User talk:JBW/Archive 40

RfA
I'm contemplating a run at RfA, and since our paths have crossed more than a couple of times, I would invite your input. If you don't feel comfortable with this, or don't have the time, no offense will be taken. Dennis Brown   (talk)   (contrib)  16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Perry_Stone page recovery
Hi, the log for /Perry_Stone page says you deleted it.

I was wondering if you could please access the deleted copy and email it to me? I did not have a local copy unfortunately and it took me at least an hour to compile that information.

I'd really appreciate your help. I'm new to wikipedia so I'm not sure how this messaging works. If possible you could email — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarn700 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you look all the similar articles?
You wrote "Wikipedia's naming style does not want the capital on "dynasty". Are you sure that you follow this rule? Then you should rename these articles as well: Taungoo Dynasty, Konbaung Dynasty, Yuan Dynasty, Chakri Dynasty, and many more. Otherwise, your words don't make sense. ༆ (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are quite right to point out that there are many other "dynasty" articles which have titles that violate Wikipedia's manual of style, though there are also many that don't, such as Tudor dynasty and Ptolemaic dynasty. You are also quite right to say that those articles that violate the manual of style should really be renamed, but I don't personally attach enough importance to the issue to go round doing the job. You may do it, if you wish. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mormon-related unblock discussion
Hello JBW. I declined the latest unblock request from User:John Foxe and disabled his talk page access. Please check to see if you disagree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I certainly don't disagree. He was wasting everyone's time, and no constructive purpose would have been served by letting him continue. i would have done the same as you have. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ID IP address 72.185.61.209

 * I see that you blocked ID IP address 72.185.61.209 for 48 hours, but that user still refuses on putting that in proper English or giving any links or references to whatever that is and on why that is even related to Lone Wolf and Cub in anyway . And I see that he still doesn't agree with you on the Christoph Waltz page.-68.75.20.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC).


 * You mean IP, don't you?
 * I've reverted the edit and have warned the IP.  Yash  t  101   04:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of reverting and crying out loud on this superuser talk page, wouldnt be more progressive to discuss this matters on discussion page of each subject?
 * stop bulling me! 72.185.61.209 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "bullying" you. On Lone Wolf and Cub there is a discussion on the talk page, and you are alone in thinking that your change is valid. On Christoph Waltz you could have started a discussion if you wanted to, but instead you chose to edit war, and then you criticise others (who have not edit warred) for not starting a discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP address for a week. Let's hope that the editor edits more constructively after the block expires, so that a longer block is not necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegiance Accounting
Hi, My page on Allegiance Accounting was deleted (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) the importance for writing the article was that the firm is nominated for the 2012 Telstra Business Awards and StartupSmart 2012 Awards. --Hasnain (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the article did not mention that. (I don't know how significant being nominated is.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Genii Group
Dear James,

I was hoping that you would unblock the ability to create a Wikipedia page for The Genii Group. Efforts before had been blocked for G11 and A7. I believe that now The Genii Group has been up and running for 6 months and have purchased the Lotus F1 Team, there is sufficient reason to unblock this page. There are many third party sources which are reporting on the international business activities that The Genii Group are involved in. They are Luxembourg's biggest conglomerate and should have a presence on Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Century1988 (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your use of the word "we" indicates that you have a conflict of interest in editing on this subject, and your use of the expression "should have a presence" suggests that you intend to use Wikipedia to publicise or promote the subject. In fact, it looks as though you may well intend to continue exactly the kind of use of Wikipedia that led to several other accounts being blocked, all evidently editing on behalf of your company. Wikipedia does not exist for businesses to use as a free publicity medium, and Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral, third party, point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Luo Zilin Wikipedia Page
The following message appears on the top of the page for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_Zilin

'''This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (December 2011)'''

However, there are 8 references, 2 external links, and more than 30 inline citations.

This is a basic entry, but much more detailed than most other Beauty Contestant entries. I am hoping to have the above comment deleted. I would greatly appreciate if you can advise me how to do.

Regards,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjrshanghai (talk • contribs) 08:36, 18 April 2012‎


 * Looking at the article as a whole, there are plenty of references. However, certain parts of the article are unreferenced or inadequately referenced: for examples the sections Modeling career and 2011 Miss Universe Pageant have no references at all. I should think that that is the reason for the tag. If so, it would probably have been more helpful to have marked the particular sections in questions as unreferenced, rather than tagging the whole article for more inline citations. If you can add suitable references to the parts of the articles that lack references at present then I see no reason why you shouldn't remove the tag, but if you want to be sure that was what was being referred to then you can ask the editor who added the tag to the article, at User talk:Visik. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hersh
Hi. You just speedied Hersh Davis-Nitzberg. You'd better do something about Articles for deletion/Hersh Davis-Nitzberg, I think :) —S MALL  JIM   16:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, ec. Non admin closure done. —S MALL JIM   16:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Help
I am sorry, but I am truly not familiar with the rules and regulations regarding wikipedia. There was someone else who submitted the site and i was told yesterday that I needed to make changes. Did I do something wrong? I felt I did an excellent job really editing it up! Please help, I am truly sorry if I messed up I have never done this before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hershdavis (talk • contribs) 16:04, 18 April 2012‎


 * There really isn't a right way to use Wikipedia to write about yourself. If you satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards then sooner or later it is likely that someone else, uninvolved, will write an independent, third party, account of you. If not, then you don't qualify for a Wikipedia article. If you are interested in voluntarily giving up your time to improve the encyclopaedia, then there are millions of articles that you can contribute to. If, however, you are only interested in telling the world about yourself, then Wikipedia is not the right place for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohio House of Representatives
Changes have been made by someone to fix committee assignments on a number of Ohio politicians in the Ohio House of Representatives. Between Hut 8.5 and Marcus Qwertyus, they have been reverted consistently, leaving many articles dated. Can you please check into this a clean this up? You can refer to http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/JournalText129/HJ-04-17-12.pdf to see that I am correct. Please refer to Hut 8.5 for these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.22.59.92 (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hut 8.5 has never edited the article, so there must be some mistake. I have confirmed what you say about Marcus Qwertyus's edits, which have already been partly reverted, and I have restored some more removed edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should be aware that this IP is a (now-blocked) sockpuppet of banned User:OSUHEY. If you do decide to restore any of their edits please note that one of the reasons OSUHEY was banned is for massive copyright violations.  Hut 8.5  11:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, from what I saw in edit histories, I guessed that this was probably a block-evading IP-sock. However, all I restored was simple verifiable factual information. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

−
 * I am also referring to Craig Newbold, Randy Gardner, Marlene anielski, mike dovilla, Tracy maxwell heard, Louis terhar, Michael henne, Jim butler, Michael ashford, Kirk achieving, courtney combs, Margaret conditt, Ron young, jarrod Martin, Lynn wachtmann, Rex damschroder, Jeffrey McClain, Dorothy liggett pelanda, cliff rosenberger, Andy Thompson, al landis and Casey Kozlowski, as well as the members of the Ohio house of representatives template. All were updated and greatly improved before hut reverted them. If there were problems with the articles, then it would be understandable to revert them. However, I have made sure that each are vast improvements and make wikipedia current. Please look into this.

