User talk:JBW/Archive 44

Remove a talk page.
Is there a way to remove this talk page?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Manoskrystalis#section_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.245.149 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk pages are not deleted except in quite unusual circumstances. It is frequently necessary to be able to consult a record of messages to and from a user. Why do you want it removed? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
To quote wikipedia policy, administration guidance: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.". I'm flattering you saying you probably won't even accept that, so I'm not going to waste my time saying anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Helvitica Bold
Hey, JamesB, I stumbled across this user's talk page from Recent Changes. I see that the unblock request template says that you declined the request, but the rationale looks like you accepted it (and you actually did the unblocking!), so, acting on the assumption that it was a typo or something, I changed it to say that the unblock request was accepted, especially as it was confusing Helvitica. Here's the diff of what I did. Sorry if I was a bit too bold! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are quite right. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Userspace delete
Hi James, I'm currently in the process of changing from a manual copy and paste archiving to bot archiving - would you please delete the following to make way for the bot (I've copied everything which was in them my talk page). The pages are: User talk:Callanecc/Archive 3, User talk:Callanecc/Archive 2, and User talk:Callanecc/Archive 1. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent block
Hi James. It appears that you recently blocked User:216.81.94.68 based on disruptive behavior regarding Chick-Fil-A. It appears that the same person continues to edit Talk:Chick-Fil-A using related IP addresses. I take no position on his behavior or your block (other than to note that I have found him to be a difficult user), but it seems that you may want to take notice of this. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Brechbill123 again

 * Ha, on that note--can you enlighten me (or the next admin who looks at the unblock request) about a ban on User talk:Brechbill123? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The question of a relationship between the accounts Anacapa and Brechbill123 was raised on this talk page (Section headed "Brechbill123" above) by Cailil. I responded at User talk:Cailil. The strongest evidence, I think, is the striking degree of overlap in editing interests. You can see from here that they both have an interest in editing on (1) anabaptist related matters (Mennonite and Amis), (2) zoophilia, and (3) feminism. Since there is no evident connection among those three topics, that in itself is a striking coincidence. However, looking at the editing history, I found that the involvement in those topics goes way beyond what is shown in that list. For example, in connection with anabaptists, Brechbill123 has edited Old German Baptist Brethren (New Conference), Shunning, Talk:Apostolic Christian Church, while Anacapa has edited Old Order Mennonite, Donald Kraybill (an anabaptist), and made edits to Excommunication ‎ related to Mennonites & Amish, and so on. In relation to feminism, Brechbill123 has edited Women's rights, Talk:Women's suffrage, and Anacapa has Camille Paglia (a feminist), along with numerous other pages. Perhaps it is possible to see a similar theme in other edits, such as Brechbill123's editing of Talk:Zoophilia and the law and Sodomy laws in the United States, and Anacapa's editing of various articles such as Incest, Rape, Child sexual abuse. All in all the extent to which both accounts have tended to edit in several of the same areas, while those areas appear to have no connection with one another, seems a striking coincidence. In addition there are considerable similarities in the two editors' point of view, such as their tendency to try to minimise or oppose feminist perspective in various edits they made. I also felt that there were similarities in their attitudes to other editors, but at present I don't have any diffs to offer to support that impression. User:Cailil/Sneaky vandalism on feminism and gender studies related articles gives a fairly detailed account of the history of Anacapa and IPs used by the same person. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * James, thank you for your lengthy reply. I had not seen the section above, which would have answered my question as well. I'm going to have a look at Cailil's subpage also. I just saw an ANI discussion from 2007. Hey, is there any point in opening an SPI and getting some recent CU data from Brechbill, maybe find a few sleepers? Drmies (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably worth a try. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Anacapa. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:FoobyZeeky
Mind taking a look? Damn near indistinguishable from User:Wagner in Brazil... Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, he's been served already. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Burton, South Australia
I just wanted to say that i did not vandalise Burton, South Australia but upgrade it, since 2012 the school in Burton, South Australia has been a Birth-7 school because the preschool opened this year, 2012, if you look it up you shall find that i was correct, i know this because i go to this school. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajbeckett (talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the school's web site, I see it does describe itself as a "Birth to Year 7 School". I had never before encountered a school which claimed to take children from the day they were born, so it certainly looked like vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy and paste copyright violations
Hello, I picked your name at random from the list of admins (I hope it's okay). User:Devata1's sole contributions have been huge chunks of copied and pasted material from copyrighted websites. Several warnings have been given on their talk page, yet they continue to do this at various articles. I have made a report at Contributor copyright investigations but there is such a backlog there, I don't know how soon anything will be done about it. Thanks in advance for your attention to this matter.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 17:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately your request comes just as I have to go offline. I may be able to look at this tomorrow, but if you are unwilling to wait you may prefer to look for someone else to help. Sorry that I can't be any more helpful now. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Keith Newman
Thanks JamesB for addressing the issues raised relating to Ministry of Words: Keith Newman. I do prefer Keith Newman (writer) as a page name and chose the former because the name Keith Newman was taken. I'm not too concerned if it doesn;t go ahead but had thought it a reasonable way ot reference back to the books i have written and am wrtiting and will maintain the page agreed to within the standard agreed to. I'm not big on self promotion, i just thought it was a good opportunity to use the tool provided as I slowly improve my skills and understanding on few Wikipedia pages that Ihave had input into (Keith Newman 03:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Newman (talk • contribs)

Email enabled
Many thanks for your swift response - I have enabled my email. Please could you email me the source --Uponawhim (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Another response waiting for you
Please find a response to your message on my talk page. - Uponawhim. —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just in case ..
.. you weren't aware of it. There's a discussion concerning one of your recent blocks here:
 * link.

