User talk:JBW/Archive 64

Stl. Range Block
Hello, I'm Schwarzchild point a completely not-troll who, as an ip, pointed out that a range block on a community looks kinda bad. I hope you'll reconsider unbanning my community or, if you don't want to, at least let another admin make the call. I've been an active IP user for some time before I switched carriers and I know there are others like me in this city. Schwarzschild Point (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, my apologies for accusing you of trolling if you weren't. I don't know of any cases where blocks of IP addresses are allocated to particular areas of cities. The IP address I am using at present geolocates to a city hundreds of miles away from where I actually am, because that's where my ISP has its offices. The IP address for which you requested an unblock is even less localised than that: both whatismyipaddress.com and www.infosniper.net give its location only as "United States", because IP addresses in that range are available over so wide an area that it is impossible to pin them down more precisely. Exactly how IP addresses are allocated varies considerably, but allocating a block to a single area of a single city is a method I have never come across. Even if a range of IP addresses is allocated to a small area of one city, to think that blocking that range was what you call "classist" would mean that you think there is a Wikipedia administrator who, when considering whether to place a block on IP addresses which have been the source of disruptive editing, would first go to the trouble to track down the background of those IP addresses, and, on discovering the remarkable and unusual fact that they were allocated to a small local area, would then take the trouble to search for information about the demographics of that area, and on finding that it was inhabited largely by poor people, would think "Aha! Poor people! I'll stop them editing Wikipedia!" Frankly, the idea is absurd. Nevertheless, at first I thought perhaps that the message was posted by someone who really did imagine Wikipedia administrators working like that. Looking at the editing history from the blocked range of IP addresses, however, I found a considerable history of nonsensical trolling, and it seemed to me, in light of that history, that the accusation of "classist" blocking was probably more of the same. If I was wrong, and you were acting in good faith, my apologies.


 * Moving on from there, there is the problem of a block on a range of IP addresses having unwanted collateral effects on people who might be constructive editors. It is essential to realise that Wikipedia is not some sort of public service, with everyone having a moral "right" to edit: it is a privately owned web site, where the owners choose to allow members of the public to contribute to building the contents of the web site. The purpose of allowing such public collaboration is that it is a way of getting constructive work for the encyclopaedia, and the privilege of editing may be withdrawn if it seems that purpose is unlikely to be achieved. I have just checked every tenth edit out of the last 200 edits from the blocked IP range: that goes back to 29 June. Of the 20 edits, I found one which made a perfectly good, but trivial change, two which made trivial and completely pointless changes, and 17 which were unambiguous vandalism, including four which were likely to be libellous. The conclusion I reach is that unblocking would be likely to unleash far more destructive and harmful editing than constructive and useful editing, and so would do far more harm than good to the project to build an encyclopaedia. For that reason, unblocking cannot be justified.


 * Please don't think I am unsympathetic to you in the situation you found yourself in. Many years ago I started editing Wikipedia without an account, and then one day in 2006 I tried to edit from the local library, only to find that the IP address was blocked. I found that just as frustrating as you probably found the block that affected you. Also, the town where I live has a large proportion of poor people, so the situation is actually very similar to the one you are in. I took an opportunity to create an account on another computer, and I have been editing from that account ever since. After a while, the block on the local libraries came to an end, and a flood of vandalism was released, so the block was imposed again. That block came to an end, so another torrent of vandalism was released: and so it has gone on, over and over again, until eventually a block for a period of several years was imposed. Yes, it was damned annoying finding I couldn't edit, and I have every sympathy with every other innocent person who wants to edit constructively and finds they are affected by a block caused by other people; however, I have seen what happens when IP addresses in this kind of situation are unblocked, and it isn't helpful. There is no perfect solution, which stops all vandals without causing inconvenience for anyone else, but blocking the IP range and allowing anyone serious enough about wanting to edit to create an account so they can edit is probably the least bad option available to us.


 * One more thing. As well as the IP range block, the particular IP address you used had its own individual block as an open proxy. I can find no evidence that the IP address is still hosting an open proxy, so I have lifted that block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The allocation likely is currently assigned to a series of cell towers in downtown Stl. I can walk from the Stadium to the Arch without leaving the blocked IP range, I don't know how much farther it extends. I understand wikipedia policy on the issue and I'm glad you took the time to consider my request, thank you! Is there no way to allow account creation and not annon editing from the range in question? Either way. Thanks! you are more than helpful! Schwarzschild Point  •  17:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * From what you say, one or more of the IP addresses must be used by some sort of shared wireless network. I would be surprised if the whole range is used by it, though. However, that doesn't really matter, because when an IP range is the source of very frequent editing, 90% of which is vandalism, it needs to be blocked, and whether all the vandalism comes from one building or from different people spread across a continent makes no difference.


 * Yes, it is possible to block anon editing while allowing account creation, but it is not usually a good idea, because it just means that the vandals create accounts and carry on editing. Stopping account creation is not ideal, because it causes extra trouble for people who want to edit constructively, who have to make an account somewhere else and also because some of those constructive editors will be put off and not create accounts, so they can't edit. However, on balance that does less harm than allowing account creation on the blocked IP addresses, because very few vandals go to the trouble of creating an account somewhere else, but a bigger proportion of constructive editors do (as you and I both did). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi James, Swartzchild, is this the meetup? I'm another piece of collateral damage from this rangeblock. I've made a few insignificant, but benevolent, or at least harmless, edits from this range. I've made more substantive edits too, but prefer more than a 4" display for those, so they won't be associated with this range. Anyway, I want to clear up a few things.
 * This is a mobile device with a prepaid Straighttalk data plan. I am not in StLouis though. I'm in Area code 330. Therefore the block is not targeted to a narrow geographic region and it is unlikely the blocking admins assumed it was.


 * Admin EdJohnston blocked the right range. There's no point in blocking a single IP from this range as these addresses get reassigned about every 30 min.


 * Long term block of IPs have collateral damage. JBW and other admins know this which is why he/they use them with caution. I also read the ANI report and the followup SPI report that led up to this. There was a nasty and prolific vandal on this range recently. The admins are going to do what they must to protect the 'pedia from that level of disruption and I can't fault them for that. If a password protected account is the only way to differentiate our edits from the assholes we share our network with, then I guess that's the way it's gotta be. Vannie227 (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that information, Vannie227. It's very much in line with what I thought. Schwarzschild Point may also be interested in reading it. I really, really don't like blocking IP ranges, because I know there is always a danger of some collateral damage, and I only do it if it seems really necessary. Whenever I am considering whether to block a range (or, as in this case, whether to unblock one) I first do extensive checking of the history of editing from the range, and only block if it is clear that the likely damage from leaving the range unblocked far exceeds the likely damage from blocking it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, this isn't a meetup. I'm sure James would prefer we do that on the talk page for the IP. Schwarzschild Point   •  16:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There certainly have been times when there have been discussions on this page which I have thought didn't belong here, but I don't mind this one being here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A new sock
Hi JamesBWatson, I've encountered a new sock of the master you blocked, User:Raag online. See. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Banned sockmaster is active again
is most likely new sock of banned. This user should be blocked per personel attack, vandalism only account and sockpuppetry. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.134.167 (talk)
 * No comment on socking but I have blocked Sepasee for one week for their edit summaries and repeated deletions of the above post. --Neil N  talk to me 00:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support an indef per WP:NOTHERE. Didn't see that before I blocked. --Neil N  talk to me 00:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It took me only a very little checking to see that Sepasee was clearly the same person as Yesandok. Some features of Yesandok's editing also suggested to me that the account might be a sockpuppet of one or more previously existing accounts, so I did more checking. It took quite a bit of searching before I could be certain, but eventually I found enough evidence to convince me that both accounts were the same person as Solhjoo, an account which is already blocked for using sockpuppetry, including the account Homayoun1986 mentioned above by the IP editor. Consequently I have indefinitely blocked the accounts Sepasee and Yesandok. The editor has been abusing several sockpuppet accounts over a period of several years. I wonder if there are any more. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanx James. is also suspicious. 176.219.134.167 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

AN/I notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Mabuska (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

2602:302:D120:4C00 rangeblock
66.87 is following in their footsteps: 66.87.79.190 66.87.120.47 66.87.120.32 66.87.120.226 –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and looking into the history, I have found that this editor has used a number of other IP addresses in the same range too, going back at least as far as October 2014. Unfortunately, the smallest CIDR range which covers all these IP addresses is 66.87.64.0/18, and this disruptive editor accounts for only a small minority of the edits from that range. A fairly large proportion of the edits from the range, whether from this editor or not, are unconstructive in one way or another, but there are enough perfectly good edits there to make a range block unacceptable, in my opinion. Three of the IP addresses you give fall in the smaller range 66.87.120.0/24, and in that a smaller proportion of edits are constructive, so a range block might just about be possible, but there are also some good edits, and some of the unconstructive edits seem to be good-faith mistakes. Those two facts together reduce the attractiveness of a range block, especially since in any case it would not block all the IP addresses used by this disruptive editor. Blocks on individual IP address in the range are unlikely to achieve much, as the editor will just move to another IP address, but if you can ever let me know of an IP address while it is in use (not a couple of days later) I can block it for a short while. That won't stop the problem, but it may slightly slow it down. I have protected the articles Playtoons and Beginner Books, and if you can suggest any other articles which you think might be protected, I will consider them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Might want to protect The Wind in the Willows (TV series) as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Fyunck(click)
Good evening -- can I trouble you for a bit of advice? I'm having an issue with the above user, who has spent the last couple of days calling me a "liar" on my own talk page -- I think because I disagree with him on the Myanmar/Burma question, but I'm just not sure, exactly -- now he's saying we don't necessarily disagree, even though we clearly do, and I think he's upset that the current RM is going the wrong way. (Note that on his user page, he keeps a list of the people that he feels have "lied" to him.) I'm not one to go whining to an admin every time someone calls me a name -- I'm a big boy, I've been called a lot worse by a lot better people -- and as I think you know from our past interactions, when I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I don't think I'm wrong in this situation, but that's why I'm coming to you. I'm not in the habit of "lying" about anything, and certainly not about a silly RM discussion. We have a disagreement; is that "lying"? Do you see any evidence that I'm "making up stuff", or "lying" to him? If so, I'll acknowledge it; but what I really want is for this guy to stop his personal attacks, which I asked him to do, and he came right back with another one. How do I handle this? Any help would be appreciated. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  03:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to see the whole story, because both of you have posted messages which assume that the reader knows what they are referring back to, which for an outsider coming to the conversation is not so. However, it is clear that Fyunck(click) has repeatedly made accusations against you without giving any substantiation. It looks to me as though what he/she calls "lying" is most likely to be a matter of sincere differences of interpretation, and at worst may be good faith mistake; I certainly see no reason to think you were lying. I have posted a message about it on Fyunck(click)'s talk page, attempting to make it clear that unsubstantiated accusations of lying are unacceptable, and suggesting that even substantiated accusations of lying may not be helpful. Let's hope that he/she takes notice of that. (Though in light of what little I have seen of his/her editing history, it looks as though there may be a strong tendency to hit out in response to disagreements.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you -- I needed a neutral opinion that I wasn't going crazy. I agree, given the somewhat disturbing "list of liars" on his/her page, that there seems to be a tendency to see anyone who has the temerity to disagree as a "liar".  I also noticed a block history, though for what, I'm not sure.  Let's hope he drops it.  Let's also hope he doesn't accuse you of lying.  I'm going to ask him to stay off my talk page.  Thanks again.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  12:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

FloraWilde
Hi JB. I saw you've banned Flora as a sock of PPdd. I don't know specifically what prompted that, but I'm certain it was justified, in that PPdd and FloraWilde appear to me be the same person (one who I've bumped into when reducing his personal puff page).

I did have a question though. Where someone has socked and been banned previously, does that mean they can never have a registered a/c? It just seems that Flora appears to be doing good work in Alternative Medicine and Botany, so it seems to be a shame to lose that if he's not been playing around with IP editors to sock. Of course, if he's been continuing to use IP/other a/cs to sock, I can see why he might just be a ban-on-sight person. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't think to check your archives! IMO, as a non-admin, Katie=Park=PPdd, and Flora is just the most recent incarnation.  However, if Flora isn't using IPs and socks, and if he avoids topics that he has a COI in (Eric Diesel, Pearlasia Gamboa, Dominion of Melchizedek, Louis Lesser and John Wallace Diesel), I personally have no problem with him.  For what that's worth.  BTW, on WP ParkSehJik is Eric Diesel, in that he adopted a friend's name (you can see the link in one of the original External Links, first one for the Eric Diesel article.  Direct link here (search for "Park").  Also, IIRC, one of the Diesel socks created a puff piece WP page for Park that was subsequently deleted.  Note though that I've not dealt with him in the Alternative Medicine field, so I don't know how he's been behaving there.


