User talk:JBW/Archive 68

Edit requests on Choujinki Metalder from IP/new
Hi JamesBWatson, I see that you protected Choujinki Metalder for block evasion earlier this month. Since your protection, I processed some edit requests made directly at my talk page from IPs and new users (at least 1, 2, 3, 4), who I believe all to be the same person who currently looks to be acting with good intentions and making corrections. The edit you reverted appears to have been a correction of possible vandalism, given the page history, which I have since updated back to a longer-standing text. (e.g. July instead of June, etc)

I reach out because this editor has requested re-adding a between-episodes-17-18 claim which appears to be backed by sources. What is your assessment of this, despite socking? Again, to me, it appears legitimate. (The blocked accounts: 1, 2, 3) Thanks, — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 21:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's always some tension between two considerations in situations like this, and there is no absolutely right answer, but I'll give you some of my thoughts. On the one hand, there is the thought "if the edit is useful, denying it just because of the history of the editor is unhelpful", but on the other hand there is the thought "as long as an editor who has been blocked because of disruptive editing finds that he or she can get away with ignoring the block, he or she will never give up, and even if on this occasion the edits seem OK, accepting them may in the long run do more harm than good, as it just encourages the editor, who is likely to do more disruptive editing on other occasions". There is no perfect answer. I tend more towards the second of those views than some other editors, perhaps a very large proportion of my experience has been dealing with disruptive persistent vandals and trolls, which gives me a different perception than editors who have mainly just peacefully written article content, only occasionally coming across disruptive editors, and therefore not knowing how very troublesome some persistent block-evaders can be. Even I, however, don't revert edits which I can see are themselves reverts of vandalism. The edit that I reverted and that you draw my attention to above is not obviously vandalism to me, but it may obviously vandalism to you if you know more about the subject than I do, in which case obviously you should put it right.
 * Any legitimate editor who is blocked can request an unblock. Such unblock requests are sometimes declined when I think it would have made sense to have given the editor another chance, but despite that in my experience far more than 90% of editors who keep evading blocks by switching IP addresses, creating new accounts, and so on, do not have any good reason for doing so: they are either persistently disruptive editors who should stay blocked, or they are editors who for some reason don't want to cooperate and go through the proper process of requesting an unblock. In most cases, an editor who is only going to edit cooperatively in future can request an unblock. All of the blocked accounts you link to above were blocked for evasion of blocks, and I'm afraid don't remember what the original account was, so I can't go back and check what led to the block in the first place. However, on the whole my attitude in this situation is that in extreme cases such as reversion of obvious vandalism or libel it is best to put things right in an article, but in other cases the benefit of making a change to an article which might possibly be a minor improvement is often outweighed by the consideration that saying "you will not get away with evading blocks, whether by using sockpuppets, by asking other editors to make proxy edits for you, or by any other means" is the one thing which may put some pressure on an editor to start cooperating. My preference is therefore to say "no" except in extreme cases, such as truly unambiguous vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for your comprehensive feedback, very much appreciated. Yes, I agree that the links given are not considered reliable. I know nothing about the subject. And yeah the initial "July" addition, which I haven't yet bothered to look up in the history yet, was not backed by a source. As far as I can tell, the links the IP gave defends the chronology of the episodes, not the movie (which I suppose is not currently in question in the article). I'm now inclined to leave the request alone unless it becomes persistent. Thanks again — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Russian
Hi. The issue with the map is simply RSing. "Spoken" is not a defined or ref'd term and therefore cannot be verified. (After all, Russian is spoken in the USA and Antarctica, but they're not on the map.) My version is de facto working language per Ethnologue. I'd be just as happy with > x% of the population or significant as determined by UNESCO. Don't really care, just tired of the years-old edit war over which countries should be on the map (Mongolia? Israel? etc.). — kwami (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tanks for the explanation. What you say makes sense. However, my edits were nothing to do with any opinion about how good or bad the change is: I just reverted what I thought was a block-evading edit, and then I decided that I couldn't be totally sure whether it really was the same editor as before, so I self-reverted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Uniclass
Thanks for your advice on editing the Uniclass page. I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I apologise for the things I got wrong. I have applied for a change of username to one with my name rather than a company name. As for copyright, I represent the copyright holder of the article you mentioned (RIBA Enterprises) and they've signed off the copy: this is what they want saying about Uniclass, are well aware that these amends are being made, and are anxious that the old, very out of date page is updated as soon as possible. Any advice you can off on how to achieve this would be gratefully accepted. Ruth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribaenterprises (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ruth, you should be able to edit this page, as your account is autoconfirmed, so I have moved your message to here. If for any reason you can't edit here, post again on my "Open" talk page, and I'll see if I can figure out what the problem is.


