User talk:JBW/Archive 45

Please see
--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was already looking at it when you posted this message. I still don't understand what the edit filter was doing, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The socking in I/P area is very disruptive from both sides of the fence.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you check a contributions from certain range of IP?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This tool or this one. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

173.63.176.93 Still Sockpuppeting / Action must be taken now!!!
Concerning 173.63.176.93's edit wars on the "Yosemite National Park" article, this user was recently under investigation for sockpuppeting (sockmaster- Thmc1, blocked in June 2010 for sockpuppeting), but let off with only a slap on the wrist. Only account Nyc88 was permananently blocked. IPs 74.88.160.244 temporarily blocked, and 96.242.217.91 + 173.63.176.93 left open, where most of the disruptive edits are originating from. First of all, 173.63.176.93 was warned during that investigation by SysAdmin Kudpung not to evade anymore blocks by not logging in, which he is still doing! Secondly, why is a known sockpuppeter who was banned in 2010 still allowed to roam free, continually doing what he was origianlly blocked for doing? As suggested during the recent investigation, I would recommened that the following actions be taken: 1) Permanently block IPs 173.63.176.93, 74.88.160.244 and 96.242.217.91. 2) Permanently block any known IPs used by Nyc88 to log in, as well as any other known accounts affiliated with those IPs. These are what I believe to be the right course of actions, and should've been executed during the investigation. It wasn't, and now this individual is causing the same kinds of problems as on the "London City" article which got him booted from WP back in '10. MBaxter1 (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Baxter, we appreciate your concern but I have already told you several times that making demands on individual admins won't help. We are all aware of the SPI, and if you have something concrete to add, please do it there, but  persisting and badgering  may only get the case archived for good. . You  are also  aware of some of the constraints involved with  the blocking  of IPs, one of which is that  a CU  will not name any matched accounts with  IPs. I  would suggest you  drop  this for now and concentrate on helping  us to  build this encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Those weird users
In addition to User:ALLEN NEILSON RAGHU VARMA and User:TRIPLE MIND SIMON CHART, have a look at User:Anr varma and User:Kalainesan too. I'm tempted to just block them all and zap their user pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been wondering whether there is a suitable CSD. Arguably promotion, though of a strange kind. It could be one of the rare occasions when an IAR speedy deletion is justified. Really, the content is never going to be suitable for inclusion anywhere in Wikipedia, and it's a question of when the pages are deleted, not whether they are. In that situation, is there any point in spending time and trouble putting it through MfD? I'm less sure about blocking though, without first giving the user (for it is surely one user) some sort of explanation about why their editing is unacceptable. The problem with trying to do that is where does one start? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think IAR CSD could be justified here - or perhaps G6 cleanup, removing clearly unsuitable user drafts of now-deleted articles? I think you're right about not blocking yet - give them enough time to reply, and then maybe ask them to keep just one of the accounts? It would be nice to be able to explain what was wrong to them, but as you say, it's hard to know where to start - having seen their writing, it would be with great trepidation that I tried to communicate with them at all. Maybe the best thing to do is speedy delete the various pages and then wait for some sort of response. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in (I was answering something below). That makes three of us who basically  concur. Perhaps they can be summarily deleted per G6 Clean up, draft  of a deleted article (I've done this several  times before). Warn them  all L1 for creating  inappropriate pages, and perhaps if there is a subsequent recreation, block them all per Duck or at least ask for a quick CU to be 100% sure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems we have an undelete request at Requests for undeletion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done something there. Maybe Graeme will twig. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have now looked back at the user pages, and the issue is much simpler than I thought at first. They do appear to be simply drafts for an article which has been deleted, and which was totally unsuitable for several reasons, so I have decided there is no problem at all with a G6, so I have gone ahead and done it. I have also posted a fairly long message at User talk:ALLEN NEILSON RAGHU VARMA about the reasons for the deletion, and cross-referenced it on the other user talk pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Mystichumwipe is back at AN3 again about Rachel Corrie
Hello JBW. Please see WP:AN3. Your last unblock mentions his 'undertaking to abide by 1RR' but seeing the new edits at Rachel Corrie, it would be hard to see any evidence of him following up on that assurance. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, please come and look. I don't think I have infringed the 1RR ruling (which I did and still do undertake to abide by). I think Ankhmorpork is being dispruptive to protect NPOV infringemnts. So your opinion would be welcomed by me.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding 1RR violations. I'm still a bit puzzled by a few things. Can you have a go at clearing them up for me please. For my future contributions.
 * AJWilley wrote in answer to my question to you: "One big edit of the whole article=1RR. One small edit=1RR. Two small edits back to back (with nobody else's edits inbetween)=1RR. Two small edits separated by somebody else's unrelated edit=a bit fuzzy, but bordering on 2RR. Two small edits separated by someone's revert=2RR. Five uninterrupted small edits back to back that equal the one big edit=1RR".
 * As you know my edits were back-to back with two editors interuppting.
 * And I see now that another editor Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has made a long series of edits, most of thenm tweaking sentences and removing items for the last two days running, and they got a barnstar from someone for that. So I'm now not sure again what exactly was the difference between what I did and what they did/ are still doing?
 * As you never answered this: "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article" which is what I still think I was doing (removing a sentence that had no functional source/citation and for which a reputable one could not be found a one) I am further surprised/confused by the allowance and praise for Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's extensive and prolonged editing/reverting [] [] of about forty edits with other editors editing in between. For the future and when you get time, could you do me the favour of explaining these questions please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 September 2012


