User talk:JBW/Archive 61

another sock
Hi, JamesBWatson. There is another sock of User:190.207.207.70 et al:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.200.4.190

Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

IPs abusing talk pages
JBW, you might want to revoke talk page access for the IPs used by the recent racist troll. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Vijay (actor)
Hello. The semi-protection of the article flushed out the auto-confirmed user accounts that the IP has been using lately. Two minutes after the protection, a user account that was blocked recently for doing the exact same type of edits as the IPs have been doing, started editing the article, clearly confirming my suspicions about them being the same user. The IP also has another user account,, that was also blocked for a short period of time a while ago for the exact same activities on the exact same article. The perseverance (it's been going in for several years...) shows, IMHO, that it's either an absolutely fanatic fan or a PR agent that's doing it. So would please put a stop to those accounts? Thomas.W talk 22:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Opbeith-Pincrete sockpuppet investigation
JBW, whilst I am obviously pleased that this: has been closed, I am slightly puzzled by some of your comments, specifically "There are certainly striking similarities between the two accounts". To the best of my knowledge, we both use UK English, we both use cultural references that suggest middle-age or above, and we both took an interest in The Weight of Chains and pages that directly link to it … … there any similarity ends.

Opbeith was knowledgable about, interested in and committed to certain opinions about the Yugoslav wars (and declared so openly on his user page), however I don't believe that he was ever censured for allowing those views to affect his neutrality as an editor. I possess neither his knowledge nor commitment and 9 tenths of my edits on 'Balkan' pages (which I try to steer away from most of the time), have been correcting grammar, phrasing or obviously un-neutral language.

The 'crime' I/we are accused of is largely, discussing how to improve the article on talk (which was pretty awful by any WP criteria) and (me), correcting spelling, bad grammar and 'clunky' phrasing in the article itself. I might plead guilty to occasionally being a pedant, plead guilty to being OVER-cautious about inserting content, but I thought 'socks' were supposed to be trying to insert/keep out certain povs.

You indicated that you looked at my edits of that period, I wonder if you read down as far as: ' This is a crude attempt by UrbanVillager to retain WP:Ownership of this article, the previous attempt at which was on an ANI a month ago, here:-. '

I appreciate that it is inherently impossible to prove a negative, however, I had hoped for a slighly more clear-cut resolution of this investigation.

Feel free to ignore or reply as you see fit, I don't watch user pages, so if you DO reply, please 'name/ping' me. Thanks. Pincrete (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Re-reading my comment, I think the emphasis that comes over is somewhat different from what I intended. Perhaps a clearer way of expressing what I meant would have been "While there are some similarities in what subjects the two accounts have edited, as UrbanVillager has pointed out, and while those similarities may possibly be a result of sockpuppetry, I have examined the editing histories, and I don't think there is sockpuppetry." When I looked at the editing history, I actually saw some quite definite differences, which to me seem more persuasive than the similarities, which led me to think it is not a case of sockpuppetry. I did not state what those differences were, because publicly announcing what kinds of similarities and differences serve to suggest sockpuppetry or non-sockpuppetry can be very helpful to people who are using sockpuppets, and wish to hide the fact. However, I still think that the most important point here is that even if I am wrong and it is sockpuppetry, it doesn't matter, as it all took place years ago, and it is not worth spending any more time on the case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson, thanks for the courtesy of reply and clarification. There are concrete reasons - over and above my own dignity - why this clarification could be important. Thankyou. Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * JamesBWatson, apologies, an afterthought, do I have your permission to attach the diff, (covering your clarification above), to the 'sock' archive? Pincrete (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC) … … ps this request has now become irrelevant, but again thankyou for your clarification.Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Krishna ballesh
Hi, JamesBWatson! I see that everyone is here with their dirty laundry, sorry to add to that. A while ago you blocked as a sock of, who as far as I can see is also blocked. There are new – though distinct – SPAs at both S. Ballesh and Krishna ballesh (recreated at that title; see Articles for deletion/Krishna Ballesh) which I present for your consideration. They look pretty similar to me, but I'm no judge. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. The account editing Krishna ballesh was a very obvious sockpuppet, and I have blocked it. The account editing S. Ballesh is not so clear: it may be a sockpuppet, but I'm not sure that it is. You may like to consider taking it to Sockpuppet investigations and asking for a CheckUser. (To do that, you create a sockpuppet case, and edit in the case page to say .) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:The T Network/SamNet
You deleted User:The T Network/SamNet a while ago. Would you consider also deleting the related User:The T Network/SamNet (disambiguation) and the other hoaxy pages listed on it, for the same rationale? It would save us all a mass MfD. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I see that the same editor, under a different name, also created further similar pages, listed at here. Deletion of those is not quite so straightforward, as (a) the account has made a significant number of edits out of user space, so that WP:CSD doesn't apply, (b) the account is not blocked, and (c) the account has edited much more recently than The T Network. You may like to consider taking them to Miscellany for deletion. If I were going to do that, I might wait a few months, because the case for deletion would be stronger if the editor had retired and not come back for a significant time, but that's just my thought. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 2014 Knattspyrnufélag Reykjavíkur season
About an hour after you deleted this article yesterday, the creator of the last version copy/paste restored it (G4 tag and all). Could you please re-delete it? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

50.25.13.13
, who you recently blocked, is back editing from. Could you block them again? Thanks. Eric444 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done that, but unfortunately the editor has used a number of IP addresses over a long period, so very likely they will just move to another one. Even so, do tell me if you see any more, as each time one of their IP addresses is blocked, it gets a little more inconvenient for them, which is likely to their activity to some extent. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Chaim Yitzchok Cohen question
Quick question--this page was deleted in this AfD and recreated by (I think) the same user. Could you compare the new version with the deleted one, and decide whether it should be speedy deleted per G4? I don't think it meets WP:N as is, because the non-profile sources barely mention him. Note--I left this on JohnCD's page as the closing admin for the discussion, but he appears to be on a wikibreak. Origamiteⓣⓒ 14:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the new article was very closely similar to the old one, and I have deleted it, and posted a message about it to the editor who created it. I don't know if it will be of any interest to you, but the history of this article turns out to be quite complex. First, in August 2013 an editor by the name of Dennicaavis hijacked an article Yitzchok Cohen, about a different person of that name, and replaced all its contents with contents about Chaim Yitzchok Cohen. A few days later, he/she moved the article to Chaim Yitzchok Cohen. Why do it that way, instead of just writing the article at Chaim Yitzchok Cohen, I have no idea. In December 2013, the article was restored to its original form. In February 2014 it was discussed at Articles for deletion/Yitzchok Cohen and deleted, and Thisisdipam recreated virtually the same article as Dennicaavis's hijacked version of the article at Chaim Yitzchok Cohen. As you know, that was then discussed at Articles for deletion/Chaim Yitzchok Cohen and deleted in March 2014. Thisisdipam re-created it, almost exactly the same, in July 2014. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is interesting, and now I'm wondering how many articles have a similar history. Thank you! Origamiteⓣⓒ 15:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly many, actually. One of the most difficult tasks I have ever done as an administrator is trying to trace and piece together the histories of pages which have been created in userspace, moved to somewhere else, moved again, re-created under the original title, the old one moved again, the new one moved, the old one deleted and then recreated under a different title, moved again, copied and pasted to somewhere else... Most of the time, one is blissfully unaware of such goings on, but every now and then there is a reason why it is necessary to trace what has happened to a page, for example trying to trace the origin of content which may infringe copyright, or trying to track down a string of sockpuppets. This one was much simpler and more straightforward than some I have known. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris sockpuppets
Just a belated followup on this thread from a month ago - did you check and decide that the evidence wasn't as overwhelming as you remembered after all, or did this just fall off your radar? And is there any chance of getting a second opinion on whether Danh108 has a conflict of interest, as outlined in that linked thread? (He's just restored some content which another editor found "undue and possibly promotional", ignoring a talk page request for a secondary source to establish due weight and explaining that it's okay because it's just "bald factual content".) --McGeddon (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I had just forgotten about it, but I have looked back now. I am no longer sure why I thought there was sockpuppetry on the pro-Brahma Kumaris side (as there clearly was on the anti-Brahma Kumaris side), but there has certainly been promotional and conflict of interest editing. If you are aware of any evidence of sockpuppetry, then please let me know, and I will look into it, but otherwise I am dropping that aspect of the matter, for lack of any clear evidence. The conflict of interest issue, however, is much clearer. I see no way that anyone could reasonably doubt that Danh108 has a conflict of interest. I have posted a few messages to Danh108's talk page expressing concerns about his/her editing. I will be willing to follow that up if necessary, so do feel welcome to get back to me if you wish to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not aware of any evidence and I can't see anything that looks like sockpuppetry going on. I was just given pause by your certainty (assuming that perhaps you suspected an editor of being a sock of an older, blocked account) and thought I'd check before potentially wasting my time on the talk page, after having wasted too much of it trying to talk down the now-blocked edit warrior on the same article.
 * My only concern is Danh's overconfidence in being able to edit neutrally, despite having a conflict of interest. Thanks for adding your thoughts. --McGeddon (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that I put such emphasis on the sockpuppetry issue, as it seems it was an unhelpful diversion. On the concern about Danh's overconfidence in being able to edit neutrally, I agree, as you can see if you read my comment below, in the section "Re Admin freeze out" The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

opinion?
Roger T. Benitez

Delete as not notable? What do you think.

WP:POLITICIAN doesn't seem to apply. This guy is just a magistrate (not even a full judge) for a federal district of California. The article mentions no big cases he's presided over.

WP:Politician reads "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office,". Not international. Not national. Not statewide. Merely a magistrate in the southern district of California. I'd think that some small city pediatric neurosurgeon is more notable in real life but Wikipedia is not going to have bios on every doctor specialist in the world.

How about Patrick Bouvier Kennedy? Just a 2 day old infant. Being a infant of a President doesn't gain Wikipedia notability. WP:BIO says to put that in the father's bio. Of course, if I suggest deletion of that, people will wrongly think I am anti-JFK and I will really get into trouble.

EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Roger T. Benitez doesn't come remotely near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but he is not so obviously insignificant as to justify a WP:CSD speedy deletion. You may like to put a PROD on the article, and see what happens.
 * Patrick Bouvier Kennedy is a different matter. It was discussed at Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, where there was an overwhelming consensus to keep the article. You can start another AfD if you like, because after five years standards have changed somewhat. However, my advice is to forget it, as the chance of getting it deleted are slim. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Kennedy is very popular even though the article clearly doesn't meet the standards. There should be a brief mention in the JFK bio and that's it. However, there are far worse things so any effort should be on those things. Thanks for your advice. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote the message above in a hurry, as I was short of time and had to go offline, so I missed out saying that I do agree with you that the subject does not come anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, in my experience cases like this never end in deletion, so, as you say, it's better to spend one's time on other things. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Re Admin freeze out
btw, I was interested to know, did you organise the Admin freeze out on ANI? I mean, all my communication is through Wiki and transparent, but somehow my posting there got totally snubbed, which requires some kind of background communication. I would be interested to know what views were expressed about me as it seemed really prejudiced, and the judgements made (and perhaps still sticking) were not based on evidence but accusations from a troll. Luckily the troll got exposed and the things I was saying were shown to be true - but no action was taken until other editors started having a convo about it....Cheers Danh108 (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully these comments answer the outstanding concerns you raised. Just ping me if I have missed anything. Sorry to have to run off half way yesterdayDanh108 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! This must be the most extreme case I have ever come across of the great conspiracy theory about The Administrator Cabal. (I am assuming that what you mean is that you posted something to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and got no response from any administrator, and since it is totally inconceivable that every administrator who looked at it just didn't wish to say anything, there must have been a secret conspiracy among administrators not to reply. If that isn't what you meant, then I have no idea what you did mean.)


 * I had a look at your posts to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, to see what post you meant. It was not at all clear to me which one you meant, as all the threads that I saw you involved in had a significant amount of participation, and I am certainly not going to spend time checking each participant to check which of then if any are administrators. However, looking at your history of editing on that page did bring several interesting points to my attention, and it also led me to follow up links to messages elsewhere either by you or concerning you, which drew other points to my attention. Amongst other things, I was struck by the following. (1) I was amazed at how much you were involved in controversy at AN/I, and how many times concern has been expressed there about various aspects of your editing. (2) I was concerned to see how much the problems which I have seen in your recent editing are not new, but have been a matter of concern over a long period. (3) I was concerned at how much you are able to apparently fail to hear what is said to you if what is said does not fit your preferred way of seeing things. (4) I was concerned to see how you seem to be totally blind to what is evidently glaringly obvious to a number of other editors, namely that your view of the topic which is your main concern is seen from one side. This blindness to the fact that one's own perception comes from one's own circumstances is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia has the conflict of interest policy that it has. Even someone who sincerely believes they are editing neutrally may not be doing so if they are closely involved in the subject they are writing about, as they will be unable to stand back from that subject and see how their writing will look from the perspective of an uninvolved outsider. (5) I was bewildered by your persistent insistence that you don't have a conflict of interest, in view of the fact that you openly declare on your user page that you have a connection to the organisation you are writing about. As far as I can make out, you seem to think that doesn't count as a conflict of interest, because you are editing neutrally. However, the whole point is that an involved editor will not be able to judge impartially what is and what is not neutral: that the very fact of being involved makes it difficult to make that judgement. Almost everyone believes that what they are writing is neutral and objective: the nazi sincerely believes that it is a simple neutral fact that jews are scum, while the jew sincerely believes that it is a simple neutral fact that nazis are scum, so the fact that one believes oneself that one is editing neutrally is not evidence that one is. Having a conflict of interest does not mean editing non-neutrally, it means having a personal involvement in the subject which potentially may influence one's perception of it. (6) You frequently seem to take either the view "the need to accept consensus does not apply to me, because I am right", or the view "consensus is on my side even though everyone else disagrees with me, because those other people are not being objective, and I am, so their views don't count towards consensus".


