User talk:JBW/Archive 42

Manoj Bhawuk
Hi! I get that you deleted it for Copyvio. But couldn't you just blank the prose, keep the one liner lead with awards & publications section? You could even delete history so that no one reverted it back. I also read your closing note that anyone could restart the article. But wouldn't it have been better if the AfD had gone through the routine way and concluded on notability or non-notability of subject? Now if someone restarts it (i am not gonna bother) we are on square one. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Every version of the article in the editing history contained substantial copyright infringement, so there was no question of keeping any of it. I could have edited the article to just a one sentence introduction and deleted the rest, but I don't see any advantage whatsoever in doing so: anyone else can create such a one sentence stub article as easily as I could have done. The existing AfD would have become largely meaningless in that case, as most of it is about characteristics of the old article which would not apply to the new one (such as it being promotional, it being partly in the first person, DBigXRay's "cosmetic changes", etc) so it would have been necessary to have written a disclaimer in the AfD page explaining that much of the content was no longer relevant. In other words, we would have had an AfD full of stuff which had no relevance to the actual article, and a message telling us to ignore it. I really don't see that as better than closing it and starting from scratch. Also, if someone now writes a decent article, not promotional, not copied from elsewhere, and with evidence of notability, then there will be no need for an AfD, so what would have been gained by wasting people's time by keeping a redundant AfD open? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm! Just happened to remember that i posted something here and hence i returned. Frankly speaking, lost interest now. The subject wasn't anyways worth much efforts. You are right; would have been waste of time. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Pestering
On the chance that you may have overlooked my comment at above, I'd like to bring the matter to your attention again. Deor (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had seen your earlier message, left it intending to come back when I had time to look into it, and forgotten it. You are quite right: the article was clearly a copyright infringement of at least a couple of sources, perhaps more, as well as duplicating an existing article. It has been deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was unsure what to do about the article. Deor (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Pro-Pakistan sentiment in Kashmir
Hi. Just a couple of minutes ago, you deleted this article. If you check again, there's been a mistake here. The article was started freshly with fresh sources and has nothing to do with the other article, as far as "duplication" is concerned. You may verify this by comparing the content of that article with the other one. As such, the speedy criterion does not apply. It would be good if you could restore ASAP as I am currently working on the article (and so is another user as seen from the article history).  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * it is far from true to say that it "has nothing to do with the other article". It is on a topic covered in the other article, without any evident reason for forking into a separate article. It looks as though the fork has been created purely to promote a particular point of view on the topic, which in itself is sufficient reason for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Err no, not exactly. I started that article from scratch as a more specific page about a topic that is adequately covered in multiple academic/reliable sources and meets the notability criteria to have its own article. But that is a secondary issue. What I find more amusing is that it got removed in less than half an hour after I created it, not even giving the chance to work on it. Your deletion of the article also removed whatever sources I had used (and also an academic source added by another user in the lead). How do you exactly intend to resolve this?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, it may also be of interest to you that there are similar "sentiment" articles that exist eg. Anti-Americanism in Korea, Anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan. etc.
 * Anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan seems to me to have too little content to serve any useful purpose. Whether Anti-Americanism in Korea is any more suitable than Pro-Pakistan sentiment in Kashmir I have no idea, as I haven't read it. However, even if it isn't, the existence of one article doesn't justify the existence of another one: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. AS for being deleted in less than half an hour, Wikipedia's policy is that pages which satisfy one or more of the speedy deletion criteria can be deleted immediately. You are, of course, free to propose an amendment to that policy, but unless and until it is amended, complaining that an administrator has implemented the existing policy will not serve much purpose. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the above message, I took your word about the "less than half an hour". However, I have now checked, and found that the deletion was actually one hour and forty minutes after the article was created, and one hour and nineteen minutes after you were informed of the speedy deletion nomination. Evidently you made a mistake about the timing. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, could you restore the deleted article to my userspace at least? User:Mar4d/Pro-Pakistan sentiment in Kashmir would do.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done that. However, remember that pages which exist only to promote a point of view are unacceptable anywhere, including in userspace, so I hope you will soon edit it to make it neutral. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

CSD
Hey JBW ... you did notice that I declined the CSD a few days ago on Erebus_haunted_house? I felt it could be appropriately fixed to be less promotional, and it held appropriate notability - all it needed was some cleanup ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that you had declined a speedy deletion about 24 edits before I found the article and deleted it. I still think that the article was promotional enough to justify speedy deletion, even though you and others had toned down the promotional character somewhat. I also see another editor used an edit summary which said "spam, don't agree with the CSD decline", so I was not alone in holding that opinion. I see that the article has been re-created, and is still, in my opinion, promotional. I won't speedy delete it again, but it will be interesting to see what happens to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your block on User:122.109.0.0/16
Hi JamesBWatson. Can you remember why you blocked that range? Or more specifically, can you tell me what the IPs were that led you to block the range? Please include as many as possible. I suspect the range block might be overly broad, and it may be possible to fine tune the block somewhat or even remove it completely. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure mostly the IP's of banned user User:Mr. Curious Man. A smaller range was blocked for sixth months. → B  music  ian  23:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the exact circumstances that led to the block. Bmusician is right in saying that this IP range is one of those used for block evasion by the banned user Mr. Curious Man, but I have no record of edits in this range from him more recently than 17 March, two months before I placed the block, so that can't have been the reason. There has been a good deal of vandalism from this IP range, much of it just one or two edits from particular IP addresses (e.g., , , , , , etc etc), but also some cases where an individual IP address was used for multiple vandalism edits (e.g. all of Special:Contributions/122.109.136.239). The total amount of vandalism from the range is considerable, but there are also some constructive edits, so I have unblocked the range. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let me know if the vandalism kicks off again and I can see about possibly blocking a more restricted range. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr Smith Bot
Hi, JBW. I've been contacted by this user regarding their block. Their latest unblock request is over 10 days old and there has been no action. I'm testing the waters to find out if there could be some edit restrictions set out so that this editor would have a possibility for unblock. I've made my opinion plain regarding "directed" editing on the user's talk, so don't misunderstand this as lobbying for unblock. It's only that this user's requests (and their e-mail to me) contained none of the gnashing of teeth or foaming of the mouth I see from the majority of SPAs. They may actually have something to offer. I'm going to check with some other folks, but you are the blocking admin and I trust your judgement generally. I'm watching their user talk so you can respond here, there or my user talk. See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now you weren't the original blocking admin and that you're on break. Still, if you get the time I'd appreciate any thoughts.  Thanks  Tide  rolls  02:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for drawing my attention to this. I have unblocked on the basis of the user's assurances, and spelled out conditions for the block which I hope should avoid future problems. My impression is that the user does have an intelligent understanding of the relevant issues, and does have a good faith intention of complying with our policies, so I see no reason not to give another chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gentlemen very much. I do appreciate the renewed opportunity.  I have requested the name change and will honor my promise to edit within the guidelines. Mr Smith Bot (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Smith Bot (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing of Grapefruit drug interactions
''The following message was copied, without saying so, to here from User talk:99.104.126.16. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)''