+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.51.16 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

SERVOS Professional / Server Elite
Thanks for considering this CSD request. I thought it was pretty clearly spam as the the user name of the editor that created the article matches the name of the person who created the product described in the article, it has no refs and is very promotional in tone. Since he has been adding red links to the article in the past few weeks, I have been watching for him to create the actual article to match. I note that you have PRODed it. If the article creator removes the PROD tag I will send it to AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. I do think that the purpose of the article is probably promotion, but I don't see it as so blatantly promotional to justify speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, it was your call to make of course, but I will keep an eye on it and follow it up. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why deleted
Why was the article Asia Food Recipe deleted? I left plenty of information on the talk page that shows its notability. Can you please shed some light for me? --Morning277 (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the information that was posted: --Morning277 (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole tone of the article seemed promotional. However, it was not such blatant advertising as we sometimes get, so I have restored it to allow you a chance to rewrite it in more neutral terms. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have seen that someone attempted to create this article in the past as well it looked completely promotional. I have no connection to the content other than using the site myself. It is the largest recipe upload site in Asia and is more notable than many of the other recipe articles on Wikipedia (I left a list on teh Talk Page of Asia Food Recipe). The article was deleted after you restored it and then undeleted after I left a message with that editor. This has been a nightmare trying to publish this article. Anyways, thank you for letting it remain at the moment. Hopefully it will play out in the end. Any additions to the page that you can make would be greatly appreciated as well. --Morning277 (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notification
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. The thread is Sockpuppetry block on User:Schrodinger's cat is alive. Thank you. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Travelfox Deletion
Now I am upset as it seems that you are going through anything that I have ever created or edited and placing your own opinion regarding the notability. I would ask that you put the TravelFox article back where it was and tag it, but not delete it. I understand that you may not agree with the notability, but that is your opinion, not mine. I do not have an issue with you, I just think that our opinions on notability vary and that others should decide it. Please stop deleting my content as it is not right to retaliate because I disagree with your opinion on Asia Food Recipe. --Morning277 (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2012 (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.


 * Without rendering an opinion on the articles themselves, I will say that sometimes it is appropriate to look at a editors contributions when considering deleting material they authored, and sometimes you can find another problem that needs attention. This isn't stalking or improper when done in this context.  Right now it looks like Asia Food Recipe is being considered for deletion at AFD, which means 7 days for the article to improve while it is getting reviewed by editors from the entire community, rather than a speedy delete, so you have the opportunity to improve and state your case for inclusion.   Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)  18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Morning277. Firstly, what Dennis Brown says is quite true. In view of the fact that you "do not have an issue with" me, your comments at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents are surprising. Also, what evidence do you have that the deletion of TravelFox was retaliation because you disagree with my opinion on Asia Food Recipe? I hope that you assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and would not make such an accusation without evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a big deal. It is logical that right after the comment was left that the content was deleted. Again, I don't have a problem with the edits that you want to make, but both articles were deleted immediately. I worked hard finding sources for both articles and do not like to see work of mine going down without it being given any consideration. The fact that things were deleted so quickly without anyone first contacting me (which is how it should be done - contact the author first) surprises me. I see that you are an experienced editor which tells me that you know this. Hence, why I feel that it was retaliation. If it was not, I believe that you would have come to my talk page (as I did yours) to discuss any issue that you may have had. Either way, like I said, no issues. What's done is done. No hard feelings and hopefully we run into each other again under better circumstances. --Morning277 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I did add additional citations to Asia Food Recipe. Not sure if it's going to help with the process as it looks like it is doomed for now. --Morning277 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Indian names
Just a passing observation based on this diff from July at Shivgopal Krishna. Your summary was "moved Shivgopal to S.Shivgopal Krishna: Move back. No evident reason for moving to less specific name." I'd note that single names are much more frequent in the Indian media than they are in the West (although they're becoming a bit more common with the likes of Rihanna and Adele). So there's a good chance that "less specific name" is in fact the WP:COMMONNAME, although obviously no evidence was provided to support that suspicion. I suspect in this case it's pretty marginal, there's a lingering smell of tenuous notability and COI about the whole article.... FlagSteward (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the exact circumstances that led to that move, before my subsequent move to Shivgopal Krishna. However, there are many people called Shivgopal, and I guess even more called Krishna, so giving both names by way of disambiguation is probably more helpful. I see that the current version of the article says that he is commonly known either simply as Shivgopal or simply as Krishna, which suggests that giving just one or the other name and leaving out the other is not helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio recreation
A couple of days ago, you deleted the article BHP House as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/vhd/heritagevic#detail_places;4690" (after Elekhh had tagged it with a CSD tag). I can't see what the article looked like then, but it has been re-created and, G11 aside, is still a tissue of copyvios. The "Historic Significance" section, for instance, is still copied from the Web page cited in your deletion rationale; the entire "Construction" section is a verbatim lift from the cited source, Goad's Melbourne Architecture; and I suspect that most of the material cited to Architecture in Australia magazine is also copied verbatim. Would you please review the situation and determine whether the re-creation needs to be deleted? Deor (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly some of it was copyvio, and it was also blatantly promotional. I have deleted it again. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Just stopping in to say thanks for all your actions on the Eagles related articles and IP:58.187.75.93. It was a big help. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  21:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nationality and Citizenship
User:Yasht101 asked me to 'clarify' with you as you were an admin. What I said was: ''Nationality and Citizenship are indeed two different things. Eg: Sonia Gandhi is an Italalian national but Indian citizen. Pallonji Mistry is an Indian national but Irish Citizen. MF Hussain was an Indian National who acquired Citizenship of Qatar.''' Please let me know what you think. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Srikanth, I was not getting the link so I had trouble explaining this. See this:   Yash  t  101   08:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * However, Nationality, is normally dependent on birth and that of parents. Citizenship depends again on birth and/or what is acquired. Eg: Pallonji Mistry was born to Indian Shapoorji Mistry in India, thus making him an Indian national, however he acquired Irish citizenship in 2003. Hope it clarifies. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was always clear. When that IP left the message, their edits were reverted thrice. And they were continuing it. They also made a personal attack using the talk page. I was always clear. I just wanted to tell them that there is nothing wrong in keeping both.  Yash  t  101   08:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of SERVOS Professional / Server Elite for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SERVOS Professional / Server Elite 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/SERVOS Professional / Server Elite 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 high-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. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Tranquillo family tree
About the Tranquillo family tree posting: I don't belong to the Tranquillo Family, therefore I was not storing my own family's genealogical information when I posted the Tranquillo family tree, and quite frankly, even tough I understand the reason of the speedy deletion, I find the tone of your comment: "but if what you wish to do is store your own family's genealogical information, then you would be better off using a social networking site", surprisingly unprofessional coming from a Wiki Administrator. The genealogy that I was posting it is part of a much bigger research on the noble families of the "Regno delle due Sicilie" and I was sharing it with the people of south of Italy and a group of Historians and that are writing about this not well known part of the history of southern Italy. Honestly I'm not surprised that the matter is not well understood in the on the en.wiki The deletion of the speedy deletion notices was accidental, I didn't know what those strings were and I thougt tha was a copy and paste mistake, sorry about that and thanks for let me notice my mistake. Tanks for the good work that you are doing for the web community Have a nice day, Giro Del Tondo — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiroDelTondo (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) You say that you were not storing your own genealogical information, and regard my comment about doing so as "unprofessional". The reason I thought that was the case is that, in the first version of the article that you posted (in November 2011), you included entries for "Mom", "My brother Joe", "My little siSter", "Mom", "Dad", and "me!" Perhaps you can imagine why that gave me the impression that your own family was involved. I was, quite simply, believing what you said.
 * 2) The point about use of Wikipedia as a free web host is just as valid if you were doing it to share with "the people of south of Italy and a group of Historians ... that are writing about this" as if you were doing it for your personal use or for your own family. Wikipedia does not exist to act as a free web host for groups doing research. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand the point and the value of Wikipedia and that is the way I spending time posting the results of my research, I realized that posting the genealogy by itself without the whole article it was a mistake because it makes hard to understand the meaning of it, but I'm a beginner on Wiki and I'm learning from my mistakes. Thanks again for finding the time to reply to me. GiroDelTondo (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You can't be serious! "Mom", "My brother Joe", "My little siSter"!?! That is the genealogy tree of the "Baroni Tranquillo di Roccangitola", A noble family from Calabria that goes back to the 1500's, those are probably sample entries from the template that I used, I Think that I  posted accidentally when I was trying to get familiar with the template and apologize for that mistake.
 * Certainly I can be serious. Before you posted the above, I had guessed they might be sample entries from a template, but at the time I posted to your talk page I had no reason to think that. You are probably not aware of the fact, but we do get thousands of people using Wikipedia to post their own vanity pages, test pages where they post nonsense just to try to out editing Wikipedia, pages to show off to their friends, pages to store draft versions of stuff for their school work, their own research, social network type pages and so on and so on. I had no way at all of knowing you weren't doing that, and including the sort of content I have quoted gave the impression that you were. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So long, thanks again and keep up the good work! GiroDelTondo (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Understood!

