User talk:JBW/Archive 30

VanishedUser99
Hi, I've cleaned up the White Cat SPI by moving everything to Access Denied. You're sure about this, right? I have received a hint by mail, but didn't look into it since I saw you change the tag. Cheers, Amalthea  11:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am certain that the user was a sock puppet. I got a pretty clear impression that it was a sockpuppet of Access Denied. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I agree that it was a sock account. If all IPs that are attributed to Access Denied are really him though then he's coming around quite a bit. US West coast, US East coast, Germany, now Belgium. Probably makes no matter though. Thanks, Amalthea  13:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

88.159.112.114
No problem. He hadn't been blocked before, so 24 hours was the usual standard, and I didn't see anything egregious like hate speech or personal attacks which I usually adjust upwards.

Aside from that, did you see the AIV report? It was interesting. It was made by a brand new user whose name is very similar to  a longtime user and vandalfighter who suddenly left over two years ago. The account's sole edits were reverting this vandal today and yesterday.

What's going on here? Is TWWP returning? If you look at the userpage it seems so. Is this some sort of socking situation? It bears monitoring. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that 24 or 31 hours is the usual standard, but when an editor has been vandalising for months, I am doubtful whether there is any point in it. I wouldn't block for several months in a case like this, but would probably compromise and start at a few days. However, I am not totally against a 24 hour block on the same principal as WP:ROPE.
 * If he does it again once the block expires we can and should block longer. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Looks to me as though it clearly is the same user. I see no evidence of abuse, so calling it sockpuppetry is probably not justified, but it would certainly be interesting to know the reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to say impersonation. But, as you said, no harm no foul. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tracey Williams Gallery account
I really do try to AGF and all that; but I am just a bit cynical about this one. I hope your good faith is requited properly. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I used a little AGF and a lot of ROPE. I will certainly watch the account, and I hope you will too. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation Editing
I am sorry, sir, but you are incorrect. Punctuation marks such as commas and periods go inside of quotation marks. These are the only corrections that I have made. I fail to understand why it would be necessary to threaten me with being banned before one checked one's facts, and such corrections can hardly be considered "vandalism" at any rate, as I was only trying to be helpful.

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Respectfully, John
 * The grammarbook.com site is specifically American, and the placing of commas and periods varies between US and UK grammar rules (and probably with other versions of English too). The "always inside" rule is not universal, and we shouldn't change between versions of English - as per WP:ENGVAR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the changes constitute changing from one English style to another, but most don't. For example this edit. No matter whether you are using a style of English in which a punctuation mark at the end of a speech quotation goes inside the quotes or a style in which it goes outside, there is no style in which it is accepted practice to put commas inside quotes which are used to single out a word which are not part of a speech or quotation. This is the sort of mistake which commonly happens where people try to use rules rote fashion without an understanding of them. I have no doubt that your editing has been done in good faith, in the sincere belief that you were correcting errors, but unfortunately you were mistaken. Please do not try to correct errors in an area in which your understanding is not good enough for you to achieve reliable results. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

IPs 67.70.15x.xxx
Perhaps you do not remember him/her, but a month ago you blocked for 6 months the IP. Today s/he returned as, again giving blatant factual errors to articles (Christopher Plummer and Charlie's Angels). The problem I see is that s/he has been doing this for months (at least March ) and s/he won't stop until s/he is completely blocked or s/he's 40 years-old. What I found is that his IPs are statics for sometime and all begin with 67.70.15x.xxx. Is there any possibility of have this range blocked? Or what else can be done? Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  07:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with a range block:

Because of those concerns I am unwilling to place a range block for an extended time, but I will block the range for a brief period, and see if it helps. Please feel welcome to contact me again if necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Although almost all the edits from the range are vandalism, there have been a few constructive edits, which makes me reluctant to block out potentially good contributors. The constructive edits are a tiny proportion of the total, and are only small details even then, but they do exist.
 * 2) The editor has also edited outside this range (see Special:Contributions/70.48.113.185) so a range block may not be totally effective.

Removing an edit
Would it be possible to remove this edit from Guoguo12's talk page? I was also wondering if there was any chance of blocking the editor who made it. There must be strong policies for editors who try to discourage others from editing the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore this, it was an error on my part. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! I was just searching through history to see if I could figure out what you meant exactly. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It had appeared that he was encouraging Guoguo12 to never come back to edit Wikipedia. Other editors believed this too until Nolelover pointed out that Guoguo12 had made 3 edits.  The edit was actually encouraging Guoguo12 to stay.  I apologized on Alzarain16's page and he left a clarification note on his edit so it would not confuse others in the future. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aah, yes, now I see. Thanks for explaining. However, even if the original reading had been right, I don't think that removing the edit from the record would have been justifiable. Whenever an admin tries to remove an edit there is a pretty strongly worded warning in red about making sure that the circumstance fall within the terms of the revision deletion policy before doing it. Saying that you hope an editor will stay away from Wikipedia may be considered uncivil, but I don't think it falls under the provisions of that policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

block on 92.8.84.0/23
Please note, that your block on "92.8.84.0/23" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.8.84.0/23) has blocked all IPs in a range. This is not advisable as it means hundreds of innocent people will be affected. Removing this block would surely be wise. H2005uk (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC) ~
 * That would be true if it weren't for the fact that over a significant period here have been very large numbers of vandalism edits and not a single constructive edit. It is conceivable, though improbable, that some "innocent" editor may be affected, but out of the question that "hundreds of innocent people will be affected". I assure you that I regard blocking an IP range as a last resort, and never do so without very careful consideration of how likely collateral damage is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But do you realise that the range you've blocked won't really have much effect? As the block is simply part of a number of IP addresses that are used by AOL/Talktalk. Such users can be put on any IP in the range of 92.0.x.x to 92.30.x.x, plus some other IPs. So chances are that people on the range you blocked will be on a very different IP address soon anyway. H2005uk (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That, unfortunately, is one of the difficulties with trying to block IP vandals. However, blocking a range which has been used persistently by one user for disruptive editing over a period of months is likely at least to make it a little harder for that user to continue. Far from perfect, but better than nothing. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Protecting
Hi James. While you are protecting Shutter Shades, the same sockpuppet/rotating IP is having his way with all things Bros related. Specifically now List of best-selling boy bands and The Time (Bros album). Can you please protect them too, or at least the first which seems to be the target of constant vandalism? Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have protected them for three days. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Muhandes (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The same guy is back. As his three accounts were blocked for sockpuppetry I guess he figured he can keep coming as IP. Due to 3RR I am limited in the number of times I can revert him as well. Would you mind protecting List of best-selling boy bands (and maybe some other articles he frequents) for a longer period? Maybe he'll get the hint and leave. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have semiprotected List of best-selling boy bands indefinitely for now, with the intention of reviewing that in due course. I don't see any other articles on which there has been recent enough trouble to justify protection, but you are welcome to point any out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The IP usually visits articles about Bros and Shutter Shades. If he continues, I will let you know. --Muhandes (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet
Hi James. It's a shame you couldn't make the Manchester wikimeet last month. The next one's going to be on 17 September, if you're interested in coming - more info at meta:Meetup/Manchester. Please sign up if you're coming, and also please sign up on the notification list if you want me to nag you about future Manchester meets. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Resistance stretching
Hi James. I would appreciate your assistance in undeleting the article I wrote for "Resistance stretching" back in 2006. I am contacting you as the following information is now displayed when navigating to the article:

13:57, 10 January 2011 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Resistance stretching" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I have not updated the page since I first created it. So, it apparently became an advertisement over time. Or perhaps the way I originally wrote it was too advert like and it only got worse from then on out. Either way, I'd appreciate you restoring it so I can clean it up. How does this work? Thanks, Luther — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutherb (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked back at the article, both in the state in which you left it and in later versions. The latest version was unambiguous advertising. Your version was, in my opinion, very much better, but it still reads distinctly like promotion for a proprietary concept, apparently belonging to something called "The Meridian Stretching Center". It does not seem to me to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and if I were to restore the article I think there would be a good chance that it would simply be deleted again at articles for deletion. A better chance might be to restore your version as a temporary userspace page for you to work on until it is ready to post as an article again. However, the article would need substantial rewriting, and I am by no means certain that it wouldn't be easier to just rewrite if from scratch. All of this is completely ignoring the question of whether the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. If it doesn't, then any form of rewriting of the article is likely to be a waste of time, as no amount of rewriting will convert a non-notable subject into a notable one. Nothing in any version of the article that I have seen indicated notability, and my searches have likewise failed to do so. Everything I have seen suggests that the concept exists essentially as a commercial concept created by someone called "Bob Cooley", and much of the coverage of it seems to come directly or indirectly from him, and to be substantially promotional. Nothing I have seen suggests that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, no matter how an article about it may be written. If, despite that, you still want it temporarily "userfied" so you can spend time working on it, please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I have been reading Wikipedia's notability criteria, inclusion criteria, verifiability, identifying reliable sources, and conflict of interest (I am a practitioner of this modality). I think I can rewrite the article (substantially) to include links to outside sources like The New York Times, Time Magazine, and others while making various other additions/edits which may help it meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I would like it if the article could be restored as a temporary userspace page for me to work on until it is ready to post as an article again. I am curious to see how the article appeared before deletion as I had not checked it in quite some time, but I suppose that doesn't matter as much as getting it userfied so that I can begin the rewriting process. Lutherb (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

✅ See User:Lutherb\Resistance stretching. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

assumption
With all due respect, I think we've both been around the block long enough to know that the ip history and warnings here do not likely reflect a transient IP, but rather a dedicated one. If it were transient, the new editor would ignore it -- no need to remove it; it only can help, and cannot hurt. You can respond here.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure whether it is the same user. Some of the edits are very different in character from others, so it looks as though it isn't, but it may be. But even if it is one user, I don't see much useful purpose in posting a retrospective warning for an edit from weeks ago, when there are already far more recent warnings, including a final warning. The user should have got the message. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are not sure (as you indicate is the case), I believe the common wisdom is that it is best to avoid deleting the talk page postings of others ... unless of course they are vandalism, which this was certainly not. That "cost" certainly outweighs any benefit of removing a warning to a user you think may be seen by a third user, which makes it clear that it does not apply to the third user.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As reflected by the IPs vandalism subsequent to this discussion starting, of the same ilk, leading to this, it would seem the user of this IP would have benefited from the warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed my point. You say "if you are not sure", but I am sure that there was no point in the warning. I see no reason to assume, as for some reason you do, that all the edits were from one person, but the point I thought I had made is that it doesn't matter whether it was the same person. If it was, then they had already received plenty of warnings, including a final warning. No additional purpose was served by adding a message which said, in effect, "oh, and by the way, you also made another bad edit a few weeks ago". As for "it would seem the user of this IP would have benefited from the warning", I can't begin to imagine why. The user had, as I say, had several warnings, including a final warning. What reason is there to suppose that one more "final" warning would have led them to stop? Annother point: once a "final" warning has been issued it is at best pointless to immediately issue another one, and at worst it can possibly be counterproductive, as it conveys the message "even though we said it was a final warning, we didn't mean it". And my final point: there are users who seem to think that the more "final" warnings they pile on to a user's talk page, the more likely that the user will be blocked, so that they sit there and post a string of warnings in quick succession for edits which all took place before they posted the first one. (Some though by no means all of these users then immediately post a report at administrator intervention aginst vandalism in which they lie, saying "vandalism after final warning".) Whether these people imagine that administrators block on the basis of just looking at the talk page without checking the history, I don't know, but I can tell you what the effect of this is. It is to make the administrator think "oh, it's one of those people who pile on pointless warnings for outdated edits again" and to feel less sympathetic to the person who made the report. It does nothing to encourage unblocking. In fact if anything it might possibly make an unblock a little less likely. I am not suggesting that you posted the unblock notice in that spirit, but it could possibly look that way, and if so it could be unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi -- btw, you can respond here (no need for talkbacks), as I will watch this page. As to the above, you first said "I'm not sure whether it is the same user".  That's what I was referring to.  Given the level of similar vandalism, it does appear to be the same user to me, and certainly doesn't appear to be a variable IP.  This was borne out by the vandalism subsequent to your comment.  Zero harm occurs if you leave the warning -- it informs a new user of the IP that it does not apply to them.  In contrast, my understanding is that it is not proper for you to delete another's tp post, in the absence of vandalism -- which was certainly not the case here.  Even if you, through a difference of opinion, think x days is too long (which seems to be a somewhat subjective standard personal to you), or "doesn't appear to be the same vandal to me" (same; and not at all borne out by the evidence), that does not permit you to edit others' talkpage postings -- such deletions have negative impacts of their own, and are therefore strongly discouraged.  In short, the vandal was in my opinion clearly the same vandal, the warning did no harm at all for the reasons stated, and the removal of talk page posts by others is a deprecated practice if the posting is not vandalism.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept that I probaly shouldn't have removed your warning, even though I thought it wasn't helpful. I apologise. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Much appreciated.  Tx for exhibiting the highest in sysop patience and positive interactions.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

can you check a page?
Hi James. I'm a newbee and user:peridon has been  giving me some coaching on a new page I've created as a user subpage  - you can find it here User:Danamanchu/Simon Walker (yachtsman)  Peridon  has suggested  you check it over and if it is good enough, make live (or tell me how to do it.)  Thanks! Dana Danamanchu (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you have asked me just as I have to go offline, but I've had a very quick look at it and its references, and it looks good enough to me, so I've posted it as an article at Simon Walker (yachtsman). If you want any further opinion on it you could try one of the other users that Peridon mentions. Boing! said Zebedee is very reliable, and very helpful to new users too. I don't know MelanieN, but if Peridon recommends her then she is probably good. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

List of FMS Delhi Alumni
You deleted this page this morning, it has been re-created, I don't know if you want to revisit it and perhaps stop it being recreated again. Mtking (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of artical Ingold streams
Hi James,

I respect your decision to delete the article ingold strems. But the information in the article was not of any advertising nature in fact it was encyclopedic. It was a simple small article telling about a small registered company in India. I believe the article fulfills all the condition of being included in the encyclopedia. As this company was registered in 2010, not much information is in media to be used as reference. I accept the article was previously was a bit kind of advertising but this time while writing the article are took good care of the condition laid by Wikipedia.