 * I'll just point out that is a single-issue editor.  Obviously, I "sided" with him on the Eric Diesel issue, but that doesn't change the fact that he's uninterested in anything that is not related to Eric Diesel.  Not sure if that affects your decision, but just FYI.   Bromley86 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * An editor who has been indefinitely blocked but who is willing to do constructive editing, and avoid whatever problems led to the block, can request an unblock. Personally, if an editor genuinely seems to be intending to edit in a better way, and not do whatever led to the block, I am generally disposed to give them another chance. Even in the case of outright vandalism-only accounts, I have given editors another chance, and often found that as a result we have gained a very good editor. However, if an editor takes the law into his or her own hands, and decides to evade a block by sockpuppetry, even if their editing from the on is constructive, I see at least two problems: (1) we have an editor who has been dishonest, which reduces any trust we may have them in the future, and (2) we have an editor who has shown a willingness to push their own preferred outcome, ignoring anyone else, and ignoring Wikipedia policy, which reduces the likelihood that they will abide by consensus and policy in future. I am 100% sure that there have been cases where a blocked disruptive editor has come back a sockpuppet, and has not continued to be disruptive, with the result that we have gained a good editor. However, in such case the same could have been achieved by the editor requesting an unblock. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just checked Lampuser. I am uncomfortable about that editor. It looks as though he or she may well have some sort of conflict of interest. The fact that he or she stopped editing immediately after FloraWilde was blocked is particularly striking. However, I don't see anything definite enough to come to any conclusion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks JB, looks like we're on the same page. Re Lamp, there is a good chance he's a member/friend of the Gamboa family (i.e. the other side of the nasty WP-related spat mentioned in SF Weekly, although he's clearly not Pearlasia.  BTW, in case you think I'm soft on socking, I'm hoping that, if there are serious COI IP edits of any of those pages, I can bring them to your attention?  That'll teach you to be helpful :) .  Bromley86 (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Damn, looks like he's back. Could you take a look at, whose first edit was to do what Diesel's other socks have done? Thanks, Bromley86 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say you are probably right, but I don't think it would be possible to take any action on the basis of that one edit. However, if there are more edits from the same account, or if there are strikingly similar edits from other new accounts, that opinion may be subject to reconsideration. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, & thanks again. Bromley86 (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

AN/I
You will find that whilst there are some issues in regards to my interaction with persistently disruptive editors such as Gob Lofa, I have been more than fair and conciliatory with them as well in the past. You will find very few problems/issues with my article editing. In regards to the AN/I are you saying that Gob Lofa's edits in these articles does not merit some form of sanction either here or at ArbCom? I really would like evidence of my problems in the article edits other than reverting a disruptive editor. Mabuska (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure whether there is much point in trying yet again to clarify what I have said, since every time I do so you seem to manage to think I have said something that I have not said, but I shall make one more attempt. I have said that the particular step I took on one occasion with respect to Gob Lofa was mistaken. There is no justification for extrapolating from that into thinking that I said anything global about whether Gob Lofa's editing justifies "some form of sanction". Also, I note that you say you have been "more than fair". Do you really think you are the person to make that judgement? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't talk about the ability to make judgements. What I asked was not to do with your prior actions/statements in regards to Gob Lofa, what I said was "In regards to the AN/I" or in otherwords whether the evidence I provided at it merited some form of action. Unless I write in some form of complicated English or gobbledygook I don't see how that wasn't clear. Regardless it matters not, I just wanted a your honest opinion about those actions on those articles. Mabuska (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In your original post above, you asked me about what I was already saying ("are you saying that...") and the answer was that I was not saying anything "in regards to" the issues you referred to. Now, rather than asking about what I have already said, you appear to be asking me to give an opinion on those issues now. I have no opinion on them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Kunlun fight company page
Sorry for the late replay, this is the links you guys requested for that page, so would you mind undeleting that page. thank you if you need anything else please do let me know （my email: mohammed.alezzabi@gmail.com)

http://m.sherdog.com/organizations/Kunlun-Fight-8159

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/1/31/7955991/kunlun-19-preview-kickboxing-fight-card-china-heavyweight-champion

http://www.mmaweekly.com/kunlun-fc-aiming-to-be-a-player-on-the-asian-fight-scene

http://mma-in-asia.com/category/promotions/kunlun-fight/

http://www.kickboxingplanet.com/kunlun-fight/

http://www.liverkick.com/index.php/item/3476-kunlun-fight-22-full-fight-card-for-april-12th/3476-kunlun-fight-22-full-fight-card-for-april-12th

http://www.thaiboxing.sk/index.php/297-kunlun-fight-slovakia-15-may-2015-fightcard

http://www.thaiboxing.sk/index.php/297-kunlun-fight-slovakia-15-may-2015-fightcard

http://liverkick.com/index.php/item/3348-kunlun-fight-15-stream-and-results/3348-kunlun-fight-15-stream-and-results

http://www.liverkick.com/index.php/item/3476-kunlun-fight-22-full-fight-card-for-april-12th/3476-kunlun-fight-22-full-fight-card-for-april-12th

https://kiksie.com/wiki/Kunlun_Fight

http://www.muaythaiauthority.com/2015/08/kunlun-fight-29-battle-in-sochi-2015-4.html?m=1

http://www.mma-core.com/organizations/Kunlun_Fight/8222

http://w5kick.com/news/Enrico-Gogokhiya-will-bout-in-the-Grand-Prix-of-Kunlun-Fight-China

http://www.globalcombatnetwork.com/2015/06/13/kunlun-fight-22-dylan-salvador-vs-sittichai-muay-thai-fight-video/

http://www.muayfarang.com/en/risultati-e-video-kunlun-fight-23-dylan-salvador-batte-sitthichai/

http://www.allthebestfights.com/yodsanklai-vs-grigorian-full-fight-video-2015-kunlun-fight-22/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Gerasimchuk

http://predpredaj.zoznam.sk/sk/listky/3409/kunlun-fight-slovakia

http://www.combatsportsasia.com/muay-thai-legend-buakaw-signs-6-fight-contract-with-kunlun-fighting-championship/

http://m.fightland.vice.com/tag/Kunlun+Fights


 * After some time searching, I found what you are referring to. You have repeatedly re-created a page which was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/KunLun fight. I also see that at that discussion it was stated that there had already been multiple re-creations of that page under variations of its title. What did the "guys" who you say requested links say the links were for? I see no evidence that I was one of the "guys" asking for links, nor do I see where anyone did so: certainly not on your talk page. Were you asked for the links while you were using another account? If so, what account? I don't see that the links you provide serve any obvious useful purpose. To judge from a quick glance at a sample of them, they seem to be things like pages advertising fights, pages on what look as though they may be fan sites, and so on: certainly not substantial coverage of the business you want to post about on independent reliable sources, which is what is required of your intention is to show notability of the subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello How are you ? Thank you for fast response I really need help with my Wikipedia my company is based in china so almost all the links are in chinese And we are one of the biggest kickboxing events in the world we had all the big names fight for us I'm sorry to trouble you but really need to upload my company is Wikipedia Please help me I would really appreciate it We have been trying to do it for months Thank you so much for your help & understanding Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzabi21 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not exist as a medium for companies to post information about themselves in order to publicise themselves: that is what your company's own web site is for. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Yunshui 雲 水 09:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Staticip 1
Template:Staticip 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

GrocShop WIki Page
Hello James,

GrocSHop is a team of IITBombay working on making the daily essentials shopping easier and hasslefree.

We are backed by Microsoft and were selected by Google for its LaunchPad program, us being a technology company.

We had launched our services by the name GrocShop under the registered company name GrocTech solutions by March 17th 2015.

We had put our information on Wikipedia around 2nd June and were marked for deletion under the below described codes. Request you to kindly look into it and confirm if it's not so.

G12 for copyright infringement of our own website http://GrocShop.co.in. We can use some other language to describe the same, but we think it's apt to use the same as on the website for consistency. Please help if we have to alter it.

Also, we were also given a reason of A7 'not indication the importance of subject'. To the understanding of our associate SaiChander, the subject here was to share the information about grocshop as an entity and he has provided the same here. Please help us understand if there is anything that needs to be subtracted here.

Lastly G11 ' Advertising', to share information about a topic(in this case, a company) shouldn't mean that we are advertising. Our intent is to share the information. Please help in resolving this.

Bests, Ayush

P.S. You may use ayush.me.garg@iitb.ac.in to write back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayush.me.garg (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless there are good reasons why information has to be kept confidential, communications regarding Wikipedia editing should take place openly in Wikipedia pages, not by email, where they are invisible to other Wikipedia editors. On the fairly infrequent occasions when there is a good reason for using email, I do so through Wikipedia's email service: I never post directly from my email account. I see that you have enabled Wikipedia email on your account, so I can email you if and when there is a need to communicate confidentially, but I see no such reason now.


 * What you are saying is that you work for a company, and are trying to use Wikipedia to make public information which your company wishes to make visible to the public. That is pretty well what "advertising" means. Also, reading the deleted article, I see that the very first sentence was phrased in completely unmistakable marketing-speak. There is really no way of reading it as anything other than advertising.


 * If you post text to Wikipedia, you are giving permission for that text to be reused by anyone in the world, either as it is or edited and modified in any way at all, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, subject only to attribution to Wikipedia. There are very few businesses that are willing to do that. In the unlikely event that your company does wish to release the contents of its web site under an open license compatible with Wikipedia's terms of use, then the easiest way of making it clear that you are doing so is to post on your web site a notice stating that you irrevocably agree to release the content of the site under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. We can't accept the unsubstantiated word of just anyone who chooses to create a Wikipedia account for the fact that he or she has authority to license content from a company's web site.


 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on just anything: for a subject to be the topic of an article, it is necessary for that subject to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are several pages of such guidelines, but the central point, as defined in the general notability guideline, is that a subject is normally notable if there is substantial coverage in reliable published sources independent of the subject. (Examples of sources which are not independent are a company's own web site, web sites of companies with which it has any kind of partnership or collaboration, web sites where the company posts information about itself, and soon.) I have searched for information about GrocShop, to see whether it is likely to satisfy those guidelines. The first page of hits on a Google search produced various pages which are clearly not independent (such as GrocShop's own web site, a Google apps page to download GrocShop's ordering app, GrocShop's pages on LinkedIn, Twitter, FaceBook, letsventure.com, and wordpress) some business listing sites (such as Crunchbase and startupranking.com) and a site called "iamWire", whose "about us" page is full of obfuscating gobbledygook, but what it all seems to boil down to is that the site exists to promote businesses. (For example, it says that it "acts as a launchpad for startups".) The next two pages from the Google search were no better. In my experience, for any business that satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards there will almost always be significant coverage in independent reliable sources within the first half page of Google hits, and there is no question of having to search as far as page four to get anything.


 * Wikipedia articles are intended to be neutral, third party accounts, and an article about a business or other organisation should not present the point of view that the organisation itself wishes to make available to the public. For that reason, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourage anyone working for or on behalf of an organisation from writing about it. If and when your business comes to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, probably an uninvolved third party will write an article about it from a neutral point of view. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Barry McNamee page deletion
Why was the Barry McNamee page deleted? I worked very hard on it and I do not see why this was deleted, pleased tell me the reason ASAP. Adam Mc Gonagle (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The original article was discussed at Articles for deletion/Barry McNamee, which decided it should be deleted. The new version of the article was substantially similar, and there does not seem to be any change which in any way affects the reasons given in that discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Sharedipedu 1
Template:Sharedipedu 1 has been nominated for merging with Template:Shared IP edu. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