 * 1) I am not sure what you mean by "back-to back with two editors interuppting", but between this sequence of edits by you and this edit by you, ten other editors contributed. The first of those reverted this, and the second reverted this and this. (They may or may not have also reverted other edits, I don't know.)
 * 2) I know nothing about Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's edits, and therefore cannot say whether this editor was doing the same thing as you. If you think that he/she was, then you may like to take your concerns to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
 * 3) Getting a barnstar means nothing except that someone or other likes what the recipient been doing. If you think the barnstar was inappropriate then you can take it up with the editor who gave it if you like. For what it's worth, my experience is that there is rarely any point in doing so: an editor who gives a barnstar for what they must know is controversial editing is usually trying to make a point, and criticism from people who disagree with them simply reinforces their action. However, that is just my impression, and I should also emphasise that I have no idea whether it applies in this case, and it's entirely up to you whether you wish to pursue the matter.
 * 4) Rachel Corrie is not a Wikipedia:Featured article, and I can see no evidence that it ever has been. My guess is that you are referring to the fact that it "was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section", as the template on the talk page says. It is probably unhelpful that the word "featured" is used here, since "featured article" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, it may be reasonable to extend "considerable leeway" in this case too, but that still leaves it open to judgement how much "leeway" that means. Let's look at your statement that all you were doing was "removing a sentence that had no functional source/citation and for which a reputable one could not be found a one". Amongst other things, you reverted the addition of the statement "An infantry major testified that the activists were endangering troops and disregarded numerous warnings to leave the area." This was clearly and unambiguously sourced to http://www.timesofisrael.com/rachel-corries-death-ruled-accidental-by-haifa-high-court/. I could carefully check through every other detail of every revert that you made and search for sources, but I have already spent far too long investigating this case in order to be able to answer the main substance of your points, and I will leave it at that, which is sufficient to establish that your own view of what you were doing is not entirely accurate. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I appreciate you have other things. Finally then, just to confirm I've understood correctly now.
 * I meant that I did five edits that were in succession without any other editor editing in between them. I think your answer perhaps explains what I didn't understand before though. If you can just confirm. The ones you describe as having "ten other editors" in between were done on two different days. On 30th Aug I did five edits 'back-to-back' from 12:04 to 13:24. Then on the following day 31 st Aug, I did five edits attempted as back-to-back from 8:19 to 10:59 but with two editors intervening as I worked. My confusion was that I regarded each of these TWO SETS of five edits as one days editing + one days editing. I.e. I saw these as TWO different days edits. (Two 24 hr periods). So what you call ten editors was not what I was referring to, but I now see that what you perhaps meant was/is that any editing before the same time period (i.e. 12:04) on the following day, is (and was) regarded as within the same 24 hr period. Is that it?
 * I'm not interested in taking that to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring because the editor does not appear to me to be being disruptive, is not pushing a POV and seem to be editing in good faith. The person who reported me, was doing the first of those two, in my opinion and I think succeeded in skewing the article for a critical period. But hey... its done now. And I've learnt about the definition of reverting and 1RR. So no worries. If you've read this far can you just confirm I've understood correctly on the 24hr thing I'd be grateful. And finally, It was never about me being right therefore it wasn't a revert. Thanks again.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)
Hi JamesBWatson ! I have started my second editor review at Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Andree Putman
The Andree Putman page remains as it was ages ago without verifications and citations properly placed. It reads to me like a business bio press release for her, her business and her children instead of a proper Wiki bio page. There is a lot of information there, and a lot of links, with little proper citation per statement. I don't have the time I do hope someone can go there and work on it. Causepowered (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

article deletion
Greetings,

I posted an entry on a piece of exercise equipment that's missing from the Wiki pages. I did so to the best of my explanatory skills yet it was rejected as "blatant advertising." This was not my intent, rather I wanted only to be objective and descriptive. In any event, the entry failed. I am posting another to my sandbox. Please have a look and approve it, if I've succeeded in making it neutral enough. Otherwise, if you can please let me know where it might seem over the top. (I read your intro and know how busy you are, so any guidance is appreciated.)

Best,

Christopher

PS— That's my real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Drozd (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have certainly avoided the impression of blatant promotion that the first version had. I still feel that the general tone is rather promotional, but I would be hard put to single out any particular aspect of it that gives me that feeling. I suggest you look at the notability guidelines, if you haven't already done so, because I'm not sure that the subject satisfies those guidelines. Note that I am not saying it doesn't, just that I haven't done a thorough search, and I don't know whether it does or not. If it does, then that should be fine, but if it doesn't then no amount of rewriting an article will make the subject of the article notable if it isn't already. I don't think that your current draft would qualify for another speedy deletion, but it could still be nominated for deletion by another process if someone thinks it does not satisfy the notability guidelines. If that happens you will have a week to argue your case for keeping it, so I don't think you have to worry about it suddenly disappearing. I see that you have tagged the page for review at Articles for creation, which is a good idea, and you should get an opinion from someone more experienced in this sort of thing than me. However, you should be aware that this can be a very slow process, as the number of submissions is always large, while the number of volunteers working on the reviews is small. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Indian historical sites pages
Hello James B,

I noticed that you've deleted several pages with speedy for several of the Indian historical sites pages. The only one I've seen said that there are no official sites for this province, so I can certainly understand why you'd want to delete them, but may I suggest a non-speedy route if you think it needed.

The pages involved are used by the Indian project of Wiki Loves Monuments and seem to be needed for software as well as content reasons. Non-speedy would allow a discussion of everything thats needed from both sides.

BTW the Indian project now has about 3-4,000 images uploaded since Sept. 1, so it's a fairly successful project so far and I'd like to keep everybody going forward on this.

Any help would be truly appreciated.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW - in the WLM-US project, there are multiple pictures of the James B. Watson Cabin being uploaded - any relation?
 * See Watson Log Cabin, where they've clearly got carried away with the gallery - I'll fix it Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and undeleted them for now, since they're being used for the WLM contest during September. Feel free to renominate them under AfD though (or even speedy after September if you feel they still meet the CSD criteria). Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Your thoughtful explanation here was much appreciated. I do have misgivings about having restored unsourced content, but much of what was being deleted appeared non-controversial, and the circumstances left an impression of conflict of interest or article ownership. Not wishing to appear like I'm warring, I'd prefer not to revert further deletions, so feel free to watchlist the article. Thanks again, 99.149.85.40 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Understood
Thank You :) --Filmsandtv2012report (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Salvador Puig Antich
I'd be read your message on the your talkpage up, If you want know if i read your message or not, i just tell you: in my userpage you have my answer if you prefer as well. --Ravave (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To reach an agreement in this article, i'd be write this message in the Talk page. How you see, is in two languages by the case CristofolR doesn't know English. What do you think?. Greetings. --Ravave (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The term queer
Hi, JamesBWatson. I explained this matter with this edit. The reason I didn't add the term back, however, is because it is still a controversial term. 66.85.128.186 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Milos
Hi James - regarding User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 44 - please note that is probably the same as  and today's new appearance  - a full list of suspected sockpuppets at Serbian Wikipedia can be found here -  linked as they create hoax articles, see Milos Bozovic and Milos Bozovic (footballer born 1990). GiantSnowman 17:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I'm sure CU will find plenty more! Regards, GiantSnowman 14:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole story goes like this for him one of the Serbian Wikipedia administrator wrote to welcome him to the Serbian Wikipedia. I happen to notice it's in the user name and the additional cost Milos CZV. When I saw that he decided to inform the administrator of one of the English Wikipedia, which is welcomed by him to do the same with 27 user accounts of Wikipedia. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ted Hughes
Hi James, would you mind saying why you removed the Modern British Collections on Ted Hughes link from Ted Hughes, you cited WP:EL, but which particular point? It's one of the major online resources on Hughes. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it was a mistake. I was removing unsuitable links from a number of articles, and I think this one got included because I didn't check carefully enough. I have restored the link, and a couple more too. Thanks for calling my attention to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that James, I was racking my brains wondering if there's yet another obscure policy area I am sadly deficient in understanding. :) Is British poetry an interest area for you? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the sense that I read and write poetry, but no, in the sense that it's not an particular area that I particularly edit about in Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk)
 * OK. There are so few humanists as opposed to technologists generally around the place that one craves the intellectual company of those to whom the likes of Hughes are an editing interest. Back to the articles! :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Updating Michael Levin's Page
Hi James,

I volunteer for the Lone Soldier Center in Michael Levin's memory. His family has requested we update this Wikipedia Page about him with information about the center carrying his memory.

What should we do to post on Wikipedia as we noticed that you deleted our posts?