I understand wikipediya is not for advertising,There are 20 other ways of advertising.

I request you to please look at the article again. And if found up to the mark, please include in the main stream article.

Best regards,

Vijay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay 123456789 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the article was totally promotional in tone. If you sincerely can't see that then you probably lack the ability to take a detached, objective view of what you write, which is necessary in order to write successfully for Wikipedia. I see that an earlier version of the article was submitted as an Article for creation, and rejected as being too promotional. Also, a second version was for some reason moved to Articles for creation. The latest version was certainly not such blatant advertising as the first, but it was, if anything, even more promotional than the version which is now to be seen at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ingold Streams Inc., complete with a message indicating that the request has been declined. The only reason I can imagine why you should repeatedly offer such promotional prose, apparently in the sincere belief that it is not promotional, is that you are so closely involved in the subject that you are unable to stand back from it and see how your writing will look to an uninvolved outside observer. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interests indicates that one should avoid writing an article on a subject in which one has a personal involvement. Secondly, the article gave no sources at all. This is very probably because, as you say, "not much information is in media to be used as reference". However, Wikipedia's notability criteria require subjects to have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources in order to justify the existence of an article. This means that when you say there is not much information in media to use, you are saying that the subject does not qualify for an article.
 * At least the following Wikipedians have reviewed one version or another of the article and decided it does not satisfy Wikipedi's inclusion criteria: France3470, who declined the initial Articles for creation request; Dlohcierekim, who placed the declined notice on the later version after it was moved to Articles for creation; RHaworth, who nominated the article for speedy deletion as not indicating significance; MikeWazowski, who nominated it for speedy deletion as promotional; myself, as explained above. It is perfectly clear that there is a consensus among experienced Wikipedians that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Free Studio article
Hi,

I've seen your comments about previous Free Studio article, and I'd like to ask you to check my article on this subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dalice1/Free_Studio

Thank you for any help!

Alice Dubost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalice1 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have done quite a good job of writing an article, and if it is your first go at writing a Wikipedia article then I think it is a remarkably good job. However, I have both positive and negative things to say about it, and I will get the negatives out of the way before going any further.
 * Writing Wikipedia articles on freeware and free software is often a thankless task. Many people, enthusiastic about some software that they have experience of, come here to write it up. In some cases they put a good deal of effort into writing an article, including taking the trouble to learn how to write a Wikipedia article, how to insert references etc, and also searching extensively for sources they can give as references. Unfortunately in a very large proportion of cases their work is completely lost, as the article is deleted. The simple fact is that only a small minority of free software and freeware has the kind of coverage that is needed to establish enough notability for coverage in a Wikipedia article. I have every sympathy with the people who go through this experience. I can well imagine how disheartening and frustrating it must be.
 * So what about your draft article? The previous article was deleted as being substantially identical to DVDVideoSoft, which had been deleted as the result of a discussion at Articles for deletion/DVDVideoSoft. I have looked carefully at your draft article and all its references. Is it substantially identical to the article discussed and deleted? No, as it is much better written, less promotional in tone, and more substantial. Does it suffer from the same defects that led to the deletion of the other article? To a large extent yes. Just over half of the references are links to download sites, which do nothing whatever to establish notability. One is a dead link. (Unfortunately I did not think to make a note of which one, so that I could let you know. Sorry about that.) At least two are to open wikis or other sites where anyone can contribute content, so that they are not reliable sources. One is to an advertising site that describes its own business as "press release distribution", and some of the other sites look as though they may be similar, but unfortunately not all sites make it explicit that that is what they are doing. www.teckmagazine.com describes its purpose as "to serve the technology industry", which strongly suggests that it publishes on behalf of the companies that it serves. In fact, of the 20 sources I saw only a very small number that looked to me as though they had a reasonable chance of being regarded as reliable independent sources, and only one which I thought clearly was. That one is the review at www.pcmag.com, and unfortunately that review is too short to be regarded as substantial coverage.
 * I am really sorry to have to give you such a negative view, but I don't think it would be doing you a favour to encourage you to have false hopes. However, having given you the negatives, as I have already said, I think it is a well constructed article, and I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, as the previous article on the same subject did. If it is nominated as an article for deletion I honestly can't say whether it would survive or not. My own opinion, I'm afraid, is that it does not satisfy the notability guidelines, but I have no doubt that some Wikipedians would disagree. The best thing to do, I think, is to move it out into the main article space and see what happens. If you know how to do that then just go ahead. If you don't, then (1) click on the "Move" link at the top of the page (if you can't see the link, hold your mouse over the little downward pointing triangle at the right hand end of the row of links); (2) in the box labelled "To new title:" get rid of "User:Dalice1/", leaving just "Free Studio"; (3) in the box labelled "Reason:" type a reason for the move (e.g. "draft is now ready to launch as an article"); (4) click on "Move page". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for all your remarks, they are very important, as this is my first article. I've tried to change everything I can, would you please check it one more time? I would appreciate comments. Thanks in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dalice1/Free_Studio