 * The result of all this is that the moderate concerns I had with your editing have now been replaced by major concerns. You really really need to reconsider how you are editing, or you will be blocked from editing. Indeed, it is surprising that you have survived so long without being blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read what you have written very carefully. However when I last tried to address the points you raised, this was the response - you feel I'm not listening to you. So that reduces my options quite a lot. I will go for a Wiki-holiday and hopefully someone else will fix the article up. I do really appreciate the amount of work you and others do to maintain Wikipedia, and so with that respect for you in mind, I will bow out for quite a while - though it's coercion, I still prefer not to be blocked. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments at User talk:Martinvl
Hi, I saw you rather cryptic post at User talk:Martinvl and wanted to ask whether the innuendo was directed toward myself. I ask not out of paranoia but simply because my mentor has received such an email from Martin. I'd also draw your attention to various drafts of the appeals Martin ran through, and his block appeal on simple. It certainly seems that Martin is harbouring somewhat of a grudge. Whilst I supported an unblock with the conditions suggested, if Martin is planning on repeating the same behaviour that led to his block then it would appear that this would be unwise given he seems bent on the same disruptive behaviour. WCM email 21:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I find myself gradually being dragged into a case that I had no intention of getting into, as a result of editors making a probably totally spurious connection between Martinvl's case and another one that I did choose to take part in. The more I see about the Martinvl case, the more absurd it seems, and the less I want to get involved. However, the answer to your question is "no": the innuendo I referred to was nothing to do with you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * TBH I don't blame you in the slightest, it is a completely and utterly absurd situation but thank you for answering my question. I know only too well the time sink its become. WCM email 22:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hood Money promotional drafts
I, 50.25.133.22, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 50.25.133.22 (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I, 50.25.133.22, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 50.25.133.22 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I, 50.25.133.22, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 50.25.133.22 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC) I, 50.25.133.22, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 50.25.133.22 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If the pages are restored, what do you intend to do with them, and how will it differ from what you did with them before? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to make mistakes ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.25.133.22 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that doesn't answer either of my questions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Warnbro Community High School:
Pussylover6669 - Is now editing the page. VViking Talk Edits 13:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Travelan - the saga continues
I may very well be wasting your time, but thought I'd make you aware anyway. An IP that geolocates to Melbourne (where our blocked bud Cornelia is located) removed a notability tag from the Travelan article with the rather curious explanation, "possible vandalism". I have no particular opinion about the tag (I'm not a tag fan myself), but the larger question, of course, is whether this is a block-evading sock, or perhaps a meat puppet -- and whether this company is making the article more trouble to the project than it's worth, and it might best be proposed for deletion. Thoughts? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several issues here. I think the IP editor is very likely to be the blocked editor, but I don't think there is enough evidence to take action. When a "notability" tag is over four years old, something is wrong: such a tag may or may not sometimes be useful in alerting editors to deal with an issue, but if it has been there for that long then clearly it has not served that purpose. That said, I agree that the article does not demonstrate notability, so I have proposed it for deletion. I have restored the notability tag, mainly because knowledge that notability has been questioned for several years is, I think, relevant to consideration of the deletion proposal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That, BTW, is my principal beef with tags -- they often don't serve their intended purpose, and might as well just say the following:


 * It is, after all, Cynical Friday...:-)
 * Cheers, DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryan LaBossiere
Hello, you stated that my page on Ryan LaBossiere was not significant. I reside Williams Lake, Canada, and I have been covering the WBL since 2012. The league has gained much support throughout the community since its inauguration in 2012 and will likely expand to a city-wide league. It is a league with a lot of talent (e.g. Harpreet Randhawa, Dan Brosseuk). One of the up and coming youngsters in the league is Ryan LaBossiere. He has put up numbers unlike anyone else his size (19 PPG, 9.2 BPG, and 8.0 Rebounds) and has been awarded for his efforts with major awards (MVP and Defensive Player of the Year). I feel, as basketball scout, that Ryan LaBossiere will be making a splash at the college level and may even have what it takes to turn Pro. Marcel — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcelArtest (talk • contribs) 23:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryan LaBossiere
Hello, you stated that my page on Ryan LaBossiere was not significant. I reside Williams Lake, Canada, and I have been covering the WBL since 2012. The league has gained much support throughout the community since its inauguration in 2012 and will likely expand to a city-wide league. It is a league with a lot of talent (e.g. Harpreet Randhawa, Dan Brosseuk). One of the up and coming youngsters in the league is Ryan LaBossiere. He has put up numbers unlike anyone else his size (19 PPG, 9.2 BPG, and 8.0 Rebounds) and has been awarded for his efforts with major awards (MVP and Defensive Player of the Year). I feel, as basketball scout, that Ryan LaBossiere will be making a splash at the college level and may even have what it takes to turn Pro. Marcel — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcelArtest (talk • contribs) 23:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Great for him! However, he still needs reliable sources for WP:Notability (athletes) and the policy on the biographies of living people. You also shouldn't make his page because of your conflict of interest. When he becomes written about by reliable sources, someone else can write the article about him. Origamiteⓣⓒ 01:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. If and when he "turns pro" he may receive the sort of coverage that is required to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, but as long as he is playing in a league which "will likely expand to a city-wide league", he is nowhere near there. We don't have articles on every promising young sports player who is quite well known in his or her community and may one day become more widely notable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Still smells like a gym locker room, there is outing issues on SoWhatYouWant and I'd also actually like to point out that it appears that the person I was saying was a sockpuppet promoting the company was in fact promoting the company. I'm going to let you sort out the mess because I tried and damn near got a long term block for it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Minor change Sockpuppet investigations/Pearljambandaid Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Travelan
just wanted to ping you that an IP removed your prod (are IPs allowed to do that?), you'll have to send it to afd instead (and better have an ip check done aswell) Avono (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can, and it can't be reverted, so I started an AfD. Origamiteⓣⓒ 05:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (No)
When I first posted my article, I used name of "Wisebuy" (no special meaning, just 7 letters). The articles was approved. Later, I started my second article, it was objected because of my account name. SO I have to change to "Jason Crew".I did not use my account for spckpuppet or other promotional purpose. But How to do next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Crew (talk • contribs) 05:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jason. There are several different issues here, including the following.
 * 1) Suggestions of sockpuppetry. I have already said, both on your talk page and in the sockpuppet investigation page, that I don't see any abuse of multiple accounts, so I have rejected the accusation of sockpuppetry, and closed the investigation, so you don't have to worry about that any more. However, since another editor had raised the question of your use of several accounts, and it did look a little odd, I asked you about it, hoping that the matter could be cleared up, avoiding any further suspicion of your motives. That was the only reason I mentioned the matter to you.
 * 2) You say that you have not used your account for promotional purposes. However, the pages you have written have really read like promotional material, telling the world how wonderful portable CNC cutting machines are. If you can write pages of things like "economical cost, easy operation, flexible structure, stable and high cutting precision, fully deserving the title of 'economical and high performance cutting device'" and sincerely not regard it as promotion, then I can only assume that one or both of two things applies: (a) 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 detached perspective of an outside observer, and/or (b) you work in marketing, PR, or whatever, and are so used to dealing with marketing-speak that you have become desensitised to it, and can't see it when it's right in front of you. This inability to see how your own writing will look from an outsider's perspective is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest discourages us from writing articles on subjects in which we have a personal involvement.
 * 3) I have been assuming all along that you have been acting in good faith. However, it became a little difficult to continue to do so when I read your statement that the username "Wisebuy" had "no special meaning, just 7 letters". If that is so, then by an amazing coincidence you happened to choose a name which is associated with a business operating in the very area in which you have been editing, as you will see if you take a look at http://wisebuy365.com/ . I also see that the draft article you have written contains several links to advertising pages on the website of that very company. A truly remarkable set of coincidences, if what you say is true. There are also other reasons for being doubtful about your suggestion that the username had "no special meaning, just 7 letters", but unfortunately Wikipedia policy forbids me to make those reasons public, as I would be doing if I posted them here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

request to unblock Cornelia cefai
Hi "JamesBWatson" (talk) I read your post on my talk page Cornelia cefai (talk) with great interest and intrigue.

Can you please explain why I have been blocked after correcting a misleading statement on traveler's diarrhea (TD) using factual information from the FDA Federal Register, yet another user who goes under the pseudonym DoctorJoeE continues to edit Wikipedia in what can only be described as biased and unhindered?

My assertions are based on the following. Since July 2014 I have made a number of edits to traveler's diarrhea to include Travelan. On a number of occasions DoctorJoeE edited my edits claiming they fell out of Wikiepdia code of conduct. As I am a new user to Wikipedia I welcomed these edits as I was unaware that certain statements cannot be made on Wikipedia. Initially I thought nothing further of DoctorJoeE edits until on 30 October when I noted a sentence discussing bismuth subsalicylate on traveler's diarrhea was written in a manner that inferred it can be used as a 'preventative' for TD with a reference to a single website which contained no verifiable peer reviewed references. As a scientist I am keenly interested in understanding the studies that support claims. As such I decided to research this statement and discovered that in fact in 2003 the FDA determined that data presented to them was insufficient to support the use of bismuth subsalicylate as a 'preventative' for TD. As Wikipedia is all about truth, transparency, and knowledge for all, I felt it imperative to edit this sentence to read as follows "Studies show a decrease in the incidence of TD with use of bismuth subsalicylate and antimicrobial chemoprophylaxis however after a review of available studies the FDA determined the data is insufficient to support the use of bismuth subsalicylate for prophylaxis of TD. "

Interestingly, within hours DoctorJoeE amended my edit to read as follows "Several studies show that oral bismuth subsalicylate (two tablets or two fluid ounces four times daily) reduces the incidence of TD. While many travelers find a four-times-per-day regimen inconvenient, the FDA has affirmed that the data support the use of bismuth subsalicylate in treating TD symptoms. "

As you can plainly see, DoctorJoeE removed any mention of FDA's negative finding and replaced it only with FDA's positive finding. In hind sight, I regret not adding the positive information, however at the time I was only interested in correcting a false statement. However, from this last edit by DoctorJoeE I was struck by the manipulation of words to present only the positive FDA findings and remove the negative FDA findings. If DoctorJoeE was honestly interested on making certain that Wikipedia presents factual and balanced information he/she would have left both statements in place. In contrast, by removing the negative finding and only leaving the positive finding, I can only surmise DoctorJoeE must have a vested interest in the company that manufactures bismuth subsalicylate. Why else would DoctorJoeE be wishing to continually amend any information I post for Travelan yet remove the first hint of negative information I post (which was totally factual and in no way vexatious) regarding bismuth subsalicylate. Furthermore, and strangely coincidentally, on 30 November, the site for Travelan has since been tagged with numerous supposed violations, all of which are totally vexatious and unfounded. I can only surmise that these tags are from users who also have vested interest to support the company that manufactures bismuth subsalicylate.

If my assumptions are correct regarding the above, I wish to ask what is the point of having Wikipedia if it can be hijacked and used to manipulate and misconstrue?

Worse still block individuals who are adding facts not fiction?

