilli equation, is presented with his name : Jean-Pierre Malet. He did received the Best Paper Award from the AIP in 2006 :I also have this publication. All the other references can be verified and true. Would you be fair enough to do so, please? Perhaps I did not include the right format of his publications: if it is the case I am sorry. If you can indicate me how to do it, I will be pleased to comply. As it is my first editing, I certainly can do some mistakes and I gladly accept all remarks. My name is my real name and the work, existence and publications of Jean-Pierre Garnier-Malet are true, real and no fantasy. I really appreciate your work on Wikipedia, but please, verify Jean-Pierre's publications and you will see by yourself that there is no hoax there. As a scientist yourself, I can imagine you verify what is easy to verify: scientific publications are so. And yes, it is more time consuming than just deleting the page as an hoax. I truly again appreciate your follow up on this matter. Thank you.

≈≈≈≈Veronique Crouzoulon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veroniquecrouzoulon (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was substantially fiction. I could list the reasons for reaching that conclusion, but, frankly, I have better things to do with my time. It is possible (though far from certain) that some aspects of the article were attempts to publicise a real person who advances fringe ideas, but even if that was so the fact remains that there were quite absurd claims in the article, making it overall a hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted pages
Is it possible to get rights to view deleted pages? Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Only by becoming an administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Virodhi Himsa
You recently deleted a page called Virodhi Himsa. I believe this to be by mistake. I was wanting to add information to the article. I was once a student of the philosophy and received college credits for learning it. The philosophy is also used in youth homes all over the United States to help children. I beg you reconsider your deletion and allow others to enhance this page. I and many of my students find it an article of great interest. People should add information to this article from all over the world. It appears the page was just created and is already deleted. This is not common for Wikipedia. We have never had this issue at the college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ramav (talk • contribs) 06:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Was it deleted by user? I can make a new one if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ramav (talk • contribs) 06:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The full and complete text of the article which I deleted was "Protective Violence." Deleting it was not a mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There must be a mistake. The text went down the page from what I seen. I can read well. It said much more than protective violence and also had quotes from a few doctors. It was looking very nice and was good information. Is there a problem with Wikipedia? Why would you see one thing and readers see another? I will wait a few days and see if its fixed if not we will put up a article from the college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ramav (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Looks like their may be a few pages deleted this could be the problem. The page I was on had more text and it says you deleted it. Hmmm ghost in the machine I guess. Lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ramav (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What I quoted above was the full text of the article that I deleted. A later article with the same title was deleted by another administrator because it was a copyright infringement. It also may have been promotional, and its subject may have lacked notability, but I have not examined it in detail, so I can't say with any certainty. It is, however, worth noting that no amount of rewriting will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed Article: Someplace Else (Kolkata)
Hi JamesBWatson, The article (Someplace Else (Kolkata)) was about a bar which also hosts rock music everyday (in India). I wanted to know if we can write articles about bars or something like this. With regards, Iamgymman123 (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because it was unambiguous promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. However, very few bars satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You may like to read FAQ/Organizations. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson, Thanks for the pages. I be will grateful if you could help me out re-writing the article. Iamgymman123 (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent IP blocked
Hey, I noticed you blocked the IP recently for block evasion. Here is his old account and from the information it seems that he was blocked for an inappropriate username (SineBot1, username with bot in it) and for a tiny suspicion of sockpuppetry but that was never followed up on. For some reason, instead of telling the user how to change his name, they told him to create a new account. Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