Wikipedia policy is that, if any statement in an article is challenged or questioned, the onus is on the person wishing to keep the information there to provide a reliable source to support it. It may be that what you say is true, but we cannot assume that it is true just because some anonymous person chooses to edit Wikipedia and say so, because unfortunately many people edit Wikipedia and make false claims. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * However, you did not bother to read the attributions as given. Also, your harassment of someone who is not actually anonymous - Wikipedia knows who I am - as being a poor editor over someone who is logged is is not Wikipedia policy.  You're supporting a user who is maliciously protecting an incorrect, unsupported version of the article, and your stated reason is that you don't bother to read the citations of the artcle because I am anonymous 99.104.126.16 (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I very carefully read the source cited (I assume that's what you mean by "the attributions as given", and it does not say that other flavourings have the same effect as grapefruit juice.
 * Harassment? You mean posting the message which you have copied above? That was intended to help you, by explaining what the problem was, as you didn't seem to realise. I am sorry that it came across as harassment: it certainly wasn't intended to be.
 * By "anonymous" I did not mean "not logged in to an account", I meant that anyone at all can edit Wikipedia, and we have no way of knowing who it is. I am just as anonymous as you: the fact that I have created an account doesn't alter the fact. The point I was trying to make is that we need reliable sources to support claims made in articles: we cannot assume that something is valid just because someone chooses to edit Wikipedia and says it is, since we have no way of knowing who that person is, and therefore no way of knowing whether they are a reliable source. I did not mean to suggest that it makes any difference whether or not that person has chosen to create a Wikipedia account. Sorry I did not express myself unambiguously, and I hope I have clarified my meaning now.
 * My "stated reason" is certainly not that I don't bother to read the citations of the article. Nowhere did I say that I had not read the citation. Indeed, the point is precisely that I did read the citation, and it does not support the statement it was cited to support. I have no doubt that you were acting in good faith, but to start from a citation which says that a particular substance or class of substances may be a significant factor in causing the grapefruit reaction, and jump from there to stating that other substances which contain the same or related substances also cause the same reaction, is to go way beyond what the source says. It is necessary to use a source which supports the statement made in the Wikipedia article, not merely one which supports another related statement from which you have inferred the statement made in the Wikipedia article.
 * I hope that helps to clarify things for you. Please do let me know if you have any more questions about what I meant. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe we disagree as to what the citations say on their pages; time will tell as more information is published. I was more upset that attributions to the drug interaction were being added without being referenced in the preamble of the page, and I was trying to edit it to reflect the citations added.  I gave up after being insulted by a moderator (and banned, although I didn't notice the ban before it expired) for not logging in.  I found that to be in poor taste; I was trying very hard to reflect what I understood the sources said.  The other editor of the page was only policing my edits, and no others, despite lack of citation for them.  Anyhow, I have no idea why wikipedia decided to alert me to this message today, as I thought I'd already read it. 99.104.126.16 (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When and where were you banned? Were you using an account when you were banned? If so, what account? Are you referring to the block on 76.21.107.221? If so, then how on earth did you get the impression that it was "for not logging in"? Both the block log and the message on the talk page of that IP address said that the block was for edit warring. Who insulted you, and how, and where? If you let me know, I will see whether the person who insulted you should be warned about civility, or whether it was serious enough to warrant a block for a personal attack. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was wondering how long it would take before this conversation begun again. I saw PP expire earlier.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

PRProgRock
On the basis of interractions on his talk-page I am prepared to unblock this editor. Before I do, do you have any comment to make? -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It seems perfectly reasonable to give the user another chance. Rather than keep him/her waiting for you to come back, I will go ahead and unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I have removed the tags from the userpage-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 09:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't think of that. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

2011-12 season Eccellenza
Dear JamesBWatson,

I write about the hasty cancellation page 2011-12 season Eccellenza decided after a discussion that lasted only a week which was attended by only 4 users because it considered as an amateur league. On the contrary this is not a seasonal article on an amateur league, it is a competition between 28 divisional champions which puts it on a different level. Also were inserted only the winning teams that will participate in next year to Serie D, league fully encyclopedic: so it was just a preview of the upcoming Serie D.

Moreover, this cancellation is in stark contrast to the case of no cancellations of the seasons from 2005-06 to 2010-11 of Eccelelnza and decided after a lengthy discussion lasting less than 17 days from 31 March to 16 April 2012. Unfortunately, the first discussion there has been publicity and broad participation, otherwise the outcome would have been the same.

So it makes no sense not to include the current season and when there are others: or cancel all or none.

Sure you understand the situation and then put the deleted page, if you also want to reopen a broader discussion, I greet you cordially.--Mr Richy (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Evidently you are referring to the outcome of Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eccellenza season, which resulted in deletion, and you are addressing me because I deleted a re-creation of the article. I had no part in the original discussion, nor in assessing its outcome. The deletion of the article when it was re-created, contrary to the decision reached at the deletion discussion, was a purely administrative action, and I would be acting wrongly if I decided to unilaterally overturn the result of that discussion, which is what you appear to be suggesting I should do. If you think the discussion was wrongly closed, then you are free to take it to deletion review, though it seems to me that there was an unambiguous consensus. I see that Articles for deletion/2010–11 Eccellenza season was closed as "no consensus". I have read the discussion, and frankly, I find that a surprising closure. However, if we accept that there was no consensus in one discussion, that does not imply that consensus in a similar discussion has to be overturned or ignored. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

75.65.228.12


The reason I warned the above user with a Warn2, Warn3 and then a Warn4 warning in quick succession, was because each warning was for a different page the user had vandalized. If I only gave the user one warning for vandalizing three seperate pages, he/she would only be up to Warn2. Not really fair since they would be allowed to continue to vandalize until getting a Warn4 before being blocked. The user vandalized in each and every single one of their edits, none were constructive. Hence why I issued a quick succession of warnings and asked for an immediate block for the user. I ask that you reconsider your decision since it doesn't appear this user will be editing constructively. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 10:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not necessarily true that "they would be allowed to continue to vandalize until getting a Warn4 before being blocked". If, after the level one warning, the user had continued with unambiguous vandalism, been given a level three warning, and then vandalised again, I would certainly have been willing to consider blocking. I have no idea where the popular idea that nobody can be blocked until they have had four warnings comes from. What you seem to think is (a) that there is a rule saying that a user has to have received four warnings before being blocked, and (b) that it's OK to get round that "rule" by simply giving a string of messages one after another and then immediately blocking. What on earth would be the point of warning messages in that case? The user has received only one warning message. Posting messages that we know full well the user has probably not seen, and that the user certainly had not received when they did their last editing, does not justify a block. A level 3 or 4 warning says "if you continue to vandalise then you may be blocked", not "I've warned you, so now you can be blocked for something you had already done before I warned you". However, in any case, the user had not edited for nearly six and a half hours at the time of the AIV report, so there would be no point in blocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What I sometimes do if I see a couple of vandalism edits and no warnings yet is issue several warnings, but at the same level. Alternatively, I'll manually edit a warning to list all of the vandal edits. My aim is really to let the editor know I've spotted all of the vandalism, yet not escalate warnings that they had not read yet and could not possibly have acted upon. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was always under the impression that a succession of warnings (up to Warn4) had to be issued before a block could take place. I also was under the impression that admins prefered a full set of warings to be issued before coming to AIV (another reason I issue warnings for each).  Apparently I was given bad information, but that's what I have followed since I got here...some almost 5 years ago. :S -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 10:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a requirement that all 4 warnings are given, but many admins who patrol AIV will indeed only block if they see sufficient warnings. But the problem here is that there needs to have been some opportunity for the editor to have taken note of the warnings, and to have carried on vandalizing after warnings. So, for example,      might be seen as sufficient, but        should not, as the latter shows no vandalism after the editor was warned. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee, both in that post and earlier you have given a pretty good summary of the most important points. I would often accept even just   , if the edits were really unambiguous vandalism, but not     except in the case of really extreme vandalism, and in that case I would have accepted  . Warnings after the last vandalism are completely irrelevant to whether to block or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I was following the old way of warning I was taught many, many years ago. The reason I warned the way I did was to give sufficient warning on each vandalism after the bot warning (ie:        ...would have been 5, but I ran out of warnings to give).  I guess I was just covering all the bases so the vandal couldn't say he wasn't properly warned.  I will do better in the future. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 12:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

