User talk:JBW/Archive 49

Confirmation for rework
James, please confirm if I can rework the above article Article link with suggested changes i.e. rechecking the language to eliminate any possibility of “Promotional” reflection and further filtering references. Thanks

Aaanshu (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure exactly what you mean. Certainly you may re-edit your draft to try to write it in a non-promotional way, if that's what you mean. However, you may like to consider first whether the subject satisfies the notability guidelines. No amount of rewriting an article will make the subject of the article notable if it isn't notable. I don't know whether the subject is notable, but I have not yet seen anything to suggest that he is. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Of "Mervyns Advanced Retail Systems".
I would like to be informed why you have Deleted My Article. I have left a message saying to "Get more info" if possible. Please, I still dont remember those retail systems after the years of "Mervyns' Bankruptcy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robby421 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 December 2012‎
 * There was not enough detail to be an article, and no references. "Get more info" does not cut it - the article has to meet basic standards (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably you have seen the deletion log entry, as otherwise you would not know that I had deleted the article. As you will see if you look back there, it was deleted because there was not enough context to identify the article's subject. The article told us that it was "a System used for Mervyns Department Stores", but it did not tell us what system, what it was used for, when, what Mervyns Department Stores were, or anything else that would enable a user to know what "Mervyn's Advanced Retail Systems" actually was. That was why it ws deleted. However, I now see that the subject is covered at Mervyns, and it seems, on the basis of what I have been able to find, unlikely that there is any justification for having a separte article on the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum
Hi -- I think this is the same as the two you revdel-ed. Thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind -- I wrote too soon... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

IP v. Apokryltaros
Take a look at the edit comment --91.10.56.74 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're unpleasantly uncivil, totally unwilling to consider other sides beyond your own, and apparently obsessed with petty bickering.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're unpleasantly uncivil, totally unwilling to consider other sides beyond your own and apparently obsessed with petty bickering. --91.10.56.74 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And harassing and insulting me will make me agree with you how?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What you call harassment was a direct reply to your question.
 * I call bullshit on the insult claim. Please provide a difflink.
 * More important, please continue the conversation on the talk pages. --91.10.56.74 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Association of Business Executives(UK)
There is a discussion at ANI on the speedy deletion of above page. Could you please respond there.EconomicTiger (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion is archived, could be please explain me why you opted for speedy deletion without adding service tag on promotion/advertisement(if that is the case). I am considering to take this issue for the Deletion review.EconomicTiger (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It took me some time to find the relevant deletion. There is no record of there ever having been an article called either Association of Business Executives(UK) or Association of Business Executives (UK). Searching through the last 3000 entries in the logs of my actions, I eventually found that I had deleted an article Association of Business Executives, which must be what you mean.
 * An editor known as Afterwriting tagged the article for speedy deletion as promotional. In my capacity as the administrator reviewing the deletion nomination, I saw that indeed the article was thoroughly promotional from start to finish. If you sincerely did not see it that way, then I can only conclude that one or both of the following applies: (1) you are so closely involved in the subject that you are unable to stand back from it and see how your writing will look from the perspective of a detached, independent observer; (2) you work in marketing, and are so used to marketing speak that you have become desensitised to it, and cannot see it when it is in front of you. The promotional character dominated the whole article, and did not consist merely of a few details which could easily have been edited out without substantial rewriting. Guidelines provide that in that situation the article should be speedily deleted. Although the immediate consideration that led to deletion was the blatantly promotional nature of the article, I also found that the article was a re-creation of one which had been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, so I mentioned that too in the deletion log. The new article was not identical to the deleted one, but it did not address the issues which led to deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I may have some interest over the subject, but not monetarily. Some Interest is the fundamental factor why thousands of volunteers are tirelessly working to expand the Wikipedia without any payment. After I have created, there are number of other editors too involved for its expansion. I have modeled the page initially based on Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. Can you please explain me, if you find Association of Business Executives is a promotional piece, why Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and Chartered Institute of Management Accountants can't be promotional pieces as well.EconomicTiger (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Solis BioDyne
Why on earth did you James B Watson place a Tag on a private company in this case Solis BioDyne's general description of its own link to the company? All the links are verifiable along with the references. You are engaging in abuse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daren Clare (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not at all sure what you mean by "place a Tag on a private company". As far as I know, the only two things I have done relating to Solis BioDyne are (1) deleting the article Solis BioDyne, and (2) posting a message to your talk page, informing you of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, which I did because I got the impression that you were probably working for Solis BioDyne. I can only assume that your referring to "Solis BioDyne's general description of its own link to the company" is a confirmation of that conflict of interest. As for the deletion, it was because the article was unambiguous advertising. That was explained to you both in the deletion log entry telling you that I had deleted the article, and in the message on your talk page posted there by the editor who nominated the article for deletion. The simple fact is that Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, and does not exist to serve as a medium for businesses to publicise their own preferred image of themselves. The fact that "the links are verifiable along with the references" is irrelevant, because the article was not deleted because of lack of verifiability. In what way do you think I am "engaging in abuse"? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promega, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattromed  As these were used as templates for a general history of the company with verifiable references how is it objectionable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daren Clare (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because it was promotional. Whether or not the other articles you link to are equally promotional is irrelevant: maybe they need deleting too. You may find it helps to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP returns, same thing
Hello, an IP user you blocked on November 16th following failure to follow WP:BRD and edit warring,, returned less than 48hrs after the block expiration and made the same edit he was blocked for forcing repeatedly without discussion. Do you think this warrants an immediate re-block or should more warnings be issued?

Note I haven't reverted the most recent edit yet, pending your reply here. Salvidrim!  00:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the IP address again, for a longer time, and dropped a note to the IP talk page asking for discussion, and pointing out the need to follow consensus. I see that the editor has been edit warring since 30 October, against consensus from a number of other editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 December 2012‎
 * I was not really involved. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

4 Deserts
Hello James. May I ask you to take a look at 4 Deserts, where has been adding unreferenced information despite several requests for refs. I suspect this could be the same editor who has been using different IP addresses to sanitise the RacingThePlanet article to remove negative information - i.e. there's apparently a long term pattern of COI in these related articles. Thanks in advance. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 09:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the related subject matter of the two articles, I can't see any connection between the two cases. The IP addresses are from different continents. The editing at RacingThePlanet has been a totally unacceptable attempt to suppress information unfavourable to the business. At 4 Deserts, however, as far as I can see the only problem is that the editor has failed to provide sources. What is more, a quick Google search suggests to me that sources do exist for at least some of the content: for example, http://www.4deserts.com/rtp4dtp.php?SID=2&SBID=PDETAIL&id=94 gives Vicente Juan Garcia Beneito as the 2012 men's winner and Anne-Marie Flammersfeld as the women's winner, exactly as stated by the anonymous editor. I have semi-protected the article RacingThePlanet, but at 4 Deserts I don't see any need to do anything more than give the editor a friendly explanation of how to add sources, and help by adding one or more sources. However, if I have missed anything then please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's grand, thanks. I'll have a go over at 4 Deserts to try to get the refs sorted.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )  11:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info
Hi James, (I know its not your name, but Hi Anon just seems silly)

I just wanted to say thank you for the information you posted, I have taken note of this, and just wonder if defunct journels from the 1980's are enough to satisfy.

