User talk:JBW/Archive 35

Zoo Articles
You Unprotect those Zoo article's this instant. I am Donlammers but I can't log in Right now. You're not a member of the project and only Admins that are members of the project are allowed to protect them. IP's have to edit those article's to you know. You can't just protect something just because of a certain user. Now I insist you unprotect them now, or leave Wikipedia this instant. And no, you can't protect my talk page. --Donlammers 16:51, November 28, 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.239.223 (talk)
 * Lies, factual inaccuracy, and block evasion. User's signature forged by someone else. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Clémence Poésy - are these reliable sources?
Hi, I previously added an IMDB cite for the Nov. 30 birthdate on Clémence Poésy but then noticed that there was a lengthy discussion about this on the Talk page, so I reverted myself and the previous edit that added the birthdate. It's not clear that IMDB is a reliable source, since it includes some user-submitted material that may not be carefully fact-checked, and I've seen some obvious goofs on birthdates before. I'm usually willing to cite it for material that appears uncontroversial, but I'm reluctant to stand on it as a source if there seems to be doubt. I'm not familiar with the source you provided, but unless you know them to be a RS they may just be repeating the date given on IMDB. --GenericBob (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMDb is certainly not a reliable source. I confess, having checked, that I'm not confident that the source I cited is reliable either, so I've reverted. Thanks for drawing my attention to the problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMDb pollutes a lot of other sites and IMDb can never be trusted for bio info. We have no idea how and where they get their info but, beyond user supplied stuff, they may be obtaining it from public records. If we can't find a reliable secondary source that shows the subject is OK with releasing the data we should not be including it in the article according to policy at WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Birth year, if available, and public name are all that we really need in an article anyway, more detail is not that important. For Clémence Poésy I noted that there is an interview where she states October 1982 when asked her birth info - that appears to be all she wishes to reveal - we should respect that. That interview would be a valid source. I can't find a template to calculate age based on year and month though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Carl Eytel
Thanks, James, for the autodidiatic edit. Actually, the nicest part was that "my" article has attracted some attention -- even if some is slightly negative/weird. --S. Rich (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Deezy D
Hello, I elive that any who even gets in the top 100 charts should be aloud to have an article on Wikipedia. He is a very notable artist I am positive if you do research you will find this to be true. On othr wiki's i've had this problem like wih deezy d's qoutes on wikiqote by [User:UDScott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deezy.D. (talk • contribs) 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, It's so good CuriousWikian590 has been banned here like he should, but are you on wikia? Because on the Mr. Men wiki http://mrmen.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Men_Wiki?cb=9546, he has been causing a lot of trouble for me and a lot of people and he even threatened to upload photos of me on the wiki which would look highly innapropiate there. I just wanted to let you know. Sorry if you are not on wikia, but I just wanted to let you know. Nice to meet you. :) --Brainiac Adam (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Inspirato
Hello, I am curious to know why the Inspirato page was deleted under CSD G11. It was fact-based and took a neutral standpoint, which do not meet the criteria. When I contested the deletion AND asked for reasons why it was put up for deletion on MikeWazowski's talk page, I received no feedback. I am completely aware of the hesitance around adding new companies to the site, as I have dealt with this before, but this was deleted without debate or justifiable reason that I am aware.

With that said, I would like to know what I could do to improve the article, and how I should go about re-instating it if possible. If you are unable to see the page (which I cannot anymore) I do have a .txt version saved for your review. Thank you!

Mikes Wazowski's Talk page (for reference) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeWazowski#Inspirato

Fgump910 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. I noticed you removed the mention of Inspirato on the destination club page (the sentence I added mentions "less upfront capital," which may be construed as "advertising" I suppose...so I get it although it was only a distinguishing factor amongst the clubs). However, on the Inspirato page itself, I did not use any of this language.

Again, I totally understand and respect what you guys are doing here. Please let me know if there is any way to re-instate the article. If not, what are the reasons? Thank You!

Fgump910 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the article was full of information about what a good service the business provides, and how special its "business model" is. To me it read much more like the sort of thing a business puts out in a brochure than the sort of thing an impartial outsider writes in an objective encyclopaedia article. I therefore found myself in agreement with MikeWazowski's speedy deletion nomination. I see that MikeWazowski also gave speedy deletion criterion A7 (no indication that the subject is significant enough to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia about it) as another reason for deletion. For some reason I failed to include that in the deletion log, but it is another valid reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I was not aware that describing the business model (leasing vs. buying) in the way i did was against policy. Here is how it read:

"Inspirato's business model differs from other destination clubs' in that it enters into long-term leases on properties directly with the owner, avoiding brokers' fees. There are also no usage restrictions or blackout dates."

Which is true, but for Wikipedia purposes, how about if I just changed it to "Inspirato enter's into long-term leases directly with-property owners." and left off the "special" parts?

As far as criterion A7, is there any additional recommendation you have for supporting it's notability? Thanks again for all your help!

Fgump910 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Hope you had a good Thanksgiving. Just wanted to check in again on this and see what the appropriate next steps are to getting this page live. Thank you!

Fgump910 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as promotional editing is concerned, it's really just a matter of reading through what you write, and imagining how it will look to an uninvolved outsider who has no prior knowledge of the subject. Will it look to such a person a though it was written by someone who wants to tell the world that this organisation is special and good, or by someone who has no particular opinion about it? The issue of "no indication that the subject is significant..." is more complex. If the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines then no amount of rewriting the article will make it do so, as notability is a property of the subject of the article, not a property of the article itself. I suggest looking at FAQ/Organizations if you have not already done so. It gives a fairly good overview of various relevant issues, together with links to other pages. Don't try to read the whole of all of the linked pages, as there is far too much material there, and you will be swamped by it, but pick out the ones which seem most relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