71.146.21.180
User 71.146.21.180 here, how was it a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.21.180 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 June 2011
 * How was what a mistake? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Meggy5624
I am apologiseing for the delete of flower pot men it was not me and henceforth i am apologiseing i must have left my account logged in and someone else did it kind regards Meggy5624. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meggy5624 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 June 2011
 * Be careful not to do leave your account logged in again, or you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Iwill not make the same mistake again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meggy5624 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you check this?
I removed this post on the Ghurid talk page which appeared to me to be in violation of WP:Forum, WP:NPA and WP:Outing. However user:84.59.186.208 reverted my removal. Could you take a look at his lengthy paragraph? Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I read through it, and undid it because it was obviously not written to discuss constructive improvements to the article. I warned him for using the talk page as a forum and for using a foreign language.  I don't know if 3rr applies on a talk page if he re-adds them. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, the IP is clearly an uncooperative editor and I doubt it should be editing; however, I think I may have not been completely in the right here. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I think my report was out of order too. I looked at his contribs, and mistakenly thought one of the edits was new. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Some of the content of the edit could be seen as relating to opinion as to what the article should say. However, the overall character of the was negative, and aimed more at denigrating particular people than at improving the article. I think removing it was justified. However, I now see that the editor has gone on to make personal attacks on a specific editor, and has been blocked for 24 hours. If trouble continues after the block expires then a longer block may well be in order. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That IP has restored the lengthy and derogatory paragraph. I see nothing constructive from this;"They do not fight like men. They can only fight unarmed and innocent people like 16000 civilians of the Indo-British Empire, beating and killing women and unarmed children, elders. Today, they use civilians as shield against the attacks of ANA on them. They cowardly use IEDs and UXOs to fight the ANA but when it comes to battles these people always lose. They use children as suicide bombers or Burqas of women to infiltrate a bank or an hospital where they do their suicide attacks.""Someone who have no clue about Tajik/Aryan history, should take his tail between his leg and go back to the Sulaiman Mountains or back to Israel or Mongolia from where some of them are originating from...". --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Both that and other posts are clearly totally unacceptable. I have blocked the IP for a month, and will be do so for longer if the trouble recurs. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

SineBot1 (well, I'll change it)
I just wanted to personally thank you for any and all inconvenience, and for your help in this situation.  Hello JamesBWatson, SineBot1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

✅ Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Since 6.18.2011 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 June 2011
 * You are very welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thiemassassians
Hi James,

My apologies for removing the tags on this page that (I think) I added originally. I don't know the subject that well but when the user messages me pointing out that sources were added I assumed that all was good. If he has any more questions for me can I direct him to speak with you? Thanks! N o f o rmation Talk 23:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

PhanuelB block review
I thought you might like to know that, I assume due in part to my recent block of two accounts for sockpuppetry on the Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher article, I have been contacted by PhanuelB to review the block you made on the PhanuelB account. So far, based on the evidence I have been provided by PhanuelB, I have agreed with your assessment of the situation. Please feel free to make any comments you may wish about the case here. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He sent me a similar message, also. I concur with the block...he doesn't understand or chooses not to understand BLP violations or using WP as a battleground. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 01:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, another user (who is, unsurprisingly, also a Murder of Meredith Kercher SPA) has quite openly proxy-edited for PhanuelB since the indefinite block. I have warned this user that assisting in the circumvention of a block is completely unacceptable. Since PhanuelB has consistently demonstrated either little or no respect for Wikipedia customs, and has, since his first edit here, been relentless in treating the project as a battlefield, I see nothing at all to justify unblocking.  Super Mario  Man  02:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all of you for keeping me informed. (It was actually John who placed the indefinite block. My contribution was just to remove talk page access, as PhanuelB was misusing the talk page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Up the Ridge
Hi JamesBWatson,

The removed text from Up the Ridge entry was orginal text the film-makers website www.thousandkites.org. They granted permission to Wiki to use this text. The blogger you ref. copied the text of their blog directly from our website. I've undone your entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.37.181 (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you say, you don't appear to have reverted my edit, but I have. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of this?
I was wondering if you could tell me what you think of this diff? There was no way I could have ever found the sources for that. I was trying to make it sound less like original research. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you were quite right. Actually, even "The name change was most likely due to a transcription error", which you left in, is really original research, but I won't object to it. Your version certainly contains less speculation than the earlier version. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What to do about users who don't care about policy
Can a user be blocked for showing a complete irreverence of Wikipedia policy? Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean for expressing that opinion, then no. If you mean for acting on that opinion, i.e. for deliberately editing in ways which the editor knows are against policies, then yes, but it depends on how far it is taken. A few minor infractions should be given warnings, even though I think there is pretty well no likelihood of the user responding to them, so that if the problem becomes serious enough to justify further steps, it is clear that every reasonable effort has been taken. I have had a brief look at a few more of this editor's contributions, and have not seen any major problems. There may be problems I have missed, but I don't have time to look into it further. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

About User talk:Shirt58 - thank you!
Hi JBW - thanks indeed for your help, and for explaining those not so much "magic words" (that I should probably have already known about) to me. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your block of. Much appreciated, Jenks24 (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Thiemassassians
Hi,

The Thiemassassians article that you placed a speedy deletion remark has been sourced. Would you please check it and if you are happy with it and remove the speedy deletion you have placed on it. The Url is as follows for your review and consideration:

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

Thank you

You may answer on my talk page.