Thanks again and have a pleasent night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallyethical (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Brightify
Just wondering, but how is an earlier sockmaster when the account wasn't created until 7 November while Brightify began editing in October? In any case, if you're tagging accounts one way or another there's also and the unblocked and recently unused. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Earlier sockmaster: I don't know how I made that mistake. I must have misread something or other. Thanks.
 * 2) Brightifying: Yes. A duck that I hadn't seen.
 * 3) Brightify2: It took me a while to find evidence, beyond the username, that it was the same person, but there is plenty of evidence once you look for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't really looked into their socking before, just had Brightify's page still watched from dealing with some of their non-free image issues. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of "Olly_Foster" Page
Hi James,

Not sure if possible (technically) but please could you undo the deletion of the page "Olly Foster" as it is still work in progress.

Reason for deletion was cited as Promotion/Advertising - can you elaborate on this and then help me understand the difference between the Olly Foster page and the following pages for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Grant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Duck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Plitt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Williams

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noomo8 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) I have restored the article and "userfied" it at User:Noomo8/Olly Foster. You can work on it there, and move it back to Olly Foster when it is ready.
 * 2) I don't have time now to examine the other article you link to in detail, but a quick glance at them shows that at least a couple of them contain promotional content which should be removed. It is natural for a new editor to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, but unfortunately it is not a reliable guide. You may find it helpful to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Noomo8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Thanks James - much appreciated. Will ensure that the content and quality is increased before resubmitting.

Systems for Dentists
Hi James I have posted a message on the page. Could do with your opinion please.

hello James,

I just putting documented information on the world extreme skiing championships, real documentation. it is clear all posting represeent any post but if it that being the founded, as written and documented in the numerous articles sites and in the years TGR 2012 Movie "Dreams" I don't know what to say. Seems some people are really posting things. I actually started this post back in 2088 or something. People unrelated to the event it seems have taken a interest to promtoe their businesses what was there had nothing to do with the history: Example --a cancelled event in 2011 or doug open a heli ski operation in 1994. Those are not the history of the event. very clear. What was posted had real value and links to document it. When you actuallly creat things, like me, Michael Cozad, I wouldn't think posting written historical stories to wike would be a bad thing. Michael--I'm not hiding. who is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.199.141 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nguyenducloc1997
Right back to their same behaviors and incorrect editing right after the block, and I put this article up for deletion because its only source is actually a testimonial site for plastic surgery, not a BBC network. User will not understand our image use and sourcing guidelines.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A while ago it looked to me as though some of the editing was probably deliberate vandalism, but the editor was given the benefit of the doubt. However, it is now completely clear: the article you mention was an unambiguous hoax. I have also, looking through the editing history, seen a lot more disruptive editing, of kinds that I hadn't known about before; for example, frequent falsifying of dates. The editor has gone through warnings, short blocks, etc, and clearly has no intention of changing, so I have blocked indefinitely. Unfortunately, history suggests that he/she will just come back as various IP addresses. I have put a range block for a couple of days on the IP range he/she has used recently. However, any more than a couple of days would be unacceptable, because of the likelihood of collateral damage. Do feel welcome to contact me again if (or more likely when) you see more from this disruptive person. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking and looking over this activity again, I know it can be nagging; that article escaped my notice on the first sweep but after looking up Avia TV, it was obvious it wasn't a BBC network. And over the years I've learned to deal with IP socks so much (pretty much a top 3 priority for me), so I'll just keep fighting the good fight. As for my name, I've been receiving that confusion alot more lately (weirdly not in the past) and have pondered capping the S on WP:CHU (or even usurping Nate, esp. if I decide to submit for admin), but just never got around to it since it would cause double redirects everywhere.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Another Andres Unidos Cisneros SPA
See what you think about. I have just spent some time giving him newbie advice, but looking at the whole history I think maybe a block is what he needs. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was wondering whether to start a SPI. Editing only on Andres Unidos Cisneros and David Guetta, similar use of English as Alexandra aguilera. What exact combination of sock-/meat-puppetry is involved I can't say, but Andres Unidos Cisneros ( ID&T ), Alexandra aguilera, Andres Unidos Cisneros‎ and William Lo Giudice are clearly not independent. William Lo Giudice's edits, taken alone, justify friendly advice, rather than a block, but viewing it as a sockpuppet a block might be reasonable. As I have been writing this, my mind has drifted more towards a SPI. I think I will go there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, particularly as Cisneros' claims to have been No.1 DJ for many years were false and they were mucking about with Guetta who really was No.1 DJ. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I was preparing a case for an SPI, I discovered more evidence, and eventually decided that it was enough of a duck to block right away. However, I have gone ahead with the SPI, to ask for a CU ion case of sleepers. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The elevator vandal
...is back in action at Portal talk:Current events/2009 July 25 using. I've tagged it, so the link may be red by the time you read this. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

...and again: Portal talk:Current events/2012 November 17 using. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

deletion of page krossover
i just got a message that you deleted the page krossover, may i know the reason as i am new to wikipedia i am not aware of many things, it will be kind of you if you reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibek4u (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you need to know about the reason for the deletion that has not already been explained to you on your talk page, and in the speedy deletion notice which you removed from the article? If you tell me what is not clear, then I will try to explain to you. However, at present I have no idea what might be unclear to you. You have had it explained to you that using Wikipedia for promotion is not acceptable, and you have had it explained to you that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. I am at a loss to know what more explanation you can need, since it is inconceivable that you could possibly have intended the article you wrote, full of such language as "we have developed a great business", "we set out to build a powerful product" etc etc, as anything other than promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