 * You can see how to give copyright release for content posted to Wikipedia at Donating copyrighted materials, in the section Granting us permission to copy material already online. However, once you have released content under Wikipedia's terms, you have given permission for anyone in the world to re-use the content, either as it is or modified in any way whatever, for any purpose whatever, subject only to attribution to Wikipedia. Are you sure that RIBA Enterprises are willing to do that? If so, I suggest that they change the contents of toolkit.thenbs.com/legal/websites-terms-and-conditions, because at present the section "Intellectual property rights" certainly indicates far more restrictive licensing terms. If, however, you do go ahead and release copyright in the text, it can be restored to the article from the editing history, so that you won't have to repeat all the work you did to put it there originally.


 * As you are editing in connection with a subject to which you have a personal connection, you should also look at Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. Personally, I don't see that there have been any conflict of interest problems with your editing so far, but another editor has expressed the opinion that your editing has been "promotional", and it's worth being careful to avoid that impression. In my opinion, Wikipedia has far too many policies and guidelines, and most of them are far too log and complex, which can make things confusing and intimidating for a new editor, so I'm sorry to be responsible for telling you to read such documents, but that's how it is.


 * I see that you say "this is what they want saying about Uniclass". It is important to be aware that a business or other organisation does not own or control a Wikipedia article about it, and if other editors don't agree, they can alter it.


 * Please do feel welcome to ask me again for any other help you think I may be able to give you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks James. I've asked our web team to add the CC licencing notice to that page so it can be verified that we have copyright permission to use parts of the article there.  Hopefully they won't take too long to add it.  RIBA Enterprises don't profit from Uniclass, the full tables for which are available for anyone to download for free; I'm sorry I didn't express myself very well, but what I meant was that they/we want current, accurate information about it in the public domain, which I would hope is what Wikipedia want too.  I'm not sure which parts of the text is considered promotional, but I'm happy to try and rewrite the offending bits if you or the other editor can let me know what they are.  Ruth User:Ruthatribae
 * I see that the page https://toolkit.thenbs.com/articles/classification now says "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."" I shall therefore restore the version of the article that you wrote. Personally, I really don't see what you posted as promotional. If someone objects again on the grounds that it's promotional, we can ask him or her to explain why, but unless and until that happens I wouldn't worry about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One more thought, Ruth. Even for content freely licensed as in this case, the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license make it essential to state where the content is copied from. The edit summary I gave when I removed the content gives the URL of the web page, so there's no problem, but if you ever add any more similar content, you should say in an edit summary where it's from. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks! Thanks for your patience, help and advice with this, it's much appreciated. Ruth User:Ruthatribae

Sage of the Six Paths
Hey-oh, TheFarix pointed out that the trustworthy editor called Sage of the Six Paths in this edit added content found verbatim at Crunchyroll.com. He also added a wall of text that TheFarix notes is from Wikia, though Sage of the Six Paths didn't provide any attribution. He claims that he didn't know the summaries were copyrighted, but this is something he was previously blocked for, and that he continued when he edited as Kaido of the Beasts. He also said in his unblock request that he read the copyright guidelines. So, your call here, but this dude strikes me as either a troll, or incompetent beyond belief. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

He's claiming he added some of this content months ago. See my talk page, please. I've asked him to provide a diff showing where and when he added it, as well as to confirm that he wrote this in his own words. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi JBW, I think the block was a good call. As you can probably tell from the shit-show on my talk page, I was trying to get him to explain when he originally added the content to the article. He said "months ago" but TheFarix demonstrated that it was added during the period Sage was socking, on July 5, 2016. Sage was refusing to answer the question. I was also trying to get Sage to tell me what page at Wikia he lifted the content from because I was curious about something. He (eventually) said this page was the source, but as I'd noticed earlier in the edit history, that page wasn't created until July 18, 2016, almost 2 weeks after he added it as Kaido of the Beasts. More likely, he copied it from Crunchyroll like TheFarix said or from some other site. Short story: I don't believe he was being truthful and I don't think he is competent. Have a good Monday. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I think I made a mistake here amid all the confusion. It doesn't appear that the Clash of the Unicorns summary was submitted by Kaido of the Beasts three weeks ago. A bunch of other summaries were, but not that one. So when Sage submitted it yesterday, he very well could have been copying it from Wikia instead of Crunchyroll. That doesn't excuse the copying from Wikia without attribution, but I'm thinking I might unblock him with an admonishment to avoid adding any sort of prose for the foreseeable future. What do you think about this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This has gone full circle, from you blocking and me advocating an unblock to me blocking and you advocating an unblock. However, I agree to your suggestion of an unblock. I'll leave it to you to decide exactly what sort of "admonishment" to give. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if it helps, I feel like an ass. I'm very sorry to have put you in a weird position of having had to block Sage of the Six Paths when I didn't properly check my facts. I mean, he did commit another copyright violation, but I would have been less likely to steamroll him if it had been a Wikia violation, than if he'd copied the content from a non-free site as I thought he did. The poor communication from the user didn't help, and I think frustration played a role in how my brain processed the information. Anyhow, I apologize. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're being too hard on yourself. Yes, you made a mistake, but you did so because you were led into doing so by very confusing and unhelpful editing by Sage of the Six Paths. I think that, quite apart from the copyright issues, the communication issues are themselves a major problem. Anyway, I hope that Sage of the Six Paths can now remain unblocked and continue to edit, but we will have to see how it goes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it's just that I never make mistakes... Thanks for being gracious. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Wikipedia Editor
Hi JamesBWatson,

I am having a problem with an editor 50.196.11.177 who continues to delete sourced information on the Cadillac Eldorado page. In fact, this same editor you had "Blocked" a couple of times last year, for the same wrongful editing practices. Is there anyway you can "Block" this editor again, but for a longer time period ?