Thanks, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbesnainou392 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Both editing on behalf of his family and volunteering for the organisation mean that you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest strongly discourages you from editing on the subject. People with a personal involvement in a subject, or people acting on behalf of others who have one, very often find it difficult to edit from a neutral point of view, even if they sincerely intend to do so, quite apart from the fact that some of them don't. Your editing, using such language as "There [sic] heroes need our support", has certainly not been neutral. If you did not intend to use Wikipedia for promotion, then you clearly are too closely involved to see your own editing objectively, and should not be editing on the subject. If, on the other hand, you did intend to use Wikipedia for promotion, then you have, unfortunately, misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed Conde
Dear ‘James’, thank you for your comments and encouraging me to study the Wikipedia policies, have a more balance approach to editing and diversify my editing. I have been working on my content for the Mohammed Conde page, focusing on compliance with BLP and Critism guidelines. I have opened sections on the Talk page to encourage the discussion of my edits. Yet my content is simply being removed by the same person, CollinsGen12, every time with no discussion. How do I approach this – not wishing to start an editing war? My post on the vandalism board (which you commented on) was misdirected in my desperation, and before I take up more Wiki admin time by creating a formal ‘content dispute’: I was wondering if you would be kind enough to comment on my most recent edits to the Mohammed Conde page:    Perhaps from your experience you may also suggest how I can engage with CollinsGen12 in order to resolve any differing personal opinions and agree on content that complies with Wiki policies without needing admins to adjudicate. Further background: The notability of the Mohammed Conde page is currently being discussed here. Thank you for your time. OscarK878 (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI The Mohammed Conde page has been deleted via Afd. If you are bored one day and want to comment on my editing, or have any tips, then please feel free to do so. Otherwise this request may be removed from your page. Thank you OscarK878 (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope
No, I'm not. --Teemu Leisti (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice please
Can you view this revert and its edit summary, shortly followed by this and advise whether this amounts to gaming of the 1rr restrictions. Note that the edit in question was being contested by several editors here. ' Ankh '. Morpork  16:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% happy about it, especially the edit summary you refer to. However, I do have some sympathy with Mystichumwipe, who seems to be making a good faith attempt to make a case which is certainly not without merit, and which he sees as being persistently frustrated. That is not to say that I agree with him: I actually do not have a view as to which side is "right", but I don't think that Mystichumwipe is intending to be obstructive. The edit summary suggests that he has still not really grasped the point about edit warring, but he did self-revert. I will draw his attention top this discussion, but I don't see any need to take any other action at this stage. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ist, Can you explain what you mean with: " he has still not really grasped the point about edit warring"?
 * 2nd, There are three editors who appear to me to be editing the article with a clear bias and who refuse to explain their reverts or engage in specific discussion and which I have asked one if they are prepared to go to arbitration over. But that is a different subject to this one of 'gaming'. So...
 * 3rd, Self-revert explanation: I ADDED clariftying info to the lead and tried to write it in a way that I thought accomodated the views and objections of these mentioned other three editors. This is not so easy to do as they refuse to discuss or answer specific questions (see talk)   As I did not delete anything and added info in line with what I understood their objections were (and while trying to accomodate their viewpoints) I did not see that as edit-warring but as moving the article toward improvement. The time shown on the history page is not exactly the same as the actual correct time in my country, so I then saw that I had added these edits before 24 hours had elapsed from my last editing. To avoid any chance of a complaint of 1RR I self- reverted my edit.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie o'sullivan premier league 2011 victory
Hi i am writing to you in relation to ronnie osullivan's premier league win in 2011.i have tried to place this win in the non ranking section,but everytime i do armbrust removes it saying this is a variant event.i have done research contacting world snooker,premier league and snooker statisticians like dave hendon who provides snooker stat they all still class it as a non ranking/invitational event. According to world snooker and dave hendon century breaks made are counted towards career totals,and matches counted towards players head to head records.this would not occur if it was a variant event.as i said i got confirmation from world snooker on this but armbrust will not listen to reason.can you edit this for me ?.any reply will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.227 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie o'sullivan premier league 2011 victory
Hi i am writing to you in relation to ronnie osullivan's premier league win in 2011.i have tried to place this win in the non ranking section,but everytime i do armbrust removes it saying this is a variant event.i have done research contacting world snooker,premier league and snooker statisticians like dave hendon who provides snooker stat they all still class it as a non ranking/invitational event. According to world snooker and dave hendon century breaks made are counted towards career totals,and matches counted towards players head to head records.this would not occur if it was a variant event.as i said i got confirmation from world snooker on this but armbrust will not listen to reason.can you edit this for me ?.any reply will be appreciated. Snookerfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.218 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Salvador Puig Antich again
I want to reach an agree with CristofolR about our mini edition war, but him doesn't seem available for colaborate. Today he make the same edition and later answer me in my talk page. In the message he says "Catalonia has an own government" and the guy nationality is the Catalonian. I think that even the books says about him how Catalonian, we can't ignore the actually nationality. If you want report us to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, go ahead, i don't want argue about political issues, I prefer you to be the moderator or anyone (i don't care). I promise don't make another edition in Salvador Puig Antich Until we receive response. Thanks. Answer me as you can in my talk page, thank you. --Ravave (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah!, by the way. I have found some sources (in English) which says he was a spanish born in Barcelona, one of those sources is a PDF profile about international famous anarchists. --Ravave (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello!, i'd be waiting your response, but you don't response me. I am disagree with CrsitofolR and i reported him to Administrators' noticeboard. --Ravave (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Protected page
James; you are quite right (of course). I muist have accidentally selected the wrong notification tremplate. I will look and see how/what I did.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