TB

 * Seen and replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Duck
I believe that a user you previously indef blocked has created a new account, as promised in their failed unblock requests. The user in question is User:CuriousWikian590 and the new account is User:Super Curious Dude. Ignoring the very similar user names, the new account has only made edits to four articles so far, but two of them are things the indef blocked user edited as well and they're both focusing on the same things (from this section down and from this section down). The new account hasn't really been disruptive, but the duck feels strong in this one and I just thought I'd let you know about it. ICY TIGER'S BLOOD 20:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Rappy4178
Hello. I am having conflicts with this user. It all started from me giving him a warning for his unconstructive and immature comment on User talk:Spidey665. Then an anonymous user, who is in the same range from the IP address of banned user User:Godisme2 (150.212.xx.xx) came and attacked me about stuff not related to Wikipedia, and told me that "you need to grow up and learn that you are long. Sincerely, a person who hates you." Clearly a personal attack directed towards me, I tried to remove the comment with rpa but this Rappy keeps telling me that it is not a rpa violation. He also is trying to get an admin involved in this petty debate. Godisme2 is blocked on Wikipedia so doing anything on Wikipedia now is block evasion. Although I don't think rappy's actions were constructive, I think my actions may be wrong as well, if they are, could you please inform me of them? -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was certainly a good deal of unconstructive and uncivil behaviour, but I think it was fairly low level to be regarded as personal attacks. Most of the stuff posted in the relevant section of User talk:Rappy4178 is unhelpful, and it would be better not to have it there, but it isn't serious enough to justify fighting to try to keep it off the page. Really, the whole thing is a storm in a teacup, and my advice is to just walk away and forget it. You did the right thing by accepting that your posting of a level 4 warning was "too hasty", and if the other people involved in the dispute can't graciously accept that and move on, then there is probably no point in trying to discuss things further with them. As for 150.212.44.117/Godisme2, if you are right then yes, it was block evasion, but that IP address made just two edits, and that was several days ago, so there's nothing to be done about it now. (If there is evidence that the user is evading the block more persistently than that then feel welcome to let me know, and I will look into it.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help ;) -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 10:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Blanked project page
Hi James, was there any particular reason for you to blank School and university projects/Polytechnic of Namibia? As the project is still active I have reverted your edits, please inform me here or on my talk page if there is any problem with our project page. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Either Huggle malfunctioned (not unknown) or I accidentally clicked the wrong link in Huggle (also not unknown). Either way, thanks for correcting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding article "Aye Zindagi"
Hi James,

The page/article is created for a short movie based on HIV/AIDS and PLHIV, it was submitted in a Reels and Lives film festival where the movie director won consolation prize, it is valid page, the link can be provided to you on You tube. Also please let me know the exact reason why this page is selected for deletion even after giving a reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.innovators (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

--M.innovators (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Aniruddh Mishra Director "Aye Zindagi"
 * If you don't understand the reasons given in the deletion nomination then I suggest you look at WP:Notability and WP:RS, which should clarify the issues. As for the "reference", as I explained in my edit summary, it was a link to a page which neither mentions Aye Zindagi nor supports any statement made in the article, and so it is not a reference for the article at all. Simply linking to a page which has some connection with something in the article is not referencing it. You may also find it helpful to look at Notability (films). JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry
For the two reverts on the Iowa article. I really didn't know whether or not it belonged there, and again, I'm sorry and it won't happen again. Reliable  Forever talk 15:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing to worry about. You are doing some great work, and a few slips aren't a big deal. Huggle needs to be used with care, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was just very worried that I did something wrong. I won't revert anything I'm not sure of anymore. Reliable   Forever talk 15:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Babajide Ogunbiyi
Hi there, I noticed that you just deleted and salted Babajide Ogunbiyi. However, I think it may pass GNG now. Check this and this out. Thoughts?--TM 21:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand why the Babajide Ogunbiyi article is repeated deleted, despite him having played at a professional level for over two years now. Surely he meets the criteria? UncleTupelo1 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have looked back at the history of the article, and considered it very carefully. I deleted it under speedy deletion criterion G4, namely as a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The criterion here is not whether I assess the subject as being notable, but whether the latest version of the article is different from the version discussed in ways which affect the validity the reasons given in that discussion. The latest article was, in fact, very similar indeed to the one discussed at Articles for deletion/Babajide Ogunbiyi (2nd nomination), so similar that without a doubt either the new one was based on a copy of the old one or else they were both based on another common version. What minor changes there have been do not affect the reasons given in that deletion discussion, and there was no more evidence of notability in the new article than there was in the one discussed at AfD. If I were to reassess the notability of the subject and decide to restore the article, I would therefore be making my own decision based to all intents and purposes on the same article that was discussed, and unilaterally overturning the consensus at that discussion. That would be an abuse of my administrative powers. If you think that the evidence available justifies overturning the decision reached in the discussion, you may take it to Deletion review if you wish. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you do not consider those two sources I showed you as having passed GNG? As far as I can tell, the deletion discusses hinged on having not played in a fully professional league, not on whether it had multiple, independent sources. However, that being said, I see no reason for you to prevent recreation in the future. He is obviously a high level player as judged by the sources and will in all likelihood be notable based on his time in a fully professional league. When that happens, it'd be good for someone to be able to create the article.--TM 12:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I evidently failed to make my meaning as clear as I thought I had done. I made no comment on the sources you linked to, as that was not the issue. The issue is whether the new article was substantially different from the one discussed, and if so whether it addressed the reasons advanced for deletion in the discussion. It is not for me to decide whether or not the reasons given for deletion are invalid. That can only be done at a deletion review.


 * If, as you suggest, he becomes notable at some time in the future, then the matter can be revisited. I would very much prefer to leave the title unprotected, so that if and when re-creation becomes suitable, it can be done without difficulty. However, when an article has been discussed at AfD, deleted, recreated, again discussed at AfD, again deleted, and then twice recreated without substantial improvement, it seems reasonable to take steps to make sure it is not re-created yet again unless and until notability really has been demonstrated.


 * Incidentally, I noticed that the article said that the team he plays for is in the Danish 1st Division, while one of the sources you linked to says it is in the Danish second division. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that he would pass GNG based on the sources I provided to you. I am by no means a Danish football expert, but according to Wikipedia, Viborg FF plays in the first division. I'd like you to unprotect the page so that I could write a stub which will pass GNG, seeing as there are at least two reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--TM 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that the Danish 1st Division is indeed the second division in Denmark, despite the name, but is still a fully professional league - therefore, Ogunbiyi should pass the GNG.
 * OK, I have unprotected the article title. Best of luck with creating a new article and establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems you have not unprotected the article.--TM 18:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I don't know how I made that mistake. Anyway, I really have unprotected it now. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello
This page (KuzzNshazziie), that you deleted, what do you mean "does not show the significance"?

Thanks,

Owner of KuzzNshazziie co. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.29.183 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it, Jac16888 deleted it. I never edited the article, nor, as far as I remember, even saw it, so I have no idea why you thought I did, unless you are confusing it with some other article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Surf Excel Matic Page: Speedy Deletion
The article in question Surf excel matic covers about the brand that is Surf Excel Matic and it has a separate identity. Although a part of the Surf family (Unilever). The brand mentioned in the article in question talks about a brand available in India, and the perspective that was intended in the article was to talk about it. The article that it has been redirected to Surf (detergent) does not talk about it (wouldn't be apt ). Kindly consider and do allow the page to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nellerism (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you have addressed this message to me. The article was nominated for deletion by AndrewWTaylor and deleted by RHaworth. I had nothing to do with it. In fact, as far as I remember, I never even saw the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How Could You
No one told you about the edits. You can't protect pages just because of a certain user. I am doing an account and you'll never in a million years find out what it is. Now don't even think about protecting Donlammers talk page. Now you unprotect that Farthing Wood article this instant. It doesn't even air where you are. 122.109.247.234 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I can protect a page because of a certain user if that user is persistently disruptive. You have already been advised how to get unblocked: goodness knows why you prefer instead to persist with this endless sockpuppetry and block evasion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you unprotect those zoo articles. You're not a member of that project. Farthing Wood is important, whose going to add in stuff for characters. Now would you please unprotect or I'll remove the protection tag with an account. IP's have to edit them to you know. Or expand the time. 3 months is TOO LONG. Quit making it months. You never do that for IP Blocks. 122.109.247.234 (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want something unprotected, off to WP:RFUP you go to get a third opinion. Yes, if an admin sees disruptive editing they can add protection ad infinitum if they feel it's proper - 3 months is a drop in the bucket.  "Ordering" someone to do something will never get you far, and simply removing the lock tag does not remove the protection of the article.  On a final note, WP:SOCK is blockable, and WP:EVADE is bannable.  Try to not be a WP:DICK should you move forward with your editing ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddha Bar / Music page deleted: - Why ?. (If Unable to answer. Could you please help identify.)
Hi, Buddha Bar / Music page deleted:- I feel shivering asking why ?. (If Unable to answer. Could you please help identify.)