RMS52
Hello JamesBWatson , The User RMS52 is continually reverted my edits in a lot of airport Malaga Airport, Pisa Airport, Verona Villafranca Airport and Zurich Airport. I ask you if you can do something paese, because after my reverted of he continue vandalizing the page. Zurich00swiss (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at the editing history of the articles you mention. Most of it consists of content dispute about details of airline scheduling information about which I know nothing, and it is not immediately clear to me what the rights and wrongs in the dispute are. Perhaps it would be better to take it to one of the "Wikiprojects" in the topic, where you may find people with enough interest in and knowledge of the subject to be able to give more definite help. However, I did notice a couple of thing on which I can comment. You have repeatedly unlinked HolidayJet in the article Zürich Airport, without, as far as I can see, ever giving any reason. On the face of it, that looks like a perfectly valid link, and if you know of a good reason why it isn't, you need to give at least an edit summary saying why, if not a fuller explanation on the article's talk page, especially when you repeat your edit after it has been reverted. You have repeatedly tried to prevent inclusion of mention of flights between Lille and Malaga in the article Malaga Airport. Within a couple of minutes a search provided me with proof that there is such a service, though perhaps only a seasonal one. You may have good reasons for thinking it should not be included in the article, but if so then you need to explain why, not just announce that nobody should include such information. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks when he creates the HolidayJet's link, the page was not still created and the the link resulted uncreated! Zurich00swiss (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So I see. However, it would have been better to have said so in an edit summary. Also, it is worth knowing that many editors do not think that red links should necessarily be removed, because "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." (Quoted from Red link.) I don't personally agree with that, but you should realise that removing links just because they don't link anywhere is far from uncontroversial, which makes all the more reason for giving a reason. I notice that most of your edits don't have edit summaries, but it is better to always give one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the page HolidayJet on Wikipedia is not necessary because it is similar at Germania Flug and it presents a lot of error! Zurich00swiss (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about errors, but I agree it duplicates Germania Flug, and probably it would be better to merge any useful content of HolidayJet into Germania Flug, and convert HolidayJet to a redirect. Alternatively, if you like you can nominate HolidayJet for deletion, using db-same, but I don't see any advantage in doing it that way, and if you do merge any content then it should certainly be kept in the page history, not deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to tell you that after pruposing HolidayJet page for its deletion, the user named GeoffreyT2000 removed my deletion message from the page of the airline. Zurich00swiss (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because what you posted was, which meant that you were asking for HolidayJet to be deleted because it is the same as HolidayJet. If you want deletion for that reason, you need to post . Personally, I would not delete the article, as it does have further information not included in Germania Flug, and so I think merging the content into that article would be a better option. However, if you nominate it for speedy deletion again I won't decline the nomination: I'll leave it for another administrator to review. If that speedy deletion gets declined then you can consider taking it to WP:Articles for deletion if you like. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've made a mistake. Zurich00swiss (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson, User RMS52 removed my deletion message from HolidayJet. What do I do now ? THANKS! Zurich00swiss (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!
 Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 03:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Caught another one!
66.87.76.63 –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to add a page protection Tag on Chaker Khazaal
Dear User:JamesBWatson, I hope you are doing very well. I need you to review Wiki page of Chaker Khazaal. He is a Canada based author from Palestinian descent. Also do visit Chaker's page history if needed. Wiki page of Chaker Khazaal listed on my watchlist for two months. I got several emails & notifications from Wikipedia regarding edits of User:Plot Spoiler, he added multiple tags ; BLP sources, COI, advert and news release tags. Chaker's got massive media covereges & reliable web sources though. Also, Two ip addresses based Wiki-users are trying to edit the page of Chaker Khazaal with unverifiable contents. If Chaker's page requires any clean-up suggest me to do it. I need your help, please add " Page protection " on Chaker Khazaal's Wikipedia page. I need your valuable suggestions and help. Khocon (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me what your grounds for requesting page protection are. In fact, it looks rather as though you want page protection because you disagree with other editors' editing. If that is not the reason, then can you explain to me what your grounds are? Considering the tag for sources, I have looked at a sample of the sources, and what I saw suggested that most of them are of no value in establishing notability: many of them are by (not about) Chaker Khazaal, or barely mention him, or are clearly not from independent sources. Consequently, there does seem to be at least some justification for the tag. If you think that there is not sufficient justification, then you need to explain why, and be willing to discuss the matter, not simply repeatedly remove it. While I certainly would not regard the whole article as unambiguous spam, there are certainly aspects of it which read as somewhat promotional, so it does not seem to me that simply dismissing the "advert" and "press release" tags, without any attempt to address the issues, is very constructive. Some of the editing does look as though it may have been made by an editor with a conflict of interest, so I am not sure why you object to the conflict of interest tag; it would be more helpful if you were to explain your reasons for objecting to these tags, rather than just telling me that an editor added them, and leaving me to wok out for myself what you think is wrong with doing so. I have looked at all of the anonymous (IP) edits over the last month. Not one of them added substantial unsourced content: which of the content is "unverifiable", and why? However, the thing about your request which gives me most concern is that, having asked for page protection, you then suggest that you "clean up" the article. It is difficult to see that as meaning anything other than that you want the article protected so that you can take over the article and control it so that you can make sure that your preferred version takes priority. Again, if that is not what you meant then please clarify what you did mean, because protecting an article so that one editor can control its content and prevent others from changing it is totally contrary to Wikipedia policy, and there is absolutely no question of doing that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Benzinga (company) Deleted
Benzinga (company) The Page deletetion reason is that it was deleted previously, but I created it with new content and added many reliable secondary sources. Please review and recreate the page.Slowstars (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that the new article was a sufficient improvement on the old one to justify it, but I have restored the article. I am neither declining nor accepting the speedy deletion nomination, and I have informed the editor who nominated it of the restoration, so that he or she may consider taking it to a second deletion discussion. I also note that your use of the tag "(company)" in the article title appears to have been not to disambiguate it from other uses of the title "Benzinga", but rather to evade page protection. Actions which run the risk of looking as though they have been done to evade the effects of policy are on the whole probably better avoided. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No reliable source
IP address 94.197.121.8 (who's edits have been getting reverted a lot) is stating that voice actress Karen Strassman is going to voice the character Rouge the Bat but is not providing a source link to confirm it and he/she shows no signs of doing so.108.208.136.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first thing to do should be to post a message to the IP talk page, explaining the need for reliable sources. If the editor still does the same sort of thing after that, we can consider whether further action is needed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please look over all of these edits?
Some (most, should I say) of the edits from Ajk.pkhan include copyright violations. I had to revert one page (Ganga Choti) back to a 2013 version because this one was the earliest I could find that didn't have any violations. Could you please have a look at all or most of the other pages they've edited to see if they've added any more violated content? Thanks,  Ana  r  chyte   22:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC).
 * I had a look at quite a number of them yesterday. It was difficult searching through all the edits and searching through numerous web pages where content might or might not be copied from, but I did find enough to make it clear that a block was necessary. I may have another look when I find time, but I am unlikely to thoroughly check all or most of the edits, as the ration of time and effort to useful results would be far too high. If you think it a worthwhile use of time you can look further into it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to use Earwig's tool if you're not already. SmartSE (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SmartSE, I didn't know about that. Did you know about it, Anarchyte? If not, you may like to try using it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, . I've used it on a few of the articles he's created so far.  Ana  r  chyte   09:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Ahmadiyya.jpg
See here. --Peace world  09:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

False warning

 * Edit warring carries exemptions such as vandalism. The edits that I reverted were exactly that: vandalism. The user is repeatedly adding a distorted image to discredit a historic figure in which it is written "Mirza Accursed" meaning "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Accursed". --Peace world  09:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for cutting. --Peace world  09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I now see that the edits you made were reverting vandalism. Thanks for clarifying. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Another series of block evaders?
184.153.13.143, 184.153.12.106, 184.153.23.123, probably more. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see any more, but I've blocked the one of those three that wasn't already blocked. I've also put a couple of short-term range blocks on a couple of small ranges that cover those three IP addresses, but I'm afraid I don't know how effective that will be, as it is probable that the block-evading editor will just shift to a new IP address. I can't put a long-term block on the whole range covering all three, as there are quite a lot of constructive edits from other editors in the same IP range. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Page Move Request
Hey James, could you do a page move for me? I need WMYQ moved to WIOE. WMYQ changed it's callsign on August 19 to WIOE. I'll update the page and the "what links here" links. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 10:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank You, Sir. Much appreciated. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 11:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello JamesBWatson, Thank you for your comment on my recent contribution to the Fast Fourier Transform page. My additions are based on recent peer reviewed publications, and I invite any expert to check them.

Nir.ailon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nir.ailon (talk • contribs) 11:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Being peer-reviewed is no guarantee of notability: goodness knows how many peer-reviewed papers are published and then forgotten about. Also, you are not the one to make an objective and neutral assessment of the value of your own work; if your work has attracted significant attention and is sufficiently relevant in the article, then probably sooner or later an independent third party editor will decide to add a mention of it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Happy to add s if that would help.

Barry McNamee deletion
I am sorry if I have caused any trouble but I couldn't help but wounder why you have deleted my page on Barry McNamee. Adam Mc Gonagle (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You asked on 14th November, and my answer is still visible on this page, in the section headed Barry McNamee page deletion. In a day or so it will be archived to User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 64. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Scott Hanselman
I have difficulty believing that Speedy G4 applies to your Speedy deletion because this article recreated four years after the last AfD, and was written without being privy to the most recently deleted content. As I noted on the now deleted talk page, the subject appears to meet GNG and even WP:Creative. For these reasons, I request that the article be restored. Dolovis (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly how speedy deletion criterion G4 should be interpreted has often been the subject of disagreement. The definition of the criterion contains the wording "sufficiently identical", and the debated point is how similar a page has to be to be "sufficiently" identical, with some editors taking the view that it has to be almost exactly the same, and others taking the view that if the page is essentially similar and the reasons given for deletion in the deletion discussion apply with equal force to the new version, that is sufficient. I accept that in this case G4 applies only if one takes a fairly liberal interpretation of "sufficiently identical", so I shall restore the article. However, I don't see the new version of the article as doing a much better job of showing notability than the two versions dicussed at the two deletion discussipons, so I wouldn't bet on its surviving a third AfD discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you also restore the previously deleted edit history, and remove the speedy tag? Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The speedy deletion tag I have removed. I don't see any obvious justification for restoring earlier versions which were deleted as a result of consensus at two deletion discussions. If there is some special reason why doing so would be appropriate in this case, please let me know, but it isn't normal practice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit history provides proper attribution, and previously used references and sources may be useful for helping to build the article. Dolovis (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh...Sockmaster athink
is new sock of banned sockmaster. Also, the users and   who vandalised user Zyma's talk page are also suspicious. 176.219.133.204 (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as though you are probably right about at least two of those three accounts: the other one is a little less certain. I have contacted a CheckUser to ask for help in checking these accounts, and also checking for other possible sockpuppets. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanx for your quick response and efforts James. l'm sure that is related to banned . The account's edits are obviously similar to, banned sockpuppet of user Solhjoo. 176.219.133.204 (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi James. Long term abuser sockmaster is back with an another sock account: . 176.219.143.184 (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Neekan for 31 hours for removing this which suggests the IP is right. Their past editing history is also very suspicious. --Neil N  talk to me 00:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you but i think the protection does not work since he has multiple "autoconfirmed" accounts. As you see, he reverted just after you protected the page. Thus, i suggest to change protection log from autoconfirmed to admins only. 176.219.143.184 (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, two more socks showed up after Neekan was blocked. I'm tempted to leave it as semi to catch any others. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah:) Smartness. lt would be nice if you watchlisted the page. But i think you have already done it. Regards. 176.219.143.184 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IP editor, why don't you create an account? Apart from anything else, it would make it easier for me to make sure you see my answers to what you post, such as this one. I can, and shall, drop a message on the talk page of your latest IP address, but I can have no way of knowing whether your connection has moved to a new IP address, in which case you may never see my message. Nor can I necessarily assume you will come back to this page before this section is archived.
 * It is perfectly certain that Neekan is another sockpuppet of the same sockmaster. Apart from the obvious similarities, there is another point which I prefer not to state, which removes any doubt, so I have extended NeilN's block to indefinite. I have also tagged the user pages of the latest socks: whenever there is reasonable suspicion that a sockpuppeteer has come back with another sockpuppet, it is always helpful to be able to compare with previous known sockpuppets of the same master, and any sock accounts which are not tagged may not be easy to find, as they won't be included in the sockpuppet category for that sockmaster. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Druffled
Was I a bit hasty with this guy? He sent my new-user-edit-o-meter berserk for about half an hour, but I can't actually see much wrong with what he was doing. GoldenRing (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The behaviour of the editor looks exactly like that of many newly-created sockpuppets, but I can't see anything to actually object to in the editing, nor can I find another editor with a similar obsession with Madagascar categories that it might be a sockpuppet of. It may be worth watching for a few days. Particularly interesting may be whether there is any change in editing pattern when the account is four days old, and becomes autoconfirmed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Request.
Hello JamesBWatson. Is it possible to delete this talk page? And the user page too? I'm the owner of that account. Regards. --89.180.151.144 (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User talk pages are not deleted except under exceptional circumstances. Years ago it used to be common to delete talk pages of editors who had long since left Wikipedia, but it was found from experience that this often caused problems: for one thing, if an editor comes back on another account, it can be necessary to be able to check the history of mesages to and from that editor, and for another thing, even if the editor does not come back, sometimes an issue comes up relating to the history of editing by another editor, which in one way or another connects to the departed editor, and it is necessary to be able to check past messages. User pages, on the other hand, can be deleted, but in this case the user page records information relating to sockpuppetry, and deleting that would be unhelpful if in the future anyone has any reason to think you may be using more sockpuppets. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocking User:FloraWilde?
Hi. I just noticed that you blocked User:FloraWilde back on July 1, 2015 for being a sock puppet of User:PPdd. When I went to the SPI page for PPdd, I saw that the clerk admin (User:Bbb23) did not confirm that FloraWilde was a sock puppet in September 2014.

Was there another spot where FloraWilde was confirmed to a sock puppet? I thought s/he made useful contributions to WP, so was surprised at the block. —hike395 (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson can speak for himself, but FloraWilde has made a lot of edits since September 2014. Any administrator can block an account if they believe the account is a sock. It doesn't require "confirmation", either at an SPI or elsewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See the discussions at User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 63 and User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 64. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (Incidentally, Bbb23 is an administrator and a CheckUser, but as far as I know not a clerk.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- I didn't mean to impugn Bbb23. Fixed. —hike395 (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, impugn away. I've been an administrator for a while, but in September 2014 I was not a checkuser, and calling me a clerk (some clerks are admins and some are not) as of that time is fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ... and thanks to Mr. Watson for making the tough call. I'm not an admin, but I've been involved in at least one sockpuppet case, and I know they can be tricky to untangle. —hike395 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Pluto is not a planet anymore
Might like to take a look; appears to be hawking malware from his userspace, but actually links to some random youtube video.... GoldenRing (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also User:Ding dong ding dong ding dong worth a look. GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first account you mention was already blocked by the time I saw your message, but I would certainly have looked into it if I'd got there first, so thanks for telling me. The second account hasn't edited for over 5 years, so there's no point doing anything about it now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

appreciate
Dear James, am grateful getting intouch with you, am excited inviews of your messages, contents well understood, getting closer to some contents about some points of global-lock and global-unblock, iam glad hence you are aware of the situation, i submitted the unblock request that you may know that iam still a wikipedian, although the global-lock has been a long time, because since blocked i couldn't have access to my [oer studies]] and pete forsyth is worried about my study at open education resources  and since locked, i can only get intouch with my instructor by the Twitter.com/jesmion and sometimes through '+google'  and facebook.com/jesmion  'as it has taken a long time when en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:jesmion was locked from login to account: jesmion'  Thank, your's  Jesmion  197.211.53.244 (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Please see the message I posted on the talk page of your account. You are not to edit any page on Wikipedia except by logging into your account. I didn't immediately block the IP address that you used to post the unblock request, but from now on i shall block any IP address that I am aware you have used.
 * 2) Judging from the complete nonsense that you have frequently posted, from various IP addresses, I doubt that you have the ability to be a constructive Wikipedia editor, so that unblocking you does not seem to be a good idea.
 * 3) Please don't post several copies of the same message to the same page. It is likely to give the impression that you are trolling. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Knuckles
Hey, I saw and replied to your post over at Talk:Rocket. I can't help but notice that the editor that started the conversation is completely new, and suggest that maybe he should get a little extra patience as a result. It seems quite plausible that he created an account to contribute to the (not yet perfect) article, and after the account creation was frustrated to find he still could not edit the article. Since he is new, he also is probably a little ignorant of protection policy and the role of personal initiative on the part of our veteran admins. Both his frustration and ignorance seem to me to be forgivable given our goal of welcoming newbies. Thanks for your consideration! VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Userfy
Hi, would you mind userfying a prodded article for me? You can put it in my sandbox. It's locted here. I have sources. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ See User:Kindzmarauli/Dusty Wolfe. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that you said "You can put it in my sandbox." I don't suppose it matters, though. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, doesn't matter. There's a lot less there than I had hoped. Oh well. :) Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jenzabar
Hello!