Alice Dubost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalice1 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am short of time now, but will check it when I get a chance. That may not be for 24 hours or so, I'm afraid. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Dalice1 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalice1 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 7 July 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. &mdash; HXL: 聊天 (T)  和  貢獻 (C)  20:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see nothing there which involves me. Can you be more specific? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you reviewed both of my unblock requests. It's too late now...it's already been sealed off. Fastily thinks he can get me blocked so easily? In all regards the message needs to sink into his brain. &mdash; HXL: 聊天 (T)  和  貢獻 (C)  14:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction! Best,JeanValJean redux (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Inazuma Eleven episodes
Please explain how the lead of List of Inazuma Eleven episodes‎ is an "unnecessary content fork" of Inazuma Eleven? Inazuma Eleven only briefly mentions an anime or manga series in passing, but none of the content of the is duplicated. There is also no duplication with the main anime and manga article either, though could use a better WP:SUMMARY. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A content fork does not mean duplication of the same content. It means multiple articles which treat of the same subject. Indeed, the expression "content fork" implies a branching of the content in different directions. There may or may not be justification for having an article on List of Inazuma Eleven episodes separate from Inazuma Eleven, but it is difficult, to say the least, to see why an article which purports to be a list of episodes should contain a substantial body of text which is not part of the list, but which provides a general account of what "Inazuma Eleven" is, thereby duplicating the function of the article Inazuma Eleven. Any information of that kind would be more appropriate in the main article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you. First Inazuma Eleven does not cover either the anime or manga series, but a video game. Thus, the article and the list covers two different subjects. You cannot have a content fork between two different subjects. Second, other anime featured episodes lists have required the same level of detail about the anime series as part of their promotion. I don't see why List of Inazuma Eleven episodes‎ should be an exception to the standards set by those featured lists, as a FL promotion is a goal. And thirdly, splitting off an episode list is within the guidelines of WP:CFORK per WP:SPINOFF. Again, I like to stress that none of the content of the episode lists is duplicated or redundant to Inazuma Eleven nor does it present the same subject from a different point of view. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Theatrhythm Final Fantasy
I have started an AfD on this article as the Prod you added was removed by an IP. Mo ainm ~Talk  18:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Deletion of article " Ingold Streams"
Greetings James!

Thanks for the reply! Now I fully understand why my article "Ingold Streams" was deleted even this time. I was too involved in the promoting the my business.

Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge! I respect and appreciate all the Intelligent and Knowledgeable team of Wikipediya. Who are hardworking, Smart and of great Intellect. Great job!

People like me may spoil it by putting useless article with no real proof. And there are many millions of people crawling on globe. And i believe million put fake article on Wiki on daily basis. Your job is great!

I will put my article only when I have sufficient statistics to prove every line, and it will be of some relevance in society.

Keep on this beautiful work!

Regards,

Vijay Kumar

India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay 123456789 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Furqan ahmed
Thanks for deleting this article. It was marked as G3 and I wanted to change it to G10 and in the bargain Fastily happened to delete it so I ended up recreating the page. Sorry for that! — Abhishek  Talk 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply here. Cheers! — Abhishek  Talk 19:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Can you please check my edit request at Talk:Casey Anthony? Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that someone has already done it. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Answered at User talk:Since 10.28.2010 JamesBWatson (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning an editor who is blocked
Is it appropriate to warn a user for ownership of articles after that user has already been blocked for something unrelated? Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be, because the user could be unblocked. It's up to you whether you think it's worth it. At the worst, it can't do much harm. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this ironic?
Don't get me wrong, I would have done the same thing and it happens all the time. An edit is reverted for being unsourced while nothing else on the page is sourced. In the end, I think it oftentimes comes down to whether or not an edit summary was used. Ryan Vesey (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. I saw that one edit and checked it, but didn't look at the rest of the article. I could go into why I checked that one edit, but I won't bother. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, I see why. I'm surprised you didn't block immediately, but I think your only warning was the right decision.  Did you check the email?  I'm thinking of commenting again at a relevant discussion, but would like some input first. Ryan Vesey (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IAR time
If it's the article I'm thinking of, all of the content in Ryan Lester is from me, not the blocked user, so please revert your deletion. And please don't forget to undelete the talk page too. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Well, not quite because a few other people had contributed as well as you, but certainly none of the existing content was from the blocked user. I should have checked more carefully. I have restored the article starting from your contribution, as you were to all intents and purposes creating a new article. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. (By the way, IAR isn't needed, because CSD G5 is for "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." (My emphasis.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I didn't care which rule you used to undelete, just that you did! Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Block
You just beat me to it. Did you see what that user did on their talk page? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. In fact while I was just beating you to the block you were just beating me to the talk page reverting. What's the betting that when the 48 hours are up the user gives us grounds for an indef? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think those odds are pretty good. I was considering maybe a week--I do agree it's too soon for an indef block, but basically we're giving them rope to hang themselves. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What does this user need to do to be unblocked?
I checked this user and he is wondering what he needs to do to be unblocked. Could you assist? It seems like some of his errors were misunderstandings of policy; however, I am worried that if he is unblocked now he will be re-blocked shortly. Ryan Vesey (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have given a long and detailed response to this request on the user's talk page, but the short answer is that he/she probably can't be unblocked, unless he/she indicates an intention to edit on completely different subjects where they have no conflict of interest. Yes, I'm sure that the errors were misunderstandings of policy, but that is not the point. A block is not a punishment for having wicked intention, it is a preventive measure to stop someone editing in a way which is not acceptable. I see no evidence that the editor in question has any intention of doing anything other than using Wikpedia to promote his/her organisation. I am, as I am sure you know, more inclined than many administrators to give second chances to editors with a history of vandalism or similar types of disruptive editing, if they seem to genuinely intend to improve. However, I am very much a purist when it comes to conflict of interest editing. In my opinion Wikipedia should be 100% a record of impartial coverage by independent outside observers.  There are people who take a more liberal interpretation of the conflict of interest guidelines, and if the editor wants to post an unblock request in the hope that it will be assessed by an admin with such a liberal view, then they are free to do so, but I certainly would not unblock them (unless, as I have said, they indicate that they will edit only in other areas). Sorry that this is not the sort of answer you were hoping for, but it is the way I see it. One final point: I can also think of quite a few admins who take an even more uncompromising line on COI than I do: I am by no means at the end of the spectrum. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking that an unblock could be created under the terms that all edits the user would like to make should be made in the form of an request edit. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The reasoning put forward by  James follows very  much  my  own philosophy. The user could very  well  become a valued contributor to  the encyclopedia; however, they  do seem to be taking  rather a long time to  fully  understand the principles and policies involved. There is also  of course the possibility of imposing  a topic ban, which  ASFAIK would need to  be resolved through  an ANI discussion -  but would risk creating too  much  drama and drive the editor  away for  ever.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Block Request
Dear JamresBWatson

Can you block this user for 3 and a half days please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deltasim