Thanks in Advacne Digant (Delhi - India) digant7@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.99.204 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Buddha Bar (music) was moved to Buddha Bar by Huji, as there was no other article called "Buddha Bar", so there was no need to distinguish it by adding (music). Buddha Bar (music) was left as a redirect to Buddha Bar. Buddha Bar was then discussed at a deletion discussion, which produced a consensus that the subject did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so it was deleted. Since this left Buddha Bar (music) as a pointless redirect to a page which no longer existed, I deleted it. That was my only part in the affair, and I had no part in the deletion of the article itself. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi JamesBW - you might like to see Sockpuppet investigations/Petermcelwee/Archive - --Shirt58 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pardon?
What gave you the right to assume that I was a previously blocked editor? I don't see anything wrong with my edits. 86.176.29.220 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing gave me the right to assume it, and I haven't assumed it. I simply said that it looked likely, which is a very different thing. And if you really can't see anything wrong with edits such as this and this then you have serious problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Both were simply tests, the second of which testing an edit filter. I was simply beaten to the revert by admins. 86.176.29.220 (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for calling my attention to the fact that you have been repeatedly deliberately triggering an edit filter. You really are likely to be blocked if you continue in the way you have been going. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does intentionally triggering an edit filter violate Wikipedia policy? They will have been triggered countless times by unwary users in the time it has taken me to write this message. 86.176.29.220 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

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. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You have Been Reported
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.109.224.0/19
 * Can you Please unblok this range and [|Unprotect this Innocent article]. I now know how to make unprotect requests and I have reported you for calling mean names to other users. 58.7.187.142 (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG. You're the one who has been reported, and in the right way.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Big block
14:20, 2 December 2011	122.109.224.0/19	14:20, 9 December 2011 (unblock | change block)	JamesBWatson (talk | contribs | block)	anon. only, account creation blocked	(Block evasion) That is the second biggest ISP in a city of >> 1m people for a week. Ouch. You may wish to review. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This week long block was a compromise. The disruptive editor it was intended to stop needs blocking over period of months, but of course doing that would have been likely to cause far too much collateral damage. The disruptive editor has made dozens of edits from that IP address range over the last 10 days, while there has been only one edit which might perhaps be from someone else. Over the previous few months the IP range had been the source of edits at the average rate of two per month. It therefore seemed to me that the risk of collateral damage in a week was small, and much less than the likely gain by stopping the disruption. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Show Out (Roscoe Dash song)
Why did you delete this article. The song has charted and received coverage, meeting notability WP:SONGS, and you noted in the edit summary that the song's artist did not have a page, but yet Roscoe Dash does. Candy o32  19:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by Candyo32 (talk • contribs) was actually added by 152.23.235.233 (talk • contribs).
 * You are quite right about the artist having a Wikipedia article. Clearly I did not check carefully enough, so I have restored the article. (WP:SONGS (a redirect to WikiProject Songs) is, however, of little relevance. One or more editors can easily decide to call themselves a "Wikiproject" and write a page mentioning their opinions about notability on a particular topic, but doing so does not over-ride the notability guidelines.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
-- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Children's Philanthropy Center for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Children's Philanthropy Center is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Children's Philanthropy Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Deor (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am responding to the possible deletion of this page. I am requesting to keep this page in Wikipedia. Please understand that although the center is housed in a school, it is a community-based/educational charity. CPC-sponsored activities are many and varied. They support many social and environmental charitable endeavors in Northern Virginia as well as across the country. CPC activities take place outside of school hours and during the summer. Their Youth Symposium is one-of-a-kind, run by youth for youth. The Wikipedia entry encourages youth to see that they can make a difference by becoming involved in a philanthropic program. Thank you. Jane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.213.230 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the “Children’s Philanthropy Center” on Wikipedia. While the Center is technically housed at Waples Mill Elementary School, it is distinguished from the school division through an independent identity targeted toward community service and global giving programs to children from distressed circumstances. It is the only Center of its kind in Northern Virginia--run by children for children.

Due to adverse economic conditions, The Center is not yet able to afford a building of its own. It operates through the hard work and dedication of youth advocates throughout the county, as well as their mentors. No salaries or payments are given to support program operations.

Having the Children’s Philanthropy Center listed on Wikipedia allows individuals, environmentalists, social advocacy groups, and other interested parties to research the organization.

It also allows the youth advocates associated with The Center to feel a sense of validation for their support of individuals and other charitable organizations.151.188.213.230 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Crustianity
I'm new to wikipedia, just here to check it out with this account I made though, I was wondering what are your thoughts on Crustianity?

http://crustianity.org/babble/index.html <- info here, makes somewhat valid sense in my opinion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TH3 B1G TAC0 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, can you help me with Dave1185's constant harassment please?
Hello James, I am not sure if you remember me, but a few months ago, you helped to mediate an interaction ban between me and User:Dave1185 as well as told him to stop insulting me [here]. Since the interaction ban has been agreed by both of us, I have not initiated any interaction with him (except for defending myself against his WP:HUSH tactics at my talkpage).

Sadly, Dave has not observed the interaction ban. Other than just breaking the interaction ban, he has been insulting me as per usual at my talkpage with WP:HUSH tactics. If you would take a good long look at my talkpage [here] please you would see the colourful stuff this guy has been up to, everything is written there in my talkpage really. In fact, he has repeatedly and constantly broken almost all the community policies, such as Harassment, Civility, No personal attacks, especially [| Wikihounding], WP:HUSH and WP:NPA over a period of a few months through his constant threats, ridiculous accusations, insults at my talkpage and in many other places and through his stalking me around Wikipedia to harass me.

You have warned him about his insults before [here] and I have told him to stop his behaviour at my talkpage [here] countless times, but to no avail.