Superman6789
Hi James, do you think shutting off Superman6789's talk page access is necessary? He is using his talk page for the wrong purpose while he is blocked; and his actions continue to constitute block evasion. B music  ian  14:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since he was abusing talk page privileges, I've blanked the talk page and replaced it with a sock template, via WP:DENY. Feel free to revert and correct me if this was improper.   Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)  15:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I might have left the message explaining why talk page access was removed, as he probably hasn't seen it. However, following WP:DENY even for that might be better. Other than that, I think what you did was fine, and I won't interfere with it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My thinking that was because this was a sockpuppet case, not a vandalism case, instructions weren't needed as they should apply for unblock with the master, not the sock. Or should I normally reserve complete blanking only for confirmed socks?   Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)  15:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, took me a minute, but I get your point. It does seem a 50/50 matter, but I probably shouldn't have deleted your comment simply because you are the admin who made the block, at least not until a reasonable period of time had passed that the editor had a chance to read it.  Unlikely that he would have, but that isn't the point.  Feel free to revert that section.  Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)  15:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that, as a matter of courtesy, we should normally explain to editors the reasons why they are being restricted. And yes, I do think we should extend such courtesy even to people we have blocked. I make exceptions in certain circumstances: unambiguous intentional trolling is usually better reverted and ignored, for example. However, in this case it looks to me as though the editor may genuinely not know what has been wrong with his/her recent talk page editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Question
If you are around, I'm very tempted to archive this ANI simply because Andy says he won't be around for 24 hours. I don't see a specific policy on this, but common sense would seem to say you shouldn't report, cause a stir, then leave. You thoughts? Dennis Brown  &reg; &copy; 22:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I just did it. Was inappropriate for him to do this.   Dennis Brown   &reg; &copy; 22:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Bishop Wordsworth's School
After your major editing of the above I trust you are working your way round other schools who are exhibiting similar information, see Westminster School for example. If you are not can you please explain why you have chosen to edit only BWS. Richard Avery (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I deal with things like this if and when I come across them. I could choose to systematically go round checking articles on schools. However, there are thousands of other, equally useful, things that I could do, and I cannot do all of them. That does not happen to be one of the things that I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, I see. I guess this might explain why we have inconsistencies between similar articles. no systematic editing just wandering around. OK. Thanks for answering my query. Richard Avery (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some things I systematically check, but cleaning up school articles happens not to be one of them. I came across that article in the course of checking for something else, and saw the need for a bit of cleaning up. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Artists Bill of Rights
Sir,

Disappointed is how I feel right now, before I have even the chance to complete the page and make it 'reference' and not 'promotion' it has been deleted.

To creative professionals around the world, the Artists Bill of Rights Campaigns have prevented Copyright abuse, changed legislation (The Stop43 Campaign led to changes to the UK Digital Economy Bill) and I was in the process of editing the content I copied from the website to Wikipedia to ensure it would be an 'encyclopaedic' entry and would not a promotional entry.

The information would have given the details of why and when it started, how it has changed legislation, the organisations around the world that support it, the campaigns that changed the mindset of many Corporate Entities etc.

It is not a 'person', it is not a 'company', it is a fluid Organisation of like minded professionals that have been in the Creative Industries for years that get together to campaign for peoples rights... such as the rights of Wikipedia when Governments make silly proposals to change Copyright Law.

There were NO copright issues on the website, all the content would have been verifiable by links and external reference sources.

regards

DemonLee (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There certainly were copyright issues, as I was able very easily to find substantial chunks of the text of the article on various other web pages. As for the suggestion that it "would have" become non-promotional, it was very heavily promotional at the time, but in any case a page which infringes copyright can't be kept, promotional or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed
Hi JamesBWatson. I noticed that you seemed to be online and wanted to ask your advice. I've just encountered User:Talebs168‎, whose entire edit history consists of many hundreds of edits to their own talkpage - in Finnish, and devoted (as far as I can tell, my Finnish isn't great...) to discussing films and meetups with their friends. I've placed uw-socialnetwork and uw-english messages on their talkpage, to no effect (I'm not sure if the messages have been ignored or misunderstood). It's also possible that this account has multiple users; a few sentences suggest that both sides of the conversation are being carried out by the same editor.