Regarding your deletion of my article without discussion, I believe it was a mistake. I think, I improved the article significantly comparing to this state (or any other previous version) to meet Wikipedia quality standards. I also believe that the notability is sufficient, as it has some high-quality sources, like Gartner.

I understand, that you followed some discussion that happened more than a year before my first edit, but that ruling should be overturned, I believe.

It's really disappointing to see how one's own work disappears from Wikipedia even without a notice... :( --Cosmopolite1 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept that the recent article was significantly different from that at the deletion discussion, so I have removed protection from the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

IHeardFromBob
Hi, I've just come back from holidays and note socks of this user have returned to Wikipedia after being banned. Same articles, editing patterns as IHeardFromBob:

User:70.192.77.28


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Gadd&diff=674763931&oldid=674538461
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Gadd&diff=674926147&oldid=674897640

User:SkunksAreOutside


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babe_I%27m_Gonna_Leave_You&diff=677868317&oldid=677825809

Should I file a 2nd SPI or can this be handled via CU? LumpyGravy (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although the amount of editing is very small, it looks to me very much as though you are right. I shall block the account and the IP address. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Swim EP
Hey JamesBWatson! since I cannot reply yet on the articles for undeletion I thought I'd talk to you about it here. Although it did have very few editors it was still a very notable subject. It was covered by MULTIPLE music sites and was greatly discussed. I think we need to undelete this page as even though it had few editors it still deserves a wiki page. RaisedByWolvesInReverse (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether a particular article was created by a blocked editor and whether the subject of that article is notable are two completely different questions. If an editor other than the original one wishes to create a new article on the subject, that is a totally different matter from a blocked editor coming back with a sockpuppet account and re-creating the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Somebody should still re-create the page even if that account had been blocked. That would very unreasonable to delete it. It is very unlawful to delete it just because only the blocked editor had been editing it. RaisedByWolvesInReverse (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlawful? It's Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, but don't you think a page of that nobility should now be undeleted/re-created? RaisedByWolvesInReverse (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Undeletion, no. That would defeat the whole purpose of deleting it. Re-creation? Well, that depends on various factors, such as whether the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, whether the re-creation was done by yet another block-evading sockpuppet or not, etc etc. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well I do belive sometime in the near future it should be re-created, and maybe made better than the original. RaisedByWolvesInReverse (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Block-evading disruptive editor magnet
Probably should protect the List of programs broadcast by PBS. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tanoshii Moomin Ikka thing.
Its Japanese-Finnish anime because Tove and Lars helped them to make it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJontza (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your User_talk:Snthakur
It is to mention here that Move review Rasgulla and the following edit attempts are different issues.

As per suggestions of talk 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC) and Human3015 04:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC) on my Talk page talk I have made following revision attempts with the 1st edit summary "Redefined - Rasgulla, Rosogolla, Indian diaspora Bangladesh" follows:

→ "Rasgulla" & "Mauritius" → Snthakur 1st revision → "Rasgulla(hi)[7] or, Rosogolla(bn)[8][9]" & "Bangladesh"

→ utcursch undid above, and edits Rasagola →  "Rasgulla, also known as Rosogolla (in Bengali) or Rasagola (in Odiya)" & "Bangladesh" (it was acceptable to me)

→ utcursch again undid above, and removes Bangladesh →  "Rasgulla in Hindi, known as Rosogolla in Bengali or Rasagola in Odiya" & "South Asian"

→ utcursch again removes Rosogolla, Rasagola including Bangladesh, creates a section "Name'→  The dessert is known as Rosogolla or Roshogolla in Bengali and Rasagola in Odiya .....

However, (utcursch's act of removing Rosogolla (in Bengali) or Rasagola (in Odiya)" & "Bangladesh" is an arbitrary act and not with consensus either with talk and Human3015 and talk

Therefore there was an obvious concern with disruptive editor utcursch for the above content issue.

Please suggest so as to what shall I do now?

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Suzet McKinney
I was in the process of declining that speedy myself, so thanks for that. There was, however, something worth removing. Keegan (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, 100% right. Full marks for more thorough checking than I did. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Help
I really hope I can trust you with this help I need. This user named MarnetteD, keeps bulling me and accusing me of being another user I don't even know of. All I've been doing is correcting some information and putting sources too in the articles, somehow he keeps stocking me and undoing my edits everywhere I go. Can you please ban him from the wiki please, he causing vandalism in all the articles I've been trying to fix. R-TruthFan76 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't bother -- user is sock puppet of FrozenFan2 (confirmed by a CheckUser) -- now indeffed. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence (2nd nomination)
JBW, please have a look. I'm thinking about just creating the article for the guy. Actually I was thinking about just closing it as no consensus and moving the article, leaving a redirect, and rewriting it, but I'll just write up two sentences. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking reason for user having been blocked
This user is new to editing Wikipedia and he believes that he was blocked for no good reason. I am trying to understand what happened. Special:Contributions/223.255.228.103 John Tinker (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you know that "he believes that he was blocked for no good reason"? No edits have been made from that IP address since the block, and I can't find any recent other edits from the blocked range that show that the editor has questioned the block. If you can point me to where the editor has said so, I will be willing to reconsider the block. However, it is not a new editor: the editing history of the IP range makes that clear. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive user again
I believe the vandal is back again with IPv6 addresses (I think it used an IPv6 address before). SLBedit (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I think I may have said to you before, IPv6 addresses are difficult to deal with, as Wikipedia does not, as far as I know, have a tool to check all contributions from an IPv6 range. However, all the edits that I have been able to find from the range covering the IP addresses yo give are clearly from two disruptive and edit-warring editors, so I have range blocked them for a few months. I was also going to semi-protect the articles edited by the IP addresses you mention, but I see Drmies has already done that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back... and more work for you :-)
Can you revisit your last comment at Sockpuppet investigations/Mediolanum/Archive? They're back and I'm wondering if the rangeblock could be put in place again. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. I have reblocked for 6 months. However, the previous 6 month block did not put a stop to the problem, which has been going on for a matter of years, and, as I said in the SPI that you mention, all or very nearly all of the editing from the range is clearly from the same person. I am therefore inclined to wonder if a longer block might be justified. Long blocks on fairly large IP ranges are always something to be very cautious about, but the editing history suggests that this might be one of the few cases where it could be justifiable. Do you have any opinion?  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks James. I would go to one year as very little or no non-sock contribs come from that range with a note in the log telling admins to reblock if socking starts up again next September. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Woodsmen Australian Football Club page
I note your deletion of Woodsmen Australian Football Club's page.

Your assertion that it is considered a 'non notable' amatuer team is probably correct. However, the team plays in a 14 division competition and every other member of this division has an active Wikipedia page that hasn't been deleted.

It's not a wikipedia competition, but it's strange that the most successful team in a 14 team competition is considered the least notable.

I would encourage reconsideration of this page being deleted and will endeavour to add further sources.

However, as I said there are 14 teams in the competition and the Woodsmen are the most notable, except on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbone1981 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was not my assertion that "it is considered a non notable amateur team", that was an assertion by the editor known as The-Pope, who proposed the article for deletion. All I did was carry out the routine step of deleting the article, since nobody had contested the deletion proposal. Since you have now questioned the deletion, I have now restored the article. My own guess is that probably none of the articles about the teams you mention would survive a deletion discussion if anyone chose to start one, but I am not planning to do so myself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Mobile Iron page
I am wondering if possibly the MobileIron page (which was deleted due to being a promotional piece) could be re-instated with a translated version of the de version: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MobileIron.

It is short but it would get the discussion going again. Thanks for the consideration.

I honestly wanted to find out what the MobileIron application did (MDM) and came to Wikipedia for that information. I was able to find it by auto-translate but some may not be as lucky so this is the reason I ask for this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.198.49 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion mentioned the promotional nature of the article, but lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines was also a factor, perhaps a more important one. Neither the German article you mention nor the references it provides give any evidence that the subject does satisfy the notability guidelines, and that article is itself rather promotional in tone. Consequently I see no reason to reverse the decision reached at the deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

misinformation and COLLABORATIVE work...
Hi, Please detailled me what misinformation was in Judo do article ? Aikikai45 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am removing the extensive bibliographical content of your message. The single most glaring piece of misinformation was the claim that Judo do has been an Olympic sport since 1964. You made no attempt whatever to correct inaccurate claims such as that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatsonThat's incorrect = I asked / written on the talk page "judo do" to anyone differently (than I) understand the translation from Polish from THE source on google books that is to affirm that ( I added the collaborative work is to add a tag not to delete all article!) So try yourself to say another think with this =

Judo i judo-do, sport olimpijski i rekreacyjny https://books.google.fr/books?id=4kXO2krxZREC&pg=PA48&dq=%22Judo+i+judo-do,+sport+olimpijski+i+rekreacyjny+%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAGoVChMImv7K_-_OxwIVRbYUCh0nwgAK#v=onepage&q=%22Judo%20i%20judo-do%2C%20sport%20olimpijski%20i%20rekreacyjny%20%22&f=false--Aikikai45 (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Judo has been an olympic sport, Judo do never has. It's as simple as that. You yourself have insisted that Judo do is not the same as Judo when another editor redirected the one to an article on the other: you can't claim that it's something different when it suits you, and then try to make out that it's the same thing when that suits you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!
Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wIkimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:
 * https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Lingam
Dear James I would like to draw your attention to contents of page "Lingam" and would like to understand how I can help improve/correct the message being conveyed about a major faith. I see quotes from scriptures and talks of learned people which have been summarily deleted over last few months and replaced with message which majority of followers do not agree with. If you look at edit history of this page, multiple attempts by different users have been blocked to correct the interpretation. It is like allowing people of a particular faith to comment upon prophets/scriptures of another faith without giving any chance to people who are being commented upon to make a representation ! How fair it that ? Can I humbly request moderators of this page to kindly allow representation from people whose beliefs are being commented upon without any prejudice and bias and then decide on the content.. My comments were on the page for few months and then all of a sudden they were deleted. I am prepared to quote from ancient scriptures as well as commentaries given by religious people who are regarded in high esteem by majority of followers.. I kindly request an unbiased review of the contents of this page.. 1974rk (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion one way or the other regarding the disputed content of the article. You would be better advised to discuss that with the other editors who have edited the article in question. However, when you find that your editing is opposed by "multiple attempts by different users", it suggests that consensus is against you, and consensus is the main criterion used by Wikipedia in deciding among different views as to what content an article should contain. I have posted to your talk page on the subject of believers in a religion trying to place their view in an article: I hope my comments there help you to understand better how Wikipedia works in this respect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Sandbox page
Hello James, I have a question about a sandbox page I setup for a professional certification program (user:kmsecrest/sandbox). The page was marked as “promotional”, which is not my intent. I am new to Wikipedia and trying to write an entry on a topic about which I am passionate. The F5 Professional Certification page is an extension of the “Network Administrator" page, and is modeled after Wikipedia entries on similar technical certification programs: Juniper Networks Certification Programs, Nortel Certifications, Cisco Certifications, Netware, etc. Is it possible to restore the deleted page? Are there specific edits I can make that will better adhere to Wikipedia standards? I spent a considerable amount of time trying to draft a page that is consistent with similar examples, and I am disheartened that this sandbox page has been deleted. I am eager to learn and appreciate your help. Thank you for your time! Kmsecrest  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmsecrest (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have looked again at your sandbox page, and decided I was too hasty in deleting it, so I have restored the page. I do think that your earlier version, F5 Certification Program, contained some language which read as rather promotional (e.g. "assures employers that the candidate is fully qualified ", "guarantee excellence in those who achieve certification") but your rewritten version was much improved. I have restored teh page on the understanding that it is a working draft for an article. My apologies for the inconvenience. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Janwww
Hi James. I just saw your comment about sockpuppetry, and was intrigued by "I noticed one of the comments you have posted, which clearly and without any doubt at all indicated that you had previously edited from one or more other accounts". Is it possible to tell me which comment you are referring to here? I just want to know out of personal interest, as I have been following the situation since Janwww posted at the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man 2
The Spider-Man 2 page is getting a lot of vandalism. Most the time it's the ‎Critical reception section.108.82.13.161 (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been some vandalism, and I have posted a warning message to the talk page of the IP address responsible for the most recent vandalism, but I don't see any large amount of vandalism. For example, you have disagreed with this edit, but it seems to me to be a perfectly good-faith edit, whether you or I agree with it or not, and there does not seem to be any basis for calling it "vandalism". On the other hand there has been edit-warring between you and another editor, who has used several IP addresses. I have semi-protected the article for a short while. If you find the editor you disagree with continues in the same way, please try to explain your reasons for disagreeing, and be willing to discuss the issues, rather than just repeatedly reverting to your preferred version; if you continue to be involved in edit-warring, you may be blocked from editing. (If you don't already know about Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, you can read it here.) Unfortunately it can be difficult to start a discussion with an editor who keeps changing IP addresses, which is one of the advantages in having an account, but there are various things you can try. Perhaps the best thing to do is to post to the talk page of the article and use an edit summary which calls attention to that talk page. It may also be worth at least trying posting to the talk page of the IP address used in an edit you don't agree with, as there is a chance the editor may see it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

language drop-down menu when one creates a new user
I am not familiar enough with the Wikipedia interface to know how to follow a Talk thread, so I will address your question in my own, probably awkward, fashion.