Just these two days, he has continued his tirade of insults by calling me 'the frog' and 'Kermit' [| here] while reverting my edit, once again dishing out more insults and ignoring the interaction ban he agreed upon [here].

Today, he even reverted my private message left on another editor's talkpage out of spite [here] before insulting me 'Mr Frog' again [here]. Of course, not before some usual WP:HUSH and WP:NPA tactics [here]

He doesn't seem to care about any pleas or warnings from me, or it seems from you as well. Is it possible to issue him a warning again to tell him to leave me alone? Or perhaps block him for a day or a week to warn him? It seems like he thinks he is infallible and uses his more established status to bully others. I don't think he should be banned for a long time unless he keeps doing this but his behaviour is quite disgusting.

In fact, if you look through his contributions, lets just say he seems to insult and irk quite a few people as well. In fact, someone got so pissed off he even impersonated him to troll him recently [here]. [His talk page] is quite distasteful as well. It is filled with vulgarities and arrogance. It writes: ''Also, talk to me like a normal person, and don't just quote Wiki guidelines to me - I'm NOT a newbie (Read WP:DTTR!). I consider it rude, and will likely just delete your comments, and ignore the point, as guidelines can be ignored. If you do it anyway, and turn out to be wrong, an apology would be the considerate thing to make, though you probably won't since it's not a fucking, oberfucking, or unterfucking policy to apologize for your mistakes. (If Jimbo Wales wanted people to apologize for their mistakes, he'd have made it a policy, right?!)' 'I reserve the right to clean up this page in any manner I chose, including the use of Rollbacks for non-vandalism, and especially if you made more than one edit. Please do NOT re-post what I've removed, unless you are an admin issuing a formal warning, though I'll probably still remove it!''

This guy is quite colourful, that is for sure....sigh.Smilingfrog (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Having read this, and looked into the relevant history a bit, I have made several posts relating to it. You may see them, and a couple of responses to them from Dave1185, here:, , , . Please feel welcome to contact me again if the problem continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks. I have explained myself over the 'edit war' with User:Chipmunkdavis at his talkpage [here] or if he has deleted it, the diff is [here]. When I went there, I realised Dave1185 was hurling some accusations at me at the talkpage again even after you just warned him again. [here]. I just hope Dave1185 is going to lay it off for good this time....but something inside me tells me that might not be the case. I will be adopting WP:DENY with him for any mild harassment.
 * Many thanks. I do know I have made some mistakes in the past (especially when I just started editing etc) but I will live and learn. Thanks, especially since you are doing this for free. Merry Christmas BTW! Smilingfrog (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Favour
Could you have a look at the goings on at The Three Ravens? I hoped to get Fae to look, as I suspect a copyright issue, but he seems rather busy. I'm involved, and would like an uninvolved opinion. Thanks if you can. Peridon (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly see edit warring, and one editor being persistent against a clear consensus. In fact, one of the most extreme cases of a single purpose account I've seen: an account that seems to exist purely to edit war to keep one image in one article. Copyright issue? That wouldn't surprise me at all, but I don't see any direct evidence except the edit summary saying "I did not draw", and I have no idea where the source might be. I have warned the editor about edit warring, and also asked again what the origin of the picture is. Please feel very welcome to get back to me, and I will be willing to take further action if the problem continues. There are various possible "next steps". JamesBWatson (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - as I've been involved with it for some time I wanted someone independent to look in. That SPA is, I suspect, plugging the book or whatever it is that is claimed as source for the idea. Which I also suspect is the source of the picture. (There's another SPA a bit like it but quieter. In the article Orchard, someone changes 'Israel' to 'Palestine' every few months or so. I quietly change it back. I have suggested on the talk page that someone finds a different picture, which is simply an illustration of an orchard. It's a nice pic, but I'll see if I can get one this spring to replace it.) Isn't it fun? Peridon (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They seem to have replied to you on their userpage. I've looked at the link they give to Sauer's text, and managed to read it (despite it apparently being scanned from pages with two columns). I can find no centaur... Peridon (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ddb-unpatrolled
Did I miss something that the template is suddenly removed? Night of the Big Wind   talk  17:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean db-unpatrolled, it was created by Blanchardb as  "temporary workaround " for a problem, and Blanchardb indicated  that the problem has been dealt with, and the template could now be deleted. I therefore deleted it under CSD G7. ("Author requests deletion ... in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author.") JamesBWatson (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Message of Apologies
I apologise for all that has happened over the past 5 months. None of it would have even started if you hadn't protected the Blinky bill article in the first place. I am hear to say sorry for all this. As long as you don't protect articles we don't want protected and listen to people when they ask you yo unprotect I will not be disruptive. Please do not protect any article or block this range again atleast up till Christmas, 2 weeks away. Just because you block someone it does not mean you can revert all of their edits. Now I have apologised, you may now unprotect all those articles that got protected because of this block evasion theory (you never say ban evasion). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.242.6 (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do accept your apology, and I am glad that you seem to be willing to move forward in a constructive way, rather than the negative, belligerent way you have behaved in the past. I hope that this will be the start of a new period, in which you can be welcomed back to editing Wikipedia. I will also try to answer some other points you have raised.
 * You are quite right that I never say "ban evasion". I have never raised the possibility of banning you, because I still hold out hope that you can come back and edit constructively. If you were banned it would not rule out the possibility of being unbannned some day, but it would put one more obstacle in the way, and I prefer to leave the way open for you to come back. It is not true that "None of it would have even started if [I] hadn't protected the Blinky bill article in the first place", as your disruptive editing had started well before that. You say that we don't want the articles protected, and you are perfectly right, as none of us wants them protected: we would much prefer everyone involved to edit in acceptable ways so that protection is unnecessary. You are, however, mistaken in thinking that a person being blocked does not mean that all their edits can be reverted: the policy is that for a blocked editor "Edits by the editor or on his behalf may be reverted without question". As has been explained to you before, if you wish to continue to edit then the thing to do is to request an unblock on your first account, explaining how your editing will be different from what you did in the past, and why it will be beneficial to Wikipedia to unblock you. If you do that another administrator will make an independent assessment and decide whetehr to unblock or not. I hope that you can make it clear that you are going to edit constructively so that you can be unblocked. In the meanwhile, until that happens, you are blocked, and any attempt to edit is block evasion. If you do that then I will certainly continue to use whatever blocks on IPs and accounts may be necessary, and likewise to protect any articles that need protecting. The sooner you either get unblocked properly or else go away the better, because article protection and IP range blocks may prevent other people editing too, and I would much prefer to avoid collateral damage of that sort. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Smith (Founder of Smithtown)
I am totally mystified by the editorial decision at Wikipedia. The article on Richard Smith, the founder of Smithtown, Long Island was deleted. Yet there is a lot of material on his life and significance. Consider: 1. Internal links to him on Wikipedia -- at least 4 articles mention him 2. A large number of mentions in books -- search Google books 3. Considerable mention in a book on Smithtown sold on Amazon.com 4. Discussion of his significance by the Smithtown Historical Society:  http://www.smithtownhistorical.org/hist_facts.html 5. The legend about his "bull ride", see:  http://www.smithtownhistorical.org/hist_legend.html 6. The 9 foot tall statute of a Bull that was installed at the entrance to the city in 1941 (still there today)