jun.rhee
btw, how should I handle Borovv who has accused me of using multiple accounts/being a duck(? I have no idea what that means)? I'd like to get some advice away from my talk page. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied by email. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've replied via email as instructed. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

121.54.29.98
Hey James, noticed this user posting mass edits to numerous radio station and TV station pages. They are constructive edits and edits that someone needed to have done a long time ago, but no one wants to do the leg work in finding the information (essentially, the dirty work). I even awarded the user a barnstar. But I began to think and thought maybe it is a bot running that has somehow signed out (it happens). I am hoping you might know. If not, then perhaps an admin letting the user know that his/her skills would be welcomed at Wikipedia and perhaps nudge him/her toward getting an account. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 12:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance it looks as if it could well be a bot. However, I'm afraid I have to go offline now, and don't have time to look into it further. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie, no problem. When you do get a chance or do message the user, keep in mind that response time for the user might be a tad slower than normal as the user's IP is out of Quezon City, Philippines, so there is a 12 hour time difference ahead of Washington, DC (8 ahead of London). -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 12:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review request
Dear JamesBWatson,

I would like you to reconsider deletion of article Corporate Responsibility Group. It was deleted under (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).

On the G11 point: as I put in my Challenge to Speedy Deletion (to User:Basalisk) I don't feel the article is blatant promotion as it is non-profit organisarion that has been run by unpaid volunteers since its creation in 1987. Also, it is an organisation that works towards a more ethical world, as it promotes Corporate Responsibility, environmental sustainability and ethics. It is _not_ a consultancy, a think-tank or a lobby group: yet several of the latter have articles on Wikipedia (witness Confederation of British Industry and Policy Exchange.

Also, I think there are far more obscure UK organisations that have surviving Wikipedia articles covering them, despite having far fewer third party links: Institute of Economic Development and Orthodontic Technicians Association being just two examples. That said, I modelled some of the deleted articles structure on articles like these.

On the A7 point, I can perhaps see the point on signifcance of the subject and this was why I was in the process of improving the Research section - please see below. This was to make it clear that CRG has been involved in work with the UK Government, and the likes of world-class academic institutions like Ashridge Business School (which in May 2012 the Financial Times ranked as the number one business school in the UK for its customised executive education programmes. In 2011 Business Week ranked it the 2nd best Business School in the UK, 7th in Europe and 16th in the world.) Below is what I was going to publish, until you deleted the article (c:

Please reconsider deletion of this article, as this is a genuine UK institution. As you can see from CRG's members page (http://crguk.org/?id=9&ob=1) it is a credible entity, otherwise the likes of the BBC, Airbus, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, [Nike]], Rolls-Royce_plc and many other world-class organisations wouldn't be members.

Research
CRG has collaborated in several pieces of significant research into the state of Corporate Responsibility. From 2002 to 2003 it supported the work of a UK government working group, commissioned by Stephen Timms MP, the then Minister of State for e-Commerce & Competitiveness at the Department of Trade and Industry (United Kingdom) (now BIS, looking at professional skills development in the Corporate Responsibility sector. Its report, entitled "Changing Manager Mindsets", was published in 2003 in conjunction with Ashridge Business School. In 2005 it produced a study with Ashridge Business School looking at the state of executive development amongst Corporate Responsibility professionals. In 2012 it hosted interactive sessions for members with noted academics, such as Professor Robert Horn, visiting scholar of Stanford University and Professor David Grayson CBE of Cranfield School of Management. Note: I have removed references from the above paragraph.

Thank you James. Simonjon (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Whether an article is promotional or not does not depend on whether it is a non-profit organisarion, or whether it is run by unpaid volunteers. the notion that the word "promotion" can be applied only to commercial promotion for profit-making purposes is, for some reason, common among newcomers to Wikipedia, though I have never understood why. If I wrote an article about the boy scouts, saying that I think it is a wonderful institution, does excellent work for boys of all kinds, and reccomending any parents reading the article to get their sons to join the scouts, then I would be writing to promote the boy scouts, the fact that they are a non-profit organisation notwithstanding. Likewise, whether the organisation "works towards a more ethical world" is irrelevant to the question of whether an article about it is promotional. You may possibly find it helpful to look at Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.
 * 2) I have had a quick look at the two articles you say are about "far more obscure UK organisations". Neither of the articles does a good job of establishing notability, and neither of them cites adequate sources. It may well be that they are two of the many poor articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted. If you believe that is so then you can propose them for deletion, but the existence of those bad articles does not justify the existence of another one. WP:OTHERSTUFF elaborates on this point.
 * 3) The fact that the organisation has worked in conjunction with other prominent organisations does not guarantee it is notable. Notability is not inherited by contact with other notable organisations or people.
 * 4) Wikipedia's policy is to have articles only on subjects that satisfy the notability guidelines, which are principally concerned with the subject's having received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Being "a genuine UK institution" or "a credible entity" is not enough. There are many genuine and credible subjects which do not qualify.


 * It is possible that the subject does satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but the article did not establish that it does. Most of the references were to either pages on the Corporate Responsibility Group's web sites or material published by them or by organisations working with them. Not a single one of the references could be regarded as substantial coverage in an independent reliable source. Nor did my searches produce suitable coverage.