My question is: do we have a venue in which to report this? It's not technically vandalism or spam, so I've refrained from visiting AIV, and it doesn't seem severe enough to report to ANI... any suggestions? (help from stalkers welcome too!) Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the language is Filipino, not Finnish. (Not that it makes any difference.) I have blocked the account. To answer your question, I suppose that you could have reported this to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, I find that a most unhelpful venue, with threads often being taken up with endless rants from editors who, whether intentionally or not, are just obstructive, and little being achieved. On the whole, I think what you did probably has as good a chance of being useful as anything else: find an admin who is online and ask for help. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Filipino, eh? That would explain why Google did such a poor job of translation... Thanks for your help. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Air Hawke's Bay
Thanks for the CSD, that was very very speedy deletion! - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion of Craig Graham
Hello JamesBWatson. I'm writing this to ask for your assistance with the deletion of the above mentioned article. An AFD was in progress on this work at the time you deleted it, under G7, presumably because it had been blanked. However, I'm querying because if it was blanked, removing the AFD template from the article counts as vandalism I believe - in which case, it should have been reverted and the AFD allowed to continue. Would you mind taking a look at the article history please, and seeing your way clear to undeleting the article, reverting the vandalism back to the AFD template being on the page, and allowing the discussion (which was leaning to Keep or Userfy) to continue please? The AFD was here. Thank you. MarkBurberry32 &#124; talk 12:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I didn't see the AfD template: thanks for pointing it out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Indian presidential election, 2012
The article Indian presidential election, 2012  is very short and contains only one line.If you can please intervene to remedy this problem.Suri 100 (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the subject. Do you? If so, you can improve it, and if not, why not just leave it? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article does not contain anything substantive ,it is just saying that the presidential election will be held on July 2012.I just only know that the presidential elections will be conducted this year by reading newspaper and nothing else so I am sorry to state that I will not be able to do anything to improve this article.Suri 100 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He tried to CSD it under A1, and I declined. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashes Remain
You deleted Ashes Remain, an article which when created, I provided with sources such as to the |official site and Facebook. True, I may have not had enough, but they did meet most of the criteria at WP:BAND. I am requesting that you userfy this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qxukhgiels56 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find any mention of facebook in any version of the article, and in any case facebook is not a reliable source. There was a link to the band's own site, but that is not an independent source. I have userfied the article, and you will now find it at User:Qxukhgiels56/Ashes Remain, but I hope you understand that userfication is a short-term measure to allow the article to be improved, not a long-term way of keeping a page that is unsuitable as an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit war with a user you've dealt with before... please help
I am leaving you this message because I am involved in a rather contentious edit war with a rather rude user that you've dealt with in the past and I'm admittedly worn out and beginning to sound a bit rude myself. The dispute is over the reliability of a little known fanzine over blabbermouth.net. If you could join the discussion and contribute to a resolution, that would be great. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I told Williamsburgland numerous times that Slayer is not just “a little known fanzine”, which they ignored as every other statement of mine except those that might be uncivil. And they aren’t just “beginning” to become “a bit” rude. --217 /83 01:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

James, you should note that the user is WP:CANVASSing. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've never had to do this before I did not keep that as neutral I should have, but frankly neither did H by referring to the discussion as crap, and I have no reason to assume James will side with me or him, only that he's interacted with this person before. It sure is swell of you to run all over wikipedia to advocate for him though.--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to do the right thing. You made an invalid report, I had to point that out. You gave someone an edit warring warning when in fact you were edit warring with them, I had to give you the same warning. Seriously, if you're right about the actual issue then you needn't keep derailing all the time. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Williamsburgland, you have written "I am involved in a rather contentious edit war" on an admininstrator's talk page, and asked the administrator to take action on the edit war which you say you are involved in. The outcome is exactly what you could reasonably have expected it to be: both of you are blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I see that you also made a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring on the same edit war which you said you were involved in. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

IP Block
Hi - just a quick note that I've also added that website to the spamblacklist so they shouldn't be bothering us in the future. It also seems like this editor has been spamming over 3+ different IPs over those three months, and it appears that this spammer only got assigned that dynamic IP recently (Apr 17). From that perspective 3 months block may be too long (in fact my 1 week may have been too long). Your call though... 7 09:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are spam links to the same site from that IP address going back to February, though the intensity of spamming increased dramatically on 17 April. A couple of examples: and . However, if the site is now blacklisted there is probably no harm in reducing the block length, if you want to. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I will reduce the block length myself, as there have been a few constructive edits from this IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  7  11:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

James
i'll make a new Paragon Plaza but please update it if it has no pictures or no detail. please help me for edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrappyUser12 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ...please, read WP:SPAM and WP:COPYRIGHT if you insist on recreating that spammy copyvio -- B  music  ian  11:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was completely unsuitable. I strongly recommend that, instead of re-creating it now, you get more experience of editing Wikipedia by making small changes to existing articles. That way, you can gradually learn how Wikipedia works, what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable. After a while you will have enough understanding to be able to create good new articles, which won't be deleted. My experience is that editors who work that way have a much better chance of having a successful time here than those who, like you, dive straight into creating articles without experience. That very often leads to repeated deletions, and the editor experiencing a lot of frustration, and eventually leaving. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

VCV
Will you please block so I don't have to bother them at AIV? It's the same vandal we've been dealing with adding nonsense fake cast lists, and I've been cleaning up their garbage intermittently all night. Cheers :> Doc   talk  13:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I thought he would drop the IP after my last warning, but he did not. He was being "bold" I guess? ;P There's no question at all for me that this is the same user, based on the behavior and targets. Cheers :> Doc   talk  13:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Bacon142
They posted another unblock request - letting you know since you were interested in it. Max Semenik (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Williamsburgland
Your personal attention is requested here: User_talk:Williamsburgland. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All set. Trying to work on compromise with other user, would love to just put this behind me.--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

AFD
Hey, I just saw that you commented on the AFD Articles for deletion/Politics of Virtual Realities. While I was using Huggle, I noticed User:TheHunter10/PSCI 307 (Politics of Virtual Realities). I contacted various contributors and discovered they are all new editors, but potentially beneficial contributors so I created User:Ryan Vesey/New editors to try to discuss the issue with all of them at once in one place. Can you take a look at the page and give me some advice on things I should add or change before discussion starts? Thanks, Ryan Vesey Review me!  20:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is very unfortunate timing, Ryan. I have read this message just as I am about to go offline. I will try to remember to think about this tomorrow. However, I will just mention two things. First, I saw your attempts to help, and I like what you are doing. Second, I saw that this involves a group of potentially helpful contributors who obviously don't realise how Wikipedia works, and that is why I did not speedily delete User:TheHunter10/PSCI 307 (Politics of Virtual Realities). I am sure it qualifies for speedy deletion, but I didn't want to discourage them even more than was inevitable. As I said, I will try to remember to think about your request again tomorrow. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ryan Vesey Review me!  20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Need Help.
Hello, A good afternoon to you. Some newcomers coming from temples are tying to edit materials in a poor way i.e they're removing contents without giving reasons and also adding unsocial contents in an article viz. Uttar Pradesh. This vandalizing can be seen on articles talk page. Is there any way to stop adding unnecessary things on article.pls help. Thank youRpaigu 09:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpaigu (talk • contribs)

Lada
Hi, sorry, but the IP's edit on Lada doesn't seem to be vandalism - see here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WHY DO I KEEP GETTING BLOCKED?
Several times today I've found myself logged off and blocked from editing. I get the message:


 * Editing from 91.85.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by JamesBWatson for the following reason(s):


 * Disruptive editing


 * This block has been set to expire: 20:21, 26 April 2012.