I look forward to your feedback and formally request that I be unblocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanking you in advance. Cornelia cefai (talk) 10.11am AEST 10 Nov 2014 — Preceding comment signed as by Cornelia cefai (talk· contribs) actually added by 101.173.127.255 (talk·contribs)


 * Answered at User talk:Cornelia cefai. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:168.8.249.230
Hi, I appreciate that different considerations apply to School IPs but in this case a final warning had not been given and the level of vandalism was patchy. In the circumstances I think that a 1 year block seems excessive? Best, Just Chilling (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If I had more time I might explain my reasons to you, but I am very short of time, so I will restrict my self to saying that I accept your point, and I have reduced it to a month. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.:-) Just Chilling (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mohamad Aliff Shafiq Azizan
Well, he's back, and this time in addition to adding Jawi to two articles, he also went in and change the MOS by himself! HkCaGu (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Dr. K.Loganathan
Sir, Im not sure if you are an expert on Sumerian and/or Tamil. Unfortunately you have deleted an article on that subject (Titled, Dr. K. Loganathan). By the process of deletion, i would say 5000 year old facts that surfaced are buried again. You have the authority, and ofcourse you can use it like an executor. I would like to bring to your eyes these facts: Sumerian scholars all over the world, until now have been researching without knowing the culture, language and faith of Sumerians. Dr.K. Loganathan is the first one to open their eyes, and has shown a new direction on Sumerian research. Sumerians were the first civilization for many things (you may read on Zecharia Sitchin's books... or Alex Collins declaration that Tamil was spoken all over the planet long ago).. Computation of Sumerian Year (biblical years), Secrets of stonehenge, stories about giants or ancient aliens walking on earth - all these would have got resolved if you had let this page survive your axe. May be you can spend couple of hours, do a research on these topics, if you have some questions throw them back to me. I will answer them. If you are convinced then you can undelete this article on Dr K Loganathan. Warm Regards, Raj  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathinavel Raj K (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered on his talk page. Origamiteⓣⓒ 20:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

mail
 Enigma  msg 17:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I know I've made constructive edits from that range in the past.  Enigma  msg 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, could you tell me how to check edits from a range of IPs? I've never done it. I tried entering the range as the 'user' but it doesn't work.  Enigma  msg 22:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is currently no completely satisfactory way of doing this, as far as I know. There used to a couple of very good toolserver tools that did the job, but they have now been replaced by two tools at wmflabs, neither of which works perfectly.
 * There is a tool at https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php. Very often it is not working at all, and I just get a message saying "The connection has timed out. The server at tools.wmflabs.org is taking too long to respond." (I have copied and pasted that from a message I got from trying to access the tool while typing this message to you.) When it is working, it does not do CIDR ranges correctly: you type in the range you want checked, but it comes up with a list of edits covering more than the range you specify. Quite often, the vast majority of the edits it lists are outside the range specified, so I find myself putting a substantial amount of work into laboriously searching through hundreds of listed edits and picking out the minority that were actually in the range I asked for.
 * There is another tool at https://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/. This one too sometimes doesn't work at all. When it does work, it does give the right range, but it is limited to a maximum of 30 edits. If there have been 30 or more edits today, then you get no information at all about edits from before today. If one IP address has done the last 30 edits, over any time period, then you get no information at all about any other IP addresses in the range. These limitations make it virtually useless for helping make decisions about range blocks, though it is sometimes useful for other purposes.


 * There are other problems with both those tools, but those are the most important ones. The single biggest problem is the fact that quite often they are just not available at all. The old tool server tools were not without problems, but they were, in my opinion, more useful than the current versions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

about "International coalition for responsible tourism"
this article as stub "international coalition" is one of very known in professional domain and people who interesting "alternative tourism" issue, it has been deleted on 11 November 2014. as stub i think is one of important "international coalition" which defending tourism alternative.. thnks--محمد بوعلام عصامي «Md.Boualam» (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't entirely understand what you are trying to say, but it seems you are saying that you think the article should not have been deleted because its subject is important. If so, there are three relevant points. Firstly, the article did not indicate how or why its subject is significant. Secondly, I searched for information about the organisation, and failed to find any of the kind of coverage required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Thirdly, the article seemed to exist to promote or publicise the organisation, which on its own would have been sufficient grounds for deletion. Also, although it is not one of the reasons for deletion, it was not written in coherent English, and there were parts of it which were difficult, or even impossible, to understand. You may be better able to contribute to Wikipedia in one or more languages you have a better command of, rather than to English Wikipedia. (I see that you have contributed to 21 different Wikipedia's, and a number of other Wikimedia projects.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Great Fire of Brisbane deleted
My watchlist is showing that you speedily deleted the Great Fire of Brisbane. I think I did an edit on it, adding an image I think after the previous one was deleted as a copyvio. Notwithstanding the status of the user who created it, the event was real, would easily pass notability and other people (at least me) had made good faith contributions to it. Is it possible to reinstate the article and deal with the blocked/banned user by other means please? Thanks Kerry (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kerry. There has been considerable debate about what constitutes substantial enough contributions from other editors to invalidate a G5 speedy deletion, but I have restored the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Where does one go to have a voice in such debates or are they for admins only? As I see it, an encyclopedia has a primary goal of making content available to readers and there is a current WMF strategic priority to reverse the global editor decline, neither of which seems well-served by speedy deletion of notable articles with contributions by other editors. Kerry (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Rizky Iconia sock
Hi James. You might remember and his socks being blocked for persistently adding copyright images to pages. It seems his latest incarnation (exhibiting similar edits on kits, mobile edits, increased activity after last sock was blocked 14 October, time of edits) went under the radar for longer than it should. Thank you. LRD 02:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This account was also indefinitely blocked on Commons for abusing multiple accounts. Could a look at his sockpuppets on Commons (his alts were not listed), along with a CheckUser here, reveal more alternative accounts? cheers. LRD 03:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Found it. Although it appears not all wikipedia accounts by the same names appear to be connected to him (Presumably commons acct does not equate wikipedia acct of the same name? Do correct me if I'm wrong), there are some rather obvious ones like Gustavo neto and Zotteteen1. I'm not that techny-savvy so would a CheckUser be useful in turning up more socks, considering he edits from a mobile device for the last few accounts but had edited from a PC previously? cheers. LRD 03:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

AFD entry
I've decided to nominate one article for AFD. Only one, not a bunch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samantha_Hess

I hope people won't get mad. As a compromise, I suggested redirect so that others could always look into the history and read about it if they really wanted to. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RVDL
Chosen at random- will you please WP:RVDL this edit summary, as it appears to possible constitute a personal attack?Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was certainly uncivil, but I really can't see it as satisfying the requirements for revision deletion. The revision deletion policy explicitly states that, while revdel can be used for "grossly offensive material", it is not to be used for "ordinary incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Spoofing your userpage
You will probably want to delete some stuff that a masquerader has been writing, re-using your text. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, but in fact someone else has already deleted it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A possible block evasion by User:Orubel
User:Snoglets account was created at 1:48pm GMT. The first (and only) edit this user has made was to remove the deletion tag at API Chaining. The reason that Snoglet gave in the edit summary seemed similar to a response made by Orubel in response to the deletion. I could be wrong, but is there any chance you could look into this further! Thanks in advance. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not block evasion. I am a friend.Snoglet (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So, instead of WP:SOCK, it's WP:MEAT? Both are blockable, you know. Origamiteⓣⓒ 02:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Hi James. Whenever, or if, you have the time, I have reopened Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91. Thank you. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Environmental noise directive deletion question
Hello, JamesBWatson. :) I'm confused by your deletion of Environmental noise directive under WP:CSD. Can you tell me where the copyvio was in the content as deleted? Policy is not to delete articles wholesale because they have copyright issues in their history - we have literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia that have copyright issues in their history. If you believe the history of the article is an issue, you do have the option of Revision deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was a mistake to give my reason only in a brief and rather simplified summary in the deletion log, rather than posting a longer explanation to your talk page. I see that what I wrote reads like a statement of a general principal, to be applied always, whereas it was intended to be just a brief pointer to the kinds of reasons why I disagreed with you on this particular occasion. However, here is a somewhat more complete account of my thoughts on some of the issues involved.


 * The fact that we "have literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia that have copyright issues in their history" does not make it acceptable. I am sure that someone with your experience of Wikipedia will be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF.


 * I am well aware of revision deletion. If you spend a little while looking through my deletion log you will be able to find numerous cases where I have used revision deletion to remove copyright infringements, this being the most recent example. However, in the case you refer to, that would not have been possible. The content which you chose to keep was not put there by you. Therefore, if I had revision-deleted all the previous revisions of the article, I would have hidden the history of who did place it there, which, as I am sure you are aware, would have been a copyright infringement, as it would have destroyed the attribution. Revision deletion is usable to remove copyright infringements form article histories in two situations: (1) where the copyright infringement is restricted to a limited period, and after that period the page was restored to a pre-infringement state, so that deleting all revisions from the copyright-infringing period does not remove attribution of anything that remains visible in the page's history; (2) where the copyright infringement was there from the creation of the page, but at some time in its history the page was completely re-written, retaining none of the earlier content, so that everything from before that re-write can be deleted without destroying attribution. Neither of those applies in this case.


 * You refer to policy on this matter. However, Wikipedia's policy in regard to copyright is in some ways ill-thought out and unworkable. More importantly, it is inconsistent with the law. If one day I discover that some web site is making public something I wrote, without my permission, I will not accept it as a defence against copyright infringement if they say "Ah, but it's all right: nobody can read our copy of your work unless they first click on a link labelled "history", so it's not a copyright infringement. " Nor do I believe that any judge would accept that as a defence. Keeping copyright-infringing text in publicly viewable pages is illegal, whether or not the copy is labelled "history". Wikipedia policy cannot over-ride the law.


 * Despite that, there is a case for taking the line that if copyright infringing text in a page is inextricably intertwined with other contributions, so that the copyright infringing material cannot be expunged from the page's history without also removing attribution of legitimate contributions, then the least bad option available is to just remove the infringing content from the current version of the page, leaving it in the history. Rightly or wrongly, I very often do that. However, I see no case at all for taking that line in a case such as the present one, where there was a perfectly easy way of dealing with the problem: deleting the article, and, since you evidently think it is worth keeping a stub version of the article, creating a new stub in your own words. Since the version of the article that you left consists of 48 words (excluding two external links) I am sure you could have done that without much trouble.


 * The reasons I have given combine to convince me that keeping the history of the article cannot be justified. However, since you have questioned my action, I have restored the article, and if you still believe I am mistaken I shall be very grateful if you can let me know why. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, although I disagree with you on this occasion, I should like to let you know that I think the work you put in to dealing with copyright issues is superb. Wikipedia would be far worse off without your contributions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, James. But it's not so much a question of WP:OTHERSTUFF - which refers to content that may not meet policy - it's just that I'm very familiar with the practices and policies regarding copyright. It is not policy to delete articles because there is a copyvio in their history, if the current content is not a copyvio. Revision deletion is routinely used for copyright work because all that is needed is the name of the contributor, in accordance with our Terms of Use. That name constitutes attribution. Revision deletion does not hide the history of names, only the content itself. If you think we need to revise our policies so that articles are automatically deleted that are created as copyright issues, this is a much bigger question than a single article. WP:SCV sees a steady stream of such content, and contributors who place the material here are encouraged to rewrite the content to make it usable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply here, I just meant that you must be aware of the principal that "there are lots of other examples where it has been done this way" is not a justification, and referred to OTHERSTUFF as a short way of calling your attention to that principal. I also know very well that you are "very familiar with the practices and policies regarding copyright": perhaps more so than any other person, but I am questioning the validity of applying those practices in this case. I also stand by what I said above: Wikipedia policy cannot over-ride the law, and no matter what practices and policies say, keeping a publicly visible copy of content which infringes copyright is illegal. I also totally disagree with your interpretation of the licensing terms and the need for attribution. If I release content I have written under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, I require that any reuse attribute that specific content to me, not just that it be acknowledged that I wrote something or other. It is not sufficient for someone re-using the content to say "JamesBWatson, Moonriddengirl, JohnDoe, Salma Nawaz, and Uncle Tom Cobbley each contributed something or other to a page from which this content is taken, but I am not telling you which of them contributed what, so you have no way of knowing who was the author of this particular content that I have re-used", which is effectively what is said if attribution is made to a Wikipedia page where there is only a list of editors' names, while the history of the individual edits has been hidden.