 * I suggest that you look at FAQ/Organizations, which gives a good deal of useful information, much of which is likely to be relevant. Other relevant documentation can be seen in the general notability guidelines, in Notability (organizations and companies), and in the guideline to reliable sources. If, having read the relevant information, you decide that the subject does satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, then, having read those, you will be in a better position to write an article which shows that it does. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Blackpool young Tory
Well I think that is a fair description of him and not an insult. Have you read his talk page? You must have been monitoring him or you wouldn't have picked this up. He is very selective in applying Wikipedia standards, and is quite capable of pedantry in respect of contributions and assertions apart from his own own. He can't seem to engage in any disagreement without it ending in conflict and the involvement of an administrator. He is very quick to start bandying about the label "lefties" but doesn't like being labeled himself. Frequently he's upset people, got into a conflict, lured in third parties, then been found out by them. OK, I put my hands up and admit, as did I to him, that I put something in the Littlejohn entry that was out-of-order. It was funny and probably correc, but wrong here, and shows why I shouldn't apply to be an administrator yet. But since then, thanks to this young guy who has no understanding of things like the post-war consensus that was shattered in the 1980s, along with whole communities, or the traditions of political thought used in social science rather than party politics, I have amended a few other entries of concern to him that other editors have accepted and polished up. I don't mind being put right but am too old to accept it easily from a character like him unless he uses a bit of humility and applies consistency and understanding. But if he just reads one paper and listens only to one world-view, and doesn't ask questions as well as make assertions, he'll stay as he is. He should stop supporting a particular football team and learn more about the game itself and the context within which it is played. Leave him alone? Probably, but not if I see him applying the rules a bit too selectively. Thanks James. I know that's not your real name. Mine really is Herbolzheim - I'll never forgive my parents especially as it just doesn't sit well in front of Aristotle Smith. Herbolzheim (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC) JamesBWatson; Will you please remove this opinionated nonsense? This user has no right to go around making these childish assertions about me which are completely wrong and most of them are lies. I would be most grateful if you would remove it, this user needs to grow up and leave me alone. He seems to have an obsession with me. Christian1985 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Static web page
FYI: You might want to have a look/comment here. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note this edit of Alison, who as CU identified the user  as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole, a community banned user. She did not record it in the block log. More details are available in an email I sent you and at the SPI report yesterday that already connected the account with that of. After that Static web page made his unblock request, presumably havong noted the SPI report. In the light of Alison's block and Echigo mole's recent editing of articles related to Aix-en-Provence through multiple sockpuppets, the statements in the unblock request of Static web page seem not to have been truthful. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. I should, I suppose, have checked with Alison before unblocking, or looked at the user page, or both. I have reinstated the block. Unfortunately, I don't have time now to comment at length at the SPI, but I'll drop a quick note. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acting so speedily. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Eden
In fact the blocked editor with whom we are interracting both under his username and as an IP was correct, in that this article had been left, after an incorrect Cluebot reversion, in a vandalised state. I have corrected it. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 11:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, Anthony. As far as I can see, you have never edited the article. Also, the only editing of the article since the ClueBot edit (and the only one since the blocked editor's comment) has been this vandalism edit and a revert of that edit. Have I somehow misunderstood? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The sequence is puzzling: I agree that I have never edited the article, but when I looked at it yesterday the vandalism as described (a chunk of Mutiny on the Bounty cut-and-pasted to Anthony Eden) was in place, in spite of a vandal reversion notice. I hunted through and reverted to the last correct version, which was, I think, the third one down the list. As my action consisted only of a reversion it does not show on the history. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

PCSO-524
Hi. You may want to review the comments you made at Articles for deletion/PCSO-524 as they no longer seem valid. For example, your statement The paper "The Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Omega Tetraenoic Fatty Acids Isolated from a Lipid Extract from the Mussel, Perna Canaliculus" by Joerg Gruenwald et al is published not by an independent peer-reviewed journal, but by www.omaprem.com is incorrect. It's just re-published there, but originally in a journal about asthma. There are now 7 citations to independent peer-reviewed journals in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on your recent comment, we seem to be reading different articles. There are seven peer-reviewed independent sources shown there, not just one as you claim. Lyprinol and PCSO-524 are synonymous as far as I've been able to determine, as PCSO-524 makes up the backbone of Lyprinol and other trade names. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for not throwing up your hands and deleting my article on day one. I must apologize, this being my first Wiki article, I made quite a few mistakes.  Were it not for your patience and Amatulic's efforts this article would never have survived.  --Romano Writes (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Advice on Notability
I read the notability page. Now I know what is considered notable. Thank you for the advice. Also, I noticed that AnthonyBradbury seems to be annoying other people, not just me. Heymister14 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)heymister14


 * Interesting comment!-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And James, please note that I already advised this editor that deletion review is available. He appears to have chosen not to exercise this option. If you wish to help him formulate a case I have absolutely no objection. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that you had pointed out the possibility of deletion review. That was one of the reasons why I suggested not posting to you again: you had already explained the situation, so there was no point in pestering you about it any more. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly it would not be appropriate for me to make further comment. Please do as you think best. As we both know, an admin who does not sometimes annoy esitors is not doing his job properly. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Pantsaklan
It looks to me as if User:Pantsaklan understands the problems that led to their block now, and my feeling is that we can give them another chance. In the light of the discussion at User talk:Pantsaklan, would you be OK if I unblocked one of their accounts and left the other one indef blocked? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I reduced the block on User:Pantsaklanos to 2 weeks on 4 May, so it has already been unblocked for over three weeks. I will drop a note at User talk:Pantsaklan pointing this out. I never intended both accounts to be blocked indefinitely. I also see that there is a suggestion at User talk:Pantsaklan that Ptsaklan is another sockpuppet of the same user, which looks very likely to me, and that account has never been blocked. If there seems to be a good reason to switch the block from one account to another, then go ahead, but if there is no special reason then we may as well leave it as it is. I will leave you to accept or decline the unblock request accordingly. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, that makes sense, let's just leave the Pantsaklanos account unblocked - I hadn't realised its block had expired. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are some businesses allowed in the same industry allowed but other's pages are deleted?
Hi. I am creating a website for a business. It is a large business, legal, and verifiable like all the business in wikipedia. Why is my page being deleted while many business in my industry are allowed? Please advise MichelleC11 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, as explained both on your talk page and in the deletion log, the page was blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. Secondly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything: in order to be the subject of an article, a topic has to have evidence of being notable. Your articles gave no indication of notability or importance. Although it is not one of the reasons for deletion, I should also mention that writing about your own business is strongly discouraged by the conflict of interest guidelines.


 * I suggest you have a look at FAQ/Organizations, which contains a good deal of information relevant to your case, together with links to other pages giving yet further details. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Greg Mangano Deletion
I know that you speedily deleted the page for Greg Mangano becuase it was blank, but it was blank because the entire page was erased accidently during clean-up after page creation. Because you speedily deleted the page, I will now have to recreate the entire page. Please refrain from deleted new pages only seconds after they are created in the future. You are simply doing other Wikipedians a disservice.Rupert&#39;sscribe (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you know if there is any way I can get back into the page's history so I can copy-paste to recreate the page? Thanks.Rupert&#39;sscribe (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article for you: you only had to ask. When the author of an article blanks it, it usually means that they want it deleted, and, being unused to Wikipedia's ways, don't know how to request deletion. For that reason, Wikipedia policy is that such an article can be speedily deleted, to help the author out. On the rare occasions when that is not so, there is no problem in restoring the article. As for "Please refrain from deleted new pages only seconds after they are created", by my reckoning it was a few hours short of seven days from the time of creation. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I now see that, although the page was created a week ago, it was not moved to its present title until today, which explains what you meant by "Please refrain from deleted new pages only seconds after they are created". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I know my message might have had a bit of a nasty tone (I was frustrated by my own mistake with regards to the creation of the article, not your mistake) and I recognize it was a bit of a misleading situation. Thanks again.Rupert&#39;sscribe (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Common sense prevailed on English Wikipedia~!