don't know if you're interested in weighing in, but thought you should know since you were the blocking admin. Chedzilla (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chedzilla. In fact I was aware of it, and had decided not to take part. However, I do appreciate the fact that someone thinks it worthwhile doing the courtesy of notifying the person who made the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons I walked away from my admin account. :) (OK .. I'll use it if it's really important). Chedzilla (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the circumstances (original ban discussion, current lack of consensus on AN, and the users statement), would you object to me unblocking? If you do object, then I won't. — Ched :  ?  23:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am willing to leave that to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much !James, it's greatly appreciated. :-) — Ched :  ? 09:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My user page
Please don't edit my user page. My service level was not in error. Yworo (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You claim to have 51,000 edits, whereas you are on record as having 38,302 (including deleted edits), and you claim to have 7 years of service, whereas your account was created on 1 June 2009, giving you just over three years' service. I assumed that the discrepancy between your claim and the record was an error, and by putting it right I was helping. Was it was not an error? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Try actually reading WP:SERVICE, specifically this section. Service awards are on the honor system, and allow the inclusion of edits made using previous accounts and IP addresses, as well as edits made on other Wikimedia projects. My service level is accurate, and unless your intent is to question my honor, that's all you need to know. Yworo (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Floating Boat  A boat that can float!  10:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion requested
Hi JamesBWatson. I've just used my newfound superpowers to block User:Automatic pop-up displays. I'm in no doubt about the appropriateness of the block, but would appreciate it if you could just double check and makes sure that it's technically correct (i.e. correct level of block, right boxes ticked, right template used). If not, please could you fix it and let me know? Much obliged, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete My Destination Marbella
I ask you to please delete my page as you have blocked me and told me I will never be unblocked, if so, delete the account and page. I have never been so insulted and offended by such a big business. I completely regret saying Wikipedia is a good website, the administrators are very rude. Delete my account please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.87.13 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 30 July 2012
 * 1) I didn't block you, though I did reject one of your unblock requests.
 * 2) I did not say that you would never be unblocked: I said that you would not be unblocked as long as your only purpose was using Wikipedia to promote your business.
 * 3) User accounts cannot be deleted. User talk pages can, but they are not deleted except in exceptional circumstances. Normally, we need to keep a record of messages sent to a user.
 * 4) I have looked very carefully at the messages on your talk page, and I see nothing insulting or rude. If you came here under the mistaken impression that it was acceptable to sue Wikipedia to promote your business, then I can fully sympathise with you when you found your efforts being rejected. However, the issues were explained to you in what seems to me to be a perfectly civil manner.
 * 5) As has already been explained to you, if you are blocked then you may not edit. You have been told how you may request an unblock if you wish to. I will not explain the issues yet again if you continue to evade your block: this is the last time. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the ATCOM topic
Dear Sir,

With all the respect to your contribution at Wikipedia, hence to knowledge in general, I found myself in a position to strongly protest, towards your decision to delete the topic ATCOM and revert to the old mistaken one, because of G11 - Unambiguous advertising. I will try to be as brief and explanatory, as possible, using two points to express my contradiction to your edit.

A. As you can clearly see, if you visit the topic ATCOM it redirects you to the United States Army Aviation and Missile Command, or AMCOM (in sort). It can clearly be seen that this is a mistype or a mistake, but nonetheless the expression ATCOM is not associated with AMCOM.

B. I created the topic ATCOM that refers to Atcom S.A., Greece's largest web development agency, something that is 100% true as a statement, yet I never used it as an expression, as it could have been taken, by many, as biased opinion. I even refrained from using any such expression (largest, best, biggest, etc.) on my descriptions to stay 100% within Wikipedia's neutral point of view.

I initially started reading carefully and checking the List of Content Management Systems (which you also edited and removed Atcom from the tables, although it is a corporation much bigger in volumes, personnel, etc, from almost half the list), on which I found a plethora of 'advertising' articles about various CMSs, but since this thought can be considered a personal biased opinion, I retract my judgement. Thus, I decided to use exactly the same templates, from some of the companies referred on the List. To be even more precise, I used the templates of Escenic, Sitekit plus a couple more, I cannot recall. On a personal note, Atcom is a company of more than 120 people, much larger than Escenic and Sitekit put together.

On the topic I opened, I never used an external link on the information I provided, and I used more than 50 wikipedia topics to justify all my writings. Even on the clients' list, I didn't use any source/topic outside Wikipedia. Moreover, everything I have written was fully and publicly justified by the Press, or other formal Press Releases, with links on them.

Finally, I pointed out that Atcom's products, in this case Netvolution, is such an advanced platform that it is even taught as a module on IT departments of Universities, something that no other CMS on the List of Content Management Systems does, if I am not wrong. Moreover, I refrained from using information such as the facts that more than 60% of large scale Businesses in Greece use Atcom's products, while more than 40% of the total Greek Internet traffic passes through Atcom's data centers, as I thought of it as biased, and I couldn't fully justify it, according to Wikipedia's criteria.

Based on all the above, I would have liked to ask you, to reconsider your previous decision about this specific topic, as the work I produced, I believe is written 100% within the Wikipedia editing rules, it is accurate, explicit and qualitative.

Thank you in advance and looking forward to a reply.

Fotis anton (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Fotis anton


 * 1) You are mistaken in saying that I edited List of content management systems, as you will see if you check the editing history for the article.
 * 2) If you look further in the article United States Army Aviation and Missile Command you will see that it refers to Army Aviation and Troop Command, abbreviated to "ATCOM". It is not "a mistype or a mistake" at all.
 * 3) If you sincerely did not see your editing, including such expressions as "core advantage is the wide range of solutions", and extensive content of little relevance or interest to the general reader, but of substantial interest to the business or anyone wishing to promote it (e.g. a long list of the company's customers) as promotional, then I can only assume that one or both of the following applies. (a) You are so closely involved in the company that you are unable to stand back from it and see how your writing will look from the detached perspective of an outsider. (This is, in fact, one of the reasons why Wikipedia's conflcit of interest guideline strongly discourages us from writing on topics in which we have a close personal involvement.) (b) You work in advertising, "public relations" or marketing, and are so useed to marketing speak that you have become desensitised to it, and can't see it when it is there. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. Fotis (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I apologise for confusing you with somebody else. I just saw on my talk, that you mentioned about the List of content management systems and I thought that you edited it.
 * 2) That is correct. Nonetheless, if you also look further on the AMCOM article, you will also see abbreviations like TROSCOM, AVRADCOM, AOMC, and much more, all of which are associated in a way or another to AMCOM, but none is a topic or redirects to it. Thus, I cannot understand why ATCOM which features much less or the same on the topic, as all the previous abbreviations mentioned, should redirect automatically to AMCOM.
 * 3) I am afraid we have a huge disagreement on this one. I will skip the personal attack which is not a gentle way to open a discussion, especially when there is a disagreement (i.e., that I am either assosiated to the company, or that I work for a P.R. firm), and we can go straight to the facts. I do urge you though, to see the facts with a neutral perspective, as I believe you haven't done so yet (I am not blaming you of something. I just believe you didn't have the necessary time to pay full attention). At first, I do accept that the term "core advantage" may not have been the appropriate, but that doesn't justifies the deletion of the whole article, IMHO. At second, if you search a bit on Wikipedia, you will find pretty easily the term repeating itself, numerous times. Random example can be considered this: NewsBio. But again, I will not be the judge of it. At third, allow me to make a small remark, that regardless the power you have been given at Wikipedia (well deserved, in my opinion), I don't believe you have the right to judge which content is "of little relevance or interest to the general reader". That is for the reader to decide and... the core advantage :-) of the encyclopedias. They include everything. In this case, I can find numerous topics with much less interest than the one I tried to create. Either way, I am not here to argue with you. I am just asking something pretty simple. If I remove the term 'core advantage' will the topic be published? And I promise to create a disambiguation page about ATCOM, in order to use the AMCOM redirect as well. Should I proceed and inform you when ready to have a look at it?
 * I am sorry that you though I made a personal attack: certainly none was intended. It looked to me as though you were editing from an insider's point of view, and so I said so. Even if that was mistaken, that does not mean it was an attack. The quote "core advantage is the wide range of solutions" was just meant as an illustration of the promotional tone of the article, and I did not intend to suggest that that phrase alone was the reason for deletion, much less that the sub-quote "core advantage" was. (Incidentally, have you ever once come across anyone at all in ordinary usage, as opposed to marketing or promotion, refer to the goods or services a business provides as it "solutions"? I haven't.) What exists in other Wikipedia articles is, unfortunately, not a reliable guide as to what is acceptable. You may find it informative to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wikipedia does not "include everything", but has various policies and guidelines as to what is acceptable. There are editors who think we should have no such policies and guidelines, and allow anyone to add anything at all to Wikipedia, no matter of how little value, but there is a strong consensus against that view. Finally, I think the business you wrote about is very probably suitable to be the subject of an article, but such an article would have to be written in a way that did not appear to be promotional. With the best will in the world, I really cannot see any way of looking at the article that does not support the view of Hu12, who nominated it for deletion as promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I can very well understand that you didn't do it on purpose, and you probably meant something else. That is why, I didn't stuck on it (between you and me, core advantage is frequently used on sports. For example, left-handed people have a 'core advantage' on many sports, such as water polo, or fencing, i.e. it is very difficult for their opponents to play defense on them. And, since I play water polo, the expression skipped from there). I also agree on your content views about Wikipedia, but then again, the joy at an Encyclopedia comes, when it provides content for the most unexpected topic, and not only the common ones. To stop bothering you, from your precious time, I will try to contact Hu12, to investigate the reasons, he nomitated the article for deletion, and I will try to rewrite the topic from the beginning, with as much neutrality, as possible. Should I fail to meet the standards for the second time, I promise to stop bothering you. :-) Fotis (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again. I just finished with the new Atcom topic, having removed anything that might look suspicious or biased. I even created a disambiguation page for ATCOM to fit everything properly. I would greatly appreciate your freedback on the effort. (and please don't reject it!) :-) Fotis (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks much better. I feel that the word "milestones" could be taken as a little promotional, and I have replaced it with "history", but if you really feel strongly that you want "Milestones" then I won't insist on the change. I certainly don't see any reason to delete the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