urgent
Dear Mr James BWatson, would you please delete this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setareh_Diba as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.152.195.92 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What? That article has not existed since it was deleted by JohnCD on 27 January. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Herbolzheim
Hello JBW, I notice you are continuing to monitor Herbolzheim. But he is still writing very offensive and insulting comments about me on his talk page. He keeps saying "look at his talk page, he has sucked people into arguments". He really seems to have an obsessive vendetta against me when I have done absolutely nothing wrong. I am just sick of him dragging my name through the mud, if there is anything you could do I would appreciate your assistance. I am not going to approach him directly as that will make things worse which is why I have come to you. Thanks very much. Christian1985 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Punisher a Superhero?
User Ash Loomis is calming that the Marvel comic book character the Punisher should be listed as a Superhero even though everything about the character doesn't Categories him as that at all. The only reason this user has come up with so far is that just because an enemy of his is listed as a Supervillain (which was wrong), he should be listed as a Superhero and that doesn’t make any sense. But you see the Punisher lives in the Marvel world where it's full of Supervillains, he eventually runs into them.99.174.168.3 (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User 75.80.134.142
Sorry to bother you, but several Articles on my Watchlist were edited by this User and I went to their Talk Page and noticed that this User has been repeatedly warned (even warned by you before) and previously blocked. The main problem is the User constantly adds Categories to Articles that are inappropriate even after being repeatedly warned about it. I went through this Users edits and reverted many, many of them and found that many of them were already reverted (several by you yourself) When 95% of a Users edits are either just reverted or reverted and the User is warned then the User should no longer be able to edit (in my humble opinion. King of Nothing (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. User Kudpung has blocked the IP Address. Thanks. King of Nothing (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Boxing club
The blocked enthusiast wrote new messages at the top of his talk page, including one addressed to you, which I have moved down to here and replied to, though since he particularly addressed you, you may want to add something. I really think we have a WP:CIR issue here - I see no evidence that he has read or understood any single thing that anyone has said to him. JohnCD (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree entirely. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Indiavision News
Thanks for the wi-ta, The article is well researched and properly referenced, may have more contribution from other users in days to come. I appreciate your concern but due respects clears your doubt.farhan.dastoor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhan.dastoor (talk • contribs) 11:58, 18 September 2012‎
 * It doesn't: I still doubt the notability of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Snooker tournament change
Hi i am writing to find out what is the process i need to change a snooker event from a variant to a non ranking on wiki.everytime i try and change it,it is deleted even though i have evidence to suggest i am right in changing this event ?.can you tell me what i need to do thanks ? PaulG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.220 (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The essential thing is communication. I see that you have given an edit summary mentioning your reasons, in an edit at Neil Robertson (snooker player), but it might be more helpful for you to try discussing the matter with the other editors involved. I see that you took some part in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker back in February, but apart from that and a few posts here on my talk page, you don't seem to have discussed your issues. Or if you have, then I can't see when and where you have done so. That is one of the difficulties created by editing anonymously from IP addresses that keep changing. Even what I have seen of your editing history took me a bit of time to find. If you discuss the issues with the other editors involved, there is a reasonable hope that you and they may be able to come to an agreement, or if not then at least a degree of consensus that can be accepted. I have no opinion on the matter myself, in fact I have no idea what the difference is between "variant" and "non ranking". However, when I find myself in disagreements with other editors about things that I do know about, I explain my reasons and try to persuade them. Quite often I succeed, or at least manage to get a compromise we can settle on. Sometimes, though, I find that consensus is against me and shows no sign of shifting. In that situation, I leave the issue, and move on, even if I believe the consensus is wrong. I take the view that my time is better spent on things that I can improve than on persistently trying to change something that is not going to be changed.


 * I have, then, two pieces of advice. The first is to create an account. This makes it easier for others to keep track of your editing and know what you are doing. It makes it easier for them to communicate with you. It also may encourage other editors to take your opinions more seriously. Perhaps people shouldn't take editors less seriously if they don't have an account, but it's a fact that some of them do. My second piece of advice is to approach the other editors, politely explaining the reasons for your edits, and asking them about their opinions on the matter. Discussion can take place on user talk pages, but if several other editors are involved in connection with one article, then that article's talk page is likely to be better. If discussion doesn't work, then there are other methods of dispute resolution, but probably they won't be necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

hi thanks for replying i only really use wiki to update players snooker profiles as i am a budding statistician.i have emailed armbrust about the about event i mentioned but he said his mind will not be changed.but i have contacted the governing bodies and he is not listing it properly,if i start a discussion on the wiki talk snooker page and i get consensus that means that the tournament in question can be changed then isnt that right ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.239 (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you get consensus then there should be no problem. I still suggest getting an account, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

hi james how does the consensus thing work do i just need a few people to agree or how much consensus do i need im new to all this ?.is it easy to open an account ? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.220 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 September 2012‎

Mich Ext Link spammer & block clock restart
Hi James,

Thanks again for the IP range blocks you set on Aug 23/24. For the two preceding months this sock edited (via block evasion) roughly 4 days per week. Since your range blocks they have been slowed down to just 5 days in the past month. Great work! Note that one of the range blocks was for one month. The server thinks the 1-month block for that one expires on Sept 24. However, WP:ILLEGIT says "..in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart"   Since the sock has restarted all of the block clocks by engaging in further block evasion, the server needs to be informed that the sock's choices have restarted the clock (again).

If you have time, could you please reset the clock for the four existing blocks? Also, I don't really understand IP ranges, but if you do, maybe you could add blocks that will minimize collateral damage but still block the couple of narrow ranges the guy favored this past month? Thanks for your help.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Milosh02
Milos again appeared on Wikipedia with the use of false and inaccurate information. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p
Do you remember unblocking User:Gaba p? You warned him at the time for his confrontational and aggressive attitude. Well he has continued in exactly the same vein, he edit wars in a WP:TAG team with User:Langus-TxT, he edits to promote POV, he edits against consensus, he's been following me from article to article and makes every article I try to edit a battleground. At Self-determination I took it to talk, then WP:DRN and finally WP:RSN, he follows everywhere with the same confrontational attitude constantly trying to antagonise. DRN concluded he was wrong, RSN concluded he was wrong and he just carries on with the POV editing. I have been nothing but polite and all I get is constant accusations and antagonism. Its getting to the point where I can't edit productively as I spend all my time at the noticeboards or in talk rebutting tendentious argument. I just want to edit articles but I can't. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now raised at WP:ANI by Ben MacDui. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks . ..
. . . for blocking the prolific false-death vandal. Have a great day! Cresix (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback from Flowerpotman
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerpotman (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 September 2012

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of List of Thai language idioms
The article was not eligible for CSD G5 deletion ("Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others."), as it had been very substantially edited and revamped by other (IP) editors (me). In fact, none of the original content by the creator remained on the page when it was deleted. The styles of editing make it obvious that the IP contributors were different persons from the creator. Please strongly consider restoring. Also please consider helping rename the page to List of Thai-language idioms. Thank you. --115.67.1.49 (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, and I can restore it if you like. However, if I do so I will take it straight to Articles for deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a language manual, and it is doubtful whether a list of expressions in a language has a place here. Let me know if you want me to do restore it and immediately nominate it for deletion again. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do so. I've been wondering about that myself. --115.67.33.85 (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC) (Sorry about the changing IP addresses.)

Wikiwatcher1
As an editor on Denis Avey and The Man who Broke into Auschwitz I would not make any agreement not to edit these articles so that Wikiwatcher1 can be unblocked. Yes indeed I have restored material which Wikiwatcher1 has previously objected to, but in that I have the support of the other editor Mysticumswipe and also I appear to be in agreement with both Administrators who have reviewed Wikiwatcher1's block.