He thinks he knows everything about summaries and is very abusive. Do it by sundown. --Mr. Curious Man 9:45, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly not, but I can block you indefinitely for your continuing campaign of harassing him. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey
has recently asked for access to AWB; however, due to his limited experience and this recent incident, reasons which made me wary of granting him access to a tool that might create a massive mess if misused, I have declined his request; Rian has invited me to ask for your opinion, though, for you have extensively worked with him since the block and he feels you should be able to offer an opinion as to his fitness to handle the tool; so, if you wish, I'd welcome a comment from you here. Thanks and cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Ryan that the incident you refer to was out of character, and I think he can now be trusted not to do anything similar again. However, he was unblocked after the incident you mentioned on the condition that he spend three months on a sort of probation in which I would keep an eye on him, and I think it makes sense to let that period finish before reconsidering giving access to AWB. That would mean waiting until 17 August. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply!  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Theunknownnun
FYI: I have blocked the user. If you think  I  may  have acted incautiously, do feel  free to  discuss. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The user was certainly close to deserving a block. I would have waited a little longer to see if any further unacceptable editing took place, but it was a borderline decision, I think, and I certainly have no criticism to make because you went slightly to the other side of the border than me. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for page protection
I hope this request is worth your time. I'd like you to semi-protect "The Adventures of Blinky Bill" article. Some anonymous user is persistently expanding the summaries with pointless information and will not listen to reason about the various wiki policies and keeps hopping from IP address to IP address. Kindly notify me when appropriate action can be taken.Deltasim (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Semiprotected for a month. Let me know if the problem returns. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A month is too long. Let's compromise it to a weekor two.Do it or I will create an account to help me do it. Thanks. --Unregistered Contributor, 17:30, July 3 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.0.242 (talk)
 * If by that you mean that you are the disruptive editor who has caused this block to be necessary, then there is no question of negotiating with a disruptive editor under threats. Whether that is what you mean or not, please do create an account. I am totally in favour of all editors having accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that behavior is the problem that led to the page-protection. It's the behavior that must change if the person wishes to be a contributor, regardless of whether as an IP-hopper or a named account. DMacks (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Creating an account will not make such behaviour acceptable, and such an account will be blocked if it is simply used to continue the same sort of behaviour. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am now logged in as Mr. Curious Man. I did it so I can edit the Blinky Bill article. I also want the Characters Episodes and Lyrics to have their own article, Thankyou. --Mr. Curious Man 8:26, Juky 5, 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Curious Man (talk • contribs)

Now that the articles have been split into three I think maybe the page protection can be removed from the main Blinky Bill page and should be placed into the episode list to prevent further page bloating and fruitless extra little details. Deltasim (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Alert! "List of Blinky Bill Episodes" is under the attack of the anonymous user. It's a ripe time to protect the page. Deltasim (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nicolai Levashov
I've tagged this page for POV and neutrality but  I'm  not  sure if shouldn't  have deleted it  as an attack  page. Some of it appears to  be well  sourced but  the lead comes across a bit  strong. Thoughts? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have written about 100 articles in Wikipedia (all but one in Russian). About a half or 1/3 of my articles are about people. Most of them are about "good guys" (mainly scientists and a couple of musicians), yet 3 articles are about "bad guys" (two pseudoscientists and one smuggler-violinist). It is not my fault that they are bad guys. And it is not my idea, but the opinion of many experts, I provide the reader with 23 references. The ru-wiki page is more complete, it is based on 80 references.
 * It is not an attack page. My first page in en-wiki is about bad guy not because I have something personal against him, but just because he is my first object who certainly has an American importance. If he were known in France, I would translate the article in French. If he were famous only in Russia, I would confine myself to the Russian version. But as Levashov and his activity are described both in Russian and American sources, I wrote the article in Russian and translated it in English. Pasteurizer (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is certainly not written in the neutral tone that is required, so at the very least the POV tagging is justified. A quick glance through some of the references (I don't at present have time for a more thorough check) suggest that at least some of the negative material is well-sourced, and the general thesis of the article is therefore probably sound. However, even if it is all well-sourced, an article written in such totally negative terms does seem to satisfy the description "a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" at Attack page. My opinion is that it does qualify for deletion as an attack page, but that it might be more constructive to try to rewrite it in more neutral terms than to delete it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the style in the introduction. The material in the article is not totally negative. There is positive information:
 * He has talked many times on nationwide TV and radio channels (Russia, Soviet Union, USA). He was often presented as a scientist.
 * One of his healing cases (Isabelle Prichard) drew not only critics, but also laud, including an invitation of the miraculous healer to CBS.
 * Many American psychics call him a teacher. Of course, they are not much reliable, but still I don't ignore their opinion, and a reader can easily find their views concerning Levashov using references.
 * Levashov wrote many books. Number of printed copies (50000) is not so high, but still it is not mediocre. Especially, having in mind that all of his books are accessible in Internet for free.
 * So I do not agree that only negative information is presented in the article. All the information from reliable sources since 1990 was gathered (including his autobiography), and the most relevant facts are presented irrespective of their positiveness or negativeness. Pasteurizer (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, at a quick glance it does look much more neutral than it did before. However, I haven't read it in detail. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

IP talk

 * Hi James, you have to dig deeper to remove that IP, it is still showing up on my HUD. Berkhamsted and Claranet? Just teasing ya! --  Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realised my mistake. however, it's not that big a deal. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Meow... have a great weekend~!

Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 
 * Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you forget my Talkpage
Hey this is the IP of Trent1994, i don't mean to take too much of your time but im posting you this message because i just saw my IP's been unblocked, anyway im just asking if you can look at the messages i posted on User talk:Trent1994 im using my IP to post you this message since my account is still blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.55.127 (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked the IP for 24 hours for evasion - James I'll let you take a look at it in more depth as you clearly know more about the case (feel free to re-block for shorter/longer etc). Peter 14:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

About Band: Pseudonym
Hi JamesBWatson! I have finished writing the article User:Iamgymman123/Pseudonym (Indian Band) which was previouly deleted. Is the article okay to move to the main space now? I have also written to the deleting adminstrator but did not get any reply till now. With regards, Gui tar ist (  talk  undefined  contributions  ) 09:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that the deleting admin (Atama) answered a question from you about it three days ago, saying "I'd say, unless you have something major to add to it, I'd just move it". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also see that for some reason you have given a signature which shows the wrong date and time for your edits. I have no idea why you do that, but it is really not helpful. I wasted quite a bit of my time making unhelpful searches, because I was misled as to when your posts were made. Please stop doing that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well actually, I used the template June 29, 2024 on the signature which used to update the time on every edit by itself. So, I updated that to (five tides) today in the morning. It wasnt my fault but anyway sorry about that. With regards, Gui tar ist (  talk  undefined  contributions  ) 10:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that the problem has stopped happening. That's fine. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ygm
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 July 2011

4 Days have Passed
4 Days past since I logged in.

I will soon merge Blinky Bill characters and episodes to their own article. I will move the name to Blinky Bill (TV series). Thanks. --Mr. Curious Man 8:55, July 8, 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Curious Man (talk • contribs) 7:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Message from Njdevils6
So you left a message on my page saying "we cannot accept the unsubstantiated word of an anonymous editor that they have copyright permission for use of material." I work for EcoHealth Alliance and I am one of the writers of that page. I don't know what else you want from me. Do tell. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdevils6 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 July 2011
 * Can you clarify your request? What do you need to know that's not covered in the three paragraphs I posted to your talk page explaining how to give copyright permission? Unless you tell me I have no idea what further information you need. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a little advice...