Me: I am very new to Wikipedia. I would like to point out an error on your language drop-down menu when one creates a new user. I wanted to choose Canadian French; you have [ frc français cadien ]. This should be [ frc français canadien]. Hope this helps. This sort of database entry can not be corrected by a user, as you know. Merci infiniment! Natalie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie.Desautels (talk • contribs) 08:34, 7 February 2015

You: I think the best place to report this is probably Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I was going to post to there for you, but to find exactly what I needed to write, I tried going to the "create a new account" page, and I couldn't find any drop-down list of languages. Can you describe exactly where it is and how you get to it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This only occurred when I subscribed as a new user, and tried to choose Canadian French when I noticed the error. That was quite some time ago,; I'm affair that I dont recall precisely where it was. One would have to make a new user profile to discover where that drop-down resides. But it is simply a little typo; any French user (such as myself) could easily understand [ frc français cadien ] actually means to say [ frc français canadien].

Cordially,

Natalie Desautels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie.Desautels (talk • contribs) 10:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, I will address your kind response in my own, probably awkward, fashion.

You wrote: Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at Draft:Michael Laucke. You have evidently put a lot of work into the draft article, and in many ways you have done a good job. However, I'm afraid it is not acceptable as an article, because from start to finish it reads like a piece of PR for Michael Laucke: it gives the impression that you think he is great, and you want to persuade us to agree with that view, whereas a Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view. If the page were posted as an article, it is likely it would be deleted very quickly as pure promotion. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I can't thank you enough for this immensely helpful and kind advice! It will be heeded to the letter! I will start slowly and carefully and try very hard to be as neutral as is required.

Once again,my greatest appreciation and heartfelt thanks.

Merci! Natalie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie.Desautels (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

language drop-down under Preferences
I found the language drop-down for you. Go to Preferences on top of the page (once logged in of course). Then under the second section called Internationalisation, there is a Language drop-down. The French entry (that is, from France) is ok; but if one wants to choose French Canadian, hten one finds [ frc français cadien ]. This should be [ frc français canadien] ...just a bit off by one letter. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Village pump (technical) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) Thank you; that's very interesting. That would make perfect sense! Naturally it's still surprising to see a choice for Cajun French listed in the drop down, with about 200,000 speakers, and not have French Canadian listed since it is the mother tongue of about 7.3 million Canadians. ...wonder why ...just food for thought ...worth mentioning Natalie.Desautels (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your great information and help
Thank you so much for your great information and help; truly appreciated! and thanks again as well for mentioning "Don't try to read and learn everything there before you do any more editing" ...the learning curve does seems somewhat formidable to tackle in one fell swoop. I will be sure to heed your kind advice, and will certainly take the pleasure to be in touch and avail myself of your kind offer to help ...will probably be sorely needed. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Zurich00swiss at WP:ANI
FYI a courtesy note to inform you of Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Zurich00swiss is a user you previously unblocked, and I linked to the unblock request in this new report. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/resigned
Hi James, oops, I misread your edit and thought it indicated that he user was active, not that it indicated their last period of inactivity. I think listing the earliest period of inactivity would be better if we could just list one, because it makes the entries more stable and less liable to become out of date. However I can understand your reasoning for listing the most recent period too ... perhaps they can both be listed, separated by a line break, or something? Graham 87 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that keeping the entries more stable is desirable, but I don't see this issue as causing more stability problems than an inactive editor becoming active again, so that the table is out of date for a while. Personally I would be willing to sacrifice that for the advantage I think showing current inactivity gives. However, in line with your suggestion, I have tried a few ways of putting both periods into the table. The one which seems to me to work best is

(2) May 8, 2011 (2) present
 * (1) November 29, 2004
 * (1) March 20, 2009

That shows up as follows:

Any opinion? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only problem I have with it is a relatively minor one: my screen reader mistakenly tries to read it as a date (so it says "March first 20, 2009" instead of "1 March 20th, 2009"). This could be fixed by adding a "." after either the number or the close parenthesis; would that be alright? Graham 87 02:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the semantic relationship is between the "(1)" entries in the two adjacent columns, and between the "(2)" entries in the two adjacent columns, this table layout is confusing. It would it be cleaner (and also fix the screen-reader issue?) to have them as numbered lists rather than hardcoded text.


 * Which looks like crap because an HTML "list" is indented, but could probably be fixed with CSS. Or even better, since we have adjacent pairs rather than adjacent "whole lists", put them in separate cells:


 * That opens up the opportunity to have the "Desysopping" and "Notes" also be matched to specific ranges (a desysop due to unactivity, then one due to ArbCom that was successfully appealed, etc.). DMacks (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that last version is much better. That is much more like what I wanted to do, but I didn't know enough about tables to know how to do it. (I have, as far as I remember, never created a table, and on the rare occasions when I have edited them, I have just followed the formatting that's already there.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds good to me, too. Graham 87 01:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a quick'n'dirty table formatter that offloads all the "table" markup for the rowspan into a template:


 * Each user is entered as:
 * supporting up to 4 entries (could add more if needed). Still working on why the username column looks like crap. (fixed) DMacks (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * supporting up to 4 entries (could add more if needed). Still working on why the username column looks like crap. (fixed) DMacks (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Music Learning Theory, a blast from the past
Remember this? It's been recreated yet again, first as by a new editor (expanded hugely by an IP) and then via a cut-and-paste move by yet another new editor to. I've now moved it to Gordon Music Learning Theory, but obviously can't fix the cut-and-paste or delete the inappropriate redirect. Is it significantly different from its previous incarnations? It probably meets notability, but at the moment it's sourced almost entirely to Gordon. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind about the inappropriate redirect . It's now been started as an article on the general subject of music learning theory, as opposed to Gordon's. The only remaining problem is the cut-and-paste move. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do vaguely remember it. I have history-merged the article history at Audiation into the new article at Gordon Music Learning Theory. History merges can be a messy business, and I pretty well always manage to make one or two mistakes on the way, but I got it right in the end, I think. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I was also partly concerned that the re-created article might have been repeating the copyvio from the first one to which I don't have access. However, on closer examination, the current one seems OK in that respect, if rather one-sided and heavily dependent on Gordon's own writings. That aspect also appears to be on the way to improvement now, so all's well that ends well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The message I posted above was actually a very much shortened version of an earlier draft message, in which I went into some detail about issues of copyright, lack of neutral point of view, and notability. Having spent a significant amount of time composing the message, I decided that, since you had said "The only remaining problem is the cut-and-paste move", I might as well deal with only that problem. However, since you have now mentioned the other issues, I will give you a very brief summary of the conclusions I came to in that abandoned draft post. (1) I see no copyright problem in the new article. (2) Point of view is not as neutral as it might be, but it's nowhere near as bad as the original (deleted) version of Audiation, and what problems there are can be cleaned up. (3) The references leave much to be desired, most of them being either from Gordon himself or from two people who are co-authors with him of various works, and therefore not independent sources. (At least that was so when I posted above: I have not re-checked to see if there are new refs now.) (4) Despite the poor referencing, it looks as though the subject probably is notable, and if you or someone else is willing to put the work in, suitable references are probably available. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been in touch with one of the editors at Talk:Gordon Music Learning Theory who seems keen to improve the article and has access to the University of Rochester library. I've suggested some further sources to him/her and I'm pretty sure the article will gradually improve. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Coolrok TV Network
FYI but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Coolrok TV Network is up. I'm sure there's more to add. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's another universe of articles at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JTa Comics. Same user though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As you probably know, in early August I made a note of these pages, as preparation for taking them to MfD, but I then forgot about them. Thanks for doing it, and for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

About Page
This is why nobody uses Wikipedia because of stuff like this so I really don't care what you do to the JTa page just quit worrying it's a freaking page on a website that should've been down a long time ago so... Jaylen2020 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nobody uses Wikipedia"??? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Completely reworked page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Laucke
Hello.

Folowing your very helpful suggestions, I completely reworked the page on Michael Laucke.

I have been working hard to respect the Wikipedia guidelines, policies and protocols you were kind enough to send my way. I was wondering if you could look over my radically reduced page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Laucke. Am I on the right path? I originally wanted to go slowly; several friends have mentioned that they would like to contribute to my effort in constructing an interesting and informative page, but I got a bit carried away it seems.

Nevertheless, I am striving for neutrality, verifiable content and no new research. I think I advanced a lot toward backing off and letting passions calm down. In other words, to just stick to the facts without any promotion or hype.

I am still far from finished, and certain sections still stand out as possible offenders; they will probably be discarded.

If this is not your area of familiarity within Wikipedia, would you be so kind as to tell me how I might get someone to look at my endeavor.

--Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At a very quick glance, which is all I have time for now, it looks much better. Good work. I will try to check it more thoroughly when I get time. If I don't get back to you within two days, please remind me, as often I tend to put things aside to deal with later, and then forget them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, quick is better than no glance at all : ); it is much appreciated. I very much look forward to your kind feedback, when you get the time. I have been focusing as hard as I can on honoring Wikipedia's important principles of neutrality, verifiable content and no new research; hopefully I have made strides along this path. ...à bientôt. Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Following through on your suggestion, I was wondering if you could look over my draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Laucke . I believe I made more progress with it, and I am hoping to get feedback from you, to get an idea if it would be acceptable for submission at this stage. (I actually don't know how to submit, but I recall seeing a submit code somewhere that I place on top of the page; ...shouldn't be too hard to find it again.) Very much looking forward to learning your opinion,...and thank you very much in advance for your kind help. best regards, Natalie
 * --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ashwin Porwal
The subject or persons associated with the subject have been repeatedly recreating this article over the years, as you know. A search shows a multitude of socks, which I presume are stale, and it also shows article replications that strike me as copyright violations. I have tagged as such on Commons. (sigh) Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC) and sorry for screwing up the header in posting this.... Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information. I hadn't thought to do a search, but your search showed up one more account that I didn't know about, namely AshwinPorwal12, and one more version of the article that I didn't know about, Doctor Ashwin Porwal. The latest account (Teju joshi) claims to be a grateful patient, rather than Ashwin Porwal himself, and that may be true, or it may be that he has realised that COI editing is not looked on kindly, so it is better to pretend to be a third party. I am inclined to think it is likely to be a different person, as the versions of the article created by Teju joshi are distinctly different from the ones created by the earlier accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As for "screwing up the header", it's a kind of mistake which is all too easy to make: I have done things like that many times. Not a matter to worry about. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that. Gratitude takes many forms I imagine. However, given that this is an SPI, and not a regular Wikipedia user, it struck me as a rather odd way of showing gratitude. But I'm cynical. Honestly have no idea how I made that boo-boo, by the way. I usually just plaster posts beneath the ones above, but maybe my fingers strayed. Perhaps I need a doctor like this gent? Coretheapple (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that this is an SPI? Perhaps SPA? Although I think this may be a different person from the earlier accounts, that does not mean that I am convinced by the "grateful patient" line: it could be someone else who has been given the job of creating the article instead of the doctor doing it himself. That it is actually the same person seems on the face of it unlikely, mainly because the new versions of the article are much more clumsy and amateurish than the old ones, but that could be because the doctor has given up copying and pasting copyright-infringing content, and his own writing is not up to much. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I've looked again, and the old accounts knew how to do wiki markup for things like section headings, infoboxes, and so on, but the new account doesn't. I have decided it is virtually certainly a different person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could well be another member of the team. Yes, I meant SPA. Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, I believe that this photo at Commons, just proposed for deletion, might be identical to the one that you just deleted here. Coretheapple (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Similar, but far from identical. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I was working from memory. Coretheapple (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Request
Help me, I only joined Wikipedia today writing a jokey article on a pretend band, this was meant to be work for school. But I must have accidentally published it online when I should have put it in my sandbox. And all 6 hours of work I put into and now all of it has been deleted. So is there a way to like bring it back just so I could put it in my sandbox or even copy/paste it on to another website for documentation. Please don't make it a waste of time for me. Thank you. Sorry for any inconveniences I've caused and it won't happen again. JordanSaward talk @ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_Swing_(Band) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Atlantic International University Edit you recently made
Hello,

I noticed you made an edit to the Atlantic International University Article adding an unreuputable/unreliable citation stating that the University is "Bogus." Please note that this is considered slander. Fyi, some confuse being unaccredited as being bogus or a diploma mill. As you may know legally, Accreditation is a voluntary process in the United States. You have some Universities who are state approved and or accredited in other countries by recognized accrediting bodies. In the UK there are 7 bodies, one being Accreditation Service for International Colleges in which AIU has recently  been granted accreditation by ASIC. I'm requesting that you please remove the unreuputable article citation you recently added ASAP as this is considered Slander and non-neutral. In the Accreditation section it already states that AIU is not recognized by an agency in the United States. The information you've added is redundant and non-nuetral.