University of Applied Sciences Koblenz Redirect
Hello, thanks for correct my redirect command--TuxFighter (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

BOBBY TANGO GIBB hi Jim. I am trying to create a page and it is apparently being challenged for deletion. I also enterd the info twice after a correction and received a message about it. I entered the info as it is pertinent info about myself. I have never entered info on here before and need assistance in making corrections. Many of my colleagues have entered info concerning themselves and have had no issues. My name is Bobby Tango Gibb, and I am a former member of the rock band Bang Tango. But I am trying to create a page as no one knows the info entered better than me, so when I am searched my Wikipedia info is included.Any suggestion would be great as how to step by step enter the correct information and publish it. I have temporarily made the or reaction on the Bang Tango page. You can also reply on my user page Bobbytangogibb. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbytangogibb (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

msg notice
A fellow math person, cool! I left you a msg at the bottom of my talk page in reply to yours. BTW, what kind of math do you specialize in? Helvitica Bold 09:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Whirl-Y-Gig
Please explain the deletion of this page without due discussion? What are you doing? Whirl-Y-Gig is one of the world's oldest clubs! Please see the following massive list of reliable sources showing notability. These are just some of the book references, there are plenty of newspaper ones too. Please un-delete the page immediately. If you have any issues with promotional language or anything, address them on the talk page and I will be happy to help sort them out. Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 20:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How old the club is and how many sources show notability are both irrelevant, since the reason for deletion, as you will have seen, was that the article was promotional. "Without due discussion"? Under Wikipedia's policy, a page which appears to be purely promotional can be speedily deleted without discussion, so no discussion was "due". If you don't like that policy then you are perfectly free to propose a change to it, but criticising an administrator for implementing the existing policy is not likely to be productive. As for undeleting the article, I see you have gone ahead and re-created it anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