 * I apologize if I have interrupted; you can use   to help. Except for "Talkback" part, just replace whatever is given with your username (or article) and title as shown (use the preview button to check first). I hope that will help you in similar scenarios if you request another user to respond on your talk page. If you need some help, just ask; you do not have to take my word for it. CHAK 001 (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the advice. I very often do exactly that, but sometimes I prefer to use an individual hand-written note instead. Do you have in mind a particular case where I didn't use Talkback and you think I could have? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems possible, but the best way is to look at message request templates as per WP:TBACK. You should take a look at that first and try it out on your sandbox; ensure that you click the "Show Preview" button first before saving. CHAK 001 (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you on about? What "seems possible"? What does that have to do with my question? What do you think I need to learn? I have been using Talkback for years, and I found out about the "Show Preview" button shortly after I started editing Wikpedia in August 2006. If there's something you think I have missed and could benefit from learning, why don't you just tell me what it is? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, use this:   (only replace "Username" and "Subject" with your username and subject, respectively). You should try this out; though there are other methods (four tildes  ~  are required for all signatures). CHAK 001 (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not only told you that I know how to use Talkback, but have actually used it on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. At least you got the idea what it looks like now. CHAK 001 (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake at Sydney Wade
Hi again JBW,

My mistake. I should have assumed good faith about 85.211.124.151's edit. Given the circumstances however - a WP:BLP of a minor - I would argue that the mistake was of one a technical nature, and very much forgivable. I will self-revert asap.

Thanks again for your guidance and help! ---Shirt58 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Question
JB, greetings. When you have the time, can you look at this message ("Imporant Notice") left on my Talk Page ? Is this person an administrator? If so, they have really handled this poorly. I posted a response of their Talk Page, but wanted to sound out someone with some experience as this person is in obvious need of some guidance. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the user is not an administrator. For future reference, if you want to know if a user is an administrator, you can go to the user's "contributions" page, and at the bottom you will find a link to "User rights". In this case the result is just Abhijay (Created on 26 May 2007 at 15:22), which indicates that it is just an ordinary user, without any special rights. For an administrator it would have said something like Abhijay ‎(administrator) (Created on 26 May 2007 at 15:22).


 * As for my other thought on the matter, I have posted a message on the user's talk page. Here is a link to what I posted. If you get any more trouble from the same user please feel free to let me know, and I will consider whether I can help. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * JB, thanks for the assist. Bizarre outcome, which I can only put down to the user probably being very inexperienced. Moving on, and thanks again. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * JB, sorry to bother you again. Since you were good enough to protect my Talk Page, can I also ask how does one install automatic archiving? I'd like to remove the notice from the user we've been discussing, but it occurs to me that a standard wipe of the page could be construed as being antagonistic. Feel free to tinker with my page if you have the time. Many thanks.

Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm now stretching it, but where can one go for technical advice on the bells and whistles? I'd like to also add a few other features (that coloured traffic light that advises when one is on and off line and colours for banners and so forth). Perhaps a user you know of who is very tech savvy (and has the time!)? Thanks again. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * JB, thanks again. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Understanding the Message of the Cross of Jesus Christ
When you have a moment or two, feel free to have a look at Jaerock Lee. I'm pruning, and perhaps you can tell me, for Christian charity's sake, if I'm either going too far or not far enough. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly not too far. The article has been appallingly bloated by a string of SPAs over a considerable time, and needs very drastic pruning, in my opinion, but I am reluctant to put in the time and trouble needed. I wish you every success. You may like to look at Sockpuppet investigations/EPANews/Archive, if you haven't seen it already. I wonder if any more accounts belong there: there are a couple that I wonder about. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I came across that link (somewhere!) but hadn't looked at it closely enough. But look on User:Presidentofctai--I get frustrated when those templates have redlinks and I don't know where to go or what to look at. And should I just list the President at that SPI and ask for a CU? As often as I've been involved in SPIs you'd think that I know, but it's complicated (to me). James, thanks, as always, for your help! Drmies (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, please look at this. Is that helpful? Is that all I need to do to alert a checkuser to look into it? (I mean, is that how that template works?) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question first, no, adding that template doesn't ask for a checkuser. (The whole thing is very confusing if you're not used to it. The first time I tried to request a checkuser I carefully read the instructions, and did what I thought it said, and found later that I had not requested checkuser at all. The instructions have changed somewhat since then, though, and the procedure has been simplified in some ways.) You need to start a new SPI, or reopen an existing one, which works in exactly the same way. You say you have often been involved in SPIs, so you may know how to start one, but in case you don't, I will give instructions. Go to Sockpuppet investigations, and find where it says "Start or continue an SPI case here". In the box underneath those words, where it says "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SOCKMASTER", replace "SOCKMASTER" with the relevant username: in this case probably EPANews. You then need to fill in a few of the blanks in the outline SPI page that appears: put in the relevant user names where it says "|sock1=" etc, and a brief explanation where it says "|evidence=". Near the top of the outline page, you will see "|checkuser=no". Change "no" to "yes". Then save the page.


 * Even a quick check over Special:Contributions/Zondervan07, Special:Contributions/Presidentofctai and the similar pages for the accounts already in the SPI archive leaves no doubt that we are dealing with closely related accounts, but I have not checked thoroughly enough to be confident whether we are dealing with sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or just other members of the same church with a similar agenda but editing independently. My guess is that the last of those is the least likely, but as I say, I haven't checked enough to be sure.
 * If you do reopen the SPI, please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As a quick aside, Twinkle is probably the quickest and easiest way to file an SPI report. Under ARV, choose sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer for the report type, enter the other one in the box in the dialog (and there's a thing for adding extra socks), and hit the checkbox if you want a CU (and there's another checkbox for notifying the suspected parties) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee. I may have once known that Twinkle had a "create SPI" facility, but if so I had long since forgotten. I would never have thought of looking for it under ARV. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. That Twinkle function, I didn't know it existed, and it makes things very easy. I wasn't sure how to add something to an existing case. Boing, James, perhaps you can have a look at Sockpuppet investigations/EPANews and see if I got it right. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And thanks for adding that note at the SPI. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Electromagnetictop
He's actually been reported already for vandalism. Calabe1992 (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

On a similar subject, as far as I know there's no rules against forging barnstars, but for curiosity, I've asked the editor who supposedly gave it to him to confirm. That editor doesn't even seem to have been active during the time in question. APL (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He didn't give it to him; look in the page history. Guess that could go down as falsifying the source of it? Calabe1992 (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There may not be a "rule" that specifically mentions forging barnstars, but it is misrepresenting another user's views. It is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and unacceptable. Unfortunately (in my opinion) Wikipedia has tended to drift away from its original fairly informal state as instruction creep has spread and spread, with a growth of the wikilawyering position "there's no rule against it, so I am allowed to do it", but "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" is still one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Rule or no rule, posting lies about another user is unacceptable, and I will remove it. If BigDwiki wants to give a barnstar to Electromagnetictop then he/she can do so, form their own account, so that we can see who gave it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that Calabe1992 has already removed it, so I don't have to. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I already took the barnstar down and told him so. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding /Master data management/
Sir, I was the original author of the cited article. I recently examined it, and found that among extensive expansions (as expected in Wiki), there is a thread which appears to be clearly related to the work of a particular corporation.