 * As I said above, there may be a case for keeping copyright-infringing content in editing histories where it is not easy to remove it without collateral damage, but it seems to me that in a case such as this one, where removing the infringement entirely would be very easy, it is incumbent on us to do so. I would be interested to know you opinion on that suggestion, which you did not mention in your last post here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that according to our Terms of Use, every time you hit save page you are agreeing to be attributed "Through a list of all authors (but please note that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions)." If you believe that the widely used interpretation of this to allow exactly the kind of acknowledgement you reject above is incorrect, I'm happy to ask the Wikimedia Foundation attorneys in my work role. I have no interest in being wrong there. :) Of course, even if they disagree with you, there's nothing to stop Wikipedia from reaching for a higher standard, but that would require an RFC or something like that. This is simply not the way things are done or have been done since before I started doing copyright work in 2007 or 2008. I agree that it is incumbent upon us to remove copyright infringements whenever we find them - I still dedicate most of my Wikipedia time to doing exactly that - but don't believe that doing so requires deletion of the article, where non-infringing content can be removed and, where necessary, revision deleted. "Without much trouble" is, alas, highly relative, given the massive backlogs of copyright cleanup with which we struggle. If the community agrees that all articles that are created as copyright problems should be deleted, whether rewritten or infringing content is removed, then that's the way I'll go. It would be a pretty big overhaul of the copyright workflows, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I had always taken "Through a list of all authors" as referring to what the editing history of a page normally is, namely as list of all authors and what each one contributed, but I see that it doesn't explicitly say that. If it is to be taken as literally meaning no more than a list of names, then I don't see how it can be read as compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. However, whatever we accept or don't accept about Wikipedia's terms of use, licensing terms, policies, common practices, guidelines, etc etc, it still seems to me that keeping copies of content publicly visible without copyright permission is illegal, that we should do everything reasonably possible to prevent acting illegally, and that in this case it is reasonably possible to completely remove from view all copyright-infringing content. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry about falling off the cliff on you there. A lot going on in my life at the moment and getting volunteer time on Wikipedia is challenging. :/ In my work hat, I sent a letter to one of our attorneys to ask about the impact on license compliance of revision deletion to hide content (not usernames) while retaining material added in those edits. This particular attorney is heavily focused on CC-By-SA compliance issues, so we'll see where that goes. I'll let you know if he feels like it's in scope for him to respond (and am hoping it will be, since it's not a particular issue but a widespread interpretation of policy). Anyway, relevant to your concerns about page histories, the legal interns did do a "Wikilegal" report at meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Wikipedia Page Histories. This section was added later, not by one of our attorneys or interns: . People are invited to edit those pages, so it's always a good idea to check the history to see what was added by whom, when. :) This particular bit of research was in response to an assertion on English Wikipedia that Wikipedia page histories were exempt from copyright concerns because of 17 U.S.C. § 108. That research document suggests that assertion is in error. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, according to our deputy general counsel, whose focuses include free license, legally our license is satisfied by a list of contributors. We do need to note that changes have been made, but not what changes, and he says even with revision deletion the article history list complies. So we could if the community supported more liberally apply revision deletion than many do to remove copyright infringements from article history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is consistent with the wording of the terms of use, and I have no doubt it is correct. However, I see it as different from what I think any intelligent person who had read the CC by SA license would think was what they were agreeing to. However, for what it is worth, my own opinion is that the whole business of copyright of Wikipedia contributions is farcical, because for several reasons our licensing terms are in practice totally unworkable. (To give just one example, where is the attribution to the authors of a deleted article which someone has copied somewhere other than Wikipedia, using a hyperlink to that article as attribution?) We would, in my opinion, be better off just letting all Wikipedia content be released to the public domain, which would make various matters simpler. However, thanks for checking on this, and letting me know the result. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for protecting David Horvitz; it was definately due. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Horvitz
He's finding new ways to get in touch.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 02:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Short of semi-protecting every page you edit, I don't see any way of stopping that. However, blocking every IP address he uses for a while will make it a little less easy for him. I definitely think it's a case where WP:RBI is the best strategy, and personally I think this was probably a mistake, but it's obviously up to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
 * If it gets him to shut up then I'll listen to his garbage proposal to art, I'm guessing.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He keeps removing commas.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * He is being disruptive (even if only slightly), but more importantly he is evading a block. No editor has the right to encourage a blocked editor to evade that block. Please don't encourage him to do so. Certainly don't say things such as "Make an account and email me from that". If a blocked editor has his or her email access removed, then creating an account to evade that is sockpuppetry. If you think that there is a good case for changing Horvitz's block conditions, then contact the administrator who imposed the present block conditions and suggest a change. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of such consultation then you may raise the matter at WP:AN/I, but you may not take it upon yourself to unilaterally overturn the block conditions by encouraging an editor to use a sockpuppet account, and if it is found that you have done so again after this warning, you are likely to be blocked for a significant period. In the same way, don't do anything at all that may encourage him to keep evading his block by IP editing. I will also say that in my personal opinion Horvitz is nothing but a troll, and encouraging him in any way is unhelpful. The best thing to do with, in my opinion, is revert, block, ignore, and deny him the satisfaction of knowing that he is provoking you into responding, which is the result which trolls want, and which keeps them going. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know what else to do. He's never had an official account AFAIK or rather he did and it got blocked when we found out he had been using a billion socks over the summer and it's just been trickling down ever since. I ignored him when he made the edits to his biography but as soon as that was protected he just began following me around to whatever article I last touched which is getting annoying. I'd rather he actually fucking get in contact with me rather than continue to fuck around for the sake of art.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 08:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can well understand that it must be annoying. However, I am convinced that inviting him to contact you will not make anything better at all, and may make things worse. If he really had something he wanted to say to you, there are several ways he could easily do it (e.g. create a sockpuppet, make ten trivial edits, wait four days, and then post to your talk page.) I strongly believe that he is is not really trying to contact you at all. He is, in fact, doing but what he calls "art" and I call "trolling": deliberately harassing you for the pleasure of seeing you make responses which show you are irritated. The more you respond the more he will do it. You say "Well I don't know what else to do", and unfortunately, as he knows, there is no very effective way of dealing with this type of disruption. We can't semi-protect every page you ever edit. Blocking is of limited value, because he switches to IP addresses covering ranges far too wide for range blocks. (Though "of limited value" does not mean "of no value": each time he is forced to change IP addresses it is a little more inconvenience for him, so it is likely to help a little.) There are, as I see it, two possibilities: (1) If he gets no response from you at all, he will eventually give up. (2) No matter what we do, he will never stop. If possibility number one applies, then obviously the best thing to do is to make no response. If possibility number two applies, then it makes no difference, so nothing is lost by making no response, and that will at least save you the trouble of keeping replying. Obviously I can't read the mind of the troll, but my guess is that the most likely situation is possibility one, although unfortunately it is likely to take a long time before he gives up. I do understand that it is annoying for you, and it must be difficult to just ignore him, but I really do think that doing so is the one thing which has some chance of getting somewhere. As I see it, WP:RBI is, if not quite a win/win strategy, at least a win/nothing-lost strategy.
 * Some years ago an editor came to Wikipedia for the single purpose of harassing another editor he had disagreed with on another web site, some forum if I remember rightly. At first, trolling that other editor was the only thing he did, but eventually he also started making disruptive edits to articles. At first he used anonymous IP editing, hopping from IP to IP as each got blocked. However, the more IP addresses and ranges got blocked, the more inconvenient it was for him to keep having to switch to another one, so he started making accounts. At first, each account was blocked and given an explanation why what he was doing was unacceptable. He tried various tricks, including attempting to use Wikipedia's "I've forgotten my password" facility, pretending to be me, in an attempt to get my password. I took to just reverting blocking and ignoring, giving no message at all when a new sockpuppet was blocked. It took a long time, but eventually he gave up. Obviously, the troll who is harassing you is not the same person, and I am not suggesting that he will respond in exactly the same way, but what I am saying is that experiences such as the one I have described show that for really persistent trolls WP:RBI is the one thing which has some chance of working. Continually replying to a troll and indicating you are pissed off with their trolling has zero chance of working: that is exactly what they are after.
 * I have one other suggestion, which may help a little. You can email me every IP address he uses. Then I can check to see if they fall into groups, each of which can be range-blocked. It is unlikely to completely stop him, but it may eventually make it sufficiently inconvenient to him to significantly reduce his activity. Unfortunately, it may not be possible, depending on the exact nature of the IP ranges he uses, but it may be worth a try. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Message from Liveloveoflatsuckrul

 * Replied there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious?
Do you think it's a coincidence that articles about "pop stars" and famous soccer players are created who all were born in 1992 and who are all from Salzburg, Austria and who have all the same name? You ridicule Wikipedia by declining the deletion. --Yoda1893 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You see that in this "source" nowhere appears this name? That's because that's a source he can't fake and he works very hard to fake another sources. --Yoda1893 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Yoda1893, and thanks for those messages. Many administrators (probably most administrators) would have simply declined the deletion request without even considering it, as there is a widespread view that speedy deletion because of creation by a blocked editor should never be used except in the case of creation by an account that has already been blocked as a sockpuppet. Even among those administrators who take a more liberal line, most would have simply dismissed the proposal, as no evidence of sockpuppetry was provided except for creation of pages with similar names. I, however, put some time and effort into checking the history. I found that there had been a couple of articles about a footballer, who at first glance did not appear to have anything to do with the musician that the current article was about. I am now told that there was other evidence, which you were aware of, and could presumably therefore have provided. Perhaps if I had happened to check the dates of birth in the articles I saw, I might have noticed the coincidence, and perhaps if I had happened to check one or two other details I might have found other coincidences. However, exactly how much time do you expect me to put into comparing every possible detail of every one of a group of articles? Do you think that it is constructive to accuse me of "ridiculing" Wikipedia, because I failed to find the evidence which you knew of, and presumably could have mentioned? I suggest that you may like to carefully consider how you expressed yourself, and whether there might have been a better way of dealing with the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Milton Berle
Good morning -- I seem to be bumping into an unusual number of unusual editors these days. User ChatNoir24 -- and possible sock 24.171.139.101 (although that might have been an accidental forgot-to-sign=in thing) -- has repeatedly changed Milton Berle's birth name from Mendel to Milton, despite numerous sources for Mendel; I listed a half-dozen examples on my talk page in response to an anonymous note, presumably from this same editor. He/she has cited no sources, nor offered any edit-summary explanations. On my talk page he/she claims to have worked with Berle and "seen his birth certificate", which of course does not qualify as WP:RS. I'm at 2.5RR at the moment, and don't want to perpetuate this as an edit war, so I could use a bit of help, when you have a moment. Thanks, DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: In going over his/her talk page more closely, I see that he/she has been warned multiple times for edit warring using different aliases -- though not recently. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just to say I have responded to something of your comment...(not sure how to put this at the bottom of you talk page...)

Thank you for comments
ViperFace (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Thank you for your comments. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but as being an academic student I am also familiar with requirements of encyclopedic articles, as well as human nature being vulnerable for not being able to maintain complete neutrality. I honestly have tried to maintain as neutral tone as possible, while trying to be able to include all information of the subject I consider relevant. I will look into improving the issues you present. I am in no way expecting any compensation for my edits. I merely share the same views on certain issues with subject organizations of the articles. I am neither a member, nor employee of the organization. Again, thank you for your constructive criticism, I'll try to correct these issues within the article(s) in near future.

Vaell / Vehicle and Equipment Leasing Limited
FYI: you speedy-deleted Vaell yesterday, now recreated as Vehicle and Equipment Leasing Limited. 86.151.193.104 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Name change Superuser-u -> Schnupperuser
Thank you for unblocking my name change. However I don't know how to proceed. How do I put the request into "Wikipedia:Changing username" to avoid reblocking?

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superuser-u (talk • contribs) 19:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Go to Changing username/Simple. Have a quick read through the section headed "Instructions". In point number 5 of that section, thee is a link that say "Click here to place your request". Click on it. In the editing space that will open, after "CURRENT=" put your current username (Superuser-u) and after "NEW=" put the new name (Schnupperuser). After "REASON=" put a brief reason: it should be enough to say that an administrator has told you your name violates the username policy. Don't put anything in the "Subject/headline" box. (If you are wondering why it's there if you aren't supposed to use it, then you are not the only one.) Save the page, and wait for a bureaucrat to get round to dealing with the request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User: ChatNoir24
Hello James, The above user, having just come-out of the three-day block you initiated is again trying to use the same "information" on the Anna Anderson Talk page. I have commented on this, but feel that this user is not going to listen to reason. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. However, at present it is just a disagreement about content, concerning an issue I know little about. If and when ChatNoir24 starts any sort of disruptive editing again, such as edit warring, persistently adding unsourced content, etc, I will be willing to consider possible further administrative action, but as long as it's just a content dispute, I am not going to get involved. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and advice. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party
Hi James, I see you in the deletion log, would you mind taking a look at the IPs editing at a fast pace in Aam Aadmi Party and consider a semi-pp, please? Best, Sam Sing! 11:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've semi-protected the article for 3 days, Sam. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sam Sing! 11:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party Protection Needed
Hello James,

Editing needs to be disabled on this page for next 24 hours - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aam_Aadmi_Party. The correct content is - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aam_Aadmi_Party&oldid=635206708 (2 Day Old). From the morning BJP's (Rival Party) Social Media team is spamming page of Aam Aadmi Party. Please protect it with the correct revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitbjain (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Check WP:WRONGVERSION. He cannot restore to any version. Except under some special circumstances.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for Protection Ankitbjain (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC).