coi-username talk on User talk:Ecashin
Hi. Thanks for removing my edit to the Lamport's_bakery_algorithm page. I didn't understand the full conflict of interest policy well when I made that edit. My current understanding is that it's not OK to link to an implementation I created but it would be OK to paste the implementation into the wikipedia page. (I'm not sure, though, because that would be original work. With source code, it's both a clarifying example that augments the discussion and original work.  The fuzziness of the issue makes me sympathetic to Wikipedia reviewers.)  I made a suggestion on the Ecashin talk page for the notice that Alexf used to be split, so that in the future it's less confusing to other users than it was for me. Ecashin (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Rifair
Sorry about not responding there quickly enough ... I let it get behind me. But you're right, it was an unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wheel Spinner / Apology
On a side note, please keep the mention of the Modern Day Wheel Spinner clean of misinformation as I still have licensing active around the globe into the 2020's and Wikipedia being international does reach them all. As for the confusion about phrasing, I have been throughout the U.S. Federal Courts and it is important that the Modern Day Wheel Spinner is not confused with the cheap spinning inferior hubcaps that trailed into the market place on the cheap end of the craze. Also, that the spinning hubcap that you have cited actually functions as a "stationary non-spinning hubcap" and has been reviewed throughout the original patent issue, again later validating the patent in the U.S. Federal Courts by U.S. Federal Judges and Magistrate Judges that specialize in IP's, plus the top 2% of Intellectual Property attorneys that were involved being the best in the field and was not, I repeat was not found to be "Prior Art". Just as an FYI that picture of the Modern Day Wheel Spinner you are using has been reviewed and is an illegal clone from China, just to let you know. So again please accept my sincerest apology. Nothing but the best of high regards to the all of you! James J.D. Gragg70.234.170.149 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (I hope I finally learned to sign out correctly?)70.234.170.149 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gentleman, J.D. Gragg here. I owe you an apology! Recently at the end of June 2012 had my identity stolen and several accounts hacked including very confidential information. You all seem you be very Internet savvy so I am sure you can understand just how upsetting and infuriating the event had been for me including my family, of which was the worst part of it. My investigator has just finished up with his duties and contacted me and I have found that the Wikipedia event was nothing more than pure coincidence. The main reason it did not appear this way to me was I had a lot of trouble believing that a true Wikipedia editor would edit and completely delete entire blocks and sections, including the picture that another Wiki editor then had to then reinsert, and that it was done "anonymously" at first, but then created an account just a few minutes later plus it appeared to be his very first edit, not to mention he was incapable of spelling the simplistic word "referring". Then the fact that it was edited for all "cites linking to personal or self-promotional websites" was incorrect. The only cite link back to any of my websites was the one linked to my personal name. All other cites were to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office along with cites to the U.S. Federal Court system East and West coasts, so I am sure, well I hope rather, that you can understand my position, confusion and knee-jerk reactions to all of this and accept my apologies for the entire event, as the apology is indeed sincere. I do understand that all of you do a tremendous amount of work and do it for the love of it and not monetary gain, that is for sure. So in closing, please accept my apology and should you ever require anything that I could do to make this horrid event up to you please feel free to ask. I am easily contacted via Google should you not already have my contact.
 * Update: I have blocked the above block-evading  IP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist controversy
Please protect this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nation_state&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.207.106 (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.207.142 (talk)

He said that You are his friend and Supporter. He sent me a message: "You will be blocked soon by my admin friends" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.183.184.155&oldid=527848187

Is it allowed for an admin to support wiki vandals who delete references and sentences in wikiarticles, which were inducted by his chauvinistic purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.184.155 (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in, but I have already had an IP address make unfounded accusations of sock puppetry against User:Iaaasi (see User_talk:Skamecrazy123. I believe the above user is the same person who made said accusations. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw the message you refer to, and regarded it as nonsense. I doubt that any administrator will regard themself as a "friend" of such a disruptive editor. It is not only allowed, but encouraged, for administrators to take action against disruptive editors. I am not acquainted with the verb "to induct", so I have no idea what it means. I do know, however, that in childish disputes between nationalists of different colours I have no respect for either side, and I will be willing to block any or all of the involved editors if they continue their disruption. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Iaaasi controls user:Irj2012 via Skype messages, as it was told by Iaaasi himself. Iaaasi often recruit nationalist/chauvinist friends via mail and internet forums (as the notice of the admin on his user page write about that)from the so called Little Entente states to edit Hungarian related articles. He had even anti-semitic statements, and tried to relativize the antisemitic policies and events in Romania during WW2. I often acted against his chauvinist behaviour with very well referenced sentences. A huge moral difference between me and Iaaasi: I was banned because uploading & inserting non-free images which went to edit wars.
 * And yet the sock puppet report cleared his name (as far as the sock puppet charges were concerned). If you are so sure that he is a sock puppet, then go to WP:SPI and provide proof to back up your accusations. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I raised 2 SPIs. The IP is a sock of Stubes99. We'll see about Irj2012. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Don'T confuse meat puppets with sock puppets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.146.60 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Iaaasi boasted in e-mail (He usually send mails) that Irji is his meat p.. IRj2012 is a (slovakian?) meat puppet of Iaaasi. Just look his edit/contributions history. Irji's favourite edit-warring topics are the same as Iaaasi's favourite edit-warring articles: Prince of Transylvania ‎ Voivode of Transylvania ‎ Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, Lajos Kossuth  Székely Land ‎  etc... etc... He served Iaaasi, who controlled Irji via Skype (as Iaaasi boasted about it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&action=history

Please semi-protect this article too, thanks in advance Irji2012 (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Irji (a servant and meat puppet of Iaaasi, he is controlled via skype as Iaaasi said) Therefore it is not suprising that Irji edit the same articles and start edit-wars in Iaaasi's favourite "edit-warring" articles.

"Please semi-protect the article." Because I found excelent references, and he lost the debate. Childish behaviour of Irji after the lost of a debate. When he lost a debate (he usually often lost logical debates) than he try the administrative ways: Irji (a servant and meat puppet of Iaaasi, he is controlled via skype as Iaaasi said). According to this looser reaction: he belive, that he is in a kindergarten...

Please restore the references and referenced important statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.146.60 (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A minor case of a returned sockpuppet
You may remember the sockpuppet I spoke of back in your Archive 41, Topic 10. He has I presume returned under the name User:ArealFatRabbit for the same malicious motive he has carried out before as User:PeterAmbrosia on the Kid Icarus article. I tried to contact Tnxman307 about it, but I realised too late, he was retired. That being said I shall move on and after this case is solved I shall no longer involve myself in this article problem if new sockpuppets of that same user continue to spring up. Deltasim (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have spent a long time looking at the editing history of the various accounts. There is certainly disruptive editing, and I think you may well be right about sockpuppetry. However, the whole thing is very complicated, and I can't find any smoking gun. Perhaps the best thing would be to take it to Sockpuppet investigations. JamesBWatson (talk)