Thanks Number 1 Law Man (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Number 1 Law Man


 * I see that you have gone ahead and removed it yourself. I didn't say that it was bogus, I said that it is claimed by others that it is, which is verifiably true. Maybe the reliability of the source is not that good: I haven't made a thorough check, so I shall leave it out. You say it "is considered slander". Considered by whom? You? Certainly by someone without much knowledge of US law, or even of the English language. Perhaps you mean libel. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question
Thank you for giving me another chance and unblocking me a few days ago. To make sure I stay within the guidlines of wiki and dont cause unintended trouble in the future, I was wondering whether you could clarify the difference between an edit and a revert. If I were to make a change to an article I had never touched (for example, correcting Roger Federer's name in an article or changing an incorrect score of a set of his match for instance), would that count as 1 revert? Or would a revert be if I make a change to a previously unchanged article, someone undoes the edit and then I change the edit back to my own? Davefelmer (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A revert is any edit which undoes something another editor has done. That means that if you write something new in an article you had never touched before, different from anything anyone else has ever done there, then it is not a revert, but if someone else put something in an article you had never touched and you then come along and remove it, or change it back to how it was before that is a revert. To count as a revert, your edit does not have to change it back to something that you wrote.


 * Nobody is ever blocked for one or two doubtful edits that might or might not be reverts: if you never do a string of several edits that are clearly somewhere in the region of reverting other editors' edits, then the question of edit-warring won't arise, so you won't have to worry about exactly what counts as a revert, and which if any of your edits were technically reverts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I wrote the above message I forgot that you are currently on a 1RR, in which case it's not true that there can't be any problem if "you never do a string of several edits" that might be considered as edit-warring. My advice to you is that for the time being you follow the rule "if it even occurs to me that someone might think that this might be a revert, then I'll assume it is, to avoid any possible problem". If you keep completely above criticism in this way for a while, we should be able to drop the 1RR. I suggest that you come back to me in a month, and if I see no further problems in your editing history I will suggest to the blocking administrator that we drop the 1RR restriction. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep pinging you, but I have found that in an edit like the last one I made here, where I merely changed the existing signature, without adding a new one, a ping may not work, so I'm pinging you again to make sure you see the corrected version of my message, not just the earlier one with a mistake in it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Page
AthensCity33 (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The page looked like an article, but it had existed for nearly two and a half years without any sign whatever of there being any intention of making it into an article, and the editor in whose user space the page existed has never edited anything else, and has not edited at all for well over two years. The other editors who have edited it have never edited anything else. To all appearances it was use of Wikipedia as a free web host to hold a page which was never intended to be an article, and would never have been suitable as one, since nothing I can find suggests that its subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The page was about a person who uses a name which was also used in the user name of the creator of the page, suggesting that the page was self-promotion. Wikipedia is neither a free web host for pages unrelated to contributing to the encyclopaedia, nor a medium for posting self-promotional personal web pages. The page did not seem to have any justification for existing on Wikipedia, and I can see no good reason within Wikipedia's policies for restoring the page. Also, I think it would be better for any request for restoration to come from the editor in whose user space the page existed, namely N.O.E. (enN.O.E.itai). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!
Ok, so, the email has been activated and you should be able to send the source of the wiki page. Thank you, you don't know how much work you have saved me :). An idea would be for a partition of wikipedia to be creative hoaxes only, and "jokey" articles such as this one, a urban dictionary with more substance for instance. Just an idea. Thanks anyway! JordanSaward talk @ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_Swing_(Band)


 * Yes, the email didn't go through. Sorry for using so much of your time. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanSaward (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah again the email didn't send. Maybe we can sort out another form of contact? Sorry for all the convenience. JordanSaward (talk] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated comment added 21:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what is wrong with the email system. In the past, I have very occasionally known an email to fail, but always a second try has worked, and almost always the first time has worked. Just now, though, no emails seem to be going through. Anyway, I have restored the page, and put it into temporary storage at User:JamesBWatson/Sex Swing (Band) to give you a chance to save a copy of it off Wikipedia. I shall delete it again after a while. It will help if you let me know when you have done it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have successfully copy and pasted the content. Now you can delete it off your page. Thank you so much for doing this for me, and hopefully nothing like this happens again. I am happy to be using a website with admins as helpful as you.

JordanSaward (talk] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated comment added 12:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Post
Hi JamesBWatson,

I hope you can help. I recently posted a page on an NGO, Centre for Justice. I have discovered that it has been deleted by yourself citing speedy deletion criteria A7 - that the page doesn't make a "credible claim of significance or importance". I am not sure why. Could you help me with this and let me know what changes would be required in order for the page to be re-posted.

Many thanks,

LMJones81 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Kindly look over my revamped potential submission...
Hello. I trust you are well. I was hoping that you would have a brief moment to quickly look over my revamped potential submission. Kindly let me know your thoughts? Would it be ready to submit.... Thanks very much in advance, as always. (It is here) --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

My photos
Hello JamesBWatson, this morning I saw that my two photos about Pisa Airport have been delated. Why my photos have been delated also from Wikipedia Commons?? These two photos are my own work!! The  aviation   user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I had no part in the commons deletion: perhaps it would be better to consult the commons administrator who deleted the files. (The deletion nomination page is at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zurich00swiss.) However, I will make a few comments of my own, largely based on memory, as I can't see the deleted files. The pictures were high-quality professional-looking photographs, at least some of them clearly taken from above, apparently using equipment likely to be beyond the reach of any amateur. I also remember that one or more of them were found to be copies of pictures published elsewhere. One of the photographs had a copyright notice attached to it, and that copyright notice seemed to be inconsistent with your claim that it was your own work. You appear to now be claiming that two of the four deleted photographs were your own work; previously, if I remember correctly, you claimed that they all were. If in fact some were your own work and some weren't, then by making false claims about some of them you make it likely that you will not be believed about the others. In English we call that "crying wolf": see The boy who cried wolf. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No... in the Air Berlin's photo I put "This file is not my own work" and I did the right thing... in the Air New Zealand's photo I made a mistake and I put that "This file is my own work" but how I have already said the photo wasn't my work and I apologized... the other two photos about Pisa Airport are my own work and I don't think the reason of the deletions, I will ask to the administrator of Wikipedia Commons. Thanks.-- The  aviation   user . Zurich00swiss (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi JamesBWatson, I'm writing to help my friend Zurich00swiss with this issue. I know exactly that two of these pictures has been taken by Airline's websites and uploaded on commons because the user didn't know how to post it, and I agree with you that they had to be deleted. But the other two photos has been taken in Pisa Airport and clearly with a smartphone (the quality is not really high). And I was with Zurich00swiss when he took the etihad regional-picture. I'm not here to defend him (I've learnt with my block), but just to say the "truth". Wjkxy (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I was just going on what I remembered of the photographs, which I have not looked at for several weeks. I remember what a couple of them were like, but not all of them. In any case, there's nothing I can do about it that you can't do yourself, as on commons I am just an ordinary user, not an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2015_September_25
I understand your close but I have never seen an explanation about how movie posters, book jackets, and album covers meet " "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are clearly right: perhaps the policy should be changed to more accurately reflect usual practice. Possibly the mismatch between the written policy and the reality of what is usual practice contributed to making other administrators reluctant to close the discussion, which is why it was left open so long, which was why I closed it. (I don't make a regular practice of closing deletion discussions, and do so only if some particular reason calls one to my attention: this time, I happened to notice a couple of discussions that had been left well beyond the standard week, and decided to deal with them.) It seemed to me that the "delete" arguments were clearer and more coherent than the "keeps", and looking at it in more detail I also saw that the "deletes" were more in line with the policy, as written. Nevertheless, it was not an immediately obvious close, which is why I took the trouble to explain my reasoning at some length. For what it's worth, I personally have no objection whatever to the use of the file, but looking at the reasons presented in the discussion, not at my own opinion, it seemed to me clear that the "deletes" gave reasons more in line with policy than the "keeps" The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Lars Garpe-Hallø
I do not understand your reasons?

"The article Lars Garpe-Hallø has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person," Yes, I have made a page about a real person, I do know that.

"did not indicate how or why the subject is notable" The part I did not come to yet, other than he has released three albums that have been praised by music critics and he has appeared in theater, musical theater, film and TV series. it was the text I wrote,

"Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article" I'm not sure I want to spend a lot of time writing things over and over again just because you are not all knowing.

Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeleptor (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)




 * 1) The article told us that he has played in several bands, has had "some small film roles", has "worked as a cameraman and editor", has posted videos on Youtube, created a web site for "self promotion" of bands, and so on. None of the achievements listed is the sort of thing to suggest that he is significant enough to justify having an encyclopaedia article about him. It may be that there is evidence out there somewhere that shows he is more significant than was established in what you wrote: if so, then since presumably you know far more about him than I do, you are more capable then I am of providing such evidence: of course I am not "all knowing".
 * 2) Because of your post questioning the deletion, I looked further for more information about Lars Garpe-Hallø, and I discovered that the text of the article was a straight copy of a page at IMDb, meaning that it was an infringement of copyright. That is a far more important reason for deletion than lack of evidence of significance, as posting the article was not just against Wikipedia guidelines, but against the law, so I shall amend the deletion log to record the copyright problem. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Clemens Nathan Research Centre
Hi there. I requested that the page be undeleted, to therefore give time to update the entries and deal with some of the objections. Am working at doing this and making the external references more wide-ranging. What else would you suggest? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajbucket (talk • contribs) 06:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have looked back at the article, and decided for the moment to withdraw the deletion nomination. This is because it seems to me likely that the organisation does satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, even though the article does not establish that fact. Some time when I have more time maybe I will give more detailed information about what I think is lacking. However, to me a more serious fault is the fact that the article is unambiguously promotional. It reads not like a neutral account by an impartial observer, but rather like a an attempt by someone working on behalf of the organisation to persuade readers that the organisation is a good thing. That is inconsistent with the whole purpose of Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Michelle Thomson
Michelle Thomson changes were made because the information is wrong and prejudicial to the ongoing police investigation.

Please contact me privately so that I can explain this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babywillow (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not give out my private email address on public web sites such as Wikipedia, and I strongly recommend to you not posting your email address here either. Also, I am not willing to post from my personal email account to editors on Wikipedia: I normally use a specific email account that I access only through Wikipedia's email system, which does not reveal my IP address to the recipient. I see that you have enabled email on your Wikipedia account, so you should be able to contact me by clicking the "Email this user" link at the left hand side of this page. I say "should be able", because unfortunately recently there has been some problem with Wikipedia's email system, and at least some emails have recently failed to be delivered. However, please try to contact me via Wikipedia's email system, and please post here telling me you have done so. If for any reason I don't get the email, I will contact you by another method, but I would prefer to try Wikipedia email first. Assuming I do eventually get an email from you, I will read it and give serious consideration to whatever you have to say. I also undertake to keep any email confidential, and will not reveal its contents to other Wikipedia editors unless you give me permission to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi
So is what User:Ian.thomson told me true? Is it fine to return under a new name and cause no one fuss? Only asking because ive realised that's what I should have done with Bandito, I figured it was kind of wrong not to tell anyone I was on but I agree with the clean start policy, as Ian pointed out--RabonaFaker (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, what Ian.thomson told you is totally against Wikipedia policy. As pointed out to you on the page where he made that suggestion, "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." That seems to me perfectly clear and unambiguous. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OP's behavior is not what I was encouraging. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Question
Hi, this is Dave Felmer, you helped me with my unblocking request a little while ago. Since then I've been watching my step in terms of making sure I dont violate the 1RR rule and always discussing any attempted changes anywhere on the talk pages. However, I've recently come across a dodgy dispute on a talk page that I dont feel I can ignore where an editor is insistent on structuring an article literally unlike any other of its kind on wikipedia (from what I believe to be personal allegiance but cant prove so its a moot point) and despite my attempts to find a common ground and point out the need for article consistency across wikipedia, he refuses to budge on what I find to be a pretty weak stance of wanting a complete anomoly in the structuring of a bio. This is compounded by his/her hypocrisy of editing other bios of this nature and not making similar adjustments as he/she has made and is maintaining on the one in question. I was hoping youd be able to tell me where I could go to put this up for general debate (I am new to wikipedia so dont know about any pages of this type but have heard they exist). Any help would be greatly appreciated, and again, thanks for the help with the unblocking. Davefelmer (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume you are referring to your disagreement with Qed237 about the article Alex Ferguson. I can offer you a couple of suggestions. Have a look at Third opinion, and consider using that. If you do so, you will be asking for another editor to come along to offer a third opinion, and perhaps break the deadlock. I have never used it myself, so I'm afraid I don't know whether it is usual to get a third opinion pretty promptly, or whether there is a likelihood of having to wait for quite a while. Since it's a matter of waiting for someone to volunteer, it may well be highly variable. Alternatively, you could consider consulting other editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. I have no experience of discussions there, so I have no idea how helpful it is likely to be, but it may be worth trying. One other point, though: if you do seek one or more other editors' opinions to settle the dispute, by whatever method, when you have done so, be prepared to accept consensus, whether you personally agree with it or not: don't, for example, ask for a third opinion, find that it isn't the one you wanted, ask at the WikiProject, find you don't get the answer you wanted, take it to somewhere else ... (Yes, a few stubborn editors really do that sort of thing. I'm not suggesting that I think you would do it, but just warning you in case you may be tempted. Decide on one way of getting an impartial settlement, and be prepared to accept the outcome, whether you agree with it or not.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interests -DRL
There is no conflict of interests between me an posting the article on the Demand Readiness Level. You already have the permission of the author for me to post this article, I don't really see what is the issue for which you are not enabling me to publish it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADugan (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) You have stated that you created the article "on behalf of the author of the concept", so there certainly is a conflict of interest.
 * No, I don't have "the permission of the author". I am not sure why you think I have.
 * 1) When a publication has a notice saying "© - Florin Paun, 2011 (Ce document et l'information contenue sont la propriété de Florin Paun. Toute reproduction est interdite sans l'accord de l'auteur" it seems unlikely that the copyright holder is willing to license the content for free re-use by anyone, either unaltered or edited and changed in any way whatever, for any purpose, subject only to an attribution to Wikipedia: that is what you are declaring when you post it to Wikipedia. In the unlikely event that the copyright holder has changed his mind and decided to re-publish the text under such free licensing terms, we need proof that he has done so. We cannot take the unsubstantiated word of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account and claims to have such permission, because unfortunately we very frequently get people falsely claiming to have copyright permission when they don't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a mail sent by the author granting permission to use the info at the address indicated: permissions-en@wikimedia.org" <permissions-en@wikimedia.org -- please check it! having his permission, I really don't see why the article can not be published. It is a concept that is of great interest to people from the domain!!