So what seems to be the problem ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmissio (talk • contribs) 04:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article Richard Smith (Founder of Smithtown) was deleted as an "article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". The full and complete text of the article was "Richard Smith is the great-great-great grandfather of Lucas Spangher." I see nothing there to indicate importance or significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so can I take this to mean that if I take the time to actually write a solid historical summary of the life and significance of Richard Smith, founder of Smithtown, Long Island, that it would NOT be deleted as "not having notabilty" or some other such nonsense? My experience with Wikipedia has not been good. Just about everything I contributed was deleted by "editors" -- none of which actually ever wrote anthing themselves. They deemed topics as "not having notability" when in fact, they were notable in their context -- it was just that the context was a small town. Wikipedia should be more clear about guidelines and also require "editors" to actually make contributions before they are allowed to comment on other people's contributions. Comment added byDrmissio (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

JamesBWatson (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I know nothing about Richard Smith, but if he is notable by Wikipedia standards then there should be no problem with writing an article about him.
 * 2) The idea that only editors with substantial history of writing articles should be allowed to make administrative decisions is a widespread one, and it has been much discussed. However, there is no consensus in favour of that view. I have found that there are editors who hold that view, but are willing to accept that the view is not universally supported, and also editors who hold that view and are totally contemptuous of others whose main contributions to Wikipedia are in other areas than creating new articles. I have little if any sympathy with the latter group.
 * 3) The idea that people should have made substantial contributions to content before they even express opinions about other people's work is, so far as I know, an unusual one: in fact I don't off hand recall having encountered it before.
 * 4) If you think that Wikipedia's notability standards are too restrictive, and that we should allow articles to be written on people who merely seem notable from a local, parochial, point of view then you are perfectly free to raise the question and suggest a change in the guidelines. However, unless and until the guidelines are changed, we have to act within those guidelines. I often take administrative action which I personally don't agree with, because it is in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and my own views do not override those policies and guidelines.

hat
We found your hat! RexxS 92.40.254.126 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Josh Braithwaite
Should the other changes by that IP be reverted as well? I'm not sure how the thing is actually supposed to look, hence why I ended up undoing my edits the first time :P Glacialfox (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Proxies
Good to see you yesterday. I guess that The Waterhouse is now your home. Anyway, the list of proxies that I use are shown on de-WP here. The penultimate one seems to provide the best results for my needs. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. I'll check them out. As for the Waterhouse, I didn't actually hang it there. RexxS and I are thinking of schemes for revenge on Harry for sitting on it: RexxS suggests getting him elected to ArbCom would be a good way to punish him, and so far I haven't come up with a better scheme. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. ArbCom? Note to self: do not cross you or RexxS. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Swedes
What is the filter log and what does it show?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look here you will see the edit filter log for the article Swedes, i.e. a log of occasions when edit filters have caught attempts at dubious edits. In this case there are two recent entries, and clicking on "details" shows that the edit filter has quite rightly identified attempts to make an edit which has all the hallmarks of Chaosname. Since the edit filter preventing the edit from taking place, it does not show up in the editing history of the article, so the protection might seem arbitrary. That is why I referred to the edit filter log, to explain the reason for the protection. I thought there was a direct link to the edit filter log from the article's history page, but it seems I was wrong, so my edit summary was probably less helpful than I intended it to be. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That filter is really useful - how do you set up such filters?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest starting at Special:AbuseFilter and having a good read through first. It's quite likely that there's already a filter to do most jobs already written, but if not it's worth examining a few to get a feel of how they are constructed. If you're really interested, you could have a chat with someone who has the user-right "abusefilter" as they may have tips and practical ideas about filters. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page
Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page- I am nothing to do with the school, just interested in the history of medieval schools as an objective scholar- its certainly an interesting school!Brownandwhite (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Flash mobs in India have started a new revolution of public voice. Unlike in the West, these events are not solely for the sake of fun. Each flash mob has a reason behind it, such as the flash mob held in Mumbai on the very place (CST) where there was a terror attack some years ago that killed many people. The Kochi flash mob was held to defuse the recent tension between the two states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu over a dam on the border. Thus, I think Flash mob (India) deserves a place in Wikipedia. As for your argument about grass, would Cinema also follow the same rule in Wikipedia?

108.85.24.203 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Deepfield (band)
I was able to find several decent sources. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Confession
I have continued my campaign of disruption. I think I require another of your magnificent blocks. Lets up it to 18 months this time, that seems like a good length. Thanks, :) jorgenev (t&#124;c&#124;s) 04:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article
Hi there. I see that you have deleted the article List of stadiums in Pakistan with the rationale that a blocked editor created the article. I want to recreate and restart this article and I was wondering if you have access to the content that this article had prior to its deletion, as that may help. Can you help me? Mar4d (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that, by the time I read this message, you had already created the article, so presumably it's too late for me to be able to help. However, your new article is closely similar to the old one anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
108.85.24.203 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up
I am totally new at this and hope this was the correct place for this message. I have made the editorial changes you suggested to my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hart_Baker, but I would like to note the the usage of the word "Maestro" when referring to a symphonic or operatic conductor is not an adjective, but is rather their job title. I't is on his resume and business cards and is how he is addressed by colleagues and coworkers. I did remove all other weighted adjectives, however. And really appreciate the help. So thanks again.

Decwrites (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Decwrites

ArishiaNishi
Thanks. I see that J. delanoy has granted IPBE (He has checkuser, so he's especially qualified to make sure it's used right). I agree with you on the wisdom of deferring to him. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Jamie Hanley
Back in December 2009, you contributed to a deletion discussion for this article. The result was 'no consensus', but two years later, I still believe he is non-notable by our standards, and have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Jamie Hanley (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Note
Hello I am a user here but I'm going anon to tell you I am accessing this IP address from a VPN. Is that against the rules? 108.62.213.68 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is you can ban it I don't care. 108.62.213.68 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

CSD proposal
Hey, I was disappointed when you didn't chime in here. I'd love to hear your thoughts! causa sui (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Tomic
Hello James,

I have just added some more facts about our company: where it is operating and how much staff we have "The enlarged company is now operating in 31 countries around the world employing 1,200 staff. [5]." Furthermore I have added more prooves about the activity of our company.