Okay I made my Sockpuppet report on the User:PeterAmbrosia page. Thank you for your advice and happy editing. Deltasim (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have waited for a while, but no action appears to have been taken. Have I missed out a step in the report procedure or something? Deltasim (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid you have misunderstood. The sockpuppet report you wrote is likely to stand around unnoticed by anyone. You need to go to Sockpuppet investigations, and scroll down to the section headed "To open a case:" There you will see instructions, You need to click the button labelled "Click to open investigation". Not only will this create an investigation page at the correct location (Sockpuppet_investigations/PeterAmbrosia rather than User:PeterAmbrosia, but, more importantly, it will link the page to the list of currently open investigations, so that clerks and administrators who check that list will see that the SPI [page is there. Otherwise, there is no reason to suppose that anyone will ever notice it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Troll Editor on Jab Tak Hai Jaan Page
Hi, I need some help. I have tried reasoning with this man named "Zeeyanketu" but it is not working. Apparently he is a seasoned editor. I even got a consensus from many different editors on adding a section stating how odd the collection reports for the film were as there is a difference of 20% from various sources when normally the difference in collections is as little as 4-5%. The source we use, BOI, changes its numbers every day without giving an explanation and they might not be 100% reliable anymore due to conflicting interests. Either ways, I talked to other editors and told them to weigh in. All of them agree with me, even a friend of "Zeeyanketu" agrees with me. He keeps on reverting my edits about the conflicting reports which have RS sources and everything and is probably biased. He's the fan of some other actor and keeps on trolling the page. I can't say it's anything else other than trolling. I don't know what to do. As you said I should control my temper I am but this man is really testing my patience. Is there any way to block him from editing the Jab Tak Hai Jaan page? I can't take this anymore. I have spent months making this page from scratch pretty much. Months. I am not going to allow some random biased troll to undo hours and hours of work, reference hunting, so that he can exercise whatever idol-gratification he wants. What should I do? Can you ban him? How do I initiate proceedings to ban him? As I said, this has been going on for a few months now, I can't take it anymore. I really can't. Ashermadan (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Now he has started engaging in personal attacks and I have been very respectful. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jab_Tak_Hai_Jaan#Status Ashermadan (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Let's just say that your response to his comment "you Ashermadan cowardly poisoned others" (which is perhaps uncivil but it was not a personal attack) is incredulous.  You certainly have no place complaining about incivility when you yourself tell them to "take an ESL class" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I see two editors who both have a tendency to bicker. Of the two, the less constructive is Ashermadan. I certainly don't see any justification for referring to Zeeyanketu as a "troll", any more than I see any justification for the accusation of sockpuppetry that have been made. I suggest, Ashermadan, that you stand back,look carefully at the history of your contributions on this issue, and try to imagine how it looks to an uninvolved outsider. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nizami
James, I add a lot of academical sources: Victor Schnirelmann, Yuri Slezkine, Walter Kolarz, Kamran Talattof, Sergei Panarin etc. with quotes about campaign. Is it enough? Divot (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * After some time searching, I realised that this refers to Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan. (It helps to say exactly what article you have in mind.) Adding more and more references is missing the point: see Bombardment. In fact, as far as I can see, it seems that most of the references do not mention the "campaign" at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Maximus Fingolfin
Please look at the message you left on my talk page regarding the 2 articles I created — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus Fingolfin (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done that. See my comments at the AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Michigan IP - snowbird
Hi James, The extensive blocks around Grand Rapids have been quite effective for stopping, but not reforming this guy's editing. It seems he started driving further afield (public libraries?) to get around the blanket dropped on his home haunts. It also appears he is headed back to NW FL, from which he did much sockevasion in Oct. With a location in Indiana, it appears he drove back to vote, and is now heading to the sun again.

Please consider restarting all the block clocks listed in "Future dates" at Artur's tracking page, and synchronizing them all to end on the same date (3 months?) except for ones already set to last longer. I would not be surprised to need some FL blocks as well, but we'll see what happens in the next few weeks. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * PS, Earlier you mentioned you wished there was something more we could do, and I had an idea. Even if this guys edits are reverted, he habitually puts his external link spam links in the edit summaries... That way, even if it is reverted from the article or talk page it still shows up in version histories and watchlists, and that might be enough to feed his obsession.  It would be a wonderful anti-spam tool to be able to easily purge the edit summaries of spammed external links from blocked users, sort of like rollbacker but for edit summaries.  Is there such a power? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Another idea maybe for village pump.... coding could prevent IPs from adding backslashes to edit summaries. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sure you are right in thinking that this person deliberately uses edit summaries as a holder for his/her spam links. I have revision-deleted a number of his/her more recent edit summaries, but it is a very slow job. I may come back and do some more when I have time, but doing them all is not a realistic proposition. Restarting a whole load of IP blocks is dubious, unless first it is checked that very little or no editing by other people has taken place from those IP addresses. On the other hand, it looks to me very much indeed as though this editor has been deliberately doing a proportion of innocuous unrelated edits on irrelevant articles, no doubt to create the illusion that other people are using the IP addresses. I will try to remember to come back when I have more time and look at the possibility of more blocks, and also the possibility of semi-protecting some of the most commonly attacked articles. However, there really is no perfect solution. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your caring. In reply to your remark that "I have revision-deleted a number of his/her more recent edit summaries, but it is a very slow job. I may come back and do some more when I have time, but doing them all is not a realistic proposition."    Indeed, that is not realistic, which is why I was trying to think of prophylactic measures.   My best idea so far is to prevent IPs from adding forward slashes to edit summaries.   I have a thread at idea lab that has so far caught the attention of just one other editor (he's opposed).  Curious what you think about trying to filter-prevent IP from adding external links to edit summaries?  Comments here or at idea lab welcome.  I am still working on formulating a formal proposal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Orange
Hi James,

There are no references for Boxoffice, Budget for this movie in the Poster. So we can remove those two from the article. Let me know your opinion. Thanks. --HariharBrahma (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Harihar.
 * What article are you referring to? You have never edited any page with "Orange" in its title, and my last 1500 edits don't include any page with "Orange" in its title. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: name change - thanks
- I have said thanks on my page and am saying it again here just to make sure :-) JoBrodie (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am the product manager for this product and have added the relevant links to validate the details provided

BLP issue (and more)
Hey, James, you blocked User:ArealFatRabbit for sock puppetry. Then, you reverted his last edit at Kid Icarus. I'm not contacting you because of the sock puppet block, but because of the BLP issues raised in your revert. An IP has come along (admitting he's a meat puppet) and reverted you because of the BLP problem. I agree with the removal of the material (meaning the IP's edit should stand). The plagiarism charge is supported by one self-published source (Leung) and a blog entry. Now, the BLP issue is a little remote because it's accusing a company of plagiarism, but, obviously, a company is made up of people, so I still believe the BLP issue is valid. I haven't taken any action on the article. Besides, it's poorly sourced controversial material, either way. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a complex issue. While it is true that a self-published source is used, it links to the Wayback machine, which does seem to be reliable evidence. Even so, on balance I think I made a mistake in reverting. However, that does not detract from the need to block sockpuppets, nor the need to avoid edit wars. I have removed the controversial content again, and I will block Deltasim for edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/CastleKing1440
Hi, thanks for your help on GMO_CLOUD_K.K.. Just wanted to let you know that I started a SP investigation on that editor as well. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was actually editing that SPI when you posted your message here. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * K, thanks, I should really be more patient! I do think that the two sockmasters mentioned are one and the same, per Bilby's description that I cited.  If that pans out, it might help with the investigation to merge the two cases.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies sir
Dear (not really) JamesBWatson, I hope you will accept my apology for inadvertently contravening your page laws. It was not my intention to advertise nor promote anything. As for the subject matter, I would greatly appreciate the addition of accurate, and acceptable to Wiki editors, information on the Biripi People if possible please? Purely from a cultural interest perspective theirs is, in my opinion, an intriguing cultural evolution. thank you. A.Pearler