I would comment that the article as a whole appears to have been shaped by Wikiwatcher1's view of Avey and I have been making substantial amendments to make the biography less 'heroic' and more 'matter of fact'. That seems to me to be in accordance with many 'good' biographies on Wikipedia but I would appreciate if any administrator or other person with authority could comment on the changes made. Thanks Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954

Possible unblock of User:RickWilliams75
Hi JamesBWatson. I've asked this user to address the issues you raised in your decline of his unblock request before I unblock him; if you could take a quick glance at his talkpage and check that I've represented your objections correctly I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have made a very fair offer, and am happy with what you have said. If he accepts your terms then unblocking to give another chance seems reasonable. I wanted to make it clear to him that there were more issues than he had accepted, because otherwise there was a risk that he would be unblocked, but continue to edit in unacceptable ways that he had not acknowledged were at issue, and be blocked again pretty soon. The main reason I did that in the form of a decline of the unblock request, rather than just adding a note at the bottom of the page, was to prevent his undeclined unblock request attracting more admins who would be wasting their time looking into a case that was already being dealt with. In such cases I think it is often better to decline the request pending acceptance of the offer. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thanks for the advice, as always. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 05:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked him for clarification one last time, since it appears he still claims his account was hacked by Salvidrim to make the offending edits. If so, he's either untrustworthy or compromised. We'll have to see what he says next, but I'm thinking that unblock offer may have been a waste of time after all... Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. There was no harm in giving him a chance, but since he seems not to want to take that chance, I think the time has probably come to drop the matter and move on. All credit to you for your patience, and your willingness to give him yet another chance to show good faith, beyond the stage where most of us would have turned our backs on him. My feeling is that, if he has lied, been given a chance to retract his lie, and has chosen to stick to it, then unblocking would be unhelpful: even if he eventually does change his tune we will never be able to trust him again. If, on the other hand, he really is telling the truth, then we have a compromised account. (Incidentally, how much intelligence would it to realise, after everything he has been told, that "Of course I stand by my claims" is a step towards making it more certain that the block will stay?) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think (and I'm sorry to keep this thread going; I suppose I'm just a sucker for lost causes - if you want to wash your hands of the affair just say the word!) that there was a misunderstanding there - his latest statement, though brusque, clearly explains that he repudiates his earlier statements about being hacked. I'm guessing he either didn't read the thread I linked to, or he didn't understand what I was asking - it's not always easy to get one's message across on the internet... Either way, I've left it like this: if someone will take him on as an adoptee, I will unblock him (making it clear when I do that if he uses the rope to hang himself, I'll put him back on indef like a shot...). Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, he's now unblocked and under the mentorship of Chris the Paleontologist. I've mentioned your name to Chris as a possible point of contact if he has any need for administrator input, since you're familiar with the case. Hopefully, however, you will never need to hear about this user again. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

plane and line intersection
Hi, I saw that you were the first person to have written on the 'line-plane intersection' page on wikipedia. I have used the parametric form in my research and need to refrence something other than wikipedia, could you please point me towards a book where this may be stated? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasacemesova (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't actually the first to write here. By default, the revision history just shows the last 50 edits, and I happened to make the first of the last 50 edits. IF you look at the bottom of the revision history page, you will see a list of links, looking like this: (latest | earliest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500). If you click on "earliest", you will see that the first edit to the article was made by Altenmann. The edit I made was no more than a trivial change of wording, as you can see here. The article certainly should have references, but doesn't. The parametric form is very basic and standard, and there must be many sources that could be used as references, but I'm afraid I can't quote any off hand. I actually used to teach that stuff, and in those days I could easily have pulled several textbooks off my shelf and given you references, but unfortunately I got rid of all those text books years ago. A Google search might come up with something, or you could try asking on Altenmann's talk page. If he/she can't help, try asking at Reference desk/Mathematics. If you do manage to get a reference for it, please put it in the article for other readers. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:IAmCoolForever2023


On September 19, you blocked User:IAmCoolForever2023 for disruptive editing. The user is continuing disruptive editing that took place during August and early September where he/she moved several television network articles from their proper locations to locations he/she felt they belong without consensus or discussion. The user was previously warning about this and all pages were reverted back to their proper location by User:Drmies. If you could, could you revert the moves made on September 23 by User:IAmCoolForever2023 and issue either a very stern warning or another block for continued disruptive editing? It would be appreciated. This note is being directed to you as you blocked him back on September 19. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help reverting those problem moves last night. Take Care... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Indian TV copyvios
Thank you for cleaning up some of the Indian TV copyright violations which User:Aashna Khanna was involved in. The restored version of Ramayan (2012 Television Series) now meets the criteria for CSD G5, since it was created by the sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user while they were still blocked, and there are no remaining substantial edits by any other user. I've therefore tagged it for speedy deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, after removing and revdel-ing the copyvios, please remember to close the corresponding entry at Copyright problems. It's also helpful to add a cclean template to the article's talk page for future reference to those editing or patrolling the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Seyed Kamal Tabatabaee Page
Hi James, My name is Tandis and I am a talent agent and manager for a large number of stars, directors and producers in Iran. I just created a page for one of my clients which you deleted. Seyed Kamal Tabatabaee is one of Iran's leading producers with a large number of projects under his belt. The information I provided is correct, up to date and had you given me a slightly longer time than 12 hours (here in Tehran we are at a 12 hour time difference than US, which is where I am assuming you are), I would have provided the article with the sources...as i did with IMDB and his official site. How do we get this page back up please? A speedy reply would be appreciated as I am working on numerous other official pages for my stars and cannot afford to keep having them deleted. thank you, tandis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmaticamgmt (talk • contribs) 14:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the reason for deletion in the block log (which you must have seen, or you wouldn't know I deleted it)? Or did you read the message on your talk page? If you read either or both of those, you will know that the article was deleted because it was promotional, not for lack of sources. And if you can't afford to keep having your promotional work deleted, then don't waste your time posting it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a free marketing or advertising service. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Filmatica Management's account has been blocked, both as a spamusername and because they are a spam-only account devoted to publicizing their clients (as they themselves admitted here and now). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael Kidner
I have left you a message on my talk page}}

Where as some of the edits you have made are positive, some are confusing and you have altered some of the context in the article. I am sure that according to wikipedia you have a right to do this but I would imagine in order not to go around ruffling feathers it might be a positive, supportive and reasonably couteous way of operating to politely let the contributor know on their talk page that you have made a few edits. Do you have prior knowledge of this artist and his work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkidner (talk • contribs) 16:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that you are referring to Michael Kidner, in which case you are mistaken. The only edit I have ever made to the article is adding a conflict of interest tag. I have not altered any of the existing content. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yahan Main Ghar Ghar Kheli
Hello? The whole entire article was not a copyright infringement, only the one section (btw it was not really a infringement because somebody copied it from Wikipedia and pasted it in that forum) --Farah Desai Khan** (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the claim that the forum post was copied from the Wikipedia article fails to explain the fact that the forum post dates from 13 January 2012, while the content did not appear in the Wikipedia article until Viraj Kashyap posted it there on 14 June 2012. Nevertheless, I have restored the article and removed the offending section. However, if it comes to my attention that the section has been reverted back in, I shall delete all versions containing the copyright infringing text. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article's just seen two further copyright violations in the past four hours. First the IP account  copied the plot summary from http://www.zeetv.com/shows/yahan-main-ghar-ghar-kheli/ and then  (probably a sock of User:Aashna Khanna) restored the forum posting you removed. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have now removed all versions since the copyright went in, as I said I would. This has the very unfortunate effect of removing good edits with the bad, but all other methods have failed, including removing only the offending parts of the article, repeatedly blocking sockpuppets, etc etc, so there seems no other way of dealing with it. I have also created a page edit notice warning editors about copyright. I hope no further action, such as semiprotection of the article, will be needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello
IP user possibly needing admin attention. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By the time I came online and read this message, the IP had not edited for about 13 hours, so there's nothing to do. Let me know, though, if the trouble happens again, and I will consider blocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please change "Wherescape" page to "WhereScape"
Hi James,

The WhereScape page had a typo when it was created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wherescape

should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhereScape

Can you please change it? The "S" should be a capital, as can be seen from the text of the page, also from the website www.wherescape.com

Thanks very much!