This must be wrong. If I'm accused of disruptive editing, why is there no message on my talk page. And if I'm blocked, how am I able to log in again and carry on editing, until at some indertiminate time later I get chucked out again. Please sort this out - I'm getting thoroughly pissed off. (And I hope that I don't get blocked when I now press "Save page" and have to start all over again!)Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And I did get blocked !!!!!! Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And again !!!!! Emeraude (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That IP range has been blocked from anonymous editing, which should not have any effect on you when you are logged in to your account. If you are having the kind of problems you describe, it is no doubt due to some sort of problems with the Wikipedia servers. I too have been having problems from time to time today, sometimes being logged out for no apparent reason and having to log in again, and sometimes simply finding that I can't edit a page, for no apparent reason. I don't think that the being automatically logged out has any connection with the range block: it's just that when you are trying to edit without being logged in, the range block comes into effect. However, I have lifted the block on the IP range. I doubt that it will help you much, but it's the best I can offer. I'm afraid it's probably just a matter of waiting for the server problem to be put right. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That hasn't solved it - I got logged off twice between my talk page and here! So it must be a server problem then. Glad I'm not the only one suffering. (Well, not "glad" - sounds like I'm wishing misfortune on others - but you know what I mean.) 91.85.44.221 (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And again when posting the above! Emeraude (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Eyes
Needed here I fancy. 92.51.240.129 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am so sorry, so terribly sorry. 31.6.53.229 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

speedy deletion
Hi I am new to this but i have a great capacity to make a useful and intelligent contribution to wikipedia being an active researcher myself. I must say im alarmed at the speedy deletion mainly becuase of the absence of a right to be heard in ones own defence but thats the lawyer in me. The discussion was closed before i could respond to the various comments. i appreciated the comments related to the content of the article, i thought these were constructive. The speedy deletion seesm to have ended all discussion prematurely. I can accept the deletion and i can come back with a well referenced article on non violent direct action in australia, but id be disinclined to put a lot of work into a longer piece when the editing (deleting!) process seems so arbitrary.

I also need to question what is promotional and what is referencing and providing available opportunities for readers to locate the source.

I take it that your objection was to my references having hyperlinks in them that led back to in one case a site where the book cited could be purchased. Can you answer me that if this hyperlinking were not present, would it have not been deemed promotional?/ in the case of another reference it hyperlinked to a university site where the artcile mentioned could be downloaded for free, is this also unacceptable? (id had thought it would be good practice to offer that to readers) is it also not acceptable to hyperlink to the website of an organisation that is mentioned?

My other concern is that due to the speedy deletion i was unable to let the discussion page know that in fact i have a vast library of references that i could use to support my claim that NEFA has in fact been one of the most sucessful and prominent proponents of NVDA, it was not just a glib claim.

I see that it was mistake to give it a separate title when it was so small and i have leant from that

To illustrate my intellectual bona fides on this topic (NVDA) please see the post i left on the now defunct deltion discussion page below:.

Ok i may be new to writing for wikipedia but im not new to writing or to the subject of non violent direct action in Australia. Judging by the very small entry on NVDA in the UK above it i had considered it made sense to make a start about Australia, which may invite others to add and edit. My contribution is small because i wanted to provide a referenced contribution not simply let fly with a long historic summary of NVDA in Australia including the promiinent role of NEFA. I agree that its important to set an historical context from terrania Ck, through Franklin and daintree to NEFA and beyond (still wild still threatened and anti-csg lock the gate) and i can in time do this. But i can also support my statement that NEFA have been one of the most successful proponents of NVDA, but as i said it will take some time to develop it in a properly referenced format. But the idea that the article is about soem small or insignificant aspect of NVDA in Australia only revelas the ignorance that underlies the need for an article on this topic, to illustrate my point: A short literature review of published sources that discuss NEFA includes the following published sources. In partiualr the Gleeson and Bonyhady books discuss the very close links between the downfall of the greiner led government in NSW and NEFA's old growth forest campaign against that government. Books/ book chapters Bonyhady Tim, Places Worth Keeping, Conservationists, Politics and Law, Allen and Unwin, Sydney 1993

Cohen Ian Green Fire Angus and Robertson Sydney, 1996

Ricketts A, “Theatre of Protest: The Magnifying Effects of Theatre in Direct Action”, Journal of Australian Studies, Vol 89 2006, pp 77-90

Ricketts A, "Om Gaia Dudes, 'The North East Forest Alliance Old Growth Forest Campaign" in Wison H (ed) Belonging in the Rainbow Region, Southern Cross University Press, Lismore 2003,

Rogers N, (ed) Green Paradigms, Southern Cross University Press, Lismore, 1996

Gleeson, Michael, An Act Of Corruption? Nick Greiner's Years In Power And His Unorthodox Demise

Ricketts A The Activists Handbook Zed Books London 2012.

Academic journals Ricketts Aidan, "The Forest Protest Protocol: an outbreak of participatory democracy", (2000) Vol 25, no 2, Alternative Law Journal, p68

Ricketts Aidan and Rogers Nicole, "Third-party Rights in NSW Environmental Legislation: the backlash" (1999) Vol 16, no 2, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, p157

Woolf Bruce, Corkill v Forestry Commission of New South Wales , (1992) 9 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 1

Post graduate theses Rogers Nicole If You Go Down To The Woods Today: Law Order and Green Extremists, unpublished masters thesis, Wollongong University 1994

Parkes Andrew Environmental Protest Songs of North East New South Wales 1979- 1999; unpublished honours thesis, Southern Cross University 2000

Feature articles popular press Hawley, J Tree Amigos: Sydney Morning Herald, Good Weekend Magazine feature article, June 28/9 2003

Court cases Corkill V Forestry Commission of New South Wales no 1 (1990) 71 LGRA 116 Corkill v Forestry Commission New South Wales no 2 (1991 73 LGRA 126 Corkill v Hope (1991) 74 LGRA 33 Forestry Commission New South Wales V Aimann & ors (unrep SC New South Wales 18 June 1993)

Reports Independent Commission against Corruption, Report on the Investigation into the Metherell Resignation and Appointment, Sydney 1992.