Tamsier (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not nominated it for speedy deletion, but rather started an article for deletion discussion. The notice about this may not be removed until the discussion has been closed, which is normally after a week. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Question
Can I delete all the unblock requests, or should I leave them there? Also, please answer on Since 6.18.2011
 * Answered at User talk:Since 6.18.20. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
v/r - TP 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

AIV reports
Hey, thanks for volunteering at WP:AIV. When it comes to this diff, we do indeed check the reports - it's our finger on the block button, after all! However, I think it's easy for a good-faith recent changes patroller to get confused about dates and times and misread the last warning. That's why we act as the second set of eyes. :-) Regards, --causa sui (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * May I ask what is wrong with my report? Is this not vandalism? And doing it over and over again, three times? Nymf hideliho! 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It wasn't a case of misreading the times of the final warning and the last edit, as the final warning and the AIV report were from the same person. Nevertheless, I apologise for expressing myself in an unnecessarily unfriendly way: I am usually much more polite in these circumstances. This was out of character.
 * Yes, repeated removals of that kind certainly do look like vandalism. When I checked a sample of the user's edits I saw only one example of that, and it looked like a good faith error by an inexperienced user. Other edits I checked also looked as though done in good faith, even if some of them were not helpful. It does help to give diffs, either in warnings on the user's talk page, in the AIV report, or both, as it is not realistically possible for an admin checking lots of AIV reports to check every edit by every reported editor. In addition, the user has now continued to make unconstructive edits after the final warning, so I have blocked the account for 48 hours. Please feel very welcome to contact me here if the user continues in the same way when the block expires, and I will consider a longer block. Thank you for your AIV report, and apologies once more for responding in a way that was not as friendly as it should have been. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I got your message. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Since 6.18.2011 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Question
This isn't a personal question, and I am not trying to take information. What time zone do you live in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Since 6.18.2011 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 June 2011
 * That is not a closely guarded secret, but I am reluctant to provide personal information without being told what it is wanted for. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem
I'm trying to teach students to use Wikipedia. I am getting them to "play" (your words) with creating wiki articles based on other articles. Now this is definately "fair use" and it is using wiki content for wiki advantage and copyright does not apply if stuff is for your own use only. Can you please reverse your decision with respect to User:EleanorShone and a friendly comment would not go amiss. Lets imagine that every student in the country created a page in their sandbox .... are they not allowed to do this? Come on .... be welcoming! Victuallers (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Teaching students to use Wikipedia is a great thing to do, and I'm sorry if I have inadvertently obstructed your efforts. I will give you my thoughts on what you have said, and also a suggestion or two.
 * I am not a lawyer, but I doubt whether a page posted publicly on Wikipedia would be regarded as "for your own use". The fact that the page has "User:" and a pseudonym at the beginning of its title does not alter the fact that it is on public display. However, I don't think that is a big deal, since the copyright attribution issue can be addressed quite simply by using an edit summary that says what article the information is copied from.
 * I am actually more concerned with a different issue. Copying and pasting an existing article and then making changes to it is an easy way to start a new article, but not necessarily a good one, for several reasons, and I am not sure that teaching people to do it that way is, in the long run, doing them a favour. Apart from the attribution question there is the fact that the editing history of the article will contain false information (i.e. information which does not apply to the ultimate subject of the article). You may think that doesn't matter, but it can in some circumstances: for example if subsequently the article is found to contain copyright infringing material, someone may revert back to an early version, which may be inappropriate. Also, in my experience, articles which are created in this way very often finish up retaining some details from the original article, even when the person creating it has evidently intended to completely replace such information. Then there is just the simple fact that encouraging people to think in terms of copying and pasting existing material could potentially lead to more serious copyright issues. I could go on, but I have probably written enough to indicate why I am doubtful about this approach. Anyway, that is just my view, and it is obviously up to you. You are as capable as I am of making such judgements.
 * I am not the only person who saw your student's work and saw it as inappropriate "playing" with Wikipedia. In fact I am almost sure that one of your students got blocked, though I may be confusing it with another case. I suggest getting each of your students to create a user page saying what they are doing, and perhaps also to mention it at the top of any draft articles they create in user space. That way it won't look so much like just playing or using Wikipedia as a free web host, and there is a much better chance that your students will be given leeway. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi James, thanks for your reply. I understand your points but I think you are looking down from your own learned position and not appreciating that these children are trying to learn how to do italics, links and bolds. The subtleties of edit histories awaits them in the future. Maybe you arrived at Wikipedia as an adult and found this all very easy, but these children do not know what attribution is .... yet. I'm not blaming you -I have raised this as a general point of "recent changes patrol" discussion. Obviously I'm not going to offer my lesson plans or teaching style up for a consensus vote. I'm offering a chance here to train 1-200 wiki editors ... if we are going to "beat them up" for not knowing about edit histories or for not taking their own sandboxes seriously then I don't think this will work and I will have to abandon the idea. I was hoping that "don't bit the newbies" might cut them some slack. A simple addition of newbie might be possible but adding a comment to every page....?? Is nt going to work .... remember they havent learnt editting yet. Thats what Im trying to do. Yes someone was blocked. Thats one editor we lost and his mates in that corner of the room learnt how frustrating editting can be for newbies .... that wasnt my objective.Victuallers (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are other ways to work with Wikimarkup, learning how to do italics, links, and bolds, etc. You could have every student create a sandbox page where they wrote a short blurb about a subject that interested them, and then have them bold, italicize, wikilink, etc. within that blurb.  There is no conceivable way to allow them to copy and paste information then change it because of copyright regulations and policy laid out here.  This could be a good opportunity to teach your students about copyrights and ownership/attribution of copyrighted material. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Yes, I do understand what you are saying. However, have you considered my suggestion of getting them to add a note saying what the situation is? If a page had a note on it saying something like "This page is being developed as part of an educational project for children to be taught to edit Wikipedia" then my guess is that most new page patrollers etc would see it in a very different light than if they just see apparently pointless pages being created by editors whose main activity looks like using Wikipedia as a social network. I don't know what sort of experience you have, or what types of admin work you have done, but anyone who has a significant amount of experience in dealing with new user patrolling and/or vandalism patrolling is likely to see what your students have done as typical of the behaviour of people who come here only to mess about, with no intention of constructive contributions. Personally I tend to drop a note saying that such activity is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and not block unless the behaviour persists after repeated warnings, but I can sympathise with other admins who are less patient, because 9 times out of 10 such patience is wasted. I have myself taught classes of children to do various tasks on computers, and I do know how simple details like how to do italics can occupy their attention and they can't necessarily cope with the bigger issues. However, the fact remains that if they do things which look like vandalism or using Wikipedia as a free web host then they will experience the frustrations of having their work deleted, being blocked, etc, and surely the best thing is, as I have suggested, to post a note right at the top of the page saying what is going on.
 * If you would like to, you can post me the username of the one who was blocked, and I will unblock the account. (Unless, of course, you have unblocked it yourself, but possibly you may prefer not to do that on COI grounds.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still primarily an editor of Wikipedia (less now I work for Wikimedia UK) and I am not the only person who copies wikipedia content into my sandboxes. Go and look there is lots of it and many editors have lots of similar pages. I have created 100s of pages and my standard technique is to steal the structure from an existing article. (There may be people who can write a good start article by just reading the template guides, guidelines, rules, wiki guides and master image incorporation ... but I doubt there are many - If you think i am just appealling to a teenagers need for instant gratification .... then you are 100% right) I think your suggestion is a good one James. I think you realise that the aim here is to educate and the importance of Ignore All Rules is predicated on the idea that policy is not intended to overide our mission. I understand that admins who concentrate on removing vandals do not have the time to always consider the bigger picture. Hopefully your suggestion will avoid major issues (and pulling the project into poor regard). Victuallers (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Ryan - I don't agree with your interpretation and wouldnt for one minute consider taking lesson plans from anywhere except wikiversity. The idea that "fair use" does not apply in an educational environment means that we need to pay damages for every photocopy in a school in the last 30 years. If you cannot copy material to a sandbox from wikipedia then this presumably includes template code? This would defy logic. Victuallers (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I appear to have understood the situation incorrectly, I thought you were copying information from websites outside of Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me your opinion on this?
Can you look at the first sentence of this section? It states that they sailed in the S.S. Onega (Oneida?). This looks terrible and I can't find sources for either. The editor who put it in stated on the talk page, "Lucas records the ship carrying his parents to the Falklands after their marriage as S.S. Onega whereas the display board in Harberton church records it as the S.S. Oneida." Do I remove one, or find a way to work around the entire thing? I would prefer that it is not on the page as I would like to get the article to B or good article status. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have obviously put quite a bit of work into the article over a period of some time, whereas I've just looked at it briefly. However, for what it's worth, my feeling is that the name of the ship is probably of very little importance, and may as well just be removed, since there is doubt about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The lion of Egyptian revolution (Qasr al-Nil Bridge).jpg
I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thousand Kites
I have reworked the wording of the Thousand Kites Wikipedia page that my colleague wrote so that I believe it no longer has a promotional tone. If you think that it still does, could you help me to remove that tone rather than delete the page altogether? It's not as though this is untrue or non-notable information. It is very relevant, as this organization has thousands of followers, and we simply wish to be informative about it. Also, when we have linked the Up the Ridge documentary or Thousand Kites page to the prisons that they focus on, the links are continuously deleted. I understand that this seems like promotion, but anybody interested in looking at the pages of these specific prisons would probably find it helpful to be linked to a documentary that directly deals with these prisons. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbrey (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal or HIDING of content
My Fault {[ “Mea Culpa" !!!]} Pls HELP!