Further researching the article history and UserTalk, I find that there was some controversy regarding the above, in 2010 and early 2011. The corporate editor was enjoined from making changes intended to make the article an advertisement for his services.

The article still retains a very substantial number of claims which are strictly related to that firm, and are not by any means in the nature of a concise definition of the term Master data management.

As the original author, and a practitioner in the field, I claim that the article began as a summary of papers in the subject by renowned, published authors, whose work I originally cited. Some of those citations have disappeared for unknown reasons.

I would like to further trim the text of the article to give that corporate editor's proprietary concepts due mention, without seeming to dominate the discussion. I would also like to avoid creating controversy, and therefore request guidance. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmausner (talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: California Common Sense
Hello JamesBWatson. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on California Common Sense to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. Thanks for letting me know. I am grateful for the second opinion on what I thought was a borderline case. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

was about to post this on article talk page when...
Er, I don't understand what you did - now the original redirect ("Italian colonization of the Americas" -> "Thornton expedition"), which is a good and necessary redirect to have, is gone, and the history of this page is gone too so we cannot merge any of the content. I started writing this but then noticed you speedied it as a G4. Was it created by the same person and did it contain the same content? Because to me it looked well-researched and neutral, rather than the POV fork it was deleted as; I really thought it was just an accidental duplicate, and there seemed to be content worth merging. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The new versions of the article was created by a new account. However, the two versions were substantially similar, including some passages which were verbatim. Clearly the second version was created by the same person or by someone with off-wiki access to the same material. At first I renamed the article, replacing the redirect, because the new article had a title which misued English. I then discovered the AfD, and so I deleted it. I then restored the redirect, but before I did so you had found that the redirect had gone. I can understand how odd it must have looked to you, if all you saw was the deletion log record, without knowing that the article had been moved, so that what I had just deleted was the article, not the redirect. One more point: Because of this query from you I have looked back at the AfD discussion again, and noticed something that I had not previously taken note of. The article was said to have been created by a "banned sockpuppet". In view of the striking similarity between the two versions of the article, including identical errors in English, it looks as though the new one was created by the same user, using another sockpuppet. That in itself would be grounds for speedy deletion. I will look further, and if that seems to be confirmed the new sockpuppet will no doubt be blocked. Thanks for calling my attention to this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disagree with your "hurried" decision. Thornton article deals ONLY with the years of the expedition promoted by Ferdinando I in 1608/9, while the article that I wrote deals even with the other centuries.It was not redundant, because the topic are different.I will reintroduce my article with additional informations and topics.Sincerely, --25basedbooks (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That' alright, no apology is needed. You are welcome to disagree. However, there was nothing hurried about the decision. The article was substantially the same as the one which had been subject to a deletion discussion, so the deletion was fully justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kylintv
Thanks--I looked at the article, but not at the account name. 'Preciate it! Drmies (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitenotice
Hi, I'm not really sure who to approach regarding this, but in my Watchlist, I see a notice regarding some IRC discussion (not sure if it'll show up on your watchlist). In that, there's a link to Tipu's Tiger, but its a broken link, because it links to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tipu%27s_Tiger, rather than https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tipu%27s_Tiger (where it is supposed to link to). I guess you'll have access to all the Mediawiki pages, so you could probably correct it, or at least you can tell someone who can. Thanks!  Lynch 7  10:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No other user can see or edit your watchlist, not even an administrator. However, you can simply delete the unwanted entry yourself and then add the correct one to your watchlist. To edit your watchlist, first go to the watchlist, and then click the link "View and edit watchlist" near the top of the page, and you can then delete entries. Alternatively click on "Edit raw watchlist", which gives you the opportunity of directly altering an entry, rather than deleting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think its a problem with the watchlist itself. Its something like a sitenotice, and it appears above the Watchlist options and notices box. It reads "Saturday 16 July, join IRC #wikimedia-glam to discuss and help create different language versions of Tipu's Tiger as part of the Victoria and Albert Museum editathon. [hide]", and the "Tipu's Tiger" is hyperlinked. I guess this is another one of those notices which appear based on my geographic location; I may be wrong though.  Lynch 7  12:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I misunderstood you at first. The link works perfectly OK unless you are logged in on the secure server, in which case the problem you described occurs. I have no idea why, nor what to do about it. The only suggestion I can think of is asking at Help desk. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to TB, its on my watchlist :) Yeah; problem appears to arise only on the secure server. I'll ask on the helpdesk. Thanks!  Lynch 7  12:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Young artists
Looks as if it might have started again. Anyway user talk:Coorslite quacks enough with Xiola Gray so I'm filing an SPI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: Sockpuppet investigations/Theunknownnun. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article "Railway Electrification, New Jalpaiguri" from Wikipedia
Kindly see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Railway_Electrification,_New_Jalpaiguri

I feel that decision to delete the article was not appropriate. You have not shown your identity on your user page.

I hope that motives behind deletion were professional and genuine without any ulterior/malafide intentions.

I hope that you have not acted on complaint from private individuals or government authorities.

Quite strangely, Indian Government Authorities have initiated disciplinary proceedings and investigation on alleged financial irregularities committed by one of the person mentioned in the article during his previous assignments

223.180.139.20 (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggesting ulterior motives is the quickest way to not get your issue looked at. The article was up for community deletion discussion.  The deleting admin weighed the arguments presented and made a decision based on policy.  Disagree?  Take it to WP:DRV, but try to include non-X-files-type arguments with veiled accusations. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

number
You have 426th place in most edits (57375). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:  A   user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010.  22:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't see how ur reverting is constructive.
Don't see how ur reverting is constructive. 202.156.13.10
 * I can't see the purpose or effect of your edit, and, considering that almost all recent edits from this IP address have been unhelpful, and that I could see no harm in reverting, I did so. Perhaps you would like to explain what your edit achieved. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarkett Article
Hello James, I have taken the time to reedit my article on the Tarkett Flooing Company, taking into account your latest comments on "notability". Could you please review under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BBPMB/Tarkett and let me know if this is now acceptable or if not what else needs to be done for this article to comply with Wikipedia rules? Many thanks in advance and best regards, --BBPMB (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Arendt & Medernach page
Hi,

I dont't understand what's the problem you have with Arendt & Medernach's page. I think the deletion is not appropriate.