Multi media Video Happ S, Logging under Martial Law, Feral Video Productions 1992 Happ S, Visions of Killiekrankie, Feral Video Productions 1992 Happ S, Forestry Siege, Feral Video Productions 1993 Happ S, NEFA goes to Sydney, Feral Video Productions 1993

Murray Michael, "Going Tribal, Light Source Films, Byron Bay, 1995

Music CDs Various artists (1999) Lock On: Songs to Save Australia’s Forests. Compilation album. Lismore: Raw Power Productions Various artists (1997) MO. Compilation album. Lismore: Rumple Records

If the consensus is that the initial entry on NVDA in Australia has to go because its too short well that is as it may be. I would prefer to build the information incrementally and i thought collaboratively but if what people prefer is that i go away and write a full article and just drop it on wikipedia all fully fledged and fully referenced i can do that too. Im just learning the ropes here and can make a positive contribution. Activ9 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Activ9 (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole article was written in a way that read like an attempt to persuade us that the "North East Forest Alliance" was a great, successful, and worthwhile cause. If you honestly did not think that you were writing an article that did that, then I can only assume that you are so closely involved in the organisation that you are unable to stand back and see how your writing will look from the perspective of an uninvolved outsider. It can be difficult to see a subject one has a close connection to from a detached point of view, which is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourage us from writing on subjects we have a close personal connection to. Hyperlinks had nothing to do with it. Over and again you used the word "successful", and you also used words such as "significant". It may be that the organisation is successful and significant, but writing an article the whole purpose of which seems to be to emphasise those features is unacceptable: it is promotional writing, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. In addition to this, your editing as a whole has clearly been aimed at promoting a particular point of view concerning "activism". To give just one small example, you wrote "There is also a need to distinguish digital activism that is part of general social movement campaigning from the 'hacktivism' which is a more direct use of the medium to inflict harm on target sites." What there "is a need" to do is a matter of opinion, and you were clearly writing to promote an opinion as to what distinctions are important. Then there are your endless additions of links concerning a book to someone called Ricketts, which features in a clear majority of your edits to articles. It looks very much as though you think this is a good book, and that you want to use Wikipedia to call more peoples' attention to it. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Your continual plugging of that book also raises the question of whether you are the author of it, or have some connection with him. If so, then we are back to the conflict of interest issue. One last point: it is generally unwise to post such long messages as you have done above. Many Wikipedia editors, who have other things to do outside Wikipedia, will simply not read them, and if they do read them, your essential points are in danger of being lost in the mass of details. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * excellent well i do thank you for taking the time to explain and give me more detailed feedback. Its true that im used to writing in academic journals where arguments are made and supported by references, but as you are suggesting in an encyclopedic context advancing arguments is not sought after. I would like to make a contribution to a an article on non violent direct action in australia, and it would cover environmental activism from 1970's to present and NEFA would feature strongly becuase they should empirically, (as you can see from the biblio above, im not just pissing in the wind about NEFA, theres a whole university library archive devoted to NEFA) but i will take more care to write in a neutral tone. Im still a little uncertain about whether its safe to spend much time on a wikiped contribution though becuase the deletion process is far more arbitrary even than academic journal editors where there is at least a transparent process in place.  Thanks again for responding and giving me more idea of why the deletion occurred. All the best.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.35.159 (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wheelock Family Theatre
I saw that there was activity on the Wheelock College talk page (Wheelock is on my agenda for a complete over haul so that it conforms to university/college standards) and it directed me to the speedy deletion of the Wheelock Family Theatre. I am writing to let you know that I am hoping to do this by June and had already planned on having a section about the Wheelock Family Theatre. I believe the it is well known enough to warrant its own page but I am not willing/able to put in the proper research to do it myself, so I think that a re-direct to the section in the Wheelock College page would be a good solution. I just wanted to get your opinion on it. Thevandaley (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohio politicians
Regardless of what situation is going on, User Hut8.5 has reverted and deleted informative articles that seemingly would help Ohio voters. Ohio House of Representatives has been reverted to be now incorrect and dated; the Template:Members of the Ohio House of Representatives has been reverted. Furthermore, articles for House members Ron Gerberry, Gary Scherer, and Matt Lynch have been removed. This is unacceptable. 174.252.199.183 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, Bob Peterson (Ohio politician has been reverted as well, and is now dated and incorrect. Virtually, it is a lesser article.  Please refer to www.house.state.oh.us for verification.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.199.183 (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request on a range
James, can you please look at User talk:58.7.177.161? It's above my pay grade. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops - just came here to mention the same. I see you and Fastily have both blocked that range a number of times so I am hesitant to unblock, but maybe you can take a look.  7  06:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * James, 7, I have no opinion, really, on whether the user should be unblocked or not: I was only pointing your attention to the request. Thanks for your response, Drmies (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You have deleted our company
Without knowing your actual name as we see that your name is not actually James Watson it is difficult to address you correctly. Please therefore accept this as Dear Sir/Madam

On the 25th April 2012 you have deleted the entry against our company name. We have been noted on Wikipedia for many years and are not attempting to spam or overly promote our company, simply we had an entry which was quite matter of fact. We have not named our company in this post but looking at your history of actions you should be easily able to identify who we are.

The majority of our competitors have entries on Wikipedia so it seems odd that those entries remain and yet ours has been deleted.

We would therefore request that you reinstate our entry and perhaps at least provide some background as to why it was deleted in the first instance.

Look forward to seeing everything back to normal.

All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Energypricing123 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what you seem to think, I have no way at all of knowing what article you are referring to. (Even if I assume that the deletion took place this year, I would have to search through all of the 3578 administrative actions I have done so far this year, to look for deletions of articles about companies. I don't know how many I would find, but however many it turned out to be, how on earth do you think I would know which one you were referring to?) You ask me to "provide some background" about why it was deleted, but you have the advantage over me there: presumably you know can see the deletion log entry, so you can see at least a brief summary of the reason for the deletion, whereas I know nothing at all about it. However, Wikipedia does not exist to serve the business interests of companies. As for your competitors, it may be that their articles lack the faults that led to yours being deleted or it may be that their article are no better, and should be deleted too. Obviously, I have no way of knowing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sir/Madam

In my earlier post I referred to the fact that you deleted the entry on the 25th April 2012. This is what the log of deleted items suggests and it appeared that this was your only deletion on that day. In any event our company name is Energylinx and I did not include that earlier due to the fact that our request to re-insert was in no way a desire to promote our company in any way. As a business you would be able to find considerable coverage both press and online. We are also noted on many other Wikipedia pages due to the unique services we provide to the European energy industry.

Reading the Wikipedia guidelines, it would appear that we do actually conform with the standards set and the writer of the article on our company together with the previous editors of the article did so with knowledge of our very notable position in the UK energy industry where we provide very unique services plus our customer facing platforms which offer various services to the consumer.