I havent changed anything on my personal info which was already posted years ago and validated before. Could you please remove the "conflict of interest" tag?

regards, Chris Tomic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctomic (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You - a representative of the company - are editing it, and you want a COI tag removed?  *blink* ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bwilkins,

Yes I added facts to the article as how many employees we operate and in how many countries. Furthermore I added referals. If this should be a problem or please feel free to remove this passage from the article and turn it into the original state.

regards, Chris Tomic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.162.18 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello James,

I just saw you are planning to delete the Article "Chris Tomic" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Tomic), as I am using 2 usernames and you claim the article that was posted is not authentic.

First of all I am using 2 usernames as one is my private account which I used to edit infos on my profile. The other once is the company login which I used for Day Cafe. Therefore I do not understand why you are blocking my accounts?

Furthermore The article that has been written for Chris Tomic appeared in "H! Society Magazin" in Spain which used to be one of the biggest Social Magazines in Spain. Since they changed their webpage this article went offline therefore I uploaded it to www.christomic.com. If there should be a problem I can scan the magazin and send it to you.

I ask you to stop the deleting process for this page as it has been online since over 2 years and I referred to several pages, i.e. Financial Times or Businessweek.

regards, Chris Tomic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.25.192 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Ctomic. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

B-Boy 369
Thanks. I'll see what MuzeMike has to say, since he had commented too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
With regards to an IP block exemption that you just granted. You may wish chime in on the B-Boy 369 section below that, as I have responded there, also. –MuZemike 21:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Koplowitz article
Hi. I saw that my page for Stephan Koplowitz was deleted based on copyright infringement of the calarts.edu website. But the calarts.edu website's verbage is taken directly from Stephan Koplowitz' bio that he releases with his press releases. I received permission to use parts of it for the article about him. How do I get the article reinstated? Thanks for your help. Metzart (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) You may be right, and he may be willing to have his promotional material reused everywhere, but anyone can create a Wikipedia account and claim to have copyright permission, and we can't just take any anonymous person's word for it. That is why the copyright message on your talk page includes a link to instructions on how to copyrighted materials.
 * 2) Even where copyright owners do give permission for reuse of their material, they very often place restrictions on its use which makes it incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing conditions. For example, they may release their material only for non-commercial purposes, or only on condition that it is used exactly as it is, without any editing or changing. All content posted to Wikipedia is licensed for free use by anyone in the world, under very liberal terms, including allowing the material to be edited, chopped up and combined with other material, used for commercial purposes by other users and so on. Are you sure that Koplowitz's permission covers that sort of thing? Very often people are willing to let their material be posted in a Wikipedia article, but are not willing to accept the free reuse by others that doing so allows.
 * 3) Even if you have cast iron copyright permission, covering both the points I have given above, it would almost certainly be a waste of time to go through the process of donating copyright to the Wikimedia foundation, as the material would just be deleted again as promotional. In fact, in my experience it is almost never worth giving copyright permission for material published by the subject of an article, as it is almost always written in terms which seek to show the subject in a positive light, rather than from the neutral point of view required for a Wikipedia article. Usually I list both copyright and promotion as deletion reasons in such cases, to try to avoid giving users the impression that copyright is the only problem, thereby encouraging them to waste time and effort donating copyright for material which is doomed to deletion anyway. I see that this time I didn't do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Vaid per PROD concern
Hats off to you, JBW. I noticed that you deleted the Vaid article that I recently PRODed & which referred to an Indian caste/community. Obviously, I have no problem with that as per the concern that I raised when PRODing. But circumstance has caused me to query something ...

... Within a short time after your deletion I came across an article that had the deleted Vaid article among its See Also section links. Obviously, it is now a redlink & I removed it accordingly. We have the "What links here" tool but that does not work for deleted articles, and so to my question: is there some facility that would enable automated removal of redlinks from "See also" sections, or at least try to make a go of it in the case of recently deleted articles? I do understand that there are coding complications - sections called "Also see", and numerous variants - but some sort of tool that could run through a recent deletions maintenance category and automatically remove would seem to be A Good Thing.

At a more mundane level, is there any way for a non-admin to see "what links here" for a deleted article and do the job manually? It would be unwise for a nominator of a PROD to anticipate the likely outcome by scrubbing other articles. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There used to be an option to automatically remove backlinks to a page when it was deleted, but it disappeared some time ago. I don't know why.
 * I agree that an automated tool for delinking articles after they have been deleted would be good. I'm not sure if there is one. Perhaps sometime I may think about creating one, if there isn't, but it won't be very soon, because of the time it would need.
 * On the question of a non-admin seeing "what links here", there doesn't seem to be any problem. I actually read your message before I logged in, and, still not logged in, I clicked on the link in your post to Vaid. In the resulting "this page has been deleted" page, at the left hand side, under "Toolbox", there is a link to "what links here". You are welcome to manually remove the links, but there are 161 of them, so it may take a while . Actually, when I wrote that, there were 161, but then I removed the links from 2 templates, and I found that the number of pages listed under "what links here" had dropped to 56: evidently the other 103 were transclusions of those two templates. Also, 19 of the links are in userspace pages, and you might not want to remove those, so that leaves 37 links to remove, which is likely to be a little tedious, but nothing like as bad as I thought when I saw 161. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That is weird. Yes, if you click the link then it takes you to the deleted article; if, however, you type "Vaid" in the top-right search box, it takes you via a redirect to an article about an airport. It does this even if you type it in lower case, although VAID appears to be the airport's international code. I mean, it makes sense that the searchbox directs to a live article ... but why doesn't the link? Presumably because a direct link has preference over a redirect?
 * Regardless, I'll set about cleaning up those backlinks. Thanks for pointing out what in retrospect is the obvious! - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixing refs?
I was wondering if you can help me fix the refs for Alan Omer, on the AfD discussion page it is agreed upon that the refs that haven't been fixed yet on the page are good sources, but I have no clue at all how to fix refs, so I ask if either you would do it or show me how to do it for future fixings. Thank you BigzMMA (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've corrected an error in formatting the references. It was actually just a matter of removing 🇦🇩, which are not needed in references. I guess that's what you meant by "fix the refs", but if not then please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I've been struggling to work out how to correct them for ages now. Thank You BigzMMA (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