To BWilkins, JamesBWatson, RadioFan, Gene93k, Nageh etc. wise ppl ...

With no intentions to do HARM to anyone i did attempt to create an article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vassilina_Dikidjieva -

not knowing that all of it will remain forever visible in the Wikipedia Archives and -actually- indexed and revealed by a simple Google NAME search to all the world to enjoy ...

This turns out to be extremely unpleasant and objectionable to the (innocent) persons directly concerned. (Obviously, especially in the cases of “NO EVIDENCE OF NOTABILITY" this turns out to look quite ugly; for artists are sensitive ppl). I have been -quite justly, of course-  strongly criticized for my initiative . Once again, i will point out that in other Languages rules are much more relaxed, people write self-promoting articles freely, all the time.

Lacking much expertise myself, I guess I am not at LIBERTY to simply go back and delete the exchanged views and negotiations and discussions, no? It will be considered a Vandalism - not my cup of tea at all.

Is there any way you wise people of Administration to remove the whole discussion, pls?

PLEASE?

Or at least HIDE it from view through a Google Name Search? I am aware that some texts included in this coding:

BLAH.

will remain invisible in the eventually PUBLISHED pages ...?

I assure you, that all your attention to this matter and your effort and results will be highly appreciated; and my affection towards the Wikipaedia Project will get restored.

Actually, once I did apply for some photographs (of the same person) to be removed from Wiki Media Commons upon her strong objections and my plea got answered and matter settled satisfactorily.

R.S.V.P. = Please RESPOND. Thx, best rgds, Peter S. D.