Cheers, Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R Mark Nolan (talk • contribs) 01:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Haseldine
Hello "James". You recently made an edit to the Patrick Haseldine article, which has led the subject to believe that you may be sympathetic to his cause. He's been banned, and is thus restricted to communicating via his talk page. Anyway, he's requesting your intervention in his favour in a content dispute about his biography, so would appreciate it if you could weigh in to help draw this discussion to a close. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Thai language idioms
Sorry for splitting into a new section, but I was afraid you'd miss it. So, what about the restoration and AfD mentioned above? I would really like to know what community consensus is regarding such articles. --115.67.33.206 (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Sorry I forgot about this, and thanks for reminding me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Potted plant ping pong
Why did you believe my page i created was a blatant hoax? I invented a new game and wanted to spread it with others and thought the best way would be through wikipedia. What do i need to do to prove the authenticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jollenberger (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day. It must be notable, which it almost certainly is not without sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Unscruplous deletion of Indiavision news
Indiavision news page was indeed a perfect well researched page on wikipedia, I am surprised to see its deleted, people will think its mafia`sm is on wiki if such pages are deleted for ulterior motives, I kindly request you to put back this page or else all peoples will loose faith on wiki for your unpleasing actions.--Farhan.dastoor (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think there are ulterior motives? As far as I can see, the article did not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, that's all. However, if you think there are reasonable grounds for asking for undeletion you should contact the administrator who deleted it, not me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Got it! ty
Gtwfan52 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Verification
Not that it really matters anymore, as the silly block expired. But what "statement you used" are you referring to. I removed incorrect information from an article.--ZooFamily (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "the statement you used" must have been a typing slip for "the statement you removed". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

AIV thanks
Thank you for the rapid intervention here. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Image Question
Hey James, could you remove the old instances of this image, leaving the new one (the one with the cartoon dog) uploaded today? For some reason, removing old instances of a file of the same name, seems to be the norm now. Thanks. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 08:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 08:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 08:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Garden State Association of Christian Schools
Please explain why you deleted the Garden State Association of Christian Schools before more information could be added you didn't even nominated it for deletion. More information on the subject could have been added. Dplcrnj (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC) PS: What I also can't abide on Wikipedia are disingenuous comments and personal attacks behind  my  back. Fortunately I'm not usually one to  take the bait. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned disambiguation page speedy deletion
Hi James! I just noticed you declined the speedy on Laplanche (disambiguation) (diff) with the rationale "Declining speedy deletion. Does not qualify, as it does disambiguate two articles." However, the rationale for G6 states,
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"

Wouldn't this page then fall under this criteria, and therefore be eligible for deletion? I've already dablink-ed both pages. Thanks,  Theo polisme  00:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think very clearly about this: thanks for drawing it to my attention. The template is poorly worded, and does not accurately reflect consensus at the discussion that led to the inclusion of the bit about disambiguating two or fewer pages. It says 'disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic)', but it should really say "and there is a primary topic", rather than "(i.e., there is a primary topic)". In this case there is no primary topic, so the page should not end in "(disambiguation)" at all. I have therefore moved it to Laplanche, but left a redirect at Laplanche (disambiguation) in case of existing links to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not following WP:ORDINAL is not vandalism?
Hello. Can you please explain this? The way I see things, WP:MOS is there to be followed rather than being disregarded. Your reply at WP:AIV sets not the best example. Cheers.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said that the manual of style was to be disregarded. I merely said that disregarding it does not qualify as WP:Vandalism. There are many reasons why particular edits are unacceptable, and vandalism is just one of those many. As far as I can see, the editor in question may well sincerely think that "Of the 24 people on board, 3 were killed" is clearer than "Of the twenty-four people on board, three were killed", in which case the change is not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Administrator intervention against vandalism is specifically a place for reporting vandalism, not a catch-all place for reporting any kind of editing which you think is wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have to agree with you in that my request was obviously misplaced. I apologise with you if my words sounded somewhat rude. I do find the edit in question as unnacceptable, as WP:MOS is there to be followed and to give all the articles the same aspect. Yet, I stil don't know how to proceed with the user recursively making them, despite being warned many times not to do that. Thanks for your response.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A thank-you note-plus
James, cheers for the great help and support. As for this I think I will simply keep you in mind for questions and perhaps a review of my editing on occasion. It sometimes feels as if I wear out my welcome, because I can be a dunderhead about so much.—— Djathink imacowboy  19:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Naseeb.com
Thanks for approaching Myrnahera this morning and attempting to explain the difficulties with their editing in a diplomatic and reasonable fashion. After checking for material to corroborate the article, I identified several possibilities, including Forbes, Dinar Standard, NYU, and NYT, which seem to connote sufficient coverage to warrant the removal of the deletion tag. Where secondary material substantiates claims within the article, my principal concern is that the proposed deletion might vindicate the aggrieved editor, irrespective of whether their grievances are valid. Any thoughts? Best wishes, Mephistophelian  (contact)  12:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC).
 * I've had a quick look at the sources you link to. I'm a little doubtful about a couple of them. this one has only a passing mention of naseeb.com. I'm not sure how good a source a student site such as http://journalism.nyu.edu is. (Note that I am not saying it isn't a good source, just that I'm not sure.) Also, the content of some of the sources looks to me rather like write ups of press releases, rather than objective reporting. However, I have to go offline now, and don't have time to check the sources more thoroughly, and without such a thorough check I am really not sure. If you judge that there is enough there to contest the proposed deletion then please add references and remove the notice from the article. As for your concerns that deletion "might vindicate the aggrieved editor, irrespective of whether their grievances are valid", I completely understand what you mean, but we really should not allow considerations such as that to influence decisions. If the article qualifies for inclusion it should be kept, and if not it should be deleted, irrespective of what some particular editor may think of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Email
 He  iro  20:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on this Noderaster contribs? They just popped up today, of all days. I'm sure it's someones sock, but of all of the users on that page and spa IPs, who can tell which. If they mount a campaign of harrasment, advice? He  iro  00:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed as much, lol, thanks.  He  iro  13:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User:201.68.111.198
Another Pe de Chinelo IP sock in need of blocking. He is nothing if not persistent, eh? --- The Old Jacobite  The '45  14:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, about Maractus and Cupco
Maractus is the ED admin and GNAA associate Meepsheep. He's usually globally blocked on WMF projects on sight. He also owns the domain maract.us under a pseudonym. Cupco has had dozens of previous accounts blocked, including Selery and Nrcprm2026. He doesn't like the GNAA. Meepsheep is happy he's won this battle. Notice his edits 15 minutes apart on enwiki and ED.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FDualus&diff=515989268&oldid=515921033

encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America&diff=prev&oldid=430950

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2011-06#Global_lock_for_Meepsheep