Whilst from a marketing viewpoint we have stood back from attempting to publicise ourselves using the likes of Wikipedia it does appear that we are being penalised by this immediate deletion without any reference to us.

We do very request that you consider our request to have the article reinstated and if you wish we can then entirely update this, with your direct guidance and input if you are in position to provide both an expert view on our industry in terms of what constitutes notable together with the guidelines from Wikipedia itself.

I am happy to provide a direct line of communication separate to this public board if you wish?

Energypricing123 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What was the exact name of the article? That would make finding it much easier. Calabe1992 22:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Energylinx. They said so above (but ironically, without linx...) Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, so a non-notable company. Just because a company exists doesn't mean that it's worthy of an encyclopedia article.  Just because a "competitor" article exists, doesn't mean that that article should remain either.  The fact that you're here pushing for your company article to be reinstated concerns me greatly.  The article was fluff - promotional in nature, with no hint of notability.  There was no way for it to remain ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly where an article was written by someone with no connection to me many years ago and has subsequently been editing by a few people and when all that was said was factual, then simply because I query the fact that this factual non promotional item which does relate to a company I work for it is then treated as promotional in nature and as a result deleted with no right of appeal. That somewhere does not appear to be very fair especially when looking at Wikipedia all the competitors to that organisation have entries and yet they are providing much less services to the industry and consumer. I could fully understand the policy if say I had written somthing to promote said organisation but in reality I was simply querying its deletion and requesting its re-inclusion?

Energypricing123 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not point us in the direction of some of the "competitors" - I'd be happy to see if they should also be removed as advertising as well. This is not a business directory, it's an encyclopedia.  Please note...all the blue words are links to the appropriate policies.  I've provided quite a few, and expect by now that you have read them ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Those that fall into this category would include: uSwitch, EnergyHelpline, UKPower, Beathatquote.com to name but a few. I would not have thought that they were promoting themselves either but they are in the same market, doing similar things. Very interested in your thoughts? Energypricing123 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I have already nominated one of them for community discussion for deletion ... easy-peasy ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason as to why just one, or was that prior to this chain, and I guess I should ask why did the article this thread start from just get deleted without reference whereas at least the one, whoever it is, appears to be forming part of a discussion - apologies in advance if I do not understand the process as I just became a member today when I noticed the article in question had been deleted. Energypricing123 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Some are more brutal than others. The brutal ones get speedied. (by the way: you're proving why our WP:COI guidelines exist - you're fighting too hard for an article that is too close to you) ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 00:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

genuinely not - simply trying to understand processes and differences in rules. My background is regulation not promotion I have no interest in promoting anything just want to understand background, rules, fairness and etc.

Energypricing123 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll note the deletion discussion I'm speaking of already has someone saying it probably should have been speedied - in this case, I AFD'd it to show you the WP:DELETE process ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 00:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Courtesy notification: I answered the help request at User talk:Energypricing123; please review my post, correct any mistakes I made, and add anything I should have covered. Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Various things you say, such as repeated references to your "competitors", and "we are being penalised by this immediate deletion", make it clear that your concern here is to get Wikipedia to work in a way which would be more beneficial to your company. That means that you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote your company: you may prefer a different word to "promote", but whatever form of words you sue, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy.
 * 2) The article was full of such writing as "As an energy comparator Energylinx provides a transparent impartial service" and so on and so on. If you honestly don't see that as promotional language, then I can only assume that you are so closely involved in the subject that you can't stand back and see how writing about it would look from the detached perspective of an outsider. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflcit of interest guidleines discourage editing on a subject you have a close connection with.
 * 3) Whether the companies ("competitors" as you prefer to call them) are "providing much less services" would probably be relevant to whether they should be included in a business directory, but it is utterly irrelevant to whether they should be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's notability criteria are not based on what "services" a subject provides, if any.
 * 4) Unfortunately there are many unsuitable articles on Wikipedia, some of which go unnoticed for years among the 3 million plus articles we have. The existence of some of them does not justify the existence of others. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User K.slauter
Hi, I would be most grateful if you could take a look at the above account, which you blocked back in December. It is ever more clear that this is a single-purpose attack account which exists solely to add negative details to the B&Q article. They never edit any other article, and the only edits which they ever make to B&Q are clearly designed to make the company look bad. They also show no real desire to engage with the article talk page, where concerns about their editing have been voiced a number of times, and *never* use edit summaries,.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. What you say is exactly true, and the account is now indefinitely blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked out this same editor last night after the article was mentioned at ANI and had similar concerns but wasn't ready to take any action at that time as I wasn't confident of what the proper reaction should be. Their contribs are very focused and quite pointy, to say the least.  Dennis Brown    2&cent;   &copy;  14:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Broken block notice?
I didn't want to mess with it because I'm not an admin, but just wanted to let you know that you misspelled subst on the block notice you placed on User talk:K.slauter, which rendered it as a redlink instead of a block notice. - SudoGhost 14:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really should always proof read my edits. Usually I do, but from time to time I let one slip. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reporting an editor
Hello JamesBWatson,

Following the block of User:Vinujadhav, you might want to investigate these users as well - User:Harshal8feb and User:Saddaadda. This article has been deleted now third time in a row, and it has been once again created/uploaded.Fanofbollywood (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A complete duck sockpuppet account. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * True. Anyway, I guess this guy/these guys is/are not in mood to stop, another possible sockpuppet User:2Vinja, and the same article is once again uploaded under a different name - MoviezAdda.com.Fanofbollywood (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Blocked. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello James, it's about another user this time. I am watching this guy continuously spamming various articles and every time his edits have something or the other to do with this site. In my further investigation I found that some of the articles that he has created or is creating are interconnected, which he is using as cross references. He also recently removed a deletion tag from this article.Fanofbollywood (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You might also want to check this, this, and this. The irony with the later is that the site of so called conglomerate doesn't even exist.Fanofbollywood (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted some of the editor's most spammy and/or copyright infringing contributions, and put a PROD on Mars Group. (Actually, I think that article qualifies for speedy deletion, as there is no plausible claim of significance.) I have also warned the editor. Feel free to contact me again about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up - the article creator removed the PROD tag and COI tag from Mars Group with a somewhat misleading edit summary. I have nominated the article for AfD. --bonadea contributions talk 19:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