 * James, thanks for reigning in on WP:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Civility barnstar, though not the same can be said when compared to whatever happened on commons where the NfD was a speedy keep. -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Arguments to the person at AFD
Hi. I just left a note on Articles for deletion/Woodlawn Manufacturing, but in case you are not watching that page: Please be reminded that Arguments to the person are to be avoided in deletion discussions. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

CVU/A
Hi, thanks for your reply here, hopefully the discussion will remain closed. Your input was very much appreciated to the (eventual!) closure of this case. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Excessively long IP blocks
Please unblock my ip, it gets really obnoxious everytime I want to edit, thanks, and 2014 is a quite a while from now. 18:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrxBrx (talk • contribs)
 * Since you don't say what IP address you are referring to, I have no way of unblocking it. What IP address is it? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA
Thanks for yout comment, but if you're wondering the discussion is still ongoing, but my real question is how did you come across the discussion in the first place. Just curious because you're the first admin to ever comment on one of our pages since the overhaul. Cheers. Dan653 (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't actually remember. I had been responding to Wikipedia emails sent to me, and then I went on to checking reports at Administrator intervention against vandalism, and my guess is that either something in an email or something I saw in the course of checking the editing history of one of the editors reported at Administrator intervention against vandalism led me to the page, but if so I have no idea what it was that did so. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I did learn
As I was about to apologize to AnthonyBradbury, I noticed you had a section titled "Some people never learn". I clicked on it and it said it was about me, heymister14. I did learn my lesson. Nyttend deleted my user page and I am trying to get it back. So please don't say stuff like that about me. Heymister14 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC) heymister14
 * Yes, I see that you have now apologised to Anthony, and I'm sorry if what I wrote seemed unfair to you. You had repeatedly posted to User talk:Anthony Bradbury about an article which had been deleted, in such terms as to give the impression that you thought it was personal vindictiveness by Anthony. I tried to help you, by posting what was intended to be a friendly and informative message to your talk page, explaining the reason for deletion, which I hoped would make it clear to you that it was not a personal issue, and that Anthony had simply been carrying out Wikipedia policy, as his position as an administrator requires. Following that, you posted a personal attack on Anthony, indicating that you still took it as a personal matter, and explicitly stating that you expected and intended to continue indefinitely to hold a grudge against Anthony for the deletion. It seemed clear that you had not learnt from the message I had taken the trouble to write for you. Under the circumstances, "some people never learn" seemed a reasonable comment. However, I see that you have now apologised to Anthony, so it looks as though you are not one of the people who never learn, which is great. I am sorry that you have had such a discouraging introduction to editing Wikipedia, and I hope that things go better for you from now on.


 * I will offer you a word of advice, which I hope may help you. In my experience, people who come to Wikipedia and start right away writing new articles very often have a negative experience. Being new, they have not yet learnt what Wikipedia's standards are, so their articles are very likely to fall foul of one or other of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and be deleted. On the other hand, people who come here and start by making small changes to existing articles have, in my experience, a much better chance of having a satisfactory time. Of course they make some mistakes, as we all do, but they are small mistakes, and the worst that can happen is that a small change to an article is reverted, so they don't lose a whole lot of work. Over the course of time they gradually learn how Wikipedia functions, and after a while they can, if they wish, write good articles without fear of having them deleted. I suggest that you try the "making small changes" approach, and maybe come back to creating new articles later.


 * Remember that everybody here is a volunteer, choosing to give up their own time to contribute to the project. A few people come here just to vandalise or to be disruptive in other ways, but almost everybody else is sincerely trying to do what they see as helpful. Sometimes we disagree with one another about what is helpful, and in that case we can discuss the issues, and try to explain our points of view to one another. When you find yourself disagreeing with other editors, please try to discuss things in a friendly way. If you come across to others to be angry, aggressive, and intolerant, then you will be seen as a disruptive and unhelpful editor, and you are likely eventually to be blocked from editing. I don't want to see that happen, as I would much rather see you settle in and become a useful contributor to the encyclopaedia. Your apology to Anthony does suggest that you have learnt this lesson too, and if so then you should be able to move on from that and have a better time from now on.


 * Finally, please feel welcome to contact me if you need further help or advice on how Wikipedia works. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Message from Scribblednote concerning promotion
Sir I feel that the Wikipedia page on sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev exists to help people know about this man and also to help spread his teachings.Wikipedia may be a great way to help people stop buying books and turn to wikipedia so that book stores may close down one day.But if the message of Sadhguru has to Reach people then it is not through wikipedia and through the Isha foundation and through their books. So no harm in mentioning that he writes books because he does write books which is a fact but if not promoting books is your protocol then i am sorry.What I am doing is not Vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribblednote (talk • contribs) 12:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I never thought that it was vandalism, and in fact I said on your talk page that for someone else to call it "vandalism" was a mistake. However, it is a mistake to think that any Wikipedia article exists "to help spread [anyone's] teachings". That is promotion of the person's teaching, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and any editing you do to any article must not be designed to spread or promote anybody's teaching. Whether you do this by advertising book publishers providing books on his teachings, by writing in the article in terms which make it sound as though you are approving of his teaching, or by any other means, promotional editing is unacceptable, and editors who continue to edit in a promotional way after being warned are blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
please cooperate

Scribblednote (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC) 

Deleted article "JP Logistics" related edits
Hi JBW. and may have "infected" (as the copyright lawyers say) a number of other articles. I'm looking in to it... --Shirt58 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. And congratulations on finding the source of the copyright infringement at JP Logistics Sdn. Bhd,. Changing a few words in each sentence can make it very difficult to find such copyvios, as search engines such as Google miss them unless you search for exactly the right excerpt. Please feel welcome to let me know of any other "infected" articles you know of, or come to know of. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi again - thanks for that. As I'm sure you are aware, Deli nk is the "go-to gal" for that particular issue. --Shirt58 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

blocked ip
Hi cheers. I wonder why I cannot obtain an IP-block exception for my user name. I never use proxy. The auto-blocked ip adresse is of my office, while i can now only edit at home. It's very disturbing. In fact, the IP of my office has also been blocked in French and Chinese Wikipedia, and I got the autorisation to edit normally. Could you please tell me that I should do for the English version? Thank you. Dirrival (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does your office use an open proxy which is available for anyone to use? This is very unusual behaviour for a business. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bozo1789
Are you going to block Nmate? Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I take it that "thanks" means you have seen the answer. It took a minute or two to write a block notice for the first one, and to reconsider the history in order to decide for how long to block the second one. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guessed so. I was hesitating for a bit to block them, but after I saw you blocked Bozo1789, I would block Nmate anyway. While Bozo1789 might be a sock of banned user, some of Nmate's reverts (reinstating nonsense) were just unacceptable. Materialscientist (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this, would you object to me unblocking User:Nmate so that he can put together an SPI case to attempt prove his allegations? I would make it clear to him that he is to edit only SPI and its subpages, and that if he is found in violation of this then I would implement a much harsher block. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to that. Alternatively, he/she could be invited to put the evidence on his/her talk, with the possibility of someone else using it to start an SPI if it seems appropriate. Please do whichever you prefer. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. See User talk:Nmate. Also note that I've declined another unblock request that he's made. The only way he's getting unblocked is to accept these terms. I always like conditional unblock requests like this one, because for some reason users seem exceptionally bad at keeping to the terms that they've agreed to. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, why did you reduce the block length "per the talk page"? I see no notice on the talk page about reducing block length, and my terms make a lot less sense now that the block length is not the same as it was when you first made it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When I reduced the block length, I intended to immediately post my reason on the talk page. However, a succession of four edit conflicts delayed my posting. It's there now, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlucky. ;-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello James. I want to inform you that after his unblock Nmate resumed his reverting crusade, at the same crazy level. He is restoring grammar mistakes ("An year") and links to deleted files (Agumbe morning.jpg):, deleted "Category:14th-century births" for a prince that ruled between 1383-1386 etc V45erednf (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC) And now he even asks for the protection of those pages, not to allow me to write "a year" correctly again...