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=meepsheep+%22maract.us%22&hl=en&prmd=ivns&filter=0

http://bgp.he.net/dns/maract.us#_whois

2605:6F00:877:0:0:0:B505:DCE6 (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback from gregory1132

 * Seen

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Help me
I am a big fan of justin beiber, but I can't ask questions on his talk page, can you help me?75.171.2.67 (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

response
I responded to you at User_talk:24.177.122.31. Also, I needed an account on Commons to email someone, and through the magic of SUL, now I've got one on en. So FYI, you might want to block it. Throwaway Sockpuppet Account (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Milos23067
This user is well-known to us that Milos has 33 accounts that are locked and blocked at several Wikipedia. Warning his previous account was Milosczv2222. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ekren
is back. Instead of taking some time to work manually and show that he can get it right, he simply stopped editing until two days ago, when he re-started Twinkling as fast and furiously as ever. See User talk:Ekren and Electric catfish's comments just above. Any ideas about conditions for unblock? I should think at least a month of active patrolling without Twinkle (not simply time off) and satisfactory accuracy. I am not optimistic about this, but it would be good if we could harness all that energy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for help
Hi there. Sorry about this, but our Brazilian disruptive editing friend (User:Leandro da silva pereira santos) is back once again on IP: 189.27.241.169 as per this edit. Since you're the person who has dealt with this frequently, could you please see to this IP too? Thanks Paralympiakos  (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help so far. Unfortunately, we have another at 177.18.43.239 - sorry about this. It would appear that this one just doesn't give up. Paralympiakos  (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * and another at IP: 189.27.170.123. I know it is a drastic measure, but would you consider semi-protecting some of the pages that this individual has been targeting? I know there's a lot of them, but I see it as the only option now. Paralympiakos  (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Originally I was not protecting articles, as I saw an editor who jumped about to different articles all the time. However, prompted by your message, I have looked more closely, and found that, although a large number of articles are involved, the editor consistently comes back to those articles, and his/her edits are a substantial proportion of recent edits to the articles. Because of this, I have semi-protected a number of articles that the editor has recently attacked via more than one IP address. The length of the protection varies from one to three months, depending on the length of time during which I can see evidence of this editor's involvement. Let me know if you know of other articles that need to be considered, or if the problem comes back when the current semi-protection expires. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I know it isn't an ideal situation, but Leandro just keeps doing it. I'll let you know if anything else happens. Hopefully it doesn't though! Paralympiakos  (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Supriya Maskey
Hi James. I would like your input on this please. I originally BLPPRODed this article. The user has gone to a lot  of trouble to  make a decent  article and provide refs. However, I still  don't  think  it's appropriate. See also the message on my talk  page. Also, an IP has tried to  AfD it  but  it  was their only  edit  to  Wikipedia and they  made a mess of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance through, the article looks well written, and, as you say, the author has gone to quite a of of trouble. This is the sort of situation where, even if the article does not satisfy our requirements, deleting it seems very unfriendly to the author. However, the question remains, is the subject notable?
 * First thing that struck me was the impressive list of 17 references. However, most of them turned out to be duplicate copies of a few refs, and when I condensed them by using I found there were really only six references. One of these neither mentioned Supriya Maskey nor supported any statement in the article, as far as I could see, so I removed it, leaving five references, including two pages on one web site, so really only four separate sources. At least some of these, in my opinion, are of little or no value in establishing notability. http://models.hawamodel.com says of itself "The model profile is targeted to the modeling agencies and individuals who want to contact the model for their projects. Links to the sites to contact to get the further information are also posted along with the model profile." That reads to me as an announcement that the site is a promotion service for models, so it is not an independent source. http://nepalesecouncil.com says "Nepalese Council is an Event Management company which is involved in the promotion of Nepali Culture, Art, Music, Social Services, Events and youth wish... Nepalese council is steadfast in bringing out a world Class pageant." Again, clearly a promotional site. Two of the five references are pages on http://xnepali.net. It is less clear to me what the nature of this site is, but I notice that both the pages credit FaceBook, which causes me to doubt how reliable and independent a source it is. The absence, as far as I can see, of an "about us" page or equivalent makes it difficult to assess the site. That leaves only the page at www.myrepublica.com, which looks as though it may be a reliable source, though it is difficult to be sure. Even if it is, I don't think that we have substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. All in all, what I see in the references is typical of what we tend to get when an inexperienced editor writes an unsourced article, finds a threat of deletion for lack of sources, and rapidly adds as many links to web pages mentioning the subject as they can, with little understanding of what sources are useful.
 * Another point is that her single claim to fame appears to be her participation in Little Miss World Nepal. There is no Wikipedia article about Little Miss World Nepal, and in a fairly quick look through the hits from a Google search I saw, apart from FaceBook, mostly things which looked very much like promotional sites and other sources of little value.
 * All in all, as you will have gathered by now, my impression is that the subject does not satisfy our notability guidelines. As I said above, deleting an article where the author has put so much effort in seems rather unfriendly, and I would feel somewhat uncomfortable if I found myself being the admin who assessed an AfD and found I had to delete it. However, being kind to the author is not a valid keep reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks James for all the hard work  you put into this. It confirms exactly  what I  found. If you  don't  mind, I'll simply link the author to  your explanation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks James for all your dedication to go through out the article Supriya Maskey. Thats good information to what I have learnt. Please recheck the references that i have coded for reliable source as the news here in nepal is popping out. In every papers and websites. You could go to nepalese council website and also littlewrold website to see the reference it it is reliable information or not. I would be happy if you assist me to help me how to ref the sources. Lets do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binod.hyoju (talk • contribs) 01:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seen

JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Message from vandal
I'm really sorry, I just created my account and left it open round a friend's house! Thank you for undoing the pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonesyE11 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seen.

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk

 * Seen

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You keep stating i am spamming!!!!!!!
Can i inform you that i am not spamming or trying to advertise my book, as you stated, i am informing the people that as Libera have DVDs and CD's, we also have a Book, "The Journey" it is the only book in the world that explains the who story about Libera, and is totally relevant to the "Libera music" page, and every time i use my time to help inform people on here i feel it is a complete waste of my time and effort, as you keep on deleting anything about the book ???, i also run a website for Libera and if you keep stopping me from letting people know about the Libera book i shall inform them all around the world that Wikipedia will only allow some information about a few subjects but not all subjects will have all the reverent information especially about Libera, the people have a right to know about this book, and that it is out there, how am i suppose to inform people about the book if i can not even call it a book??? the book took over two year of hard work to create this history of Libera from 1970 to 2012, and you still insist on not allowing people to know about it, is it that Wikipedia is only for the few, and not everyone? i am not impressed.

Adrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.48.45 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything you say, including "the people have a right to know about this book, and that it is out there, how am i suppose to inform people about the book if i can not even call it a book" shows clearly that you are adding information about your book because you want your book to be better known, which means that you are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your book, which is against Wikipedia policy. You are also quite right about the fact that Wikipedia allows information about only some subjects not all, as we require subjects to satisfy our notability guidelines before they are considered acceptable as the topics of articles. It is, unfortunately, a very common mistake to think that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can add anything they like to Wikipedia". However, I feel you are probably mistaken in thinking that Wikipedia "allow some information about a few subjects", as we have over four million articles, which I would not call "a few". JamesBWatson (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Adrian, it is a "complete waste of your time and effort" to promote your fan based work on Wikipedia. This online encyclopedia does not recognize your works to LIBERA as wp:notable, that is why you are constantly being reverted/deleted. The bottom line, is that your book is not a wp:reliable source, it is basically designed to increase the fan-base. Wikipedia rejects such wp:promo. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  08:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You can twist it as much as you like, the thousands of Libera fans around the world will now find out that Wikipedia is a complete waste of time, and i will tell them that Wikipedia is never worth even looking at and why, i think its time you got your head out of your backsides and seen the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.48.45 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a fan site, so what fans think is of little importance. Making personal attacks on editors you disagree with will not further your cause, either. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nor does Wikipedia care about being popular. If you want, you can write a book about it. But first you should make sure you get a good editor to capitalize your "i"s since that's considered bad grammar. &mdash; Jason Sosa  20:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes
Your email to me: Dear Srennipsurt,

The Wikipedia page "User talk:Srennipsurt" has been changed on 9 October 2012 by JamesBWatson, with the edit summary: /* October 2012 */ new section

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srennipsurt&diff=next&oldid=453168752 to view this change. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srennipsurt&diff=0&oldid=453168752 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Srennipsurt for the current revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamesBWatson My reply. I do not know exactly what is going on here. I have have my Wikipedia page about my invention not only hacked and altered, but sections COMPLETELY deleted! NOW I am getting warnings from you! .......Ever since the end of my patent cases in the U.S.Federal Courts I was instructed to try and keep an accurate account on Wikipedia for further cases, and I did my best, but I have now turned it over to my publicist, as she and her team seem to know much more about it than I. She immediately noticed the vandalism that started back in June 2012 by a Celivd or something of that name, and this is not his only vandalism. They are also creating false Facebook accounts in my name and I have also had my identity now stolen according to some associate accounts. I am now preparing to file charges and get to the bottom of this. So PLEASE stop allowing strangers that know nothing about this invention or it's Federal documented cases to vandalize this Wikipedia page.

As for me, I am not self-promoting anything. I have a book out I authored that there has not been one word mentioned of. I have 100 other inventions in use in over 60 countries that there is no mention of. All that has ever been done on that Wheel Spinners page is to give an "accurate" account of the events that surrounded the wheels craze phenomena, with information of the one that invented it, ME, and an accurate account of how the entire apparatus became known to the masses and the results of all the well known legal actions that took place. As for American Tru-Spinners self-promoting, it does NOT even sell products! So if it does not SELL anything, how can it PROMOTE something / anything that it doesn't possess anything to sell?-! It has NO merchandise. It is THE company that has had the patent assigned to and was found to have 'legal standing' in the Federal Courts.

So could you please explain to me what it is that you need to have this page comply with the Wikipedia standards? And explain how it does not at this point. This would help tremendously. It would also help if you would block the strangers from vandalizing this page. I have tried to contact Wikipedia themselves and think that as blatant as this vandalism has been, there should not be any reason to involve more people than it should take for one guy hacking me, especially when he has zero standing or knowledge about any of this. I await your reply and thanks for your time here.

Best regards, James J.D. Gragg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srennipsurt (talk • contribs) 05:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I came across this issue from another route. As an uninvolved editor I'm  afraid I  have to  agree with  JamesBWatson on  this. User:Srennipsurt must  understand that  once created, articles are not  the property  of their authors; Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit as governed by  the policy  at  Ownership of articles.


 * Without a complete rewrite, the section  Spinner (wheel)  is wholly  inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Although  technically  possible, inline external  links are disallowed. Links to  some of the pages, such  as social  or business networking  sites are further disallowed according  to  our policies  at  WP:Reliable sources,  WP:Verifiability, and WP:External links. Furthermore, several of those links are clearly spam links (per Spam) that serve to  place focus on the identity and work of James J.D. Gragg  whose Wikipedia autobiography, James (J.D.) Gragg  has already  been deleted according  to  policy at section WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion).


 * Where Gragg has identified himself as User talk:Srennipsurt, as the creator of these and other deleted articles, where I might  assume good faith  that  the user may  not  be aware of our policies I  do  interpret parts of these pages and external  links as vehicles for promotion. A major policy  governing  the creation and/or editing  of pages by  the subjects themselves or persons closely  connected with  them is explained in  full at  Conflicts of Interest, and in  this respect  I  have issued a warning  to  User talk:Heather Ussery, and Ussery  has also  been warned for making legal threats per our policy  at  WP:NLT.


 * I will  defer back to JamesBWatson to  pronounce on  what  action  should be taken based on the edits and comments of Mr Gragg . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry this reponse has been rather slow in coming. I did, in fact, start writing a fairly detailed answer yesterday, but I got called awy from the computer before I had time to finish it and post it.


 * Thank you, Kudpung. I shall add a few comments of my own, which I hope will help to clarify things for James Gragg.
 * I'm afraid, Mr Gragg, you have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia, in several ways. The kind of misunderstanding involved is, unfortunately, quite common: a lot of people think that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means that anyone can use Wikipedia for their own purposes.


 * 1) You say that the article has been altered, and some sections have been deleted. You refer to other editors' editing which you don't like as "vandalizing" the article, and you asked for "strangers" to be prevented from editing the article. All this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is not the property of a person or organisation that the article is about, nor is it the property of any editor who has contributed to writing it. You have no right to dictate the contents of an article and to forbid others from editing it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. We have guidelines and policies about what can be included, and when there are reasonable disagreements about how to apply them, the issue is settled by discussion and attempting to reach consensus, not by an individual who thinks he/she knows better than anyone else announcing that anyone who disagrees is a vandal and must be stopped.
 * 2) Far from your having special rights over content that relates to you, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you, or anyone working with or for you, from editing on the subject at all. Wikipedia articles are meant to be written from an impartial, third party, point of view, not from the point of view of an involved party.
 * 3) You say that you were "instructed to try and keep an accurate account on Wikipedia for further cases". You don't say who instructed you to do so, but I'm afraid whoever it was did not understand the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a free web host for you to store content for your own use unrelated to building the encyclopaedia, such as a database of information for you to use in legal cases. There are plenty of web sites where you can store such material, but Wikipedia is not one of them.
 * 4) You say "As for American Tru-Spinners self-promoting, it does NOT even sell products! So if it does not SELL anything, how can it PROMOTE something / anything that it doesn't possess anything to sell?" This is a very common misunderstanding of the word "promotion". I have never been able to figure out why, but many people assume that "promotion" can refer only to commercial promotion for monetary gain. However, Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not to be used for any kind of promotion, commercial or otherwise. Thus, for example, promoting a religion, or a political view, is not permitted, or promoting a person by telling us how wonderful their achievemnts are, or promoting a person's claim in a dispute with others, or, indeed, any kind of promotion, is unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, for clarity, I have never sent you an email. You must have your preferences set to automatically email you when your talk page is edited, and the email you refer to will be such an automatically posted one. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)