userfy request
Hello. A few weeks my page on Scorched-Earth Policy (band) was deleted. I'd like to continue editing it and improve it to further demonstrate the notability. Could you please userfy the page to me? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axv7 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hadoti Express
The user who created Hadoti Express has created another article called Manihara Mahadev. I have tried to find references for both artciles but could not. I suggest both articles are a hoax and should be deleted.Msruzicka (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Hello, James, is it considered a personal attack if a user says about another editor "Meh, I'm over it. Its idiots like him with all the stupid accusations that make me not even bother editing, I'd really just like him to fuck off and let me go on about my business." Apparently, this editor spoke about me on their talk page with another user. Abhijay Talk?/Deeds  15:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would tend to regard that as a personal attack. however, whether it is worth following up, or whether it would just be better to forget about it, depends on the context. If that one remark was all there was to it I would be inclined to leave it, but if it was just one more piece of a string of unreasonable behaviour, it might be a different matter. It also depends on what you have done that led to that remark. You don't want to shoot yourself in the foot. Without knowing further background I have no idea whether this is worth bothering about or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My sandbox
It appears that I left User:This, that and the other/sandbox accidentally tagged for speedy deletion. Could you please restore it? My apologies. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC) ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, AFD... can't imagine what I was doing. Thanks for the undeletion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Issue with my warnings?
Hey, I feel like you've you left me to hang dry here ;) ~ "have not made any attempt to make it clear to you what the problems were." Are there any issues with my warnings? :D -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 10:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking back, I think what I wrote was not a good attempt to express what I meant to express, and I apologise. It is not true that you had made no attempt to explain what the problem was, but you had not, in my opinion, covered all the most relevant points. You had mentioned only unsourced content, which was just one part of the problem, and had not mentioned other issues, such as promotional editing. Also, the editor had given links, evidently in an attempt to provide sources, as you requested, but no explanation was given as to why those were not adequate sources. It seems to me that the editor was editing in good faith, without knowing enough about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to understand what the problem was. In such cases the most constructive thing is to start by trying to help the editor understand by explaining what the issues are and giving advice, and resort to warnings of possible blocks only after that has been done and failed. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I want to become an Administrator sometime in the future... Wow I need to not only brush on my policies, but common sense - and start helping editors. Thank you for clarifying to me - something I can now learn from! :) Thank you, -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 10:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On a seperate note, that Ip you asked for them to ellaborate on their accusations of copvio's - has done so here - however that content s/he claims is a CV - infact isn't - Previous edits in the articles history had that content (copy+pasted) I got the exact same content and re-worded it, It's not a CV - at all. What do I do? Can you have a look - just to confirm that I'm not going crazy? Thank you, -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 11:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for Disruption
The Disrutption will only stop if you unprotect those articles that were protected as of disruption, especially Farthing Wood and the Zoo articles. You are NOT a member of the Zoo project and only Zoo membership admins can protect them and zoo project have a law against that. Please don't protect stuff that we don't want protected. You can't protect things just because of a certain someone. Other IPs have to edit them to you know and "Alas the block evading sockpuppet is back" is no reason to protect. We IPs have rights to you know. Not my fault that IPs keep changing now and then. I recently have had an account called CuriousE and luckily all the edits weren't reverted. Blinky Bill was not merged episodes and characters to it's own article to get out of Protection, it was to because it was necessarily needed. Stop protecting things we don't want protected then the disruption won't go on. Deal? And quit making it in months that's TOO LONG. If you hadn't protected the Blinky Bill article in the first place, none of it would have happened and how did you catch [|This Ip's edits] when it did nothing to your talk page or that you were not informed. Lastly remember no blocking up till Christmas. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.243.252 (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the almost incoherent rambling above has any basis in policy. I'd be surprised if JBW even responded ... looks like JBW has done the right things to protect the project. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bwilkins. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Mark Rankin Recording Engineer
Hello, I am contacting you with regards to your deletion of my Wikipedia page 'Mark Rankin recording engineer' It seems I was too slow at adding source links to verify the viability of the page and would appreciate it if you could re instate the page so I may add the relevant source links. Many Thanks Mrsrankins Mrsrankins (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding citations will not help you. Please read Notability (people) and Autobiography. Even if you meet the notability criteria, you should not be writing your own article. If you are indeed notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, you should let other, uninvolved, editors write the article, based on reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 10:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Donald Albury is essentially right: writing autobiographical articles is strongly discouraged. In addition, it is not clear to me that you satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, and if you don't then the article will probably be deleted anyway. Nevertheless, I can restore the article if you have reliable sources to add to it that suggest notability. If so, the article will be marked with the autobiography tag. If I restore the article and notability is not established, then will probably be deleted again. You may like to let me know what sources you wish to add, in which case I can give you my opinion as to whether they do establish notability, before it is decided whether it is worth restoring the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Taj Pharmaceuticals Group
Taj Pharmaceuticals Group, a new article, has a storied history involving previous deletions of the company, and the CEO, with the history on this articles talk page. I note that you deleted one of the articles. I have no particular interest in the articles staying or going, but thought you might know the reasons for the "ban" and other background. I dont even expect you to do anything. after all, this is a voluntary project. if this matters to you, now you know. i informed User:A K Singh CEO of WP:COI, and was exceedingly nice to him (before noticing the deletions). I trust you will be firm if necessary, but polite always.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI
has declined your PROD of FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup qualification (CONCACAF).  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Spam article
Hi James,

I'm in the process of setting up a Wiki entry for a web development client of mine called Energy Solutions International. Previously, one of their employees had tried to set up their own entry but as the content was purely promotional and not encyclopaedic, it was speedily deleted by you.

I think the new entry should be ok as I've referenced a number of news sites but please let me know if there is any problem with it before you delete it and I'll amend accordingly. Obviously, we'll be adding to it over time but I am pretty sure there is enough in my most recent edit to "tick all the boxes"!

Thanks

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcwebdev (talk • contribs) 14:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seen. User now blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Truehope
Hi James, Your decline of the unblock request here makes little sense to me. The user is currently banned based on the username policy, and they made the unblock request making it clear that they intended to change their username if unblocked, but were unable to do so due to the fact that their IP address is currently blocked and their account was also blocked with account creation disabled. Your decline seems to be based on the fact that you think they will not edit subjectively; personally I don't think this is a particularly valid reason to keep the block in place, as it seems to be pre-emptive, rather than based on actual violation of policy: with username blocks I believe it is important not to let us ignore normal process and just leave users blocked because it's easier, even if their actions would not normally be considered block worthy. I would respectfully suggest that you look into removing the account creation block on the user and then explain to them how to create a new account while logged in (i.e. link here); could also ask them to look into drafting in the userspace and AfC. Best wishes, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you think that my decline was pre-emptive. I expressly referred, in declining the unblock request, to the editor's history of promotional editing. The account appears to exist only for promotional purposes. That is itself enough to justify a spam only block, quite apart from the username issue. I don't think that I in any way "ignored normal process": I examined the user's editing history, considered whether that history, together with the unblock request, justified unblocking, and decided it didn't. I am puzzled why you describe what I did as "just leave users blocked because it's easier". As for "even if their actions would not normally be considered block worthy", their actions certainly would be considered block worthy: there was quite sufficient for a spamusername block. In order to justify an unblock, the user has to address both the issue of the username, and the issue of the promotional editing. The user was given a spamusername block by Toddst1, but for some reason was given only a username block notice. I assume the disparity was a mistake, but I do not know which of the two was closer to Toddst1's intention. It is always a difficult matter dealing with this situation, where a user has been given a block notice which appears to indicate that all they have to do is change their username, but in fact there are other problems with their editing which justify a block. In such a case it is necessary to make a judgement as to which is better: to unblock, but explain to them that they will be blocked again if their editing continues as before, or to decline the block, explaining what the problem is with their editing, so that they can make a new unblock request that covers he issues. (In my opinion, the one thing which is not an option is to just unblock them without mentioning the other issues. Doing so unfairly gives the impression that the matter is over, while knowing full well that the user is very likely to be blocked again very soon. That, I think, is totally unfair to an editor who is probably acting in completely good faith.) On this occasion, the totally promotional editing history, together with the statement by the editor that they regarded their editing to date as "objective" discouraged me from unblocking immediately. However, I made a special point of stating right at the start of my unblock decline, before anything else, that I had no doubt that the editing was in good faith. This was intended to avoid, if possible, discouraging the user more than was necessary, so that they were still in a position to make a new unblock request, addressing the promotion issue. Sure enough, the user has done so, and Beeblebrox has changed the block conditions to allow a new account to be created and informed the user of the fact, so there is nothing more to do. Personally I would have simply accepted the latest unblock request, but Beeblebrox's action leads to almost the same result in the end, and I don't think that the difference is important.