User talk:Stevezdude1
I'm minded to give Stevezdude1 another chance and unblock him, after reading his latest comment at User talk:Stevezdude1. But I'd like to hear what you think first, if you wouldn't mind. (I'm asking Drmies too). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Althou8gh you did not ask me, and i have not been involved, i have followed the thread, and would personally be minded to unblock. I think his transgression was ignorance, not vandalism. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a look as well and although I think he must have seen the warnings, I can well believe him not understanding the Talk Page and the rules and conventions. But it looks as if he's keen to stay involved and apply Wikipedia standards. I really think that one should need to pass some kind of test before being allowed to edit - not sure how it could work practically though. Herbolzheim (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * An unblock to allow another chance seems reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gheba notes
Hi. How r u? .Actualy i had read the wiki in 2002-03. Of Gheba. And Now it is changed.That was same as i repetedly writen .I hav the same copy of wiki of Gheba.And that was acording to Book punjabi Musalman. And One thing more i would like to tel u that Gheba is a tribe of Mughal Sardar Family which is living in Fatehjang.there are about 40-45 villages of their own. And most of the famous are KOT FATEH kHAN, Malal. Dhurnal, Dhari-Rai-Ditta,Majia,etc all The sardar Families of these Villages belong to Gheba Tribe,and Call themselves only Mughals.One of the Famous Political leader. Sardar Salim Haider Khan MNA-NA-59. PPPP, and In History the Nawab of KOT Fateh khan, Sardar Sir Muhammad Nawaz khan,and Their Fore Fathers,are All Mughal Ghebas, not the Rajput Ghebas. U can chek the Land Records of their villages. The ForeFathers of Ghebas tribes uses the Title Rai ,and Now they are called by Title Sardar. And Malik Atta Muhammad Khan the present chief of KOT FATEH KHAN is Belong to Rajput Jodhra tribe of PindiGheb.He is not Belong to Mughal Gheba Family/tribe.He is hoding this position and Land Of kot Fatehkhan because His Mother is the Daughter of Sardar sir Muhammad Nawaz Khan of Kot. Sardar Nawaz Has No Son, he has only 4 Daughters. And elder one is the Waife Of Malik Yar Muhammad khan Jodhra of Pindigheb. So KOT Fateh khan is the Maternal jagir of Malik Atta.

Please email me. I have done Master in History .I shal tell u about the references.thanks gsksari@gmail.Com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsksari (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Case
Hi! I noticed that a user who you blocked has created an identical account, and has recreated some pages. I have filed an SPI case, if you would like to comment about it. Thank you, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Crystal
I need to ask an administration about this, user Medeis is stating on the The Dark Crystal page that the Skeksis should be listed as Vampires, simply because they drain a person's life essence. But there's no reliable sources to make that opinionated claim, it's stated that there part reptile, part predatory bird, part dragon and inspiration from the Seven Deadly Sins. But nothing about Vampires.99.159.250.209 (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have warned the editor about edit warring. Please feel welcome to let me know if the problem continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tory guy
See my talk page. You might want also to look through his. Herbolzheim (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

See it again fella. Herbolzheim (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson, thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. I hope your intervention will put this to rest finally. Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypotheses about UFOs
Hello.

I had contested the speedy deletion of that page arguing that despite the fact that it was created by a banned user, it still contained very useful content for the encyclopedia. (See the deleted talk page). I am requesting an exception given this. Please reply at your earliest convenience, and it is preferred that you leave a template on my talk page after you reply here. Thank you. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If an editor is banned, that means that it has been decided that his or her contributions have been so damaging to the project that any benefit that might come from good contributions that they might make are outweighed by the disadvantages of letting him or her continue to contribute. I do understand what you say, and I can see a case for making exceptions in this sort of situation. However, if we were to make exceptions for articles that someone thinks contain useful content, we would be conveying to banned users the message that it's worth their while evading their ban, as their contributions stand a good chance of staying even if their sockpuppet accounts become blocked. This issue has been debated numerous times, and the consensus has repeatedly been that articles contributed by banned users should be deleted, even if someone thinks the articles were useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More Nonsense
Hello, James! I've warned (who you thankfully blocked for a month last time) to stop with the crappy edits, most recently giving them some ROPE and telling them not to make anymore "TBA" credits without any references. They do not listen, and (unsurprisingly) never respond to anything - they just keep plodding along. Can we save them and myself a trip to AIV? I appreciate your consideration in this matter! Cheers :> Doc   talk  07:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Favour
I accidentally blocked User:FunkMonk instead of Sayerselle...having trouble unblockign them properly, and my computer is rebooting as i type ... can you help( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked FunkMonk, but there is no user Sayerselle. I wonder what account you really wanted to block. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aah, Sayerslle. I'll have a look at it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sayerslle blocked for a month. Considering his/her history, I think anything less would be unreasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks James ... damn home computer and Windows updating at exactly the wrong time! ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Okay, from now on, I will be more careful about what I revert.--Nmate (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleting Talk:Arousal of Divine Energy
Hiya! I just wanted to let you know that the user that originally created the page for Arousal of Divine Energy has posted a rebuttal on the talk page, requesting that it not be deleted. It's a little late, but now you have a talk page that isn't a part of any actual article. I doubt that the article will be reinstated in any format, but I'm posting here to let you know that there's something on Talk:Arousal of Divine Energy that needs to be deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Block request
Would you block User:Silas Kanyabigega B.? This is another sockpuppet of blocked user User:KANYABIGEGA Silas. Thanks, SwisterTwister   talk  19:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maid re-submission
Hello JamesBWatson. Per your previous removal of the Molly Maid page, I have resubmitted a new page with all of the subjective information stripped away. Would you mind revisiting this page? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contenteditor291 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally I answer messages on the page where they are posted, but this time I think it may be more helpful to give you some advice on your talk page, so I have done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * James, is there a way that you can Wikify the article to a subpage on my profile. I looked at it earlier but did not take enough time to go through it (looks like it went to speedy delete before I got back around to it). I will take a look and see if it is a salvageable article and do it as a project for the Article Rescue Squadron (if it is notable).--Morning277 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ See User:Morning277/Molly Maid. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The content is a little messy but the article is doable. Just need to reformat, remove the advertisement wording, and cite the sources. Thanks again. --Morning277 (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey, thanks for reverting that vandal. Appreciate your watchful eye! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ian Parsley
Hi - I see that you deleted the article on Ian Parsley last month, citing G4 ("Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion"). However, the recreated page was substantially different. It was put through AfD and was kept as no consensus. As a result, it's clearly not suitable for G4, which requires that it is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion". Are you happy for me to restore the article, or to do it yourself? Warofdreams talk 11:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. Please go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks, I've restored it. Warofdreams talk 11:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:94.196.132.3
On the contrary, the message which you have restored (and which I am not going to edit war over) is entirely improper. The IP address has been tagged as "confirmed" as a particular user because "evident because of trolling in a subject where zero expertise". As I pointed out in my edit summary, the "trolling" consists of correcting the publication date of a book in the list of references of Uniformly bounded representation and it requires rather little expertise to read the date off the title page. So the tag is false, and a clear violation of WP:HUSH. I leave it up to you to decide how to proceed now. 188.29.72.15 (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found numerous sources giving the date as 1977, and not a single one giving 1983. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Re your followup message - what vandalism? The date correction?  The third edition was published in 1983 and this is the date specifically cited in the article as "Serre (1983)" and specifically cited in the reference.  Here is the Amazon page    Or do you refer to tagging an orphan article as orphan with a summary pointing to the author's of the article admitting that it is "hidden away"?  188.29.66.170 (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you really do have grounds for regarding your edits as constructive, it would have been more helpful to have provided those reasons, rather than making sarcastic remarks. Nothing you did gave the impression that you were editing constructively. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it might be more gracious to admit that you jumped to a wrong conclusion rather than blame other people for your own mistake. Axolotl mirror (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh look, an account that hasn't edited in 3 years steps in ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Help Needed
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminuddinshroff (talk • contribs) 16:40, 27 June 2012