trout If you don't know how notable (or not) the club night is, we have an AfD process. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that would be relevant if the article had been deleted for lack of notability, but it wasn't. It was deleted as being promotional, so the only thing that was relevant was whether it was promotional. You also seem to have misunderstood what I said. I did not say that I did not know how notable the subject was, I said that notability is irrelevant, which is not at all the same thing. Very often I know all sorts of things but don't mention them, because they are not relevant to the points under discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article as it is restored, and how I recall it beforehand, is nowhere near CSD for sheer, irredeemable promotion. I didn't see a CSD tag on this article, so I don't know how long it was there for, or whether you both tagged and deleted it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was tagged for speedy deletion by an anonymous user at the IP address 82.29.25.75. In describing its subject it used such words as "beautiful" and "legendary", and said that seeing Whirl-Y-Gig was "a moment difficult to miss", that it was "rooted firmly in the here and now of today's London", and so on. I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could read it and not see it as promotional. The current version of the article has none of that sort of language, and gives a perfectly detached, neutral account. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a talk reflist so that error won't continue to appear. You can remove it if you wish. I'm also using a fake timestamp so this doesn't affect archiving Ryan Vesey 07:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ryan. However, I prefer not to have reflists on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Big red citation error notice
It's because you have refs on your talkpage without a reflist expansion. The error message for that is suppressed for editors that use the English language interface, but not for anyone else. The big red error message should disappear after anyone using English edits your page.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ryan Vesey 14:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a better solution be to use the English language interface when editing English language Wikipedia? It must cause the same problem on many other talk pages. Besides, I prefer not to have reflists on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ololort
I don't think it's productive how you dealt with the issue. He never gave significant warning to anyone. Most of the time Users revert edits that are considered bad because they haven't been told properly that it's against the rules. He didn't do that once and to make matters worse once they reverted it he threw the 'you will be reported' thing. This isn't how wikipedia works. There's 4 levels to warnings for a reason. To encourage that by not pointing that out on his talk page is going to cause more problems in the future as I don't think he's going to start warning users now. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "you will be reported" is perhaps not the best way of responding to editors who persist with being disruptive, but beyond that I don't agree. In my experience, people who deliberately seek to mislead other editors are very often aggressive and uncooperative when politely asked to stop. There is no way that anyone can put the fake message in question on their userpage or talk page and not know that they are deliberately setting out to waste other people's time and be disruptive. It's not a question of not being told that "it's against the rules". Is there really anyone who needs a "rule" to tell them that deliberately setting out to be misleading and disruptive is unacceptable? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I had it on my page. It was a joke. I had no clue that there was a policy against it. I'm not aggressive (At least from my view). A lot of my edits is counter vandalism and from my experience it's the opposite. Take today for instance. I warned about 20 people and only 2 have been persistant (One being a POV pusher). Remember we have to assume good faith for a reason. You're assuming that the people who put it up there are doing to deceive people when they could just be pulling a joke. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ping
You have mail.  Tide  rolls 03:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. My RfA
Just to let you know, I've responded to the concerns you raised regarding my answer to Q6 on my RfA. I'm confused, did you sense any implications about something I may have actually done in the past, or should it be interpreted as a purely hypothetical "let's say you're engaged in an edit war with an IP..." scenario? For reasons of disclosure, I've never edited the article in question.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've answered your comments in the RfA. However, to answer the question you ask here, I took the question as purely hypothetical, not as referring to any actual case. I did wonder why that particular article was chosen, rather than just saying "an article", but I didn't give the question any significant amount of thought. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks &mdash; I've replied there as well. By the way, when I say I'd be a "lenient administrator", in no way does that mean I'd defy community consensus or bury my head in the sand over an obviously bad faith contributor (or someone that just doesn't "get it"). I'd be more the type who would be willing to give people second chances. Somebody with relatively little experience (maybe like a month or two on Wikipedia) gets into an edit war, is blocked for 36 hours, and requests an unblock saying they will avoid doing the things that got them blocked in the first place, pledging either to discuss things or to drop the issue. I'd probably be more apt to unblock an editor under those circumstances with the caveat that any further edit warring would result in a reblock. If they already have a history of violating the three-revert rule or otherwise treat Wikipedia as a battleground, then I would be less inclined to grant them an unblock. Similarly, let's say an editor is actively editing a page, has made a couple of edits in the vicinity of a larger edit war between two or more editors on the page, yet he himself has not violated any policies and has not re-added content after it was removed, and then winds up blocked. I would be the type to take a very close, hard look at the revision history of the page to determine their culpability in the edit war, and assuming we're dealing with the aforementioned scenario where they have done nothing wrong, I would unblock with the summary "block was made in error" (or something to that effect).
 * Oh, and I hope you don't mind, but I fixed the link you added to my hypothetical 2nd RfA. I've been around since 2008, so I'm pretty well aware of community norms &mdash; it is generally seen as improper to edit somebody else's comments. However, it was clear what you'd actually intended to link to on my page, so I took the liberty in updating it. Thanks for your sentiments though, I really do appreciate it.
 * Take care. =)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 09:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification about "leniency". It seems I had misinterpreted it. As for giving second chances, I have several times unblocked indef-blocked editors to give them a second chance when other admins have been reluctant to do so, so I am fully in support of your position. (Though actually, I am less inclined to do that in the sort of 36-hoour block situation you describe than for indef blocks, but I don't feel like spending the time explaining why.) Your comments have shifted me perhaps from a moderate oppose for now to a weak oppose for now. As for correcting the slip in my link to your hypothetical 2nd RfA, thanks. This is certainly one of the situations where making an exception and boldly changing it was justifiable, provided you told me about it, which you have done. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, and thank you very much for your participation in my RfA. I appreciate it. =)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 10:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Note
User:Helvitica Bold was blocked for a gross BLP violation, as I recall. Let's hope that kind of situation doesn't repeat itself. The user page itself looks like an ad a hooker might post, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI proceeding references a block you imposed a while back
Hi James, In Feb you blocked a Michigan IP for edit summary abuse and external link spamming. (thanks). FYI, I just started an ANI proceeding seeking a one year block for an IP range. Your actions in blocking this sock were mentioned, and if you are inspired I would welcome your comment in the proceeding. No need to reply to this post. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock's articles
Hello! User:Mr Hamza and his puppets keep making many articles. Two of their recent favourites Shivshakti Sachdev and Pooja Joshi were deleted by User:Tonywalton and User:Hadal on 24th July after the new user was blocked under CSD G5. You also deleted one recreation of Sachdev yesterday. However, i had worked on these versions of 24th July and added some RS. The subjects have worked in multiple TV shows and hence they pass WP:NACTOR. I have requested these two admins to undelete these articles. But it seems they aren't much active since then. Can you please reinstate those versions? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the deleted articles, and I think you are probably right. I have posted to the talk pages of the relevant blocking admins, suggesting that they might reconsider. If there is no response within a few days feel free to contact me again. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked over Shivshakti Sachdev in detail, and think the G5 was quite valid. Animeshkulkarni's additions were certainly improvements made in good faith, but they weren't substantial improvements, which is what is required to clear the G5 bar. A quick glance at Pooja Joshi would suggest that it is much the same case. Kww(talk) 11:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I often find it difficult to be sure what is a "substantial" contribution. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There actually isn't much to add that will be substantial. I can ofcourse write one line on each entry of their filmographic table. But i find that unnecessary and gibberish. A compact small table says it all. But editors do make complex sentences on each entry of table and expand the "career" section. I won't invest my time on that. All i wanted to say is that subject is notable to stay on encyclopedia irrespective of whether a sock created it or an admin; and especially when we have clean versions. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But we don't have clean versions: we only have versions that were created by banned editors and lightly revised by good editors. Creation by a banned editor is sufficient reason to delete an article: the only times that we do not is when other editors have made revisions of such substance that we can't afford the loss of the subsequent good edits.Kww(talk) 12:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cant you just restore the article to one of my latest versions? And then delete all history before that? Or if that is not possible you can just copy-paste that version into new article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, of all the possible ways of dealing with the situation, that is the one which is completely out of the question. To do that would include other editors' contributions without attribution, which would be a breach of copyright. Personally, I am sympathetic to your view that the articles did have substantial contributions from at least one editor other than the banned editor who created them, and restoring the articles would seem reasonable. However, I have to accept that that is just one administrator's opinion against consensus among three others (the two deleting admins and the one who reviewed them). You could take them to Deletion review if you like, but I think it's more likely than not that the deletions would not be overturned, and even if you did succeed in getting them overturned, you would have to expend some time and trouble to get it done. While I do fully sympathise with you, I think your best course would be to write the articles again from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you at least copy the text and give it to me in my userspace? Or would that also be breach of copyright as no attribution is given to original writer Mr Sockmaster? I can then move it to the article space after you de-salts those targets. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Copying the content of the deleted article and reposting it would be just the same, no matter if we first posted it to a userspace page, first posted it to you by email, first engraved it in stone and danced round it in a circle, or however we did it. There appears to be consensus that the deletions were justified, and tying to find ways of evading that are unlikely to succeed. As far as I can see, you have three options: deletion review, rewrite from scratch, or forget the whole thing. I have already explained that I think the first of those is not worth pursuing, but it's up to you. I think that is all I have to say about the issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