It's not an advertising page of the law firm because the entire text is comming for a 100% neutral review of a specialised website: www.chambersandpartners.com

You can check the text if you want to read it by yourself... http://www.chambersandpartners.com/Global/Firms/4185-40024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.211.73 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What? You don't see promotion or advertising in a page full of such prose as "a leading, independent, full-service law firm", "It strives for excellence in order to achieve the best results for its clients and always look for creative solutions", and "to provide clients with unparalleled legal advice"? However, far more remarkable is the fact that you appear to be working for a law firm and yet can cheerfully tell me that your editing was copied verbatim from another web site, apparently completely obliviously of the concept of copyright. The web site from which you copied has, in its terms of service, the following sentence: "Material displayed on the site may not be copied, reproduced, or republished without the prior written permission of Chambers & Partners." JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please can you delete this subject and forget about it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.211.73 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you mean can I remove this section from my talk page and forget about it, then the answer to both parts of your request is no. Unless I have reason to decide to keep it here longer, the section will be automatically archived in due course, in accordance with the practice described at the top of this page. If anything, the fact that there is a user determined for some reason to suppress the information may encourage me to keep it: it certainly won't encourage me to get rid of it. As for "forgetting about it", I have every intention of remembering it, and keeping a regular check on the article in question. Again, the existence of a user who wishes me to forget it makes me all the more certain that it is important to keep an eye on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem if it gives you fun... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.211.73 (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't "give me fun": on the contrary, I think having to do this sort of checking is a waste of time that could be better spent, but I see it as a necessary part of the work of Wikipedia administration. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't see how ur reverting is constructive.
Don't see how ur reverting is constructive. 202.156.13.10
 * I can't see the purpose or effect of your edit, and, considering that almost all recent edits from this IP address have been unhelpful, and that I could see no harm in reverting, I did so. Perhaps you would like to explain what your edit achieved. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kindly advise what your revert achieved.

About Deleted Article: Someplace Else (Kolkata)
Hi JamesBWatson! I want to rewrite the article Someplace Else (Kolkata). So, I wanted you to get the page userfied to my account. Thanks! With regards, Gui tar ist (  talk  undefined  contributions  ) 08:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have userfied it at User:Iamgymman123\Someplace Else (Kolkata). However, you should be aware of the following points. You say it is a pub. Very few pubs are notable enough to justify encyclopaedia articles, and no amount of rewriting will make a non-notable subject notable. Userfying is a temporary measure to allow improvement. If it is not rewritten so as to address the reason for deletion it will no doubt be deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for userfying the article but on cliking the edit link the page is giving me a message that: '''User account "Iamgymman123\Someplace Else (Kolkata)" is not registered. If you wish to use "Iamgymman123\Someplace Else (Kolkata)" as your username, please make a request at Changing username.''' I think thats because of using "\" instead of "/" on "Iamgymman123\Someplace Else (Kolkata)". And also the contents are not visible. Gui tar ist (  talk  undefined  contributions  ) 09:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I have moved it to User:Iamgymman123/Someplace Else (Kolkata), which is where I meant to put it originally. I hope it's OK now. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for userfying! Gui tar ist (  talk  undefined  contributions  ) 09:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson! I have updated the article User:Iamgymman123/Someplace Else (Kolkata), which was previously deleted. I hope that now the article meets the wikipedia's policies. With regards, Gui tar ist (  talk  undefined  contributions  ) 16:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson! I have updated the article User:Iamgymman123/Someplace Else (Kolkata), which was previously deleted. I hope that now the article meets the wikipedia's policies. I didnt get any reply from you so I posted this again. With regards, Gui tar ist (  talk  undefined  contributions  ) 09:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It still looks totally promotional to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you suggest me the part which I should remove or rewrite. The article consists of true facts with many references to it. With regards, Gui tar ist (  talk  undefined  contributions  ) 13:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to sound unfriendly, but if you honestly need to be told what is promotional about that page, then I doubt that you are capable of standing back from the subject and taking an objective view of your writing on it. The whole thing is written like an advertisement, full of prose about how wonderful the place is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You can talk freely with me, I don’t mind for anything. I like taking suggestions from all administrators because I always consider myself as a learner, I won’t mind even if you sound unfriendly to me. I just want your suggestions and feedback. About the article: I started writing this article because the place is a very popular and featured in Kolkata. I am ready to rewrite the whole article if you say, by taking help from WikiProject:India, WikiProject:West Bengal and you as well. With regards, Gui tar ist (  talk  undefined  contributions  ) 14:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I have left your requests for help so long without giving better answers. However, I may not be the best person to ask for help on this, as I tend to have a very uncompromising attitude to anything which seems to me to be written with the intention of promoting something, or by someone who may have a conflict of interest, and there are other users who might be more likely to be positive about your draft. However, since you have asked for help, I will give you a few comments, which I hope will be helpful.
 * You have certainly done a good job of indicating that the subject may be considered significant: I don't see any danger of it being speedily deleted as not indicating importance or significance. You have clearly put some effort into finding sources to give as references. I have not read every one of them thoroughly, but I have had a quick look at them, and most of the sources look to me as hough they are probably perfectly good for verifying information in the article. However, many of them only mention "Someplace Else" in the course of giving information about something else, such as someone who has performed there. It is therefore possible someone might question whether they really establish notability. I am not saying that you haven't established notability, but there might be room for debate if anyone questioned it. Having said all that, though, the thing which strikes me most forcefully is the promotional character of the article. Such language as, for example, "it is the only Pub which also hosts quality live music every single night" is not objective reporting: "quality" is a subjective judgement. Likewise "The best thing out here is..." is an opinion. The article is full of such expressions, indicating that it is written by someone who wishes to make it sound good, not by someone who wishes to give an impartial and objective description.
 * I hope those remarks have been of some use to you. You may be able to get helpful advice if you go to Requests for feedback. Unfortunately it is rather a hit and miss business: if nobody there happens to feel like giving feedback on a submission it can be useless, but very often there is very useful feedback, so it may be worth trying. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the suggestions. I am working on it now, I will change the language and also add more references about the article. Then finally ask for feedback. With regards, Gui tar ist (  talk  undefined  contributions  ) 09:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson! I have updated the article User:Iamgymman123/Someplace Else (Kolkata) and added many other references, you can check it out. With regards, Guitarist( talk 07:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked briefly at the page. It is certainly no longer as blatantly promotional as it was, and I see you have also added quite a number of press mentions, so you have gone a significant way towards dealing with the problems. You are still free to take it to requests for comment if you like, otherwise it's up to you what you do with it. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi JamesBWatson!
 * Should I move the article to the main space?
 * With regards,
 * Guitarist( talk 09:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will leave that decision to you. I don't feel strongly about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi JamesBWatson!
 * I have moved the article as I dont think it should be nominated for AfD or speedy deletion since I have added many references about the article. I thankyou again for all your help and suggestions.
 * With regards,
 * Guitarist( talk 09:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)