 * To protect the article to preserve what I decided was the "correct" version would be an abuse of administrative power: see the page "The Wrong Version" that OccultZone has linked to. If the article is fully protected, it is more likely than not to be at a version other than the one you call "the correct revision". I have already protected the article from editing by unregistered or newly registered editors for longer than the 24 hours you suggest, and if one or more registered editors edit war on the article, those editors can be individually blocked from editing, so there is no foreseeable need at present for full protection. If you are not already acquainted with Edit warring, then I suggest you read it now. (If you do so, don't take too much notice of all the stuff about the so-called "three revert rule", as I will block any edit-warring editor whether or not they have broken that "rule".) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The current version is to the last version by, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm not concerned. Sam Sing! 11:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks @James. I understood your point. The current version seems to be correct. Since I never do any edits, it is really difficult to understand how things go here. Ankitbjain (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , we all have to learn when we start editing here and people do realise that. JamesBWatson is a great guy and has given you some good advice; if you follow it, you'll come to no harm. I am off out shortly but I will take a look at the article when I get back. I'm guessing that perhaps a president's rule thing is coming to an end and a new election in Delhi is imminent, causing BJP to go into attack mode but I want to dig around the newspapers etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I've just noticed that you were warned about something else relating to the article. Please do read our policy regarding verifiability for info that you add to articles. It probably would also be a good idea if you do not actually edit the article yourself if you are, for example, a member of the AAP: you may have a conflict of interest and in such circumstances you should really limit yourself to making sensible comments at Talk:Aam Aadmi Party. There are plenty of people watching that thing and so your voice should not go unheard. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing serious Sitush. I just replaced the page with the previous one - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aam_Aadmi_Party&oldid=635497187. But later I found that this page was also edited this morning. Almost 50 revisions were made so it was very tough to find the non-biased revision. Anyway issue got resolved now. I put the 25th November revision which was fair. Ankitbjain (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Sysoyenko
You deleted the article about Iryna Sysoyenko. I had originally tagged it for speedy deletion, as it appeared to be an article about an unremarkable Ukrainian lawyer. However, the original author (although improperly removing the speedy deletion tag) further clarified that Ms Sysosenko is a member of the Parliament of Ukraine, with a citation to her party's website (which I am unable to verify from my office computer -- darn firewalls!). This assertion should, at the very least, avoid speedy deletion, no? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that the author had added that statement to the article, but you are of course right in saying that it invalidates the speedy deletion, so I will restore the article. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I have looked at the page given as a reference for her membership of the Ukrainian parliament, and it makes no mention of that. I have also searched, and found no mention of it anywhere. For example, http://gp-kiev.com.ua/sisoyenko-irina/ lists her accomplishments, including being a member of the Ukrainian bar, various academic qualifications, and chairman of a charity, and so on, but it makes no mention of her being a member of the parliament, which is a strange omission. (Google translation of the page: http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=uk&u=http://gp-kiev.com.ua/sisoyenko-irina/&prev=search) Likewise http://samopomich.ua/lyudy-povynni-rozumity-vidpovidalnist-za-vlasne-zdorov-ya-iryna-sysojenko/ tells us she is a lawyer and a fund manager, but does not mention her membership of the parliament. However, it is clear that she is an active member of a political party, and she may have been elected in the recent election on 26 October, in which case since it is so recent the information may not be widely published. If that is so, she will actually become a member of the parliament on 1 December. As I said above, I will restore the article, but it needs a reliable source for the claim of being a member of parliament. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon further research (more possible from home than from my office computer), I have found no significant coverage of this individual, and have taken the article to AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this an ad?
Brian Boxer Wachler

I think it is. They disguise references by using papers that he published. Many professors and even obscure junior faculty have publications. Even a clown like me has publications and I am not even a faculty member of any university. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I will nominate it for AFD in December. That will give me time to think about it but I think it is AFD material. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I particularly like the "awards" -- and the numerous links to his own website. A skilled self-promoter, I'll give him that.  Why wait until December?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Advice/clarification
Many thanks for that, I replied on my talk page OsizUrUnkle (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Tsogo Sun
Hello James,

This summer you participated in the AFD discussion and invited anyone who is interested, to take part in extensive searches for information about Tsogo Sun that would allow to restore the page.

I used a draft article (that you saved), made it more neutral and added corresponding references to support almost every fact in the text. I can expand the list with other independent news media and printed books, if necessary.

Please let me know whether I can restore the page using this corrected version of the article in my sandbox. — Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 14:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see that I "invited anyone who is interested, to take part in extensive searches for information". I did, however, invite anyone interested to read my fairly long explanation to the author of the article why it wasn't suitable.


 * I have checked all of the references in your draft. Two are books which don't appear to mention Tsogo Sun, and the others are largely just reports of individual business deals. None of them is substantial coverage of Tsogo Sun. A couple of them look to me as though they are on websites that exist to help promote businesses. I still see no evidence (either in your references or in anything I have been able to find) which indicates that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the prompt reply. Of course, I read your explanations before starting my work on this article:


 * 1) The books in the list did mention Tsogo Sun (I indicated the pages with supporting info), moreover, this company became the subject of authors' attention as a game changer on this market:


 * 1. The Social Impact of Gambling in South Africa (see pages 20, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 127, 147)


 * The author studied Tsogo Sun's clientele, classifying them by gender, nationality and other factors, trying to identify the social impact of this company. He also interviewed all representatives of the most influential casino chains in South Africa, including Tsogo Sun.


 * The book can be considered as independent, because it was not sponsored or somehow supported by casino owners. It is devoted to social issues and problems of this business.


 * 2. Johannesburg: The Elusive Metropolis (see pages 56, 66)


 * The author writes about legalisation of gambling in South Africa and about licenses held by Tsogo Sun. These facts support the info in the article.


 * 2) Let's consider your other comments (individual business deals / no substantial coverage / promotional websites).


 * According to WP:ORG, an company is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. If multiple journalists at multiple newspapers separately and independently write about the same subject, then each of these unrelated articles should be considered separate sources, even if they are writing about the same event or "story".


 * I will try to expand the list of sources, it will be not hard as Tsogo Sun is the largest hotel and tourism company in South Africa. I was surprised to know that it doesn't have its page in Wikipedia. Then I found your comments on AFD page and decided to consult with you before the publication. And I am still confused that you consider the company as not notable. CNBC Africa, The Daily Telegraph (they devoted a significant portion of the article to Tsogo), BBC News Online, Business Day (South Africa), The New York Times... I consider these media as reliable and independent. Am I right? — Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 15:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For the books, you gave links to Google books. The Google books search facility failed to find any mention of "Tsogo Sun" in either of them, which is why I said "don't appear to mention Tsogo Sun". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)


 * Sorry, James. I did not know that English version of Google books search does not show the results. Please try to open them here: 1, 2 (they are in Russian, but the book pages are in English). —Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 16:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * James, I have extended the list of references: IOL, Reuters, Arabian Business, Mail & Guardian and other media that are usually considered as notable and independent. There are about 658 results for "Tsogo Sun" in Google books and about 7300 in Google News. Of course, these bare numbers do not count as arguments in favor of the publication of the article. I just want to show you that there are plenty of articles about this company (including third-party materials that are 100% devoted to its activity). I'll be grateful to you if you review my updated sandbox and express your opinion. In any case, thank you for your participation. We both spent a lot of time discussing this subject. So it would be nice to come to some conclusion. —Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 18:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Need copies of deleted articles
Would you provide the copies of at least 3 deleted articles? They weren't deleted because of the issues with notability or copyvio, but only because they were created by sock puppets.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If that was the only reason for deletion, I should be able to let you have copies. Probably the best way would be by email. Let me know which articles they are. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Emailed.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

IP you previously blocked
You previously blocked 118.163.84.235 9 November 2012. It was single purpose, promotional, repeatedly blanked any templates placed on the promoted article, repeatedly blanked other people's comments from the article talk page and it's own talk page. The IP looks like a sock of User PowerDVD which you also blocked.

It has become active again, with more promotional edits to the same article: world’s leading multimedia software company and pioneer in video and audio technologies... superb digital multimedia products... award-winning brand with nearly 30 products and a solid reputation for efficiently delivering innovative, interoperable solutions. It even blanked an entire AFD page it didn't like, but had enough clue to revert itself 5 minutes later. (The article was unanimously deleted.) Convenience link Special:Contributions/118.163.84.235&offset=&limit=500&target=118.163.84.235 Alsee (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion of Proptiger
Dear JamesBWatson

Proptiger.com is a leading real estate portal of India. They are genuine business backed by leading venture capital firms like Accel partner, Saif.

Please guide us in activating the page.

If we have introduced some promotional content, please point to it and we will remove those specific contents.

Kiranhota (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi

i am contacting you about this subject : 14:58, 2 June 2014 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Thomas Jeannerot (WP:BLPPROD: Nominated for seven days with no reliable sources present in the article: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

This guy, Thomas Jeannerot is really existing and is currently world recordman of skydiving 2013 ( Accuracy Landing ) and world champion in 2010

- http://www.ipc-wcresults.org.uk/Dubai4th_2013/AL/AL_Mens_Accy.pdf

http://www.ffp.asso.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Internationaux-PA-VOLTIGE.pdf

http://www.fai.org/ipc-events/ipc-news-of-events/34981-parachuting-competitions-in-kikinda-day-7

http://www.fai.org/36081?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=&searchQuery=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

http://www.meltyxtrem.fr/thomas-jeannerot-recordman-du-monde-de-parachutisme-en-precision-d-atterrissage-video-a282179.html ---

please i would like to reactivate this page and off course i will immediately add references. i ve already done it on the french page.

So could you let me know how to do it ?

Regards

Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonsanely (talk • contribs) 00:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my page. I am in the process or re-writing it without a hint of promotional writing. Are you going to prevent me from doing this or delete my next page because you feel the content isn't noteworthy? OmenPhaze..

Deletion of pages just because of the fact that the one to create it is blocked
Heyy, wat do u think of ur ownself??!!! You can't simply delete pages jst lyk dat ..!! You hav blocked the User:Android9, I know but how cud u simply delete the pages created by him????!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) 07:14, 29 November 2014 117.238.37.62 (UTC)

Page reverted
Hello,

I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you. I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited. I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.

My best,

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 06,20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

88.220.77.190
IP address user 88.220.77.190 is deleting a lot of info from many pages with no reason given, but doesn't seem to care at all.108.208.136.135 (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Topgachhi
You speedy-deleted this, which appears to have been an alternate spelling of Topgachchi. if you feel like it, you may want to create a redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

notification
Hi Mr. Watson, you wrote me a message but I didn't fully understand where to respond it, so I did it at Talk:António Garrido (referee) but I don't know if it's the right way to do it. It's my first editing and if I knew this was so confusing and problematic I wouldn't do it. I'm not here to be bullied or insulted. If that's the way this works, then that was my first and last article. I reiterate all I said at my explanations. I just want equity otherwise I'm not doing anything here.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caius XX (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have replied on your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your reply and support. The tips are very useful. When I searched the help page, I felt totally lost with the amount of information. I hope to continue at Wiki, but this disappointing start at such a low relevance subject... It really made me fed up. I picked a small article to start. In my view, it was an obviously non neutral article, away beyond what should be an encyclopedic information - how can someone even write a restaurant address at an article?... - but I can't spend my energy in an endless void discussion... for god sake, it's a low relevance subject. I'll probably make a last statement later - if time allows it - at Talk:António Garrido (referee), cause I didn't create an account to get upset or be accused. I just don't want to read factious articles. Manipulation and sectarian behaviors should be unacceptable, especially if someone has a clear agenda to impose it. I simply cannot accept that. Equity is essential.