Advertising
I just welcomed User:Kientony. All he has on his user page is an off-wiki link to a Realty Company. Is it the same as User talk:Sheffield escorts josephine tier? ```Buster Seven   Talk  02:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing like such blatant spam, but it still seemed to serve no purpose other than promotion, so I have deleted it and dropped a message on the user's talk page explaining that promotion is not acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion: Jo Hamilton Interiors
Hi James

slightly bemused as to why you deleted the Jo Hamilton Interiors page as it was v similar to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Academy

all the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbedi (talk • contribs) 10:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that I shouldn't have deleted one of the articles without deleting the other? If so, the answer is that there are well over three million articles in the English language Wikipedia, and I can't read all of them. There are many articles which don't satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and which should be deleted: the existence of one of them does not justify the existence of another one. Thank you for calling my attention to City Academy, which is now proposed for deletion. (You may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yo
Cheers for the unblock Jimbo! 94.1.109.70 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Time articles
Please explain why you have overturned without discussion my decline of the speedy deletions for Time in Alaska,Time in Oregon,Time in Arizona, Time in Nebraska, Time in South Dakota, Time in Texas, Time in Michigan, Time in Tennessee. Whatever you reasoning, you should not be undoing the action of another administrator without discussion. Criterion G5 is for "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." (my italics). All of these have subsequently been edited, mostly by User:AlanM1 and I see no evidence that there was any agreement from this user to remove their contributions.  Spinning Spark  23:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Does that really count as overturning an admin action? I'd've thought not. For one thing declining a speedy delete is not an admin action in the sense that non-admins can do it, and in general any non-admin action can be reverted. Also it just doesn't feel like 'overturning' anything: by removing the CSD tags you have said "I don't feel it's appropriate to delete these", but by deleting them James has separately determined that he does think they're delete-able. Whether he ended up deciding to do that because he saw a CSD tag there earlier or not seems essentially irrelevant. This may sound like pointless quibbling over wording and technicalities but I don't intend it to be: what I'm really trying to do (perhaps badly) is explain why to me it just doesn't feel like a WP:WHEELy bad thing to do.
 * Also I'm not saying this just to provoke argument, but because if this is deemed unacceptable I want to avoid doing it myself, whereas it probably wouldn't've occurred to me as problematic before. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really a wheel war, but I will side with Spinningspark that G5 was probably inapplicable. I do a lot of G5s where there is some tidying by other editors, by AlamM1's edits went beyond simple tidying.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Olaf, I have not, up till now, mentioned wheel warring. Until I have heard from James, I am assuming that either this is an oversight, or that he knows something I am not aware of.  CSD is meant to be for entirely uncontroversial deletions.  It is beyond me how you can maintain that a deletion that has just been declined by another administrator could be anything but controversial.  And just to respond to your quibble, the deletion of Time in Croatia (which I missed from the list) most certainly did undo an administrative action since I had undeleted that one after erroneously deleting it myself.  Spinning  Spark  08:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) As Olaf points out, removing a speedy deletion tag is not an administrative action, as anyone can do it. If a non-administrative user removes a speedy deletion tag and I subsequently see the article and speedily delete it, that is not undoing an administrative action, and it is something that happens frequently. An action that any user could have done does not become an administrative action just because the user who does it happens to be an administrator.
 * 2) There seems to me to be a failure to assume good faith in the assumption that, in deleting the articles, I was intentionally taking a decision contrary to one that had already been taken, which was not, in fact, the case. The sockpuppet account had created over a hundred pages. Before deletion I did considerably more checking than I might have done. It is common practice in such cases to just click on the "mass delete" link and delete the lot, without checking all the individual articles. I, however, would not have been happy doing that, so I looked at diffs between the latest versions of articles and the versions left by the sockpuppet account to see whether there was substantial editing by others. That alone was a major task, and to have tried to look individually at every edit to every one of the articles would have been unrealistic. Under the circumstances, I was not aware for each and every one of the articles whether a speedy deletion had been proposed and declined or not. Thus the assumption made above that I was consciously reverting a decision by Spinningspark not to delete was invalid.
 * 3) "No substantial edits by others" requires judgement as to what is "substantial". There is bound to be good faith disagreement on what is "substantial", and I am always willing to consider the opinions of others who explain to me why they disagree with my judgements. In this case, both Spinningspark and Kww have indicated that they think that in these eight articles the editing by others was substantial enough to invalidate the speedy deletion. Looking back, I see that the eight articles mentioned did indeed have rather more editing by others than their creator than was the case for most of the 100+ pages involved. I am inclined to agree that those eight should not have been deleted. Consequently, I have restored them. Thank you for drawing this to my attention so that I could reconsider it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Spinningspark posted again while I was writing the above, so I will briefly reply to that message. I don't think that Olaf's point was a "quibble". If doing an admin action and then immediately undoing it counts as an admin action that can't be undone by another administrator, then that opens up strange possibilities. Presumably any administrator could prevent any admin action by doing that. (Not, of course, that I am suggesting you did it with that intention.) Time in Croatia is, however, a different case from those listed above, in two respects. Firstly, I did notice that you had deleted it and undeleted it. I took the view that the two cancelled out, and amounted to just removing the speedy deletion tag. Secondly, the change from the sockpuppet version was much less substantial, consisting of just adding two references, and I stand by my view that it was a valid speedy deletion. Nevertheless, if anyone else disagrees with me on either or both of those points, I will be willing to restore the article and consider whether to take it to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about any of this administrivia. All I know is I've done a ton of work on the various time articles, and am continuing to do so. Imagine what I felt when I went to Time in Idaho just now to look something up for another article, only to find it deleted! :( How is it possible that this could have been done without looking at the history of this and the other articles and seeing that they have been the subject of a lot of other work without even discussing it with me?