 * One final point. Your comments appear to be based on a rather textualist approach to unblocking, in the sense that they read as though you think that, in considering an unblock request, an administrator may consider only the reason stated in the unblock notice, not other aspects of a user's editing history. This is not general practice, nor, in my opinion would it be helpful. Such a textualist approach would lead to such situations as a block for one reason being lifted, but another block for another reason being imposed immediately, which would be most unhelpful to the user in question. (In this case, a lifting of a username block, followed by an immediate or almost immediate spam only block.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Move Tariq Babur to Tariq Mahmood Khan Babur
Dear JamesBWatson, I wanted to create a biographic article/stub on a prison governor in Pakistan named Tariq Mahmood Khan Babur. Unfortunately, creation of a page with this name is found blocked by you. So, I have created a stub named Tariq Babur. But the html reference on which this stub is based tells the name of this person as Tariq Mahmood Khan Babur. I tried to move the page to this full name yet the redirect was not created responding that the name Tariq Mahmood Khan Babur is blocked. Can you please help by visiting the page Tariq Babur and move it to Tariq Mahmood Khan Babur? Thanks in anticipation.--JC Bills (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:JC Bills. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has been deleted by another administrator Guy under WP:CSD. I fully agree with deletion of he said article under WP:CSD. I also created articles on Shahid Saleem Baig and Mubashar Ahmed Khan. Can you please check the said articles and guide if they come up to wikipedia standard. If not, the same may also be deleted, please.--JC Bills (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
for your intervention at the Ravens. Things seem to have quietened down there now. All the best for for the festive season and New Year. Peridon (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry X'mas~!
  Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave1185 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 December 2011

Prince Sophia & Trungkiendo
Would it be a bother if you, say, deleted all of my speedy deletion notices from the page histories? It's going to be a pain to go through my contribs with all of that in there.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 11:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed all but the last one of your speedy deletion notice edits from User talk:Prince Sophia. The effect of this is that all of your edits appear in the history as one edit. That means that there is still a record of the fact that you warned the user, but your contributions history is not full of so many entries. I will do the same for User talk:Trungkiendo. For future reference, if you make a large number of similar speedy deletion nominations, I suggest not giving separate warnings for each: after a couple of them just a note saying words to the effect "and the same applies to a load of other files" is often more convenient. That means, of course, that you can't use Twinkle's default setting, but it's not a great deal of extra trouble. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was just easier to go through 50 or so tabs than it was to click the checkbox that makes you not notify the user at the time.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 11:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, but then I had to individually tick the same number of boxes to delete the edits, plus other overheads such as initially deleting the user talk pages, and later restoring the rest of the edit histories other than the edits I wanted to delete, so the net amount of work was a little more this way. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

therion (software) page deletion
PLEASE, try to explain me what was the reason you deleted the page of Therion (software). I really don´t understand it. I'm not so young (1954) and it is very strange for me. Martin Sluka (not logged). 82.100.63.154 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably you have seen the deletion log entry, as otherwise you would be unlikely to know that it was I who deleted the article. In that case you will have seen that two reasons for deletion were given: copyright infringement of http://wookware.org/files/tharticle2.odt, and advertising or promotion. The first of these reasons means that the content of the article was substantially copied from another source, with no evidence that the authors of that source had given permission for their work to be reused freely by anyone anywhere in the world. If they have not given such permission then publishing their work on Wikipedia would be illegal. The second reason means that the article was written in a way that gave the impression that the person who wrote it was trying to publicise the subject of the article, and encourage people to use it. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service or a medium for promoting or publicising products or services. The article was tagged for speedy deletion as promotional by Night of the Big Wind, though personally I regard the copyright problem as the more important reason for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

MPHO
Hi, you probably don't remember this but in September 2010 you deleted the page MPHO following a WP:PROD request, on the basis that the subject did not meet the notability criteria at WP:BAND. But as can be read in the article at the time of its deletion, the singer had achieved a chart placing in Britain with a single and had been profiled in publications including The Guardian, Daily Record, and RWD Magazine. I was hoping to develop the article, including the addition of other independent sources to demonstrate the singer's notability, so I was wondering if you would consider undeleting it? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Uploading pictures
Hi JamesBWatson, can I upload my own pictures? What procedure I have to do to legally upload my own images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trần Ái Quốc (talk • contribs) 05:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Uploading images are done through Special:Upload. Please take a look at Upload and Image use policy. Hope this helps, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There should be no legal problems with uploading your own images. However, another account with a history of editing in the same area as you has been blocked, as you probably know, for uploading their own copies of images from other sources. That is not the same thing. "Your own images" means images you have created yourself, not copies you have made of images from somewhere else. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Block on range: 220.255.1.0/26
Gday JBW. At unblock-en we are getting numerous requests from the [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=220.255.1.0&limit=50 IP range 220.255.1.0/26] asking for unblocks. Another admin did a quick review and says "No evidence that the /26 is specifically routed" and it doesn't seem likely that the ISP would be a proxy host. A little more evidence for the block and why it is a proxy would be useful for the work that we are doing to respond to queries. Not sure whether it is easier for you to do that here or to mail:unblock-en-l@lists.wikipedia.org. Any help that you can give would be useful as at this stage the range block is getting collateral damage. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately after more than a month I don't remember the circumstances. However, I would not block a range as a proxy block unless I was substantially certain: I would refer it to the wikiproject on open proxies if I had any reasonable doubt. The most common reason that I block as a "proxy block" is that I have used the proxy myself and confirmed that it is an open proxy. I also see that at least one IP address within the range (220.255.1.36) is blocked by ProcseeBot. I have checked now and can't find any evidence that there is an open proxy there now, so if you want to lift the range block I will have no objection. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I will flick this info back to other admins and see what the general feeling may be. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)