Sorry for any inconvenience and, once again, thank you for your welcoming and attention --Caius XX (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Malformed SPI
Can you check Sockpuppet investigations/Ramiericson? Rukn950 was made before Ramiericson, this report has to be added under Sockpuppet investigations/Rukn950. Thanks  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, OccultZone. You are right in saying Rukn950 was made before Ramiericson, by a mere matter of eight years! I have moved the SPI page. Unfortunately I am short of time, or I would look further into the case, but I have at least moved the SPI case page to Rukn950. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

AIV notice
Thanks for telling me I was listed on there in lieu of the nominator; I meant no offense to them whatsoever beyond reminding them we're not part of ABC's marketing department and we have to use the logo/text most associated with the show everywhere, not just the US.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Nate, it was an absurd report. You don't have to justify yourself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sock of banned user
Hello,

It appears the editor who edited from this IP, whom you blocked a while back for being some banned editor, has created a new sock. He is edit-warring to re-instate a 19th century map that the IP editor added to the article originally. Note how both the IP editor and the new sock begin their edit summaries with "sorry but". Thanks a lot, Athenean (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Athenean (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Urgent
—Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

When you get a minute
Could you have a look at Talk:Showstopper Lifestyle I think I've given a fair picture of how it is, but I might be wrong. Peridon (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did look at the article and the associated discussions when I read your message, and I meant to get back to you on it, but at the time did not have much time. I see that the article has now been deleted. The editing history of the editor who created the article consists almost 100% of editing connected to people who have self-published books, and much of it looks blatantly promotional. I have already asked the editor whether he or she is being paid for editing, and she or he has decided not to answer. I shall post to the user talk page again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I thought I'd back away and get someone to review things. You've confirmed my suspicions. I did wonder whether the 'pursue it to the nth degree' (on the article talk page) constituted a legal threat, but preferred to leave that to be decided by someone else. Peridon (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Potw
this seems related. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have a few minutes, this (points of view of members of the community about a questioned edit by the user) also seems related, and perhaps also this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. However, the issue in which I was involved is now dealt with, and I don't see that there is anything more for me to do about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Define "to do", - reflection is doing something good ;) - You may have noticed (because it's linked) that an edit by the user, helping me, was the point of departure for my questions to the candidates for arbitration in 2013 (the edit had been mentioned in the diffs supporting to ban him in the infoboxes case), in 2014 an edit helping a new user kept three noticeboards busy for weeks. I would love to see a change in attitude resulting in a different topic in 2015. Hope is the first word of comment on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression from your block message that it was (in part) enforcing the remedy from the 2013 arbcom case. However, the unblocking was not done in accordance with the required procedure, so does that mean you were not enforcing the remedy? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At the time when I placed the block, I thought I was enforcing that. However, it has since been brought to my attention that a discussion failed to reach consensus as to whether any action should be taken against the editor about nominating infoboxes for deletion, so I have dropped that matter. you may, if you wish, take it up with the unblocking administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern is less to do with whether any action should be taken now against the editor (some time has passed), but more to do with whether the unblocking administrator's indirect invocation of IAR was appropriate when he didn't consult you or require for the sanction to be appealed through the proper channels. I was not convinced this was one of the occasions where it was appropriate to avoid discussing it with you, but wanted to clarify. That said, the unblocking administrator (in my view) does not respond kindly to legitimate concerns regarding his actions or comments as an admin, particularly from me, so there is no real point in me taking it up further with him either. In fact, he may even turn around and say it wasn't validly enforced under the case because it was not logged at the bottom of the case page - even though the block message was pretty clear in this regard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, since you raise the question, I will say that I was not at all happy with the way the unblocking administrator handled the matter, in a number of ways, and I have told him so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Re:Block Message
Damn. I knew I forgot to do something when I extend the block on suspicion of sockpuppet, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out what it was. Thanks for the correction, I appreciate it. As it relates to the user, I'm still AGF-ing here, but in light of the fact that the three accounts share a common editing history its my belief that the user's unblock request is gonna fail on sockpuppet grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say 95% probability of sockpuppets, 5% probability of meatpuppets, and 0% probability of independent editors, certain enough to justify declining the unblock on those grounds. However that actually makes no difference, as I see no reason to think that the editor is likely to do anything other than promotion, so I declined the request for that reason, irrespective of the sockpuppetry issue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you were the man on site, so it was your call (I figured it'd be in bad form for me to shoot him down since I blocked him in the first place). Also, sorry for the reply here instead of my talk page; its my preferred method to reply on the other party's talk page, but I overlooked your talk page etiquette box and for that I apologize. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 December 2014
Dear Dr. JamesBWatson,

Can you kindly clarify why do you insist to delete my additional approach to the solution of the black hole information paradox concerning the time dependent Schrödinger equation? That approach has been indeed published in an important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journal, i.e.  Annals of Physics (Impact Factor of order 3, last Editor in Chief, the Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczeck!) and represents the time evolution of a black hole model which has published in another important and respected  mainstream international peer reviewed journal, i.e. European Physics Journal C (Impact Factor 5.4, higher than Physical Review D!|). You make a shameful censorship.

Sincerely, Darth Sidious 69

Darth Sidious 69 (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never deleted anything you have done, nor even edited any page you have ever edited, apart from this talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thnx for the quick fix!

Serten II (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 

198.189.184.243
Hi, the intention was for Sockpuppet_investigations/198.189.184.243 and Sockpuppet_investigations/198.189.184.243/Archive to be moved over to Sockpuppet_investigations/Blastikus. Also, needs to be tagged. One purpose of the new SPI was just maintenance, consolidating these accounts into one entity with the expectation of future socks. Manul 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Tsai
Working at AfC, I declined the article Draft:Christopher Tsai some weeks ago. The draft article has since been improved and I believe it is now acceptable. When I came to accept it I found it was create protected, by you apparently. Are you prepared to lift the protection? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that the single-purpose editor who created it (the sixth in a line of single purpose accounts with the sole purpose of using Wikipedia to publicise Christopher Tsai, at least some of which are certainly sockpuppets of a blocked editor) has made a good effort at toning down the grossly promotional tone of earlier versions. I also see that he or she has added a substantial number of references, but, as is often the case with COI editors desperate to get an article accepted after past rejections, the list of references is padded out with a number of "references" to pages that barely mention Christopher Tsai, and pages on business-promotion sites etc. It is debatable (and often debated in AfD discussions) where the borderline for references establishing notability comes, but I reckon this one is at best not far over the border. Add to that the fact that the draft still has a distinctly promotional tone in places (though not blatant advertising, like earlier versions). However, my main concern is that I very strongly suspect that the page was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor with a history of sockpuppetry, in which case it qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD. Altogether, there are too many doubts about the draft for me to be entirely happy about unprotecting the title. I have asked the editor whether he/she has any connection to any other accounts, and at the least I should like to read his/her answer before making a decision. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I will leave the matter in your capable hands then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

IP back at it
The IP has come back reverting my edits. - thanks in advance for your help!  G loss  05:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

How to protect article
How do you semi-protect an article? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Only an administrator can semi-protect a page, but if you have a page you think should be protected you can go to Requests for page protection and ask if an administrator will do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Frayten
Hi JamesBWatson, I appreciate your decisiveness during the sockpuppet investigation against Frayten. However, since the IP has not been indef-ed, he has come back and created a new account at, editing the same articles about Chinese historical figures and surnames, also recreating Frayten's articles that had been deleted. Thanks in advance. _dk (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, _dk. I have blocked the account indefinitely and the IP address for 6 months, and deleted the articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Tuihjbnb
I believe User:Tuihjbnb is now back as User:Tyghenek as my talk page is getting the same messages again. Would you have a look? Thanks Rjwilmsi  08:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop persecuting 78.156.109.166
You say he's spent six years but i only see his edits go back to 2012 --78.156.123.108 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — 78.156.123.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You know, you can use "I", and the IP connects to Pubserv here. Pubserv's been here since 2008. Origamiteⓣⓒ 14:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of User:DHanson317
Greetings,

I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I do not know every rule and guideline inside out, nor do I know about every feature that Wikipedia has to offer to its users.

What I can see, however, is that there is a noticeable "bullying" culture among more senior and experienced users towards newer, less experienced users.

The latest example of this was the recent deletion of User:DHanson317. This page had been maintained by Anson Davis for several years. The content was helpful to those researching supercentenarians so when he suddenly disappeared off the radar, some of us decided to keep it going, until it was proposed that it should be deleted.

A group of users then came along, like a stampede of rhinoceros, and hurled a load of Wikipedia guidelines (that I had never heard of before) at me, and I felt that little explanation was given for why the page was a problem. I asked some questions - such as "At what point does a user page 'look like an article'?" - and made the point that the article was not supposed to look like another article - but I did not get a satisfactory response to these points.

Fearing that all the data would be lost, I asked someone else if there was anything we could do to save it. He suggested copy & pasting the content to a Sandbox, as this had worked for him when a similar incident occurred in the past. He then did this.

I was under the impression that the issue was now resolved, so I decided to blank Dhanson317's page. After all, that's what the others wanted, so there's no problem, right? Well I had not noticed that the deletion notice said "do not blank". I apologise for that, however, it was not malicious.

When I logged on to Wikipedia today, I noticed that you had chosen to simply delete the new page we had created without giving us any warning at all. So presumably, all that work has been lost? Terrific.

I think that the handling of this situation was SHOCKING. I am sick of tired of seeing these kinds of things on Wikipedia.

So, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me EXACTLY what counts as a "fake article", what content is allowed in different userspaces, and why other people with similar pages are not getting their content deleted as well.

Regards,

Ollie231213 (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * At present I don't have time to reply properly to you, and I think it would not be courteous to you to make a rushed job at replying. I will try to get back to you within the next couple of days, but if I don't then plese remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)




 * 1) Sorry it has taken me so long to get round to answering you.
 * 2) I never thought that removing the deletion notice was malicious: as I said on your talk page, I thought you had just failed to notice that it said "do not blank". What you did was perfectly natural: you thought the matter had been dealt with, so you removed all the content, and it didn't occur to you to read every word of the deletion notice. In fact, on this occasion, no harm was done at all, and it didn't really matter. I just told you for information, to help you avoid making the same mistake another time, when circumstances may be different, so that it may be more important.
 * 3) Obviously, I too was once a new Wikipedia editor. I sometimes found editing Wikipedia a bewildering process, surrounded by countless policies and guidelines that I didn't know about, and people making apparently arbitrary decisions. For that reason, I try to give more explanation to inexperienced editors than many people do. That is, in fact, why I didn't reply to your message immediately, but waited until I thought I had time to write a detailed response, rather than a quick one or two sentence reply that would very probably have looked to you more like dismissing your concerns than like being helpful. However, giving the sort of detailed answer that is helpful to a relatively inexperienced editor does take a good deal of time and thought, and most editors are not prepared to spend that much time on it, so they tend to give brief answers. Also, experienced editors often forget what it was like to be new, and assume that things that seem obvious to them are obvious to everyone. This can give an inexperienced editor the feeling that they are being dismissed and brushed \aside, leading to the impression of what you call a "bullying culture". however, in the vast majority of cases, it is really not intended as bullying; rather it is just a lack of realisation how one's actions will seem to an inexperienced editor.
 * 4) You mention deletion of another copy of the page without warning. Wikipedia policy is that if a page has been deleted as a result of consensus at a discussion, and is re-created (under any title), it can be speedily deleted without discussion. I do see that this can seem rather brusque, but if we didn't follow that policy, what would we do? Presumably have a discussion about whether a page should be deleted, then have another discussion about whether a new copy of it should be deleted, then another discussion about whether another copy should be deleted, then another, then another... (And if you doubt it would come to that, I can assure you it often would. I have seen many cases where strings of sockpuppet accounts have been created for the sole purpose of re-creating the same page numerous times.)
 * 5) An administrator is not supposed to use their administrative powers to further their own preferred views. Therefore, when I assessed the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DHanson317, what I considered was not the question "do I personally think this page should be deleted?" but rather the question "do the arguments put forward in the discussion indicate a consensus to delete the page, giving weight to arguments in line with how well they accord with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?" The answer to that question was unambiguously "yes", but I fully understand that you regard the page as useful, and I can see a good case for restoring it and moving it to somewhere else, not in userspace. However, for me to simply do that would constitute using my administrative powers to unilaterally over-ride consensus in a discussion. What I shall do, therefore, is to take the case to deletion review, and suggest that the page be restored to somewhere out of userspace.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have now re-read the deletion discussion. I see that nearly (though not quite) all of the arguments for deletion were specifically about what was seen as a misuse of userspace, and very little of what was said would apply if the page were not in userspace. I have therefore decided to change my closure of the discussion, and have restored the page, and moved it to List of living supercentenarians/Workspace. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for taking the time to respond, and I do appreciate the helpfulness of your post.

The user page in question was that of Anson Davis, who did a lot of research for the Gerontology Research Group to help verify supercentenarian cases. However, in March he suddenly disappeared off the radar and has not been heard from since. Beforehand he decided to blank his page, so some of us (who also help out with research) decided to keep up the list. Why?

1. The page had all cases merged in to one list, rather than in separate lists for verified, pending, and unverified cases (easier to access information) 2. The page included people who had not been reported on in over a year 3. The page included exaggerated claims and those with an incomplete birth date

You may ask: why not just use List of living supercentenarians? The answer is because the three things above are the differences between the main Wiki article and Anson's user page. People who had not been reported on for more than a year would not be included on the main article - and I would not argue with this, since we can't be sure that they're still alive. Equally, however, we can't be sure that they're dead. Having a more informal list which did not follow the same rules was helpful for those doing research because it allowed us to see their status and reminded us to keep looking out for recent confirmation of survival. That was essentially the reason for us maintaining this page - it was NOT because we were trying to create an article with our own preferred version of disputed content.

That said, I understand that the guidelines do not allow for such a thing, so I accept the decision. I just wish that something had been done sooner, because I was under the impression that having this kind of content on your user page was acceptable, and so I am now having to delete my page as well.

Ollie231213 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry about the formatting error I caused.