SUCKS. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you semiprotect my talk page?
Can you please semi protect my talk page,i don't want anyone to write on it.Receptie123 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No,i want it semi-protected always,i don't want any Ip adress to write on it.Receptie123 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again.Can you please fully protect my talk page until 25.08.2012 and then semi protect it again?Receptie123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For your kind message on this talk page. The behavior points that it is the sock of banned User:Nangparbat, A CU familiar to his case has been asked here. Just thought of droppin a line to inform you. regards-- DBig Xray  13:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Helvitica Bold
You missed a bracket I tried to ix it but it showed my signature instead of yours. Please fix it.  Puffin  Let's talk! 15:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. how stupid of me not to proof read it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Signature
When I sent a message to a bot added that I have not signed it. To be able to tell me what's the problem with the signature? Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean at User talk:Hazard-SJ, where you added this comment and the bot signed it here. You typed in a signature, but it was not in the format that the bot looks for, so it didn't recognise it as a signature. The best thing is always to sign talk page messages by adding four tildes (that is to say ~). This will be automatically converted to a signature, complete with links to your user page and talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bot
Do you know maybe how to set the bot to work in Python? Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there someone here on Wikipedia, who knows how to work in Python? Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are loads of them, but I don't offhand know of one to direct you to. You could try asking at Help desk. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Genes (journal)
Regarding the COI tag that you just put on that article: the only two editors are Return of the Jedi and I. I don't see anything that makes me think that the Jedi has a COI and I definitely have none. I did an overhaul of the article according to the journal article writing guide and don't see anything untoward or promotional, either. Can you tell me why you think that tag is needed? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at deleted edits by Return of the Jedi I got the impression that he/she might have a connection with MDPI, the publisher of this journal. However, thinking again I agree that, even if there is a connection, it doesn't seem to have led to any problem with the article, so I have removed the tag. Thanks for prompting me to think again about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I moved discussion there in order not to force you watch my talk page and not to ping back on regular basis. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wustenfuchs
Can you remove the indefinet block? It's my account. I made 8000 and been on wikipedia for 4 years. Nobody edits under this username except me. I really need this account back. --95.156.183.178 (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to contact you by email or something? I'm not even sure if anyone did read wikipedia over my account, I just stated it was possible. --95.156.183.178 (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock him
Unblock Wustenfuchs.. The reason for his block are totally invalid. --TIAYN (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I followed rules of WP:COMPROMISE. I made a new account. What do I need to do in order to confirm it is my account? --FuchsWusten (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is stated in the WP:Compromise that I can ask for unblock if I can demonstrate I have control over my old account, which I do. My old account wasn't compromised, however, I use the "remember me" button when loging in. Also I stated there is a possibility someone was reading Wikipedia, that is, while my account was loged in. Nevertheless, nobody else except me is able to enter my account. --FuchsWusten (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Held Evans - Keep
I replied to your entry on my talk page. -Marturion (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Receptie123
This user's talk page was fully protected by you, upon their request. I was willing ignore this because they appeared to be away; however their contributions tell a different story. The full protection makes it impossible for non-admins to leave messages or notifications on their talk page and prevents discussion of their actions. Please unprotect it. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing the protection. I also must give you:

At least semi protect
Can you please semiprotect my talk page?[User:Receptie123|Receptie123]] (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you say why you want semiprotection? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick action at AN/EW
Thanks for your quick action at WP:ANEW! Hopefully that will get them to pause a moment. Would you be willing to move Battle of Belle Grove back to Battle of Cedar Creek and move protect? I have a request in at WP:RFPP as well. Thanks for looking, and Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to move it, as I don't have any opinion as to which title is better, and also because I prefer to remain uninvolved apart from admin actions. JamesBWatson (talk)
 * Thanks for looking though, I understand and appreciate it. I don't have any opinion either (other than possibly putting it back where it was), so I'll likely just leave it for others in that area. There are enough active editors on the article to make the call. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Relation of congenital heart defects with sex
I do not understand your reasons for deleting this section. It's well known and important fact that rate of defects is related to sex of a child. It's mentioned not only in the references presented but in almost every medical encyclopedia. You sure can remove the explanation if you don't like it.Sashag (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The section clearly existed largely to promote the non-notable work of one person. There is a considerable history of attempts to abuse Wikipedia to publish promotion of that person's work. Most of the content of the section was completely unsourced. Some of the sources that were cited were to the works of that person whose work has been the subject of the spamming, making them of dubious value. It is possible that a few small fragments of the content of the section were sourced by suitable reliable independent sources, but it is clear that the substantial majority of it wasn't, and if some of it was then without access to the sources it was not possible to sort the wheat from the chaff. Under the circumstances the only reasonable course of action was to remove the whole section. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Vincent Liu (something to say?) 09:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

96.224.19.2
Hello, I would like to get your opinion on whether I should open a long-term abuse report regarding this IP-hopper. They have vandalized multiple articles using multiple IPs over a period of several months, and I would like to keep track of them neatly so I can refer to the whole case on WP:AIV when needed. But I am not sure this rises to the threshold for reporting it there, also I am not sure what username I would use for them when they appear to be using only IPs. Thanks for your consideration. Elizium23 (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Long-term abuse seems to be designed only to deal with users who have at least one registered username, and does not adequately cover the case of IP-only vandals. Even so, my advice is to go ahead and do it. In my opinion, it easily passes the threshold. To my knowledge, this editor has been active at least since February of this year, and I have not checked further back than that, so it may go back much further. The amount of disruptive editing in that period has been very extensive. Technically, the case does not satisfy the criterion that "despite indefinite block or ban, continues vandalism and/or abuse beyond the point of any usual blocked user", because, being an IP user, the user has not had an indefinite block, but I think that is a mere technicality, as I have no doubt they would have been indefinitely blocked if they had been using an account. It would not be reasonable to interpret that guideline comment as meaning that a user can escape reporting at "long-term abuse" simply by not registering an account. As for what to file as a username in the report, perhaps you could just list one of the IP's. Not ideal, but probably as good as anything.


 * Here is a list of IPs that I have seen to have been involved. It is almost certainly very incomplete, so do add any more that you know of.
 * (In the IP range 71.183.176.0/20) 71.183.179.174, 71.183.181.200, 71.183.183.169, 71.183.183.252, 71.183.185.254, 71.183.186.33, 71.183.188.63, 71.183.191.77
 * (In the IP range 96.224.16.0/21) 96.224.16.57, 96.224.17.109, 96.224.19.2, 96.224.22.19.
 * JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of this situation. I've known of this long-term vandal (hope that is ok to say) for some time now. I started to document the IP vandal edits on just one article, here: ; like Elizium23, I wasn't sure just what to do, but at least I wanted to make it clear that one article was a target for the vandal edits. Let me know if you'd like any more IP numbers, there are a few more articles that have been vandalized on a regular basis.Flami72 (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks friends, I have used your information and filed a report under the username Broadway Hoaxer. Any additional input you have for the report would be welcome. Elizium23 (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that report, Elizium23. I added a few additional articles that have been vandalized and also added to the description (children's articles). Please let me know if I can help. By the way, should this entire talk page discussion be copied to the report so we can continue there? Flami72 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppet
Hi, I'm not sure how to go about logging a suspected sock puppet case, but I think I've got one. Sheldontechnology was recently banned for promotion, and all of a sudden "TechofPA" shows up posting the same thing on the Joe Paterno talk page. I deleted it, but he contacted me and more or less said he was linked to the page he's promoting (see my talk page for the conversation). I'm new, so I don't know how to do it. Will Maddickphit Esq (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reported the above user for an obviously grossly unacceptable user name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What'd you do that for brah? You people told me to ditch the ISP. Will Maddickphit Esq (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello, can you please take a look into this - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Almightyvegeta&pe=1&#Vandalism Fanofbollywood (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give more information? None of the edits I looked at were obviously vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism and Sock Puppet
Hello, this user (User talk:Hayvan) is vandalize Wikipedia for a year. he opened alot of users (Karparthos was his first user). I'm really don't know what to do. He was blocked (his other users) but no more than 3 days, week or month. The admins too much pity on him.--Friends147 (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you very very much :)--Friends147 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