{P.S. Come to think of it, probably a Warning at the very point of initiation of an Article for a Living Person would be a good idea in the future, for such enthusiasts as myself to shyaway?} Ecce Nemo 21:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have blanked the articles for deletion page. (I assume that is what you meant.) I have also put a "NOINDEX" tag in the page, which should mean that once Google gets round to checking the page again it should be disappear from Google searches altogether. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * EXACTLY, thank you James, that's precisely what I needed (actually what they were requesting =artist+family). Now INDEED your intervention -quote-= This page has been blanked as a courtesy.  =works fine, Google Name search hits the COURTESY BLANK wall, which is good enough (though not prefect, but anyway, my fault). BTW is this action available to users (like me) or it is allowed to ADMINs only? Teach me pls. So it is not the code I was thinking about:  ???  2. I got a response from BWilkins too which is a bit complicated to understand (English being my fifth language only, and I am lost in some conversionalisms). Quote again  -hoping that I am not breaking rules?: "The history of the Articles for Discussion related to the entry needs to remain, in part it tells YOU how to fix the article for the future. Second, it may need to be referred to in the future should the article be recreated. I'm not sure what you're really looking for in the long run, as deleting this or not deleting has no impact on the artist's ability to be creative." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bwilkins)


 * Anyway your RESULT closes the matter, thanks a lot, Peter Ecce Nemo 17:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, Sir, pls how did you "I have blanked" do this and is it for ADMINs only or users are allowed too? And how about the NOINDEX tag in a page: is this privileged too? Thx, rgds Ecce Nemo 13:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether there is anything written down anywhere that specifies who may do this, but I think that changing a closed AfD is potentially controversial, and it would probably be safer to ask for an administrator to do it, rather than doing it yourself. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, that's logical. Will do as advised. Thx, best rgds, :-)   Ecce Nemo 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a user
This isn't a user, and the warnings aren't only for the user. This is an anonymous account, for which editors need to be able to easily see earlier warnings to see how the user is or is not a problem. - Denimadept (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

More, there's no way to know that the user(s) responsible for issues have seen the problem. As an anonymous account at a library, 50 people could use it a day, only one or two of which are relevant. The others can read it without impact to them but without warning the actual people involved. I reiterate, this is not A user, it's likely SEVERAL users. - Denimadept (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply or I'll take it as agreement. - Denimadept (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain JamesBWatson is British so it is roughly 4 am where he lives. With that being said, can you point me to any guidelines on Wikipedia that say only registered users have the right to remove items from their talk page?  Where does it say that these rules do not apply to shared IP's? Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a discussion we were having, or I thought we were. Looks more like a monologue, now. :-( - Denimadept (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You appear to have suffered some degree of frustration because I did not respond soon after you posted here. Unfortunately, for personal and family reasons, I was not able to contribute to Wikipedia for a few days. In a system run by volunteers in their spare time it is possible to rely on always getting prompt responses.
 * Clearly you are referring to removal of warnings from an IP user talk page. You are quite right about the need for other editors to be able to see past warnings, and for that reason some years ago the accepted guideline was that talk page warnings should not be removed. However, this caused endless problems, with editors edit-warring to remove and re-add the warnings, cases being taken to ANI, resulting in a lot of editors wasting a lot of time on discussion of such incidents, and so on. The whole issue was discussed at great length, and eventually a consensus emerged that it was better to simply allow removal of warnings, and for editors to have to check the editing history of the talk page to see if there had been previous warnings. I don't think anyone thought at the time that this was an ideal situation, but it was seen as the least bad arrangement. There are also several other problems with not allowing removal of talk page warnings, such as what to do about malicious and other unjustified warnings. It is not good enough to say "well, of course you can remove those", because a user may think that a warning on their talk page is unjustified when you and I disagree, so again you get edit-warring, ANI discussions, blocks, etc. And note that none of this is hypothetical: it all really did occur before the guideline was changed. It is of course true that, in a shared IP or public computer, there is no way of knowing that the message has been seen by the user it was intended for. However, that is true whether the warning has been removed or not. Firstly, the user may never come back to edit Wikipedia there again. Secondly, if they do come back and another user has meanwhile viewed the talk page, then they will not get a "you have new messages" notice, and will very probably never see the warning, even if it has not been removed. There is no fully satisfactory solution to the problem, but following discussion the consensus was that the best compromise is to allow all users to remove warnings, whether registered or anonymous users. If vandalism or other problems stop for a significant time and then come back from the same IP address then we treat it as a new user who has not been warned. If, however, problems persist without a prolonged break despite warnings then we block. Likewise if problems keep coming back repeatedly over a long period we may block, even if there are significant gaps. Of course this is not a perfect solution, and a block may be triggered by one good faith but misjudged edit by a person who has never received any warnings, or a single vandal may get away with it for quite a while by not vandalising very frequently, but there is no perfect solution, and this is probably as good a compromise as any other, and certainly better than the chaotic situation which resulted in the past from trying to enforce a "no removing warnings" policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock alert
user:Big NASCAR Fanboy is making the same vandalism edits as user:ThePickleman was before you blocked him. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Castelle
Hi, I'm wondering how to delete the Eugene Castelle redirect. The redirect itself is not necessary there are few articles that linked to it see. I looked over the Cross-namespace redirects and Redirect. In Reasons for deleting redirects if it causes "confusion to readers" and if it contains nontrivial edit history. --Vic49 (talk)  19:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the redirect does any harm, even if it's not vital, so I can't see any reason for deleting it. However, if you really want it deleted you can suggest deletion at Redirects for discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
for the revert on my talk page. Send me a bill (I won't pay it but send it anyway!) Thanks, Chris W4chris (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