P.S.: I do hope I haven't broken any more of your rules in this post, I'm sorry if I have, I am new to the internets. A.Pearler (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Novetica
See what you think of his unblock request (I'm satisifed with what he said). Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a little sceptical. "I ... was only using the sandbox to practice creating articles": yes, and the article you practised creating just happened to be pure advertising prose, and just happened to be about a business the name of which agrees with your user name; "The type of contributions I intend to make are around articles pertaining to new and innovative web technologies, especially open source": like Novetica, for example? "New and innovative" is dangerously close to marketing-speak. I'm afraid, Daniel, that I fail to see anything in the unblock request which shows how future editing will differ from past editing. If you feel like making a WP:ROPE unblock then go ahead, and I will be interested to see what ensues. Personally, I would want much better assurances about the editor's intentions, but I know from past experience that you tend to take a much more lenient approach to arguably promotional accounts than I do, and if you feel that the statement made by the suer in the unblock request is enough, then I will respect your judgement. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

BSRD page issue
You delete BSRD page I have created, now I want to claim that firstly this database has now strictly peer-reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research ( http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/11/29/nar.gks1264.full). then secondly the content I have previously written is based on BSRD website, I will revise these contents. Please reopen the BSRD page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biodeveloper (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The content of the article was not just "based on" but directly copied from the web site you refer to. For copyright reasons, there can be no question of restoring the deleted content, unless there is proof that the owners of the copyright either released the text into the public domain or else licensed it for free reuse for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, in its original form or modified, by anyone in the world, because all text on Wikipedia is released under such an open license. I can, if you like, give you information about how to provide such proof, but I am doubtful whether there would be any point, since any article on the subject is likely to be deleted, ase the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The fact that you have had a peer-reviewed paper about your work published does not make it notable by Wikipedia standards. What is needed is substantial coverage in multiple third party reliable sources, independent of those responsible for the work. You clearly have a conflict of interest, and should probably not be writing an article on the subject anyway, as Wikipedia articles should be independent, third party, accounts. Finally, it seems possible that your purpose in writing the article may have been to make the subject more widely known, so that more people will use the database. If that is so, then your editing is contrary to the policy that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. I see that on your user page you say that you are "primarily interested in improving Wikipedia entries for bacterial sRNAs." That is a very good idea, and I have no doubt that there is plenty of opportunity for you to improve the articles we have on the subject. Not only will that be in itself a useful contribution to the encyclopaedia, but it will also give you a chance to learn how Wikipedia works and get to know more about its policies and guidelines, so that eventually you will be in a better position to write new articles without fear that they will disappear. I am sorry that I can't be more positive about the article you wrote, but I do hope that this one setback will not put you off from further contributions. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambivalence socks
we have another IP sock in the farm.

you just blocked

duck diff Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've blocked the IP address, and semi-protected the article for a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Another meat puppet. SQGibbon (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Email and ambivalence
Also, thanks for dealing with this mess. SQGibbon (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocks, messages, and warnings
Not all accounts require a warning message; some don't even deserve one. I'll try to do better, though - perhaps some templates. DS (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes please. It's a pain to have to apologize on your behalf :-)  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that some blocks don't need warning messages before blocking, though most do. There are even a few situations in which it is not desirable to give a notification when the block has happened, but they are rare. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
... very much! הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 21:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Alp Argu
Hi User Tigril should not be unbanned not because of Sock but because of POV pushing. For example read the Scythians talkpage with his various socks. His misquotes in Narts (see talkpage) and Xiongnu (see talkpage) are other examples. For example see this: where he removes direct quote from a scholar. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible advertising
I was wondering if you could take a look at a couple of edits by User:Bookinglive.
 * []
 * []

They both link back to Hollywood Legend Productions. I am not entirely sure if the above edits, and the page mentioned, constitute promotion or not, and would really appreciate a second opinion. Thanks in advance. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of this account's editing, it looks to me very much like an attempt at promotion. I have given the editor a message about using Wikipedia for promotion. Also, the article Hollywood Legend Productions does not show notability, and might well be speedily deletable under speedy deletion criterion A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks JBW. I couldn't find any sources on Google, so I have tagged it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

editor objecting to your db-G6 move as not "uncontroversial"
Hi, while creating a couple of Vietnamese emperors I have noticed that you removed Vietnamese spelling from the Tây Sơn Dynasty as an "uncontroversial move" db-G6 on 21 February 2012.
 * (cur | prev) 09:04, 21 February 2012‎ JamesBWatson (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (12,143 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Tây Sơn Dynasty to Tay Son dynasty: Remove Vietnamese diacritics as these are rare in published English, see Britannica.) (undo)

I recognise the wording as being a standard formula db-G6 submission by an editor who used db-g6 to move several hundred geo articles counter the Talk:Cần Thơ RM result 02:48, 7 August 2011‎ Arbitrarily0 (talk | contribs)‎. . (12,061 bytes) (+556)‎. . (→‎Requested move: Removing Vietnamese Diacritics: closed as no consensus) (undo) through to reversal of those moves by a repeat RM Talk:Cà Mau earlier this year. There have various other RMs since then such as Ngô Sĩ Liên and a RfC. The removal of Vietnamese spelling is definitely not uncontroversial.

Anyway, back to the Dynasty article from which you, in good faith, removed Vietnamese spelling, I notice that following your move a Vietnamese editor has reverted the move, adding substantial content to the article:
 * (cur | prev) 07:41, 15 December 2012‎ ༆ (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (13,035 bytes) (0)‎ . . (༆ moved page Tay Son dynasty to Tây Sơn Dynasty over redirect: restoring capitalization) (undo)

but was immediately moved back counter RM precedent
 * (cur | prev) 10:22, 15 December 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (13,944 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Kauffner moved page Tây Sơn Dynasty to Tay Son dynasty over redirect: reverting undiscussed page move per WP:BRD) (undo).

Pushing through the same move twice is not my understanding of how WP:BRD should work.

Evidently the Vietnamese editor, User Yig Mgo, is not familiar with the option of contacting a db-G6 admin to reverse a non "uncontroversial" move, so I take the initiative of doing it. Could you please revert back to status quo according to the results of RMs at the time the db-G6 was made, and if User Kauffner wishes to remove the Vietnamese spelling let it be decided by use of the RM process.

Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the article has already been moved back, there is nothing for me to do. Incidentally, I disagree with the "no consensus" close of the discussion you refer to. If we discount arguments which fly directly in the face of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, then we are left with a clear consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All help to users is of no use without a real link that users can actually MAKE CHANGES rather than read yet more advice and suggestions...
Thanks for unblocking me so that i can change my user name. I have tried to change my user name but it is impossible. the link you sent me sends me to yet another huge page of advice on user names etc. This is a saga now as everywhere I go on Wikipedia there are more and more lists of ADVICE but no ACTUAL PLACE for me to input the info / request etc I need to do to avoid being blocked / barred etc etc. I am also trying to update a licence on a picture I uploaded to go with my article - I am told I have to do this in 7 days.. but NOWHERE FOR ME TO ACTUALLY DO IT.. and no link with this message to a place where I can ACTUALLY DO IT. I have spent hours on Wikipedia now searching & searching, reading lists, more lists & more lists but IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO USE. I simply wanted to upload 1 article and 1 photo that I own and is so old it has NO LICENSE ISSUES whatsoever.. ??? But no... FAIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revival Heritage (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have replied at User talk:Revival Heritage. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Socialist Studies (2005)
Hello James—perhaps you could help with a new issue concerning Socialist Studies (2005). An editor moved this page to Socialist Studies (journal) not realizing that there are seven periodicals by that title (some of which are also "journals"). He now agrees that the move should be undone, but this action requires an administrator. Would you mind doing the honours? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 09:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Aldo Grippaldi
Thanks for letting me know! :) Bjelleklang -  talk 10:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Restoration
Hello James,

A page for the company I work for, an entity that can be verified by many independent sources, was deleted earlier and I would like to discuss having it restored. What's the best way to proceed?

Thomas Isaacson (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Thomas Isaacson
 * by : the first step is to tell us the name of the deleted page. You should also read WP:Conflict of interest. JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The first step, I think, should be to contact the deleting administrator. If that was me then you have done that, but, as JohnCD says, you need to tell me what page it was, so I can look into it. Obviously, if it wasn't me then the same applies, but it's a different person you need to contact. If you can't contact the deleting administrator for some reason (e.g. they have left Wikipedia), then I will look into it for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I believe you were the editor who deleted the page. The page was for Smart Design. Thomas Isaacson (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Thomas Isaacson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Isaacson (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article Smart Design was, as you no doubt know, deleted because it was unambiguous promotion. It contained such unadulterated advertising prose as "Their approach to solving design challenges integrates product, interaction, brand communication, and strategic services", and included such content as a list of the company's clients, which is typical of the sort of stuff that is put in an article about a business written by a marketing person, but which seems peripheral and unimportant to most outsiders. I could restore the content of the article and put it in your userspace for you to work on, and I will do so if you like. However, I suggest that doing so may not be as helpful to you as you may think, for at least three reasons.


 * 1) The article was quite short, and it would not be significantly more trouble to rewrite it from scratch than to despam it.
 * 2) As you have already had pointed out by two different administrators, you have a conflict of interest, and probably should not be writing an article about your business. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral, outsider's point of view, and if you are closely involved in a subject it can be very difficult to stand back and see how your own writing will look from an outsider's perspective. Many times I have seen people in such a position putting large amounts of work into writing and rewriting content, only to see it deleted as promotional. In some cases it really does seem that they sincerely cannot see why their writing is considered promotional, even when it looks glaringly so to others. This problem is particularly severe in the case of professional marketing or PR people, who are so used to marketing-speak that they are desensitised to it, and can't see it when it is right in front of them.
 * 3) It is quite possible that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If it doesn't, then any work you put into writing an article about it is likely to be wasted, as it will be deleted. No amount of rewriting an article will change the notability of the subject of that article. The references in the deleted article certainly did not indicate notability. They included pages that don't even mention "Smart Design", pages barely mentioning it, pages on Smart Design's own web site, and unambiguous promotion. I tried searching for further sources, but found nothing better. All this may seem discouraging and unfriendly, but in fact I am going to the trouble to explain all this because I have time and again seen people in your situation waste a lot of time and work on something which was doomed from the start, and it seems to me actually more friendly to warn you than to cheerfully restore the article and sit back and let you do such potentially wasted work. (Doing that would, however, have been much easier for me than spending the time writing all this.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Just to clarify I have never written for Wikipedia, which includes the original Smart Design page, and I respect the Wikipedia editorial guidelines. In all honesty I am not sure who authored the original Smart Design page in the first place.

In 2010 the company was awarded the National Design Award by the Smithsonian Institute which is notable. This is documented on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Design_Awards. The company has also been featured in the documentary Objectified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectified) and has been awarded numerous International Design Excellence Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Design_Excellence_Awards). I can supply many other points of reference to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines if needed.

The intent is that the company be listed on Wikipedia as many of its direct competitors are, such as Continuum (design consultancy), Frog Design Inc., and IDEO. In reference to your second point, I may not be the appropriate person to create the listing. Can you please let me know how this could be done according to the guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Isaacson (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that "The intent is that the company be listed on Wikipedia as many of its direct competitors are" suggests to me that you are still trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. However, if you do wish to continue, your best next step would, I think, to look at FAQ/Organizations, particularly the section I think my organization deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

66.30.138.33
Thanks for your note and for taking action. One thing you might want to do is semi-protect his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP's own talk page access has been removed. I expected that would be necessary, but people don't like it if admins remove talk page access pre-emptively, so I left it for him/her to edit there disruptively. For the same reason, I'm not semiprotecting now, but if he/she edits there with another IP address then let me know, and I will semi-protect right away. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

IPBE grants
Hi JBW,

I saw that you made an IPBE grant the other day. (Vacation9) I really think when were dealing with autoblocks, that you might want to get a CU involved even if it does turn out to be nothing. It just ensures that the vandal or sock has been blocked correctly, and that collateral damage is minimized. I personally believe all IPBEs need checks before being granted, but I understand that I'm in the minority view on that. But again, it's advice, and i'm not trying to tell you what to do. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. Examination of the two accounts' editing history encouraged me to think they were two very different editors, and it is only for a matter of hours, so I decided it was probably OK. However, I was still not 100% happy about doing so, and I certainly would have asked a CU if I had thought of doing so. Now you point it out, it is glaringly obvious that was the way to resolve my doubts, but it simply did not cross my mind. I am genuinely grateful to you for pointing it out to me. I will try to remember that in the future, and if you see me forgetting again then please do slap me to remind me. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's all part of AGF also, and I'm glad we still have admins around that do this. In this case, it did turn out to be a different person, by a small margin. I'm glad that you did check the behavior before hand, shows that you were protecting the wiki while still protecting good editors. But ya, generally autoblocks should go to CUs, thanks for your understanding. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Jamrud
Hello JamesBWatson,

I recently came across the Battle of Jamrud page and noticed that the result was listed as an afghan victory. While my first inclination was to change this, I noticed there was a persistent edit war over it. Although I believe I meet the criteria for an "autoconfirmed user", I saw that you were the admin who semi-protected the page. Rather than editing first, I thought the proper etiquette would be to reach out to you.

I posted on the talk page to explain the reasons why I think the result should be changed. I am not interested in chest thumping nationalism, only an accurate description and analysis of the events. History is only useful if we can record the truth--or by wikipedia standards, NPOV. Anyhow, there have been no responses to my post on the talk page even a week later, so I am about to change it. I thought as a courtesy, I should reach out to the admin in charge. Thank you.