semen therapy
I need a chance to remove the html that is copied. It is never my intention to leave it there. Speedy deletion ? stops me from fixing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstgh (talk • contribs) 15:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Gerd Theißen
Please, restore the page Gerd Theißen, because Gerd Theißen is the correct name of this German theologian! Or tell me how to change the Lemma of Gerd Theissen.--Theophilus77 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nemesis band
I am korean... korean rock band nemesis is korean...not Bahasa Indonesia change..this page!! it's wrong!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by N-sis (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean that, because the band is Korean, it is unacceptable to have a link from English Wikipedia to an article about it on another Wikipedia other than Korean Wikipedia? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Uw-vandalism1
You know that the first person voice was one of the many things discussed and ultimately supported as part of the 30 day RFC about this wording. If you think there is a consensus against that wording, then go run your own RFC where you get 50+ people to comment. But don't pretend you can just ignore that discussion. The closer's comments mentioned some very specific tweaks to continue carrying out, and they were done. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

2A02:2308:0:0:216:3EFF:FEED:42EF
This happens to be an open proxy, so a longer block is justified.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Foundling (2012 film)
Would you be willing to help me with this article? Nearly three weeks ago, I added a proposed deletion tag commenting that the article was a possible joke as I never found any sources to confirm this. Today, I noticed that the author removed the proposed deletion tag two days later after I added it and has now blanked the page. Shall I tag it as G7 or take to AfD because of the tag removal? I would appreciate your help, SwisterTwister   talk  20:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Without the blanking by the author it would have been necessary to put it through AfD, but as it is I have deleted it as a G7, and left a brief note on the author's talk page explaining the need for notability and reliable sources. It looks to me as though it may well have been a joke, but even if it wasn't, it clearly wasn't notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking for advice on proposed changes to Wolf Trap page
Hello James,

I hope it's all right that I'm reaching out to you; I've noticed you've made revisions to the "Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts" page within the last month. I'd like to make constructive changes to the page, but I'm new to Wikipedia and could use your feedback on what I've written.

I've revised the "Wolf Trap Today" section by taking out a lot of the content which didn't seem important enough or didn't have references. I've added a couple sentences to the beginning giving an overview of what Wolf Trap is doing today, and I added a sentence on Riverdance's final U.S. performance.

I've saved the draft in my sandbox User:KristenMK/sandbox, if you would be willing to take a look and make the changes if you think what I've written looks acceptable.

--KristenMK (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a thing on a page
And I never really did master the art of meaningful headers, but anyhow, this may concern you, especially since I kind of mentioned you. Or not, I dunno, but anything you may have to add would be appreciated regardless. -— Isarra ༆ 18:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Делија02
Dear James I would like to tell you that this user has 20 outstanding orders for Wikipedia and all he locked the META. This user is blocked for more than 20 times the Serbian, Croatian and Serbian-Croatian and a few times here on the English Wikipedia that use multiple accounts for Wikipedia. Just to tell you it is blocked: False and misleading information, avoiding block and Vandalism. Repeatedly on Serbian Wikipedia, the autobiographic self-made ​​article, the more orders. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give me the names of some of the other accounts? If I can see that the user is evading blocks on one or more other accounts on English Wikipedia, then I will block this one too, but looking at this account's history, there is no justification for anything more than a warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Here have all of his accounts that are permanently blocked on those three Wikipedia. I would give you a warning to put that can not be created under the names of articles Milos Božović (football 1990) to Serbian sr:Милош Божовић (фудбалер 1990) and Milos Bozović (football) to Serbian sr:Милош Божовић (фудбалер) because the Serbian Wikipedia permanently banned from creating articles with this name because they are judged to vandalism. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to tell James that he avoided a global block. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (talk-page stalker) Yes James, that user has been creating that article about a fake footballer already on WP. You should check the already deleted articles on en.wiki possibly named Miloš Božović and/or other version without diacritics, or with disambiguations as (footballer) or (born 1990), etc. I supose that he is probably making an imagined article about himself. FkpCascais (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Block review
User talk:Sir Gawain McGarson - Was blocked for multiple accounts. The primary problem wasn't overlapping edits as much as the pattern of disruption by the way he did it. Sockpuppet investigations/Lucretius/Archive for info. It isn't a classic case, and even at the SPI I allowed for an unblock of the current account if he would stop the disruptive account creation. There is some chatter back and forth on his talk page, and it isn't an easy or quick case to review, but I said I would have an experienced and impartial admin review and consider the unblock, slightly out of venue. I'm on the fence (although non-plussed by the lack of firm commitments here), and would trust your greater experience in an independent review. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Celebrity Sock Puppet
I see that you've experience with Kenny Hotz here on wikipedia, as seen on his talk page - User talk:Kennyhotz. I'm fairly certain he's been using a sock puppet - User talk:174.115.110.138 to keep changing his page into his own personal autobiography. I did a great job cleaning up the page to meet Wikipedias standards, adding links for verification, etc, but he seems bent on reverting it back to his own writing, with no citations whatsoever, with inflated claims that he refuses to provide proof for.

I wouldn't mind some advice for what to do with this situation, since I spent a good amount of time trimming that article down to a proper length and finding sources for all the info. I don't want it to turn into an edit war. Dannymartin128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

why you delete "Rahid Ulusel" page
Hello sir Last two month we try to open page for Azerbaijan philosopher, cultural and literary theorist, essayist, critic. Doctor of Philosophy in Science, Professor Rahid Ulusel. And everytime you delete this page and show errors like G3 and ets. So we have created page for this great person in diferent languages like Azerbaijan, Russian, Turkish ets. and all languages is work fine only english language deleted by you. Caqn you explain why you delete this page? Dear sir, now i will try to create this page again, plz dont delete, this person very important in my country thats why we want show information about this person to all world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahid Ulusel (talk • contribs) 09:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Đole Mrav that are not yet registered here on the English Wikipedia began to provoke. It is possible user by Делија02, possible sockpuppet nad meatpuppet. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry to intrude on your conversation (hopefully James won't mind), but you are correct that the account you've linked to is not yet registered, and therefore cannot be blocked (assuming that is what you are requesting). I've looked over the recent SPI case (subsequently followed-up on this page; previous investigation located here) and it seems as though you were likely right about sockpuppet abuse being carried over to the English Wikipedia from the Serbian Wikipedia. We'll definitely keep an eye out for him, in case he continues to create hoax articles and otherwise cause disruption here. Kurtis (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for restoring the COI template from it's pointless backdoor deletion version created in contempt of longstanding opinion. I saw the change but better judgement (and time away) stopped me from making a knee jerk reversion. After giving it time to consider my response I see that you have fixed things and based on your well reasoned argument in the TFD I hope it stands. I don't know if I can reason on this subject as well as you but if you need support in the future feel to contact me. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

New ANI requests server be told the clock has restarted on the Mich Ext link spammer
FYI, I have started a new ANI (UPDATE link to archived complaint) on a matter in which you have previously expressed interest, the Michigan global warming external link spammer. (If my link fails to pop up the specific subsection please check the table of contents on the NB.)