Ollie231213 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I sometimes make mistakes worse than that, even after eight years of editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Page move
Hello. I've noticed that you've created the page List of living supercentenarians/Workspace by moving a draft page, but you probably meant to move it to the subpage of the talk page of the topic. Please move the article to the appropriate name and delete the blank page in the mainspace. Thanks.  KJ  Discuss? 15:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving User:DHanson317 to Talk:List of living supercentenarians/Workspace
Hi there. The above move will achieve nothing useful as DHanson317's userpage was essentially a copy of List of living supercentenarians with extra entries specifically excluded from that page (no RS that the person reached 100; no RS that the person was alive in the last year) mostly taken from WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians (also nominated for Mfd in early 2011, but unfortunately survived). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 17:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Why unfortunately?! Do you love it when articles get deleted DerbyCountyinNZ? And anyway, that article is very informative. I cant understand why you would want to delete it. User:Bensonfood 07:46, 11 Dec 2014 (Greenwich Mean Time)


 * Because it is fanfluff. The claim that it is useful in keeping track of possible future supercentenarians is highly spurious. There are plenty of current/former wiki editors who apparently trawl the internet for such cases on a regular basis. It is highly unlikely that most cases would not be found anyway after an alleged 110th birthday and even more unlikely that genuinely verifiable cases would be overlooked. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction: "Because you think it's fanfluff. Stop stating your opinions as if they are facts.

One benefit of that page is that it has a list of people who were confirmed alive at age 108/109 but not at 110, but for whom a death notice has not been found either. This allows us to keep an eye out for future updates of these individuals. It also allows us to see who is nearing 110, which again makes it easier to look out for a birthday report.

"It is highly unlikely that most cases would not be found anyway after an alleged 110th birthday"

Knowing the names of the people makes it much easier to search for birthday reports that just searching for "110th birthday" or something of the sort. We sometimes find that the only mention of someone's birthday is in say, a church newsletter, which would not show up at the top of a Google search if we did not search for the individual's name.

Ollie231213 (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * (Apologies to JamesBWatsonfor dragging this out on their talk page!) The 108/109 list is largely copied from the 107 list (how do I know? because there are so many unreferenced people on the list). The 107 list also contains many unreferenced entries indicating that many come from an off-wiki source (even if it didn't someone must have done a lot of work to find so many people). There are over 400 on the 107 list, even more 108 and 109 year olds so it appears it is not difficult to find cases at a greater age. And yet less than 100 110-year-olds on the unverified list (along with about 50 waiting for a 110 birthday report and 18 on the (outdated) pending list. It would be a tedious process to find out how many of the 110-year-olds were previously on the 109 list (if you want to prove just how "important" the 109 list is feel free to prove me wrong) and impossible to prove how many would have been "found" anyway but IMHO I suspect the vast majority of reasonable/verifiable cases would have been found anyway. And if the 110 club does not have 109/018/107 etc, etc lists I'd be surprised. Such a forum is the appropriate place for such things, not Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Page Move Issue
The page you said in this edit that you moved does not appear to exist at the destination page. Did I miss some detail of this process? —&#160;&#160; &#160;&#160;Bill W.&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160; (Talk)&#160;&#160;(Contrib)&#160;&#160; (User:Wtwilson3) &#160;&#160;— 15:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The page does exist there. It is blank, because it was blanked on 4 December by‎ Ollie231213, as you can see in the page's editing history, here. I have undeleted and moved the page, but I have not reverted the blanking. You may do so, if you wish, or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I noticed the page blanking, but I did not put 2 and 2 together to realize that it was before the move under the old location.  Thanks for joggin' my noggin. —&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160;Bill W.&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160; (Talk)&#160;&#160;(Contrib)&#160;&#160; (User:Wtwilson3) &#160;&#160;— 15:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fake age-related articles
There are multiple "fake articles" covering various age related lists currently in focus:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DHanson317 which you deleted, then kept and moved.
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff currently up for deletion.
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bensonfood currently up for deletion.
 * User:Ollie231213 whom I have spoken to as well and while is in violation of userspace guidelines as much as the others, is making an effort to move useful material to article space.

In addition to these, I suspect there may be others. I also suspect that more than one of these accounts may belong to the same person.

There seems to be a unique(?) hobby among these folks whereby they each maintain extensive and multiple lists that overlap existing articles, overlap each other, possibly are in conflict with each other and in conflict with existing articles. In each case the user has strayed away from editing this encyclopedia due to an inability to collaborate effectively in article space. In the case of User:Bensonfood he has completely ceased editing other than for the material in his userspace and as can be seen by his demeanor, has become hostile and thoroughly infected with WP:OWN.

This sort of activity is at odds with the spirit and purpose of this encyclopedia not to mention violates at least a few policies. Further it seems that this sort of activity does not on its own get better, but rather gets worse.

All this said, I have no objection to a "workspace" subpage in any particular article whereby editors may maintain, in a collaborative fashion, lists that aid in their editing of the articles, but efforts by individual editors to maintain their own private lists, copies of articles or preferred versions of articles (either in userspace or an article subpages) should be strongly discouraged. – JBarta (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I know who is/was behind each account; they're all different people.

Dhanson317 was active as far back as 2010, maintaining lists relevant to supercentenarian "tracking". The motives for doing this were not necessarily because of an inability to collaborate - and I know that Anson made a lot of contributions to the main Wikipedia - but for the reasons stated above. Other users also did a similar thing. The rest of us who are new saw these user pages and assumed that doing similar things would be okay.

Again, like I've said above, I understand that the guidelines exist, and I'm happy to co-operate and transfer some material to the main articles. Hopefully others will do so too.

All I ask is that you understand that most people with these "fake articles" on their user pages have a genuine interest in the subject of longevity and only have good intentions, even if they are breaking guidelines. On the other hand, some users seem more interested in following each guideline to the letter rather than improving the educational value of articles.

Ollie231213 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion
OK. I see that for various reasons restoring and moving the page was not such a simple solution as I thought. I shall delete it again, and revert the MfD discussion to its original closure. If anyone thinks there is a good case for overturning the MfD result and keeping the page, they can take it to WP:Deletion Review. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Eisenia fetida
The IP Spammer is back again now that the previous semiprotection on this article has expired. Care to renew the protection? Thanks. Neil916 (Talk) 21:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. This is a remarkably stubborn spammer, who has repeatedly attacked several articles. I have semi-protected the article again, and I will look into the possibility of blacklisting the URL when I get time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * In the nine months since you posted that message, I had forgotten that you said you created it, and when I found an old note-to-self to watch the account, I just thought "well, rather than try to remember to keep checking this dormant account, and probably forgetting, I may as well just block it." If you want it unblocked for any reason, please let me know. (BTW, why did you create it?) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I created it because it was requested through the ACC tool interface. Since I couldn't say for sure it would be an issue (despite knowing it was fairly similar to yours), the ACC guides say that I must WP:AGF and create.  Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I had forgotten what "ACC" stood for, but now I remember. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Block of 212.219.0.0/16
Regarding your schoolblock of 212.219.0.0/16, please be aware that this range isn't just used for academic purposes. A lot of local authorities use this range as well, particularly in Wales where the Public Sector Broadband Aggregation (PSBA) and JANET are heavily intertwined. In some cases if a vandal's IP address is reported to the relevant organisation they'll make an example of whoever's responsible, especially if the vandalism's resulted in a block. I've updated the User page for 212.219.0.0 with a link that provides a breakdown of the organisations sitting on the range. Mspritch (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, in any range block it is essential to consider the balance between likely benefit and likely collateral damage, and I never place any range block without looking into the background. In this case, I am influenced by the following considerations:


 * 1) I have checked all recent edits from the range, and every one of them was unconstructive. The substantial majority were unambiguous vandalism, with a small minority of edits that may or may not have been made in good faith, but were unhelpful, mostly BLP violations.
 * 2) I have checked a substantial sample of edits going back much further, and there were a few constructive edits, but they were a very small minority, swamped by a far larger number of disruptive edits, again mostly pure vandalism.
 * 3) The block is anon-only, and account creation is not blocked. This means that anyone who wants to edit from the IP range can do so, by creating an account and using it. Of course, someone wanting to just make a minor correction might not bother to go to the trouble of creating an account, but in practice a far higher proportion of people wishing to make constructive edits are willing to take that small amount of trouble than people wishing to vandalise: most vandalism is very casual.


 * The consequence of these considerations is that the benefit from the block will vastly outweigh the small amount of collateral loss. Of course, that leaves open the question of whether the purpose might be better served by a number of blocks on smaller ranges, and I had intended to comment also on the breakdown of edits among the different subranges allocated to different institutions, but unfortunately the wmflabs tool for checking range edits is currently not responding. I shall try to check sometime when the tool is available again, and reconsider the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ram Nareshji block
His disruptive editing was confined to the Reference Desks. A 48 hour block from the Reference Desks would have been enough warning. This user has been contributing to WP since 2012 and most of his editing has not been disruptive. Contact Basemetal   here  22:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I've just been informed that there was no mechanism for blocking from editing only certain pages. Contact Basemetal   here  22:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Obesity Medicine
I have sent a message regarding Obesity Medicine on my talk page. I am looking forward to your response. I am not sure why the page was deleted in its entirety. There was no indication that this would happen. I am not sure how I deleted the "speedy deletion". I just fixed the page as requested by the initial administrator yet the who page was deleted...Fstanfordmd (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)FstanfordmdFstanfordmd (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tagging during RfC
There is a RfC on a Talk:Battle of Chawinda, it concerns the statement "Major pakistani victory", however, each of the sources that had been added along with the statement on the infobox are either primary, dubious or misrepresented sources. While not editing the concerning statement("Major pakistani victory"), can you still tag the sources during the RfC? Since it concerns the reliability of the sources and provides the better outlook and dispute related with the sources.

Other user had added them first, and bigger problem is that at least 3 of the editors continues to edit war for removing these maintenance tags, claiming that "Rfc is still going". What you think?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Another sock?
- Sam Sing! 11:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and another. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacy of Kain
IP address 95.235.108.195 is claiming that the Legacy of Kain games were inspired by Jewish literature, eastern mythologists and to Gnosticism, but doesn't provide a source to that. It does have a source stating that Inspired by the literary style of playwright William Shakespeare.

IP address 95.235.108.195 is also deleting info with no explanation.68.75.18.121 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted a note to the IP talk page about this, and so far there have been no more edits since then. Let me know if it happens again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Shining Time Station
Greetings,

In the Shining Time Station section it should be noted that I was the Music Director for the series. That was my title and that was on all the credits for every episode.I also composed 5 original songs for the series and for the holiday special. This is separate and apart of all the arranging, recording and production of the 75+ puppet band songs.

Thanks!

Steve Horelick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorelick (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that mentions you as music director? Also, why do you think that mention of you should be included? If it is because you want to use the Wikipedia article to publicise your work, then it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on promotion. If your involvement seems to some uninvolved third party to be significant enough to be worth mentioning, they will be able to add a mention of it to the article, and if not then it probably shouldn't be added. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Super Definition plasma cutting machine
Hi, James, I find you deleted my article "Super Definition Plasma Cutting Machine". It was created by another name "Wisebuy", but now, I want to recreat the same content with my new account. Is that possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Crew (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC) • "Comment: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. .... "--220  of  Borg 12:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note I have added a section heading to your message.--220  of  Borg 12:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual title was exactly "Super Definition plasma cutting machine", and it was deleted after a deletion discussion which you can see at Articles for deletion/Super Definition plasma cutting machine. If it is the same content at Draft:Portable CNC cutting machine then the answer would be no, until any issues mentioned there are addressed. For example:


 * in addition to what 220 of Borg has said, there are some other relevant facts that you should consider.


 * 1) Everything you have written on the subject so far reads like promotional copy. Any writing which appears to promote its subject is unacceptable on any page in Wikipedia, and may be deleted at any time without warning.
 * 2) My searches for information on the subject suggest that most of what is available is promotional material from the manufacturer, including the manufacturer's web site, its facebook account, business promotion sites, and so on. There appears to be little if any coverage in reliable sources independent of the manufacturer. This strongly suggests that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, in which case no article on the subject will be acceptable. Editing a Wikipedia article may correct various faults with that article, but no amount of editing an article can change the notability of the subject of that article, and any time and effort put into writing, rewriting, and editing an article on a topic which does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines is likely to be wasted, as the article will almost certainly just be deleted again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Back
Glad to have you back. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 11:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's been hard taking up the 'slack', even if I'm not an Admin! (And Merry Christmas! You too Homer! ) --220  of  Borg 12:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

2015 already
Hi JBW. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on  Wikipedia for a long  time to  come. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kudpung, and the same wishes back to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

32 Service Battalion
Greetings, I am the copyright holder (and Commanding Officer of 32 Service Battalion) you recently deleted based on a copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32servicebattalion (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) We cannot accept content copied from other web sites on the say-so of an anonymous person who creates a Wikipedia account and claims to be the copyright owner, as people frequently create accounts and then lie about who they are.
 * 2) If you post content to Wikipedia, you give permission to anyone in the world to reuse it, either as it is or changed in any way they like, for any purposes, commercial or otherwise, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. Are you sure that you really wish to release the contents of your web site under such broad terms?
 * 3) If you really do wish to release the content for free reuse, then I suggest you put a note on the page of your battalion's web site stating that the content is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License. That will ensure that it is acceptable at Wikipedia as far as copyright is concerned.
 * 4) Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages us from writing articles about subjects with which we have a close personal connection, as you do with your battalion. You should be very careful about any editing on the subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ack,

thank you very much for the detailed feedback.