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that you have gone ahead and made the change without waiting for an answer. However, I would not have objected, anyway. I have no wish at all to take sides in the dispute, my action being purely concerned with stopping disruption by persistent sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Too many headaches...
Hi James, thanks for the cleanup of Make Justice Work. One final loose end to tie up: At User_talk:Toomanyairmiles/Make_Justice_Work, the back link is still to User talk:Toomanyairmiles. Shouldn't it be to User talk:Toomanyairmiles/Make_Justice_Work? I can't see how to fix this. Appreciate input, cheers... 14:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean the little link just below the article title, it is quite correct, as a talk page of any userspace page has a link back to the user's main talk page, if I understand it correctly. Certainly that applies to all the cases I have checked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks!   14:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Deletion of Winscombe Youth Theatre
Can you please restore the page Winscombe Youth Theatre as your reason is wrong (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) I am not connected with Winscombe Youth Theatre in any way at all I have never heard of the organisation. I made the page because I thought it was an interesting subject when I searched on Google for “Youth Theatre” and I am interested in Theatre in the UK the Youth Theatre is notable as apparently Theresa Hemmings daughter is a west end actor as well as also attending the youth theatre for 5 years and other students have been successful in the west end; I thought that people would be interested in the famous actors roots. I also did not mean to delete the Deletion message as the user who put it on the article edited it at the same time as me and the two edits merged resulting in the text being deleted. (Andwhy1 (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC))


 * The article was nominated for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7, as an article about an organisation that does not indicate significance or importance. This was declined on the grounds that the criterion excludes "educational institutions". The article still looked pretty promotional to me, containing such text as "From these humble beginnings the group has expanded both its size and age range ", and "Students also have the opportunity to do LAMDA exams in Acting and Verse and Prose to improve and develop the acting skills". Whether you are connected to the theatre or not, if the article is written in a promotional way then it is promotional. However, I will concede that, although substantially promotional, the article was not blatant spam, so I will restore it if you like. I am reluctant to do so, because I think the result would almost certainly be (1) you spend time and effort working on the article, (2) it is taken to articles to deletion, as the subject does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, (3) more editors spend time and effort checking it to see if it should be deleted, and discussing it, (4) the article is deleted; the time that both you and other editors have spent is wasted. That time could be more profitably used in editing other articles, on more notable subjects. This may seem to be unfriendly and discouraging, but I honestly think that letting you know what seems to me to be the likely result is actually more friendly than quietly restoring the article and sitting back and watching while you put work in that is likely to be wasted. If you tell me that you still want me to restore the article then I will do so, but I suggest you look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines before doing so. The fact that people have been there who have later gone on to be notable does not confer notability by proxy: we need evidence that the theatre is notable in its own right. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I would like the article restored and thank you for understanding. (Andwhy1 (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC))
 * ✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have taken it to afd, there has been no attempt by the creator to add references, I can't find any either, there is no assertion of notability, so presumably it could even be speedy deleted again. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Speedy Deletion means it's uncontroversial ... AFD was the right route. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Fred Strahorn, John Rogers
I have a concern with your logic. If you are going to delete pages for notable people that represent individuals in Ohio, at least recreate the page instead of having it blank. I saw those articles and they were solid, cited works. What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.234.164.126 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See the discussion exactly 3 sections above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


Snoozlepet (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. A very merry Christmas to you and your family and a wonderful and prosperous New Year! Snoozlepet (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request
See User talk:Bpmcneilly. He has answered you, and answered some more questions I put to him, and unless you think differently I am inclined to unblock. I get the impression he has grown up, as one might hope in three and a half years. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to this. I agree with you, and I have unblocked him. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

First Battle of Vincennes
Gday James. I notice you recently deleted First Battle of Vincennes as it was a duplication. FYI there is also a redirect to this article: 1st battle of Vincennes. Should this also be deleted? If so would you be able to do it or do I need to tag it for maintenance? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see it's already been deleted. However, I would have done it for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was quick. Pls disregard. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Need Help with Articles for deletion/Winscombe Youth Theatre
Hi JamesBWatson can you help me save the page Winscombe Youth Theatre from the deletion please. I worked like 2 hours yesterday finding out about Winscombe Youth Theatre and why I think its notable Articles for deletion/Winscombe Youth Theatre. If you can support me on the notability it would mean more than the 2 hours of research I did. (Andwhy1 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC))
 * When you asked me to restore the article after speedy deletion, I put some time and trouble into explaining to you why I thought doing so would not be helpful to you, as it would be likely to result in a lot of wasted time. Having read that, you chose to go ahead anyway. Even if I personally argued in the deletion discussion for keeping the article, I doubt that it would make any difference: it is perfectly clear that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and is virtually certain to be deleted. My advice is to accept the fact, and cut your losses by not throwing more time and effort into a lost cause. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedai, it will be better to start making small improvements to existing articles, rather than writing new articles. That way, you can gradually get used to how Wikipedia works, and any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't lose a lot of work. After while, you will know enough about what Wikipedia's standards are to be able to write articles without the likelihood that they will disappear. My experience is that people who start like that have a far better likelihood of having a successful time editing here than people who put a large amount of work into writing and trying to save new articles right from the start. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice I'm probably not going to any make new articles until I properly understand Wikipedia's notably standards and mainly edit articles that are stubs. (Andwhy1 (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC))

Need Help with Articles for deletion/Yatton Rugby Club
Hi JamesBWatson can you help me save the page Yatton Rugby Club from deletion please. I worked hours yesterday finding out about the rugby club and why I think its notable Articles for deletion/Yatton Rugby Club. If you can support me on the notability and Renascences it would mean more than the hours of research I did. (Andwhy1 (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC))
 * See my comments in the section above about the Winscombe Youth Theatre. I'm afraid an amateur club in a low-level league is very unlikely to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice I'm probably not going to any make new articles until I properly understand Wikipedia's notably standards and mainly edit articles that are stubs. (Andwhy1 (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC))

Landry Allbright page.
Landry Allbright page.or for making Wikipedia less than it was before you deleted the Landry Allbright page. I look to Wikipedia every time I want to find info, and since you took it upon yourself to delete the page I now have to find it in a different language and tanslate it to English. The venue of Wikipedia is to build information, not delete it. Thank you for making Wikipedia less useful. I hope the site owners appreciate you subtracting information because this user does not and I just donated money too, but I did not donate my hard earned money so for moderators to take information away from me. Please restore the page. This site belongs to the users and donors, not the moderators. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.9.206 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * this site belongs to the Wikimedia foundation. If you would like to post me a polite message asking me about this, I will be happy to respond to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Dalia Danish
Hello James I believe you deleted the Dalia Danish page. She's the only neuroscientist & accredited psychologist in Egypt of some special origin. I need some guidelines on how to create a proper wiki page with all the correct data. I cannot do it all at once though and apologize for any formatting mistakes or ones related to incomplete information. I tried to do a better job at things here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalia_Danish Your help is very much appreciated. Many thanks and happy holidays 196.202.96.170 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-Solar page
The responses on the user page and the added references in the article must have overcome your objection. It would be preferable that you, as the original objector, remove the proposed deletion from this article.