Per WP:ILLEGIT, "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart". An admin still has to push buttons to tell the server that the timer has restarted before the server erroneously allows it to expire on Sept 2. Since the current 30-day range block was put in place, this Michigan sock has engaged in 10 block-evading editing sessions (six of which were caught in time to impose short term blocks on specific IPs used). It is my belief the blocked range is for the user's home and they are slowed down now only by the inconvenience of editing elsewhere. Please do not let the 30-day range block erroneously expire on the server. The quoted policy says the act of evasion is what restarts the clock. We still need someone to push those buttons. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for caring! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I figured out what i was doing wrong and provided a proper cite to the complaint in the archives.  If possible please consider annotating your new blocks and closure of the ANI complaint for future reference, just in case someone else gets involved w/o our knowledge or something. CheersNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey James, I stopped short of asking to block additional ranges thinking one step at a time.... thanks for just leaping to that end result! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the ANI and I cringe at being an annoyingly perfectionist archivist.... one more thing, please? For future reference, if needed, please consider tweaking the banner you added to close the ANI from "blocked for a year" to record that (A) the single IP was blocked for a year and (B) the IP range was blocked for 3 months. mucho heaps of gracias NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse
Hello JamesBWatson, I would like to inform you about Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse an investigation of a highly disruptive sockpuppeteer which has been running frequently since it was started last month. I see you also suspect some user accounts like User:Pantsaklanos as a sockpuppet which had also blocked it before also for 2 weeks due to suspected sockpuppetry. I have reported all these accounts on the sockpuppet investigations page. You are free to give your comments and provide more evidence and information about more sockpuppet accounts and IP addresses if any of them have been missed out or are unknown to me. If you would like to talk to me in private first about some sensitive matter, then feel free to E-mail me. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Prof Cheng and his cycle
Dear James, I have made new "Cheng cycle" with proper sources to replace the other one which was a problem. I hope that is OK. Sorry for not being more precise in my contribution to Prof Cheng's Afd. The cycle seems to me notable via lots of links in the GS Scholar and books but I can't find much about him with one of the few mentions in GS news being about a 69-year-old Dah Yu Cheng being almost completely blinded after a devastating chemical accident which would fit with him so it seemed to me a bit sad deleteing the article on him and his invention. (I have no connection with him or his cycle just via afd.) Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

Milos23
МИКИЦЗВ02 uses this account here. This is a sockpuppet account is the account for 26 in order. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Milos23 and МИКИЦЗВ02 may or may not be the same person, but even if they are, I don't see any evidence of abuse. I f you know of any evidence, please let me know what it is. I ma not sure what you mean by "the account for 26 in order". Do you mean that this is the twenty sixth account that this editor has used? If so, perhaps you can let me know what other accounts are involved. The information you have given me is not enough to show that there is any problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ill-behaved government IP user 216.81.94.68
Hello James. I'm tossing this your way because you appear to be the most recent admin to look at this user. He's an IP-hopping edit-warrior on a Department of Homeland Security address range (216.81.94.64/28, evidently). He's discussion-averse (even though he demands that others discuss their changes), highly prone to serial reverting, and seems to show up every couple of weeks to make a string of disruptive edits. To top it off, he has a generally nasty attitude. Anything we can do about this to try to make a better editor out of him?  Belch fire - TALK 18:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been only two reversions of edits from this IP address in the last four weeks. Both of those look to me like perfectly good faith edits, one of them being mistaken due to a lack of understanding of Wikilinks, the other an unsourced but perhaps constructive edit. I see no recent disruptive edits. I also see no connection between recent edits and those that were made a few months ago, and it seems entirely possible that they are not from the same person. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting H.D.H Guruhari Hariprasad Swamiji
I'm not blaming you for deleting my page but I think you should give me a chance. Hariprasad Swamiji is a very inspirational person in my life and in many 100,000 people. Just like Pramukh Swami Maharaj, Hariprasad Swami has been in many people's life to help and achieve their dreams. To check out more, go on http://www.yds.org/akshar/webpage/legacy2.php?id=5. Respond back asap, I would be really pleased if you let me have this opportunity to make a page about my guru.

Thank you for taking your time out for reading my letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firetriad24 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The only pages that you created and I deleted were two attempts at making templates. They appeared to be attempts to create infoboxes, but didn't work at all.


 * Although I did not delete the article you wrote, I will say a few things about it, in the hope that it may help you to understand better what is required in a Wikipedia article. The fact that someone is considered by some people to be "a very inspirational person" is not a reason for having a Wikipedia article on him. In fact, if you feel that way about him then you are likely to find it difficult to write in the impartial, neutral way that is required. Wikipedia does not exist to tell the world how wonderful someone or something is. The main substance of the article you created was added by someone editing anonymously, which may or may not have been you. However, it referred to its subject as "brilliant", as "a universal saint",says that he had "divine prowess and sublime selfless love", and so on and so on. This was not a neutral encyclopaedia article, but a eulogy written to tell us how great and good its subject is: that is to say, to promote its subject. Wikipedia's policy is that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and any article the main purpose of which appears to be promotion may be deleted immediately, without warning, under the policy on speedy deletion. You may also find it helpful to read the policy on notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on anything, but requires that a topic, in order to be the subject of an article, must have notability demonstrated by substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. It is possible that the person you wish to promote satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, but I have searched, and failed to find a single mention of him in anything that looks like an independent third party reliable source.


 * I hope these remarks will be helpful to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my unblocking.
Thanks for the unblocking. A few questions remain, which I request your help in clarifying please.

1. AnkhMorpork did not try to resolve what they reported as edit warrring on the article talk page. They merely reverted-without-talk, so I'm wondering if AnkhMorpork should now be facing a block too for a period of time? What is the best way of going about that if you think this consideration has any merit? Should I report and request that on the same report or a new one on the Edit warring noticeboard?

2. Diffs of the alleged reverts were not supplied either. The three diffs that another editor supplied included an edit that was NOT a revert but merely editing. I think this gave a false impression and still leaves me feeling that I was unfairly and inaccurately reported and blocked. This is not the first time soemthing like this has occured so I am wondering what to do with that suspicion. (It doesn't help 'good faith' leaving this unresolved).

3. I still am not aware of the 1RR ruling on certain pages nor how one knows this. Did something come up to warn me that I missed, or how does that work?