the article is written in neutral manner and it only gives the definistion of the concept and sources where readers can find out more. There is no promotion and definetly no conflict whatsoever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADugan (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the Wikimedia Foundation email address that you mention. You have stated that in creating an article you were acting on behalf of the creator of the concept that article was about, and you have been given a link to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline,. If you can still deny that you have a conflict of interest in the sense described in that guideline, it is difficult to know what else to say. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: U5: Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host)
Did you actually read the article???? Why doesn't wikipedia just change their policies and instead of saying writing an article about yourself is highly discouraged and just simply say it is banned???

Three questions for you:

1) Am I notable? 2) Were the sources verifiable and reputable? 3) Was the article written in a neutral way?

This was neither advertising not hosting! You wikiped*ots are a f*cking joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klausenrique (talk • contribs) 07:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns. I will say a few things which I hope may help you to better understand the reasons for my actions.


 * 1) "This was neither advertising not hosting." - The page which I deleted read as though it was intended to show how important and significant you are. It contained stuff about how you had received "worldwide attention", and so on. Even if such statements as that are objectively true, the way that it was phrased was not neutral: it was written as though intended to give a good impression of you. If you sincerely did not see it that way, then that is a very good example of why Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy discourages editing about oneself: even if one genuinely believes one is being objective and neutral, it can be very difficult to stand back and see how one's writing about oneself will look from the detached perspective of an independent observer.
 * 2) "Why doesn't wikipedia just change their policies and instead of saying writing an article about yourself is highly discouraged and just simply say it is banned?" - I have had no part in the discussions which have led to the current form of the relevant guideline, but I think I am aware of the kinds of considerations that have affected it. One important fact is that every time issues of this kind are discussed, there is considerable disagreement among editors about how far conflict of interest editing is to be discouraged. There are, of course, some, such as yourself, who think that who wrote an article should not be a consideration at all, while there are others who would support the extreme policy that you suggest, of banning conflict of interest editing entirely; there is never consensus to go to either of those extremes. Another point is that occasionally we do get an editor who can produce an article about himself or herself in a balanced and neutral way, but in the vast majority of cases such editors, whether intentionally or not, produce something which reads to independent, uninvolved, observers as promotional: thus discouraging, because almost always the results will be unacceptable, but not a ban, because that would result in loss of a small number of good articles.
 * 3) "Did you actually read the article?" Yes.
 * 4) "You wikiped*ots are a f*cking joke." I would suggest that you may find it helpful to think carefully about whether or not that was the best way to express your frustration. You are dealing with people who are making good-faith attempts to maintain the standards laid down in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Of course, individual editors sometimes disagree with decisions made by other editors, but it is more helpful in such cases to express one's disagreement rationally and civilly, rather than making personal attacks. the effect of such attacks is, unfortunately, likely to be to shift attention onto your behaviour and attitude, and away from any consideration of any merit which the opinions you express may have. Even if you personally think that expressing yourself in that sort of way is helpful and constructive, consensus among most Wikipedia editors is that it isn't, so editors who persist in making attacks may be blocked from editing.

I don't expect that you will agree with everything I have written, but perhaps it will at least help you to realise that some of the decisions which you have seen as irrational are based on intelligent and rational considerations, albeit considerations you don't agree with. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask me again. Naturally, I do not promise to answer any and every question anyone can ask me, but I do promise to at least give careful consideration to any civil request for information, and I normally try to answer such requests if I think I have anything useful to say. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for giving me a detailed reply regarding your acctions. It is very appreciated, especially since you are the first person I encounter in Wikipedia who has actually shown that they care. I am sorry I used the phrase "You wikiped*ots are a f*cking joke." towards you.

Let me try to address the points that you mention one by one, and emphasize some points that you did not address.

I will start with a point you did not address: Notability. Should there be an entry in Wikipedia about Klaus Enrique? I don't know you, but I think that is the most important question. Is it enough that National Geographic wrote about me? And Wired, and Photo District News, and Popular Photography, and Arte Fotográfico, and Photo Magazine. Now, I don't know how much you know about photography, but these are some pretty big names in the world of photography (all of these sources have their own entries in Wikipedia), and the articles are not small mentions in some general article. These are articles entirely written about me. When Britain's National Portrait Gallery considered my work for what may be one of the most important prizes in portrait photography, some people did take notice. Does it merit the use of the word "worldwide". Maybe, maybe not. I am clearly not here arguing about one word. If the answer to the Notability question is a No, I should not be in Wikipedia, then the discussion is over. But if the answer is a Yes, there should be an entry on Klaus Enrique, then should an article be deleted because it has the word "worldwide" in it?

Now to the point of the article not being neutral. It is a bit of a catch 22, no? I have to show that I am worth including in Wikipedia, no? "The History of Still Life in Ten Masterpieces" lists one of my pieces alongside the works of Andy Warhol, Paul Cézanne, and Francisco Goya (again, I don't know what your background is, but these are some really big names in the Art world) This was published by the Alimentarium Museum in Vevey Switzerland. I honestly tried to remove all words that were not neutral, while still showing that I am notable. Again, if I am not notable, then by all means let's remove the entry, but if I am and the only problem is that I used that word, should the article not be changed/improved instead? I am totally happy to include negative reviews of my work, however, these have never been written on reputable sources like "National Geographic". They are more like blogs... Now, I hope that you will consider the following: generally when a journal writes an article about an artist, it is because someone in that publication thinks the art is "great", positive, interesting... All of those are not balanced. Wired wrote "Darth Vader Mask Made of Bugs Is Terrifying and Gorgeous". They were not going to add "... but some think it is also tacky" So there is an inherent bias in a lot of these articles...

Which brings me to a third point. You originally deleted my post for two reasons: Unambiguous advertising and Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. Is there a difference between an article not being 100% balanced and "Unambiguous advertising"? Because to me it sounds like there is... And where does the "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host" even come from? It seems to me that instead of actually addressing the issues like you just did, and which I appreciate, most people look up some reason why this must be "Speedily Deleted". First it was Copyright. One person did not like the fact that Klaus Enrique wrote an article about Klaus Enrique, and so said that Klaus Enrique was infringing the copyright of Klaus Enrique. Now you say I am blatantly uploading data to Wikipedia as a web host. I honestly believe that you yourself don't think that is the case, but since it is one of the codes that justifies your deletion, then let's use it even if it is a blatant misuse of Wikipedia policies...

Finally, I would like you to consider the following. Do you think people break Wikipedia rules and pay people to pose as neutral writers and write articles that they were paid to write/post? You say that there is this ongoing debate about allowing people to write their own articles. I would be lying if I said that I have been waiting 8 years for "some one" to write an article in Wikipedia about me. Yes, it would be nice to have a Wikipedia article, I am not going to deny that. The first term associated with a Google search after "Klaus Enrique" is "Wikipedia". Yes, I thought at this point it would make sense to have an entry in Wikipedia. But unlike all the people that I know who got their articles in Wikipedia by paying somebody to pretend to be an uninterested, unbiased writer, I chose to be upfront about my conflicts of interest. It is admirable that you want to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, but the unintended consequences of your actions is that exactly what you are trying to prevent happens more often and Wikipedia has less control over it.

Now, I want to clarify, I will never take that route. I do believe in making the world a better place - most real artists do, and that is why I was open and honest about who I am. Honestly, I think the right course of action for you would have been to improve the article so that it would be Neutral. Not to delete it. And that only reinforces the perception that people have that Wikipedia's policing has to be dealt with through deception.

Honestly, honestly, honestly, my entry in Wikipedia is not that important... at all. Mainstream Art text books now talk about my work (Robert Hirsch, Exploring Color Photography, 6th Edition, 2015 is one example). To my career, that is what is important. The real sad thing here is that Wikipedia is full of self-promoting articles (check out User:Hoary here in Wikipedia), precisely because of the unintended consequences of Wikipedia's own policies and machinery.

I would have liked to have had a Neutral, informative and enlightening entry about my work. Let's wait another 8 years to see if that happens. And if and when that happens, let's hope that it is of a higher quality than it would have been had you not deleted it.

Be good JamesBWatson. PS Please do check out my art... It is not that bad! ;) Klausenrique (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Help
Improve Gowhar Naz Deleting is easy to put but adding apt articles to Wikipedia is a great task. I added Gowhar Naz for their are various reasonable reasons. He is not uncommon is the big one. Help & get me out of the Article Joe bee  2:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Gowher Naz (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Help
Improve Gowhar Naz. Deleting is easy to put but adding apt articles to Wikipedia is a great task. I added Gowhar Naz for their are various reasonable reasons. He is not uncommon is the big one. Help & get it through. Some Joe bee is disturbing its health. Kindly heal the problem.
 * The problem is that the subject of the article does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See the general notability guideline and the specific guideline on notability of people. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Smoore95GAGA
Hi James, could you please take a look at the bottom of the talk page. I'm not sure whether I'm just being gullible or it's worth another chance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Worth another chance? Yes, but I thought letting the block expire after a week was doing that. I am a believer in giving editors another chance. (I once checked some statistics, and found that my ratio of unblocks to blocks is significantly higher than the average for all administrators.) However, when an editor has already been given another chance twice, and each time has just returned to the same thing problematic editing, I find that very often the only thing which stands any reasonable chance of getting the message across is for the editor to experience a longer block. I am therefore not keen on the idea of unblocking. Having said all that, it is just about possible that realising that a longer block was seriously likely, together with the conversation you had with the editor, may have led him or her to genuinely change his or her attitude. With some considerable doubts, I am therefore going to accede to your pleading, and unblock, but with a clear message that any more edit-warring is likely to result in a much longer block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:HyperGaruda
Hi. I am here to complain about User:HyperGaruda. I think he/she is a sock puppet of User:North Atlanticist Usonian. Both show great affection for Nondenominational Muslims as evident for there edit histories. I am not against this but they are ruining the incredible diversity of Wikipedia articles related to Islam by giving to much focus to Non-denomenational Muslims with only one source i.e., pew research centre. I think a sock puppet investigation against them will be a better option! I hope u will help. Septate (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Be my guest, I guarantee you that we're not the same, with me being from the Netherlands and NAU most likely from the Anglophone world, considering our global contributions... The only things I've ever done with regards to Non-denominational Muslims, is to clear up some misconcenptions after a dispute on Template talk:Islam and Template talk:Islam. The latter thread will also illustrate my point in using the pew study. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But your edits on Nondenominational Muslims (a page created by User:North Atlanticist Usonian) and other 'Islam by country' articles to promote Nondenominational Muslim ideology is clearly absurd. I am not against the fact that Nondenominational Muslims exist but you and the other user are promoting a view that seems to show as if Nondenominational Muslims are Islam's third largest group! Along with a third anonymous IP user, your edits range from Islam in Kazakhstan to Islam itself (where shockingly an entire section was dedicated to fictional 'Nondenominational Muslim' group until I merged it yesterday). It hurts me because u three people are playing with Wikipedia's credibility! Pew research centre does not necessarily show that Nondenominational Muslims are group of their own instead it claims that this group simply includes those Muslims who claim themselves to be 'Muslims'. By the way if u are not a sock puppet then u should not be afraid of investigation! Thanks. Septate (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sceptical about User:Code16. In fact he/she is the main person behind promoting Non-denomenational Muslim section on Islam. He/She should also be included in sock puppet investigation! Septate (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * lol, yes, please include me in the sock-puppet investigation. This is gonna be funny. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 18:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have spent some time looking both at the archived sockpuppet investigations for North Atlanticist Usonian, and at the editing history of that account and of its known sockpuppets. I have then looked at the editing histories of HyperGaruda and Code16. The editing similarities are few, while the differences are many. There are differences in choice of editing topics, in opinions expressed, in use of edit summaries, in ways of dealing with other editors, and so on and so on. Perhaps the most striking differences are in use of English: North Atlanticist Usonian and known sockpuppets had a low level of competence in English, while the other two accounts mentioned are used by people with much more competence. I do not think that there is any basis at all for thinking that either HyperGaruda or Code16 is the same person as North Atlanticist Usonian, nor that those two are the same person. Septate, are you sure that you are not making the very common mistake of jumping to the conclusion that there is sockpuppetry just because you see different people all expressing similar views that you disagree with? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks JamesBWatson for giving attention! We are currently having discussion about the topic on the relevant talk page. And it seems to me as if I was too quick in jumping to the conclusion that User:Code16 and User:HyperGaruda are sockpuppets, for which I am really sorry! Septate (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a new wiki-editor and see an error--Please Verify this Information. I will Inform you in Subject..Thank You.
.My name is Conrad L Burt. I am a Veteran of the Cold War, Panama, and a Iraq War. As I have served my Country with the 2/2 Armored Calvary in Germany, the 7th Infantry Division (L) in Panama, and with the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq. I was trying my best to only ADJUST the HEADING to ADD to the ---COLD WAR and PANAMA..as those are Considered 2 different WARS. The Government itself has not officially AWARDED MILITARY and or EX-MILITARY Medals for this time period. But has ISSUED COMBAT PATCHES and COMBAT INFANTRY BADGES also known as CIB to the Infantry that were deployed to Panama. And thus would be Considered a WAR, therefore separate from the COLD WAR- in which was primarily dealing with the Communism of the EASTERN BLOC. (as I DID SERVE THERE in GERMANY).