Similarly the user should be un-blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.42.129 (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

FFD November 29, 2012
Hello sir! My name is Srikanth. I wanted to let you know that no admin has reviewed this : discussion since 23 days. Actually this file is nominated for deletion by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise. Admin Nyttend Commented that the above said admin has violated the years long stalking policy. I have requested admin Diannaa to close the discussion. But she softly rejected my request " saying she has no experience in such deletion discussions. " So my request is please see the above discussion and share your opinions and thoughts with us. If you want to close the Discussion (or) give a Conclusion (Consensus) that would be better. Hope you will reply to the above discussion (or) to my talk page. Thank you. Raghusri (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have time now, but I will try to come back to this as soon as I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir. Have a good day. Raghusri (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have closed the discussion. I am surprised it had been left for so long. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much sir. Raghusri (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..
Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The elevator vandal
...has re-appeared as. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of GMO CLOUD K.K.
Can you please give further details on why the article for GMO CLOUD K.K. was deleted?

Is it possible to get the last source code for the article? I'd like to try and improve it and resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.172.143.2 (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The immediate reason for deletion was that the article seemed promotional in character. If that were the only problem, I would be willing to restore it for possible improvement. However, on investigation it appears that the article was created by a user who has been repeatedly blocked in various accounts. Discussions relating to such cases have produced consensus that, when a user has been highly disruptive over a prolonged period, and has been banned from Wikipedia (which is what has effectively happened here) the disadvantages of allowing the troublesome editor to continually get away with editing in defiance of blocks outweigh any possible advantage gained by keeping content submitted by that editor. I am therefore unwilling to restore the content of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fred Strahorn
Could the Fred Strahorn article be created by me, then? It needs to be made anyway - this guy has been elected, will soon be commencing a term, and has held office more than once in the past. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Is there any chance I could be given access to the contents of the deleted article? Regardless of whether or not it was created by somebody who had been banned, there was good info there, and I don't want to have to reconstruct all of it from scratch if I don't have to. I'd be careful to remove anything that couldn't be attributed or would otherwise be troublesome. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming you are not another block-evading sockpuppet (and I have no reason whatever to think you may be), I see no reason why you shouldn't write an article on the subject. I suggest you create it as a userspace draft, say at User:ProfessorToft/Fred Strahorn. When you have done so, let me know, and I will unprotect the article title Fred Strahorn so it can be moved there.


 * At one time, in situations like this, I used to be prepared to make the contents of the deleted article available for editing. However, over the course of time I found that doing that sometimes causes problems. This issue has been discussed many times, and the outcome of such discussions has repeatedly been as follows. If a community ban is placed on an editor, that means that the editor has been so thoroughly disruptive that there is consensus that any benefits of using content created by the user are outweighed by the disadvantages of encouraging him/her to think he/she can get away with repeatedly defying the ban, because his/her content will remain anyway. I can perfectly well see the logic behind the attitude "Whoever wrote this material, if it is good why can't we keep it, instead of someone having to put work into redoing it?" but there is a clear consensus that the counterarguments outweigh that. I'm afraid I now feel obliged to turn down such requests for restoration of deleted content. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, no I am not another evading sockpuppet - I think if you check my edit history, you'll find my general interests are quite different from the individual in question. Anyway, I understand your reasons and thanks. I'll go ahead and create a new article in my sandbox and let you know once it is ready so it can be transferred there. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Fred Strahorn is ready for creation in my sandbox. Oh, and I actually did find the contents of the deleted article (Google's cache cuts through your evil and totalitarian attempts at information suppression! - just kidding!), but I decided not to use it, since I had already had a lot of the info in there anyway, and what I didn't wasn't sourced.

Merry Christmas! ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I actually think your version is better than the old ones. I have moved it to Fred Strahorn. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, much appreciated! ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

68.46.61.211.
I agree, hence my comment to blocking admin. Apologies for my mis-read of the IP number, which must have made response more difficult!-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 11:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Congratulations for your analisis in relation to our Nizami article. My best wishes for the New Year. --E4024 (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Hi. You might want to read this, and reblock: User talk:MarcusBritish. Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 23:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see someone else beat me to it, but I certainly would have blocked if I'd got there first. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Boise Kimber
I am not sure I can continue fighting User:Zimapr without WP:3RR violation. Could you please lock the page or make other admin measure to avoid edit warring and content pushing. Thanks! Mhym (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Can u help me with this page
Hi JamesBWatson can you help me develop this page I created and see if it is notable for now. (H.Brian Griffin (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC))

Warning for nothing
Hi, How can it be called an edit war when in fact both articles are made by me as fresh pages on wikipedia. I have every right to protect originality and save against complete acupuncture by a Vandalist user Pakwaseb. Minor improvements will always wellcomed by me but such acupuncture never acceptable. I am not only reverter user. there are other reverters to this vandalist user pak waseb.you better check the history of edits and block him instead of issuing warning to a regular sensible user like me. Regards brother Saraikistan (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is repeatedly reverting to your own preferred version, whether your reverts are justified or not.
 * 2) You do not have "every right", or indeed any right to try to keep your version of an article, whether you wrote the original version or not.
 * 3) I have no idea what you mean by "acupuncture", except a guess, on the basis of the context in which you sue the word, that you mean something like "major changes to an article". If you mean that, then you are mistaken about Wikipedia policy, as yo have no right to prevent other editors from making major changes. If you mean something else, then perhaps you can explain what you do mean.
 * 4) The messages I gave you concerned edit warring and ownership on your part. They made no reference at all to other issues, such as what I think of other editors' editing. However, I have given warnings to another editor involved in the same edit wars about several issues, namely edit warring, promotion of point of view, and the need for reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some history here. sappk.org: Profile of district Mianwali states: Though Mianwali is considered an integral part of Seraiki speaking belt by the Seraiki language activists but Punjabi-Seraiki division seems to hold little influence on common people in this district. sappk.org is South Asia Partnership-Pakistan, an NGO. Would appear to be "activists" attempting to change the language. I did a bit of searching and failed to find the 1989 Pakistan census referencing language. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Freddie
looks as though cannot even stop at the talk page - cannot you block deeper? SatuSuro 14:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ However, for future reference, it makes things easier if you can give a more exact username. When I saw this message, I searched in my block log for anyone I had recently blocked with a username containing "Freddie". Finding none, I searched through my recent contributions for anything containing "Freddie". It took me a while to find "Famousfreddyflow". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * apologies - understand if you're in the fray, and or thick of it, such an engimatic message can be frustrating - your point is an important one for anyone not utilising Admin vandalism noticeboard - cheers - thanks for your patience SatuSuro 14:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)