deletion
I'm gonna delete the section here (Section 3, block), okay? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk page
Hi, JamesBWatson. I am slightly concerned about this new section that PhanuelB has recently added to his talk page. He seems to be using it as a holding area for lengthy negative quotations about a particular living person (for what purpose, I am unsure). Is this acceptable with regard to user talk page guidelines on content? I ask mainly because PhanuelB has previously compiled lists of this nature under the claim that the sources are reliable, but such collections are clearly intended to advance a specific POV and seem to amount to little more than soapboxing with quotations. I also wonder whether there are inherent WP:BLP concerns in the creation of such a section, and whether the copying-and-pasting of long extracts from sources is perhaps dubious with a mind to WP:COPYVIO - it does not appear to me to be a suitable use of a user talk page. Do you believe that there is a cause for concern? Regards,  Super Mario  Man  11:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. However, I am reluctant to be dragged even further into this mess than I have already been. You could take it to WP:ANI if you like. If you do so let me know and I will be prepared to comment there, but I am unwilling at present to take it further myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to blank the section unilaterally, justified though it may be. It certainly seems to present more than one problem as far as WP:UPNO is concerned. For the moment, I'll inform PhanuelB about the problem and request that he remove the content voluntarily. If he refuses to do this, and continues to paste long quotations into the section, then I'll see about reporting the situation to WP:ANI - at this moment in time, it would probably be too drastic a step.  Super Mario  Man  12:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am unimpressed by this response. Since the user is still adding long quotations to the section, I have, in accordance with your original suggestion, started a discussion at WP:ANI. It can be found here. Regards,  Super Mario  Man  05:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your accurate summary of the situation at ANI.  Super Mario  Man  14:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Seen and replied JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind. I don't want the article protected anymore. Could you know unprotected it if you please or expand it's protection time. Also unprotect my talk page if you please. Thanks. --Deltasim 20:03, July 4 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.23.37 (talk)

RTV
Password scrambled. --User:VanishedUser99 15:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Article for: Phyzical Thurapy
Hello James, I would really appreciate it if you could help me out here, I am in the process of getting the article for 'Phyzical Thurapy' approved. I have made changes to the article and added some valid websites like radio station articles, etc under the 'career' section. But I know it says to contact administrator first if a similar page is being recreated. I am editing the page and adding valid points. I have copy-pasted the whole set up for the 'Phyzical Thurapy' page below. Please help me to get this article up. I would really appreciate your help James. God Bless Man. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackfrint (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 June 2011
 * The draft you posted here is unsuitable for several reasons, including the following.


 * 1) It did not address the issue of notability raised in the deletion discussion. Unreliable sources as Urban Dictionary and non-independent sources such as the band's own web site, etc, do not establish notability. I have made searches, and found no evidence at all that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If it doesn't then it is not a suitable subject for an article. No amount of rewriting of an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one.
 * 2) It was to a significant extent a copyright infringement of http://www.phyzicalthurapy.com/.
 * In addition, posting a whole draft article to this talk page was not very helpful, though I have no doubt you did so in good faith. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey James, thanks for your help. So in order for "Phyzical Thurapy" to be created, they would have to have articles from online magazines, or interviews, radio stations, without exact wording from the phyzicalthurapy.com website? Correct? So unless they have notable articles online by a publisher, it will not be approved, right? I'm just trying to better understand. You've been really helpful! Please let me know, thanks James. God Bless!