Please Research this further more, as I am a HONORABLE DISCHARGED and DISABLED VETERAN and am only trying to better the knowledge for the future of others. Thank You Sir...                                  Conrad L. Burt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConradLBurt (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I have looked back at your editing, and I can see what you were trying to do. It looked like either vandalism or test-editing, but now I realise that you were trying to make a constructive change, but got confused about how to use wiki-markup. That is not surprising: I found it very confusing myself when I first started editing, but it becomes very straightforward once you have got used to it. It seems that what you were trying to do was replace the subheading title "Cold War" with "Cold War and Panama". Whether that is a helpful change to make I don't know, but the problem was that in the course of making that change you also put Bold text in front of a heading, and you also added a new section heading which just said "Heading text". Not only is Bold text wording which is not wanted in the article, but putting it in front of a heading, before the symbol ===, prevents the heading from being formatted properly. My guess is that you may have clicked on the link for bold text at the top of the editing area, or maybe you copied it from some page giving information how to edit. However, that is just an example, showing that putting  before and after text makes that text show up in bold, like this': it is intended that you replace the words "bold text" with the words which you want to show up in bold, not that you leave those words in the article. Also, in a heading, it is not necessary to use that method of making the text bold, as it automatically done by the === that comes before the heading. In the same way, ===Heading text=== is meant to show how to format a heading, and you are expected to replace the words "Heading text" with whatever heading you want, so for example you could write ===Cold War and Panama===. However, in this case there is already a heading, with the === marks in place, so all you have to do is add the words "and Panama" after "Cold War". I could have done it myself in about a hundredth of the time it has taken to write this explanation, but I thought it might be more helpful to you to try to explain it and then let you do it yourself, as then you will understand better if you want to do any more editing. Sorry that this explanation is so long: there is a danger that may make the whole thing seem more complicated than it really is, but basically, it's very straightforward: click on the "edit" button, find where it says "===Cold War===", add the words "and Panama", and click on "Save page". The editor who uses the pseudonym'' "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

JIA Sports Academy
Please sir, the content I use is from my own website. What can I do to get the deleting page back or is there any anything I can do from getting my page deleted. Hoping to hear from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JiasaGH (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) No matter where the content comes from, a page full of language such as "We nurture the exceptional into future role models" is unambiguous advertising, which is not permitted by Wikipedia policy.
 * 2) When you post anything to Wikipedia, you are declaring that you are licensing it for free re-use by anyone in the world, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, for any purpose, either commercial or otherwise, subject only to the person re-using it saying that they got it from Wikipedia. Are you really sure you are willing to license it as freely as that? If you are, then the notice "Copyright © 2012 - 2015 JIA SPORTS ACADEMY. All rights reserved" on your web site is misleading.
 * 3) We can't take the word of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account that they own copyright, because unfortunately very often people falsely claim to do so. I could give you a link to information about how to release content for use on Wikipedia, but doing so would be a waste of your time, as it would just be deleted again for the reason I gave in point 1 above.
 * 4) Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest discourage anyone from creating an article about a subject in which they have a close personal involvement, such as a business or other organisation they work for. People doing so very often find it difficult or even impossible to write from the detached and neutral point of view that is required for a Wikipedia article. You should certainly read the conflict of interest guideline if you are considering rewriting the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The Last of the Mohicans film
User CorbieVreccan is claiming that Alice's death is an echo of the Princess Winona legend. Isn't this what you would call "original research" since the film itself makes attempt to state this and user CorbieVreccan doesn't credit any source for this at all.68.75.29.32 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I would have posted a message to CorbieVreccan warning her about it, but she now seems to have backed off, so unless the problem starts up again, we may as well leave it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-denominational Muslim
I want to inform u that recently a new User:Kleinebeesjes has appeared on Non-denominational Muslim when discussion in favour of deleting the article is at its peak. I am smelling a rat here because the user has joined Wikipedia only a month ago but his/her editing behaviour shows as if he/she is a well established user. The sources that the user is providing to make the article look well 'Referenced and Sourced' are all book sources which I can't verify. I need your help because I am tired of all of this. Plz have a look. Thanks! Septate (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the account does not look like a new editor, and I have asked on the account's talk page if the editor has edited before. It is true that some of the sources the editor has added are books, but not all of them. I have picked just two of the online sources added in this sequence of edits, and both are verifiable online. The two I checked are this one and this one. Sometimes a new account which does not seem to be a new editor indicates sockpuppetry, but not always. I myself edited anonymously for a while before I created an account, and I very probably would have done so for much longer had I not once tried to edit from the local library and found the IP address was blocked; if so, by the time I eventually created an account I might well have looked very much as though I was not a new editor. Turning up at an article just as an AfD is getting heated is certainly something that sockpuppets do, especially brand new single-purpose accounts, but it is also something that perfectly good-faith editors do: they see the AfD notice on the top of the article and follow it up, and this account, while fairly new, is neither newly created during the AfD nor a single-purpose account. My conclusion is that I do see some aspects of this account's behaviour which is sometimes associated with deceptive editors, so I understand why you have doubts, but I don't see anything which could reasonably be regarded as definite evidence of anything unacceptable. It will be interesting to see whether there is any answer to my question about previous editing, but other than asking that I don't see anything else that can be done at present. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi JamesBWatson,

Thank you for the information you sent about COI in response to the question I posted to CaroleHensen. This is exactly what I needed to know. I am in the process of reviewing the information. Overall, I am basically picking up where COSAsb! stopped several months ago, but unfortunately did not have the opportunity to communicate with them to understand how things were left, planned next steps, etc. Do you recommend that I newly seek out adoption by an editor (as they did on their [|user page]) or is it permissible to re-connect with CaroleHensen? I appreciate any direction you can provide as I am new to Wikipedia.

Thank you, K.--K.Emanuele (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Before I say anything else, "K", I would like to suggest that when you post to another editor's talk page about an issue which has been discussed in the past, you give enough context to help them know what you are referring to. It is very common for a new editor, who has made only a few edits, and those all on one topic, to assume that another editor will instantly remember what is being referred to. However, an editor who has long been active on numerous topics will not necessarily remember everything. Since I posted the message you referred to, eight days ago, I have made 298 edits, and I did not immediately have any memory whatever of the matter, so it took me a little while to find that you were referring to an edit on your talk page, after first looking at CaroleHensen's talk page, as that was where you had posted first. As for CaroleHensen, it is not just eight days, but eight months since she was involved in this, and since she last posted in relation to it, she has made 1920 edits, so it is entirely possible she didn't immediately know what you were referring to in your message to her talk page. I see that the previous discussion is archived at User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 8, under the heading "Requesting user adoption", and also copied to Talk:Committee on Sustainability Assessment.


 * Now, to answer your question, I would certainly encourage you to get help from CaroleHensen if she is willing to give it, as I think she was pretty good at offering support for COSAsb. She did not respond to your message on her talk page, which may mean that she thinks she has done all she is willing to do about this, but on the other hand it may have been for other reasons, such as that she was busy at the time and your message got forgotten, or some other reason. Carole, if you read this, perhaps you can let K.Emanuele know either that you are willing to help, or that you aren't, so that he or she knows whether to start looking elsewhere for help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Help
Please do something about User:Code16. I am tired of reporting this user. He/She is not compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines. Here he/she claims that 'Qur'an is much more scientific' which is ridiculous (What else u need to know that he/she is not biased???). I am also from a Muslim background but I can't accept this on Wikipedia! Here he almost ruined the article about Sunni Islam but adding irrelevant information which serves 'Nondenominational' Muslim claims. What is the purpose behind this irrelevant & ridiculous info in History section and unnecessay citation tags? You can also have a look at his/her blunders and biased editing by having a look at his/her edit history. Again I am asking u to take action because I don't have time to keep looking at his/her edits which are damaging Wikipedia's credibility and ruining articles related to Islam. Septate (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is a content dispute (not an administrative issue) on a subject on which I have far too little knowledge to be able to contribute. You may possibly find Dispute resolution helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Septate You removed reliably SOURCED information that I added to the Sunni article, and want to include original research against NPOV (which I removed.) You need to explain your actions, which are clearly against NPOV on the Sunni article's talk page. I advice you to avoid making this into an edit war. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 12:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @JamesBWatson, sir, it appears that user Septate is in breech of 3RR, he made 3 edits to undo my edits today (October 22) . His actions were reverted by another user, but I just want to point out the possible breech of 3RR in any case, for the record. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 12:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @ User:Code16! Do uu really think that content was relevant to History section??? You can't just write anything by saying that it is sourced. It hurts me not because it is irrelevant to the article but because it is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia! What would a reader think when he/she finds out that he/she is not reading the history of Sunni Islam but instead Wikipedia is teaching him/her that 'one should not think that early Muslims followed Sunni Islam!'

I would prefer that you open this case of course Yes that a good idea!!! So that a random user appears and makes me overwhelmed with his/her edits just as what happened on Non-denominational Muslim!

You should not be worried because if JamesBWatson doesn't take notice despite convincing evidence of bias, I will no longer disturb u because who cares?

But you should also not become overconfident because I can refute your whole ' sourced claims' by stating only one hadith which is believed to be true by all Muslims except quranists. The hadith (saying of prophet of Islam) states that 'there will be 73 denominations of Islam and only one will go to heaven'. (This is the same hadith that ruined by faith in Islam because I realised that there was only 1.39% chance for me to go to heaven'!) This hadith has 2 implications no#1 Islam supports denominations and no#2 there is no such term as 'Nondenominational' in Islam and early Muslims also belonged to a particular denomination.

In end I just request u that plz don't use Wikipedia for promoting unity among Muslims u can have your own site for this purpose and other thing I want to say is that if you don't understand this then keep doing what u are doing. I will neither disturb u nor admin on this topic because I don't care anymore! Septate (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You should have noticed by now that another neutral editor already confirmed that the information i added in the history section was indeed relevant and properly sourced. So its actually your own bias you should consider. As for the rest of your speech this is not the place for it. You should have engaged me on my talk page if you want to discuss the matter objectively, in a calm and rational manner. I am open to it and can fully refute your above reasoning. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 13:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Help - Air Charter Travel
The Air Charter Travel page was recently deleted, are you able to restore this to its original version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinH4 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was essentially an advertisement, and as such unsuitable for Wikipedia. Also, I see no evidence that the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if it doesn't then any article on the subject would be likely to be deleted, no matter how it may be written. Can you tell me why you are interested in the article? Do you have a connection to the company or to Hookson? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The original article had been on Wikipedia for over three years, could you please explain why this version cannot be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinH4 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have said, the article was an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, and editing for the purpose of advertising, promotion, marketing or publicising anything is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Various editors had from time to time attempted to reduce the extent to which the article read as promotion, but it was just edited back to being blatantly promotional. Recently, an editor known as Andyjsmith reverted some of the most blatant spam content of the article, but the spammer who had put it there simply restored it, so Andyjsmith nominated the article for deletion. In my capacity as the administrator assessing the deletion nomination I reviewed not only the current state of the article, but also its full history. It was clear that the article existed for the sole purpose of using Wikipedia for marketing purposes, written and maintained on behalf of the company it was about as an advertisement for that company, which is against Wikipedia policy. There was also no evidence that the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so that it is doubtful whether any article about it would be suitable, no matter how it was written. Yes, the article had been there for several years, rarely edited, and probably seen by few editors. Perhaps it might have survived longer, largely unnoticed, if it had not recently been subjected to a particularly crude and blatant batch of spamming, but now that doing so has called attention to the article, it is not going to remain unnoticed any more. I also have very good reason to believe that at least one editor who has edited the article has been acting in breach of Wikipedia's terms of use, but unfortunately Wikipedia's policy on editors' right to confidentiality does not allow me to say why. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)