4. Finally this page (Rachel Corrie) on the day of my blocking (yesterday) almost certainly had a huge increase in its topicality and interest due to the ruling of the Israeli court that was released also yesterday. That is why its accuracy and neutrality had more importance yesterday. I found one very clear case of dubious and politically charged information with a false citation in the article that is now to be found repeated around the internet aslo with the same false citation. With this and other neutrality issues plus what still appears to me to be a NPOV infringement in the nature of AnkhMorpork's own edits since, I think should raise serious concerns. That I was blocked so speedily, and without any talk discussion on the page, nor adequate time to revert (which I would have gladly done as my second revert was a mistake) all STILL lead me to feel that my blocking yesterday was perhaps politically motivated and was a form of censorship. What do you thionk of that suspicion? How do I address this? What is the best way?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this user should be notified according to WP:DSN on WP:ARBPIA this will answer all his questions.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was drafting the following message when Shrike posted the above message. Looking at the pages that Shrike links to I notice, however, that Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions says "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." The only thing I can see that could possibly be interpreted as an attempt to comply with that is the message above in the section "Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion". However, you were then blocked in a little over half an hour, during which time you had not edited, so it does not seem to me that you had in any meaningful sense been warned.
 * Unfortunately I now have far less time available for Wikipedia than I used to have, and I have not investigated all aspects of the case thoroughly enough to make useful replies to all your points. However, I will say a few things.
 * This edit, this one and this one clearly all reverted other editor's edits, within a period of an hour and a half.
 * Can you give diffs for AnkhMorpork's reverts?
 * God knows how anyone is supposed to know about the 1RR. Anyone who has a history of substantial editing of Israel/Palestine conflict related articles is likely to know about it, but anyone else is quite likely to revert without being aware of it, as far as I can see. Personally I would be very unlikely to block an editor for this without warning, unless it was perfectly clear that they were being highly disruptive.
 * Sorry that I don't have time now to go into this in more depth. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1RR restriction doesn't require warning. also in case of  Rachel Corrie the template  Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement  appeared on the talk page of the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike do you know if there was any discussion (etc) of putting Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement is an edit summary to the pages which it is active on? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you mean edit notice?It exists on some articles like Six days war.I had an idea that bot should place such edit notice automatically on every marked WP:ARBPIA article--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I did sorry. Hmm, it seems like a good idea at least for articles where it would be useful (that is where there are reverts taking place). Something I might consider doing myself (after checking with an admin that they think it's okay). Anyway, thanks for that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong
I reverted your additions to the Tour articles that Armstrong won/didn't win, and started a discussion on Talk:1999 Tour de France. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. My edits were not really additions, but rather restorations of content which had been removed with a claim of vandalism, which was clearly not the case. Raising the issues on a talk page, as you have done, is the right way to handle this, but reverting, claiming vandalism, and reporting to AIV was not the right approach. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring
Hello, you were quite right to warn against edit warring, however, I don't think you are fully aware of the situation. Landing craft of the Royal Marines is a redirect as a result of a page move to List of active landing craft of the Royal Marines. That page is not an article! The IP user 109.144.205.22 (whom you also warned against edit warring) is adamant in copying a pasting other editors work from an older pre-page move revision and replacing the redirect. As you and I both know this is against policy and not only results in plagiarism but is denying the original editors credibility/history log for their edits. As far as I know, I am not aware of policy that disallows me to restore the redirect - not doing so would cause confusion with other articles that are wikilinked to it.

Did you also know that 109.144.205.22 is actually user Cateau63? The user logged off to continue causing disruptive edits as an IP. Other IPs he used were; 109.144.202.42 and 109.144.185.198. I bring this up as this is a break of policy regarding sockpuppetry and I feel it may be an oversight on your part not making the connection between 109.144.205.22 and Cateau63.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify a few things with you as you may have the wrong end of the stick. Cheers. Obscure Reality Ping me 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying those points. It is true that I was not aware of all the details, and I hadn't looked at Cateau63's editing, but I don't think I would call it an "oversight". I looked into the matter as a result of a report about you at Administrator intervention against vandalism, accusing you of vandalism. It was perfectly obvious to me that your editing was not, by any stretch of the imagination, vandalism, so I declined the AIV report. However, as a side effect of my investigation, I saw that edit warring was in progress, so I gave each of you a warning. I also got the impression that the editing of the person who made the report was suspect, so I intended to come back later and see if there was any continuation of the problems. If I found that there was, then I would certainly have undertaken further investigation before taking any further action, but at the time, all I needed was to know enough to decline the vandalism report and give a couple of warnings. In fact, by the time I came back, both the account and the latest two IP addresses had already been blocked. However, please do feel welcome to contact me again if the problem continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Herbolzheim
Hello JamesBWatson, that same user Herbolzheim who was trolling and spamming my talk page with provocative and nonsensical comments and rantings is up to his old tricks again doing it once again on my talk page. You previously gave him a final warning, does this warrant blocking him? Thanks very much Christian1985 (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Invoking BRD cycle to restore page move
Hi there, it's a few months ago, but have only just seen it am I'm afraid I feel it necessary to revert the Feb 2012 move Tây Sơn Dynasty to Tay Son dynasty: Remove Vietnamese diacritics as these are rare in published English, see Britannica.)... Britannica is not the best source for spelling of Vietnamese historical periods and names as neither the print edition nor the website are enabled - unlike e.g. Dutton's book on the Tây Sơn Dynasty University of Hawaii Press, and unlike en.wp - to carry Vietnamese accents. This move is inconsistent with Lê Dynasty, Ngô Dynasty, Trần Dynasty, Hồ dynasty, Mạc dynasty, etc. And also with recent RMs on Vietnam's dynastic history Talk:Hồ Quý Ly, Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên. So I hope you don't mind but I think it requires reverting to status quo. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the matter. The move was made in response to a request from Kauffner, which at the time seemed uncontroversial. I suggest you consult him about it, and if the two of you don't agree then you could raise the question on the article's talk page. I will happily reverse the move if there seems to be consensus for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard Barber page
This explains part of the problem, but I was surprised that a posting made five years ago should suddenly be flagged up as potentially unreliable, which is what the conflict of interest indicates. The entry is very similar to that for Debrett (People of Today). I take your point about providing references, but what does one cite for entries in the bibliography, for instance? The British Library catalogue? That seems a bit over the top. I will add such sources as I can, but if the conflict of interest tag remains, I shall ask for the entire entry to be removed, rather than have something which casts suspicion on my motives left in place: there is no question of the added material being other than factual. I hope this seems reasonable: I should explain that I am not a career academic, but an independent scholar, and am therefore in a particularly sensitive position in terms of academic credibility. Richard W Barber (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed a few parts of the article which were not neutral, meaning that the conflict of interest tag could go. What would be helpful is if you could add any information about interviews or reviews of your books to the talk page so that other editors can use these as references to improve the article. Hopefully you can find this information more easily than the rest of us. Whilst we do occassionally remove biographies after requests from the subject, it's not something that we normally do, and in this case, you appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC so we would likely keep the article regardless. SmartSE (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I have no problems with the changes. I can add the important reviews for six or eight of the books, and will do so in the next couple of weeks. Hopefully, this will mean that the citation note can also be cleared. Richard W Barber (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This from The Guardian is the kind of thing that is needed. SmartSE (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)