Zack Frint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackfrint (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For clarification of what is required to establish notability I suggest looking at Notability and at Notability (music). JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Block
I am assuming it was a mistake since you immediately reverted it but I had to deal with the autoblocker. I'd like to kindly ask you to be more careful in the future. Also please delete the revisions in my talk page identifying my IP address to the general public. -- Cat chi? 16:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC) ✅ Sincere apologies. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I want to keep this thread on both talk pages. -- Cat chi? 17:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what thread you mean. Can you clarify? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Copying the discussion on both places so it is archived properly in both talk page archives. Thanks for the deletion of personal info. -- Cat chi? 19:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Copying what discussion in what two places? What talk page archives? I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:EncyMind. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a personal attack. Also, don't you think it's up to the owner of the talk page to remove my advice if they choose to, rather than you doing it? JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also see that both MarnetteD and Snottywong have expressed the opinion that there was no personal attack. Consensus does not seem to support you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, you have my support too !James - I have no idea what Hawkeye7 was thinking there, but it wasn't even close to a personal attack -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ++ Syrthiss (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

AIV
Yeah, I didn't see that; now I feel real smart. At any rate, it was before my coffee; so I suppose not all is lost! :) Tyrol5   [Talk]  14:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

User:67.82.48.23
Hi JamesBWatson. I just looked at the the above editor's edits, and need to find someone with Rollback Rights willing to revert his strange punctuation edits. memphisto 15:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edits (I hope I got them all), but you could have done it yourself. You can just select the version you want to revert too, click on "edit this page", and save it. All that rollback does is to make the change a bit faster: it doesn't actually make possible any change that anyone can't do. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Unfortunately, the editor has ignored your message on his talk page and continues with his strange punctuation edits. memphisto 11:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the most recent edits (and some older ones), but wonder if this users habit of editing the article several times is a ruse to make reverting more difficult? memphisto 11:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that it is just that. I have warned the user that a block may be forthcoming. feel welcome to inform me if the problem continues. Also, for future reference, I strongly recommend that in similar cases in the future you warn the user. This has several advantages: (1) the user may take the warnings on board, and stop, (2) other users who see a problem edit will realise that it is part of a pattern, and may therefore take further action, (3) an administrator may be prepared to block the user if there have been adequate warnings, whereas only in exceptional circumstances is a block likely for a user who has not received warnings. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for lifting a block
Hi James, this is with respect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Strat_student - you have blocked the IP address; this belongs to an educational institution with over 2000 users and some of them currently working on a Wikipedia project. Please lift the block asap. While I can lift the block myself as an administrator, I felt it appropriate that the one who blocks also unblocks. You may want to reconsider your tactic of indefinite blocks for ips as most ips are shared by a large number of people in countries like India. --Gurubrahma (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what IP address you are referring to. I have searched in the logs and can't find it. I can't find any IP block I made within hours of blocking the user you have named that could possibly be the one you are referring to. Can you let me know? As far as I know I have never indefinitely blocked an IP address. I don't normally even block for periods of more than a couple of days unless either there has been long term troublesome editing the nature of which indicates that it is one user or there has been long term abuse and there have been previous blocks which have not stopped it. Anyway, as far as the case you refer to is concerned, if you let me know what IP address you are referring to then I will look at it as soon as I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear James, this is the message one gets when they try logging in with their id and then edit a page.

"You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong. A user of this IP address was blocked by JamesBWatson for the following reason (see our blocking policy):.......Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Strat student". The reason given for Strat student's block is:....

I guess the reason we are having the issue is of this block by you: "(del/undel) 20:03, 30 June 2011 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs | block) blocked Strat student (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (unblock | change block)" - may be, lift the block, as anyway this does not seem to be a spamusername and seems to be causing autoblock to everyone on this IP? --Gurubrahma (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The block reason of "spamusername" seems to have been a case of clicking on the wrong link: I have now corrected it. The correct reason was given on the user's talk page. I have also removed the autoblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)