Can you place it back in my sandbox, and I can continue to edit it? I will have the official website changed when I go back to work next week to reflect as you request. as for the anonymous aspect, would it be better to have it sent from my military email account ? john.haylock@forces.gc.ca ?

John

an answer for your message.
Hello, Thank you for the fast response, I wish to explain my purpose of publishing the image and links in Wikipedia. As I mentioned before, I want to upload a photograph of my work "so this photo will gain popularity and will interest people" - in other words i want to show to more people the possibilities you can make from macrame and inspire them making their own works. As I understand Wikipedia is for displaying information on a various subjects of any field, correct me if I am wrong. My purpose is to show people the opportunities they have by doing macrame. In addition I don't want people to copy this photo and claim they did it, I want them to be inspired and create their own works therefore I want to keep rights on this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidia koifman 59 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User Dupenny
The article Dupenny has been created again this time under the name Jarvisdaniel. I still see no notability in this article so I have nominated it for Speedy Delete. Thanks, VViking Talk Edits 18:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Erica Blatt Harkins

Mr. Watson I left you 2 different messages on my Talk page.

Hello again Mr. Watson,

I have a question. I wrote several articles in my Sandbox for the purpose of practice as I was advised. I did not submit any of these articles for publication. Nevertheless, I found one of them, "the Plantagenet Empire under my user name in Wikipedia through Google. That means that any student or anybody who looks me up can read that article. That article was not meant to be read, it needed first a some editing which never happened, I wrote it just for practice. What happened? I wrote another article also in the Sandbox only for practice entitled "A Different Pope". I found out that that article is on a waiting list for review for eventual publication. What happened?

Thank you for explaining, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erica Blatt Harkins (talk • contribs) 08:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Watson

Thank you for your response. Here is the situation regarding the bio I wrote entitled "Nicolas Blatt": It explains a lot: I am 80 years old and luckily going on 50 (excuse my joke) and i am a very active teacher of European History in different colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Nicolas Blatt died exactly 50 years ago and he would be 125 years old now. He was my father. Regardless how I look at it and objectively, he was an important man during his times and he contributed a lot to the field of ophthalmology internationally and nationally. He also is an example of how scientist were treated in Eastern Europe during the 50s and 60s. What I wrote is objective and factual. I inadvertently used words which I should have not used because this is my style of writing: I am writing papers for my students and I am correcting their papers at test times. Since I saved in Wikipedia his bio, I edited it several times and I removed or changed all the no, no words. You are making the comment: "if I honestly believe that I was writing objectively---" Why would I be dishonest about it? Everything i listed in the bio took place, nothing is invented or subjective, I just narrated the chronological facts. Everything that I said is 100% documented and at the bottom I added numerically all the references, inserting the numbers in the the text in the area where each belongs. I also listed in bullets his most important publications indicating where each was published and where each can be found. Everything I said is verifiable. I don't look back at him in a flattering manner because of my connection to him. I also intend to add links from the computer of different writings where his name is mentioned by other people. He was mentioned in many Journals in the USA, England, France, Germany, Hungary and Romania. Many of them are not in the computers because in those days computers almost did not exist, however, those Journals are still available today in their existing officers and different libraries. I am all mentioning them in my references (British Journal of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, American Archives of Ophthalmology, Archives dOfthalmologie (France), ‘Ophthalmologen Verzeichnis’ (Germany) and others. Also at the time of his death all this Journals wrote about it. Equally verifiable is the article written about him in 1949, in the "Romanian Review of Medical sciences" in which he was condemned for promoting Western Science instead of promoting only Soviet Science. His connection with the Royal Court of Romania and his work with Queen Helen of Romania in trying to save Jews from concentration camps are equally verifiable. In addition to the references I inserted in the text a few quotations from these different Journals and reviews. When he succeeded to leave Eastern Europe he was appointed Professor at the Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt Germany. That is also verifiable. I am not a wizard with computers, I work very well with computers for my classes, especially with Power Point, I had to learn a lot before I figured out how to edit articles in the Wikipedia pages, as such i made probably many mistakes in adding references and the format, but i am learning. Why nobody submitted until now his bio in Wikipedia, I don't know. In my writing I took the example of other similar bios in Wikipedia. There are also several people who are presently alive, and I believe that some have written their own story. This has nothing to do with me. I have pictures illustrating many of the facts I mention Please accept this bio. The facts are objective. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erica Blatt Harkins (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Organometalic1/Archive
James - thanks for your help regarding the SPI for Organometalic1. He/she has caused confusion over the years with his/her various sockpuppets - see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Organometalic1 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Organometalic1. What has happened to the older sockpuppet investigation reports? They are not in Sockpuppet investigations/Organometalic1/Archive.

The older sockpuppet reports are still useful, because they help with establishing patterns of behaviour.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any older sockpuppet investigations. Certainly there are none in the deletion logs for any of Sockpuppet investigations/Organometalic1/Archive, Sockpuppet investigations/Organometalic1, Sockpuppet investigations/Organometalic/Archive, or Sockpuppet investigations/Organometalic, and I haven't seen any mention of them in talk pages or anywhere else. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. Dealing with sockpuppets is confusing.--  Toddy1 (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (intone)  @ 09:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

PROD for CFB players
JBW, I see that you've been PROD'ing college football players of doubtful notability, and starting some needed discussions. Here's another suggestion for PROD:


 * Tyler Moore (American football).

I'll be suggesting several more. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fussing over deletion rationales
Back in October 2012, you deleted TAS 1000 as a "blatant hoax"

It's not a hoax. They were a genuine experimental band who genuinely made an album based on the contents of an old answering machine cassette. Some of the stuff in the article was bullshit, yes, but much of it wasn't. Not to say that there was genuine notability, of course, but it was real and not a hoax.

Just so you know. DS (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no memory of how much checking I did, over two years ago, on this article before deleting, but usually I am pretty careful about supposed hoaxes. I find speedy deletion nominations as hoaxes are often difficult to assess, as it is often impossible to determine for certain that something does not exist. If in doubt, even when a page is nominated as a hoax and it looks like a hoax, I often delete giving a different reason (usually A7) to be safe. In any case, I think that there is a good case for regarding an article as a hoax if 90% of its content is lies, even if the subject of the article exists. For example, suppose someone wrote an article about Barack Obama, saying that he is a right wing extremist who is well known for introducing the death penalty for homosexuality, giving vigorous support to "Islamic State", launching a war against Israel, and so on and so on... I would regard that as a hoax. If you want to restore and re-delete the article giving a different deletion reason, feel free to go ahead, but in my opinion it's not worth it, as the bottom line is that it needed to be deleted. (Incidentally, I don't regard the page you link to as very convincing evidence, as it could have been derived from an earlier Wikipedia article, deleted . However, extensive searching has produced a few sources that do not seem to be derived from Wikipedia, so I accept that the band probably did exist.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn right they did: that's a link to where you can download their album. DS (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes, so it is; how embarrassing. I only looked at the text in the top part of the page, and not the bit lower down, where the download links are. Well, I'll take a break from Wikipedia now, and go and wash the egg off my face. (However, I still stand by the rest of what I said above.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hi James, As a courtesy note, I've mentioned you as part of a discussion concerning another editor at WP:ANI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi james, im the mother of raikko rain mateo gongora, if u want update about my son u can contact me or email me at lenethmateo@yahoo.com or u can leave a message to his fan page @raikkomateo twitter @raikko_mateo and Instagram @raikko_mateo that is his official site and manage by me his mother.. Raikko also join in "Passion De Amor" "as young ejay falcon" "oscar" "soon" "teleserye" and raikkk also has a movie in regal files there is no title yet.. And has new "teleserye" "to be announce soon" Thank u.. Godbless§§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenethmateo (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Omenphaze wikipage
You deleted my page again. I copied the format of a few other acts that I've worked with that have wikipedia pages up and running. Can you send me a link for a contemporary music artist page that you deem as being the proper format, because the pages I'm viewing must also not be to your standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F0A3:7500:65F6:E7A2:C0BC:A47F (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with "the proper format": it's about use of userspace to publish a self-promotional page unrelated to editing the encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The shouty Colombian IP
Hey JBW, this dude (IP 181.140.167.24), whose IP geolocates to Medellín, Colombia, is probably this dude. He likes to yell, he likes to curse, he tends to use 3 exclamation marks when he's not using fifty. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling that this was a blocked editor, but I did not know what account(s) were involved. Thanks to your tip-off I have checked, and there are so many connections to the editor you mention and his/her past socks (both IP socks and sock account) that I think when you say "probably this dude" you are being ultra-cautious. I don't think there is any doubt about it. Since the IP address has been used for almost a year, clearly by the same person all the time, I have extended the block considerably. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * is a likely sock. Hasn't been used in 4 years until today! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Likely"? Once again, I reckon you are being ultra-cautious. Absolutely bloody certain, I should say. Dragging a long-dormant account out for re-use when the IP block is put in place may perhaps suggest that the editor can't easily switch to another IP address, which is some slight comfort. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What can I say? I'm a fan of the absurdly glaring understatement.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested Self-Block
Hi this is home IP address. I am writing here (and at a few other Admins TP's) to request a block of my IP address (this one 98.74.168.58 (talk)). I am a week away from exams, and have used WikiBreak Enforcer on my main account. I discovered however that I can still edit from here and the temptation is too great. I have confirmed with my ISP that I am the only customer given this IP. A block until February 1, 2015 is requested for my current IP address. Thanks! 98.74.168.58 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC) User:EoRdE6's IP adress

Music
Isaac Odoom popularly known as Oboisky .born (29 may 1995) is a Ghanaian youngest sound engineer who was born at cape coast in the central region of Ghana. he started his sound engineering career at the age of 15. he has most of his beats with most of the top Musician in Ghana and Nigeria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oboisky (talk • contribs) 10:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

50.25.13.13
, who you blocked, is back editing from continuing the same pattern of vandalism. Could you block the new IP? Thanks. Eric444 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ellenatsdd
Hey pseudonymous JBW, a good day to you. With regard to your query at User talk:Ellenatsdd, I thought I'd point you to this response on my talk page. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Mahabad
Hello JamesBWatson, You recently protected the article of Mahabad. But the article name is still wrong. It has to be called "Mahabad" and not "Mahabad and Piranshahr", because those are two different cities and it makes no sense. Best Regards --Moplayer (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Tsai submission
I submitted another draft for an article I wrote about 2 months ago. I am following up to see what needs to be done to get this reviewed. I left a follow-up message with the editor who reviewed it previously, but have not yet received a response. I also replied to your inquiry on my talk page but wasn't sure if I needed to do so here as well. If you could assist me in any way I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevieandpierre (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
Hi there are several pages/journals similar to "Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal" in wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bioinformatics_journals

Why I am refrained to create the page for "Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publications.assistant (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are other articles which are as promotional as the one you initially wrote, or which infringe copyright, then say what articles they are, and they can be deleted. Among the 4,695,518 articles in English Wikipedia there are, unfortunately, many which are unsuitable for various reasons, and it is only when an editor notices one of them and calls attention to it that it can be dealt with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion
I have removed the prod tag from Ancient British Church in North America, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! &bull; Astynax talk 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Join WikiProject Microsoft!
 Why don't you join WikiProject Microsoft? It seems that you have been editing Microsoft-related articles, so why don't you consider joining WikiProject Microsoft, not to be confused with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. WikiProject Microsoft is a group of editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microsoft, its technologies, Web-based sites and applications, its important people, and share interests regarding Microsoft. This WikiProject is in the process of being revived and is welcoming any and all editors who are willing to help out with the process. Add your name to the list at WikiProject Microsoft/Participants and/or add the userbox. Thanks! STJMLCC (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Rip my eyeballs out...
This is either a troll, or a kid with no parental supervision. Or perhaps a WP:CIR situation, or a straight-up Non compos mentis. Seriously, the user has no idea what's happening. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I feel "a kid with no parental supervision" is the most likely, but the other suggestions you offer are also perfectly possible. However, it makes little difference which it is, as the effect on Wikipedia is the same, except that if it's a kid then there is a good chance he or she will be able to edit constructively in years to come. I initially gave the editor a chance, even though I thought it unlikely that he/she would succeed, because I really do believe that giving the benefit of the doubt is the best thing to do in cases like this. (After all, the worst that can happen is that the editor is unblocked, immediately makes edits that show he/she is not fit to edit, and is blocked again; little is lost by trying.) However, very soon it was clear that there was no longer any doubt to give the benefit of. At present I am not going to remove talk page access, but if the same kind of thing continues I may reconsider that. Personally, I wouldn't have given the reply that was made to the message you linked to, because at best he or she doesn't understand (for whatever reason), in which case he/she isn't going to suddenly understand because he/she is told once more, and at worst he does understand, in which case it is feeding the troll. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)