To me this account seems a possible sockpuppet of User:Amanrajveer. The account was created a few minutes back and the first edit was to contest an AfD? And now he is going all guns blazing on various other articles, contesting deletions and un-deletions. Seems highly suspicious to me. Fanofbollywood (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, to me, too. They have denied having any connection to Bollywood Xplorer but their editing behaviour and the way they argue doesn't seem uninvolved at all. And then Amanrajveer coincidentally found the AfD that CrazyAboutBollywood started and has argued in exactly the same manner as CAB... it could be meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry but I think a SPI would not be unwarranted at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 07:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (To be precise, the account's first edit was to contest a speedy deletion, not an AfD.) I have looked at the editing history of the two accounts carefully, and there is no doubt that they are the same person. In addition to other evidence, their similar idiosyncratic use of English is striking. I have blocked the new account indefinitely, and the old one for three days. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Dinarvand n
Just noticed the new user in the logs, via outreach. The user page seems a bit excessively large. The content isn't particularly problematic, although it appears to bump up against what wp:userpage says should be avoided, if only by the sheer volume of the text. Perhaps this isn't a problem and I wasn't ready to take it to a larger audience, but your guidance on how to deal with this situation would be appreciated. Dennis Brown   2&cent;   &copy;  15:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems to be outside the range of what user pages are supposed to be for. Theoretically it could be a first step towards using the material to edit an article, but the fact that the editor has no other edits makes it look more like using Wikipedia as a free web host. I suppose it is probably a copyvio of this translation, so you could speedily delete it, though that seems like something of a technicality, as the original text is not copyright, and the translation is widely republished, as a Google search shows. I would be inclined to give the user a friendly message, explaining that Wikpedia is an encyclopaedia, not a provider of free storage for material for their own use and unrelated to editing the encyclopaedia. Then I would keep an eye on their editing for a little while. If problems continue, time to think again about possible action, otherwise move on and forget it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you and I have the same impression. It shouldn't be ignored, but it doesn't need a hammer.  Good to know my first instinct was correct.   Dennis Brown    2&cent;   &copy;  16:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

undeletion request for the article Bollywood Xplorer
Dear Mr. Watson

A wiki article Bollywood Xplorer has been deleted by you. I request you to Please undelete it.This wiki article has written from neutral point of view. If any cause is present i will try to improve the article. please undelete it and i will try to improve. this article is about a news and imformation website related to indian film industry.

I am a regular wiki contributor and learning to contribute to the wikipedia. I respect your suggestion and requesting you to please undelete the Article and let me know what to improve in it. --Aman Rajveer 19:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanrajveer (talk • contribs)

--Aman Rajveer 19:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of List of University of Nottingham Students' Union societies
Hi there. I noticed you deleted List of University of Nottingham Students' Union societies without specifying a reason. Since I noticed other deletions without a reason specified, I wanted to remind you that you should always fill out the "reason" field when deleting a page so that others can understand why the page in question was removed. Regards  So Why  20:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. Normally if, as in this case, a page has a speedy deletion tag on it, the reason is automatically added. I have no idea why that didn't happen this time, but I have gone back and re-deleted it to add the reason to the log. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback lauragorny
I answered on my talk page. I think that's what you requested. thanks! laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by 09:21, 30 April 2012‎ (talk • contribs) Lauragorny
 * Seen. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock of User:JHerbertMunster sock
I strongly suggest that you reconsider your unblock of User:Robert B Colton; this user has been on a rampage, which has caused him to create nearly a dozen sockpuppets and one article (General Joseph Colton) to be full-protected for a while. I am quite sure that username is not his real name but is only a play off of said full-protected article. --MuZemike 19:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have my doubts. However, how much harm is likely to come from giving a bit of ROPE? If the user really is willing to reform then we gain a useful editor. If not, we block again, and this time, with the rope already used up, we don't unblock. I have seen similar unblocks go in either of those two directions in the past: we either gain a lot, or we lose very little. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't personally fathom ROPE because of the proliferation of socks, myself. OFFER maybe ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In any case, said article is going to remain full-protected and other restrictions in place. If he as much as farts in that general direction, I'm pulling the plug. --MuZemike 20:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to. He took the rope, and hanged himself with it. Exactly what I expected, except even quicker than I would have guessed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The other brother is getting restless: User talk:JHerbertMunster. Favonian (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't be snickering after reading this, should I? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Snickering? Why? The unblock achieved exactly one of its purposes: it removed any doubt at all about the block. It would have been even better if had had achieved the alternative purpose of admitting a useful editor to the community, but either of those would be a useful outcome. There really are ex-vandals that settle down and edit constructively if unblocked, and the only way to find out whether a particular person will be one of them or not is to throw them the rope. You may also be interested in reading this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh trust me, I'm not snickering at you, I'm snickering at how it played out - yes, WP:ROPE was good, and achieved its goal. I've declined unblocks on both - although the one on Munster is my favourite. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, I confess I do find cases like this amusing. It's amazing how many people can be totally blind to how blatantly obvious they are making their sockpuppetry look. He had been unblocked, and only had to use a little intelligence to escape for good, but no such intelligence is in evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think DoRD forgot "the smell of burnt feathers, and the distinctive aroma of buckshot" ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. That sums it up pretty well. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request: User:NYCSlover
A user you blocked in March 2011, User:NYCSlover, has asked to be unblocked. As I am unfamiliar with the issues around him/her, you may wish to comment on their page. -- RA (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Cognitive Radios
Thanks for showing me what to do with redirect talk pages; I'm glad my first guess (making them redirects too) was correct :-). All the best,  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 02:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Robert B Colton
I have left you a response on my talk page.


 * Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends
Hello James, This user named Robsinden keeps on removing inportant info for the Thomas & Friends page. Can you please block him. Because he's doing an edit warring. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Biographies on living persons
Please refrain from making false accusations on user talk pages, following a false report made by a reported vandal in retaliation and bad faith against the original reporter. Be advised that all biographies must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Adding material accusing someone of anti-semitism, with the libelous and POV title "accusations of anti-semitism", is a violation of the BLP policy and must be removed instantly, which is also excempt from 3RR. Readding such material after a BLP violation has been pointed out is considered vandalism. This material has also been removed by administrators at the Norwegian Wikipedia and the article protected to prevent its readdition. Tertoger (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Mr. James, May i remove Tag and create my user page now? Aman Rajveer 14:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with new article
Hi JamesBWatson,

I'm new and would like to get an assist on my first article. Am I in the right place? and is there anything I can do to make the viability of my article better? It lived for a week on wikipedia and then was deleted. I've trimmed down what I thought was the weak section and would like to try again.

Thanks, (this is a great site!)

Denisereiter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.33.195 (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give me the title of the article, or the username under which you wrote it? If you can, I will look at the article and let you know what I think. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems likely that the IP is . Jenks24 (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: ???
I removed that request because it just repeated the information in the later request, sans the reason for the new name. No reason to have two open unblock requests that essentially duplicate themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood that, but I thought "Speedy deletion" was a slip, as it was actually an unblock request, not a speedy deletion. I just thought it was mildly amusing, that's all. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That was the subsection hed, which I didn't write. Yes, it does look like someone else made a goof. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see. You left the sub-section heading in when you wrote an edit summary, rather than over-writing it with your new edit summary. I hadn't realised. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)