Please restore Time in Idaho and any others that you deleted in the same vein and then let's discuss it if you feel they don't belong. This includes any articles they link to or transclude, specifically Tz/*, which I spent a lot of time updating and fixing, and are and will be used in many articles and other templates. —&#91; Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 05:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been suggested that this term is offensive. I meant to characterize the previous several paragraphs as being admin-speak – terminology and logic unfamiliar to a user that's just trying to contribute something to WP, without getting bogged down in the nuances of admin policy. —&#91; Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 21:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to support this. These templates, and UTC offset DST, are being used in time zone articles that have not been deleted (such as Time in Nevada). Sadly, the shambles created by sockpuppetry cannot be sorted out simply by deleting stuff. Thincat (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To be more specific, looking at the deletion log, the following redlinks jump out at me as needing to be restored. There might be some purpose to the others as I continue to work on the collection, but these are the ones I think I either verified or edited: —&#91; Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 02:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Time in Florida
 * Talk:Time in Idaho
 * Time in Idaho
 * Time in Alabama
 * Talk:Time in Alabama
 * Time in Colorado
 * Template:Tz/zone.tab cols wiki6
 * Template:Tz/utc dst offset link
 * Template:Tz/utc dst offset
 * UTC offset DST

If you're going to be removing those articles, please do it comprehensively, because apparently they've created much if not everything else reachable from the "Time in Europe" navbox. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean that there are links to the articles there. If so, since you have seen them and know where they are, perhaps the easiest thing is for you to remove the links. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the thing to do is look at the history and see that others have worked on these articles as well. How about discussing it with them (including me)? —&#91; Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 05:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to delete a bunch of categories because they were created by a banned user evading his block, could you please ensure that you're not leaving dozens of articles sitting in the redlinked categories (e.g. and ) in the process? Deleting empty categories is of course perfectly fine — but if a category is actually populated, then you need to either personally remove it from all of the individual articles before deleting it, or put it through the conventional CFD process so that somebody else can deal with that hassle, instead of leaving a large number articles filed in deleted categories and thereby creating a new pile of work for the categorization project to fix. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm. This has developed in unexpected ways. Let me give a brief history of the events as I experienced them. I was checking the list of speedy deletion candidates. A number of pages were tagged for speedy deletion as having been created by a banned user. I looked at them, and found that the speedy deletion criterion was valid. I also looked at the editor's other creations, and found many more similar. Many of the pages had never been edited by anyone else, and others had had only minor edits by others, in some cases really trivial, in some not so trivial, but still minor. Usually, in such cases, deleting them all is an uncontroversial administrative act, which never receives any comment. Little did I know how much I was stirring up by deleting them in this case.
 * When I read AlanM1's first comments, some aspects of them seemed unhelpful. For example, I had spent a significant amount of time looking into this before acting, so that "without looking at the history of this", presuming that I hadn't, did not seem constructive, especially as I had already mentioned above that I had done some checking of the history. My immediate feelings were therefore very negative. I thought it better not to take any action while I was influenced by these initial negative feelings, so I left it, intending to think about it and come back. Thinking about it, I came to the following decision. There is inevitably a degree of judgement involved in deciding what constitutes "substantial" edits by others. However, common sense says says that, even if an individual page has received only minor edits by others, if a group of articles has collectively been the subject of substantial work by others, then that work should not be lost. This also seems to me to be in the spirit of the speedy deletion criterion, if not in the letter. I therefore came back here willing to restore all of them. Looking at the pages again, however, I see that some of them would be pointless to restore: for example empty categories which were created and then never edited by anyone. Consequently, I decided to look at pages individually, in a spirit of being willing to restore them if doing so seems at all reasonable. I have now restored 15 of them. The page UTC offset DST was just a redirect used in links in articles, and it seemed more useful to replace the indirect links via this redirect by direct links to its target, which I have now done. At least half a dozen categories have been re-created. I have checked another 25 deleted pages, most of which are empty categories. That covers about 47 out of somewhat more than 100 pages. I will look at more of them as I get time. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sorry if I was less than helpful. I suppose I wanted to share my anger. "Misery loves company?" :) As you point out, perhaps the guidelines should include the concept of looking at related pages as a body of work, to be evaluated as a whole. Also, it seems that any time you have a page (or group of related pages) that is edited by multiple users, no matter how trivial the edits seem to be, it should not qualify for any kind of "speedy" action. Anyone who edited them should be notified, and, along with anyone else who cares, should be able to voice their opinion.Also, as far as inferring contributions from the logs, sometimes, I might look at a particular article within a group, investigate it, decide it doesn't need anything (or postpone a major change so as to perform it at the same time as other articles), and move on to the next. This is a "virtual edit" that doesn't appear in the logs, but it doesn't mean that work was not done. Even addition of a couple of cites, while seeming trivial, may mean that the entire article was read and time was spent to look for and cite the sources. Sounds like real work to me. All this is easily addressed in conversation, given the chance.Lastly, how do I "protect" these articles so the same thing doesn't happen the next time someone goes Toby-hunting? I'm thinking an HTML comment at the top may not be enough.—————————————————————————————    One of the Time in... articles was nominated for deletion and failed.  —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 18:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In my view, edits which add categories, templates, and wikilinks; correct typos, spelling, and grammar; that copyedit; or otherwise come under the heading of maintenance, do not invalidate a speedy delete of a creation by a banned user. On the other hand, edits which add factual information, or add references to facts, however trivial, do invalidate a speedy nominaition.  Spinning  Spark  11:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tinga Tinga Tales
No, not the obsessed Aussie, but mainly static and mainly Canadian IPs keep adding material back. Elen of the Roads and I have been busy reverting it out. Not that busy, but just odd enough to bring to your attention. Why this article attracts so much attention is beyond me. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  17:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * An edit conflict suggests that you saw what I did while I was writing the following message, but I may as well post it anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I see that this person has been editing the article on and off since at least as far back as 15 October 2011. There are also several other articles which he/she has repeatedly come back to, such as Ice_Age:_Continental_Drift, Zoboomafoo, Madagascar_(franchise), Madagascar_3:_Europe's_Most_Wanted, and List of Madagascar characters. Most of these I have not examined closely enough to be able to judge how good or bad the edits are, but at least some edits to Madagascar_3:_Europe's_Most_Wanted are unconstructive. In view of the number of warnings, the previous short blocks, the silly messages on your talk page, and the lack of any attempt to engage in constructive discussion, I have blocked the latest IP address for a month. I can see no edits from the IP range 76.64.148.0/22 that look as if they are not from this person since Apr 26, and no constructive edits that look as if they are not from this person for a good deal further back than that, so it seems to me that it would have been reasonable to have blocked the whole range for the month, but I have played ultra-safe by blocking it for just a week, as the editor has a history of moving IP addresses. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they don't get it.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  19:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Errm, I don't get it either... That is to say, how is that diff connected to the above message about Tinga Tinga Tales? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suck, that is the "latest diff" not the proper one. I mean to link  where they threatened to fire me. Storming here, inet keeps going in and out, so editing is a nightmare. :/ Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Commonwealth nations seem to be gaga about that article. I suppose the UK will be next. Thx. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  21:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)