Thanks for your help- Historianbuff (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about this. I have blocked the IP address for three months, and posted a fairly long message to the editor, in the hope of persuading him or her to at last start taking notice of other editors' concerns. Whether it works, we will have to wait and see. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Domenic antonin scalia fammartino


A tag has been placed on User talk:Domenic antonin scalia fammartino requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sro23 (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please unprotect Solar power.
I think protection of Solar power is not needed nowdays.165.132.24.162 (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I've lifted the protection. Let's hope it's more successful than the last time protection was lifted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus! keeps vandalizing the Sino-Vietnamese War page.
Admin.

Spartacus! keeps vandalizing the Sino-Vietnamese War page. He just broke the 3 revert rule.

I have refuted him in the talk section but he just does not get it! He provided a economy article with a 1 page blurry picture to support his claims. I have added solely war dedicated article, yet he keeps on trolling and vandalizing them.

Please block him and protect the page.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see a dispute over content of the article, but I don't see any sign of vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Vinding Sportsforening (english version)
Hey JamesBWatson I'm fairly new in this game of editing wiki pages/writing them so i'm not familar with how this works :) so please bare with me. I can undertand that you have requested for my English version of "Vinding Sportsforening" to be deleted. The version which you have requested to be deleted was not the final version, I have taken a screenshot of the final version, which I will link in this message. Now to the reason for creating a english version. Denmark has like many other countries seen a mass immigration of foreigners lately. Many of them do not understand danish for good reasons. I therefore thought it would be a service to them, to translate the page, and make it easier for them to join the local football club. I would gladly elaborate on the aforementioned if needed. Best Regards Lucas - Denmark
 * Everything that I could see suggested that this is a perfectly ordinary suburban sports club. We don't have articles on just anything: we require the subject of an article to be significant and notable. I suggest that it may help to look at FAQ/Organizations to see what sort of thing is needed for an article about an organisation such as a club. That page also has links to various guidelines and policies, such as the guidelines on notability, which you may read if you wish to see more relevant information. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive school address?
Hi! Could you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.241.43.89 ? Only two articles have been vandalised from it, although several times, and it appears a persistent pattern. A warning was issued on 28 June, but there were further disruptive edits on 7 July. Since there were no more afterwards, it made me wonder whether we're dealing with a school address. Should we wait for school to start again and see what happens then? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From the IP address range 188.241.43.0-188.241.43.255 there have been 65 edits over the period from 2012 to now. Not one of those 65 edits has been outside of normal school time in the United Kingdom, which is where the IP addresses geolocate to, so it could well be one or more schools. I have also looked at all edits within the last couple of months, and a sample of edits from the years before, and every single edit that I saw was vandalism. That encourages me to think that a range block may be a good idea. However, there has been no editing from the IP address for more than a month, and Wikipedia's blocking policy is against blocking when the problematic editing is not currently going on, so I think the thing to do is to leave it for now, but be willing to consider the possibility of blocking if the vandalism starts up again. Please do let me know if you see any more vandalism from the same IP address, or another one in the range. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being so thorough. School is back on 5 September, so I'll keep an eye on the situation during that month. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/2018 Formula One season
I tried creating this AFD but ran into a redirect on the AFD page. So my nomination of 2018 Formula One season didn't go through. Can you please straighten this out?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the redirect, so you can complete the nomination. JohnCD (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

remove talk page access for User:Leatherknots
Please modify the block to remove talk page access as he is using his talk page to spam Bentogoa (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Re:Block message at User talk:Citic telecom cpc
I'm not proud to admit this, but I'm still learning about the username blocks and the different templates related to them. Consequently I've blocked more than a few accounts on username violation grounds using the hard block setting since there isn't a "use this for that" guide-box on the page, and since no one has has bothered to correct me I just assumed I was doing something right. As for the template, the only template I remember off the top of my head is the {usernameblock} template, and I dislike searching for 45 minutes to find the relevant template for a block, so I just usually end up using that one block and template combo. For the most part it has the intended effect, and like I said no ones bothered to point out I've been doing wrong, so I just got into the habit of using these two together. If I understood how the different functions were unique I'd write my own guide for my own reference when handling blocks, but right now I'm kind of flying in a WWI mindset: instinct and guts, with no guidance info. That I've managed to go this long without being corrected seems a little amazing, but if you know what block and template setting should go with which user's accounts I'd be happy to do some homework to improve my understanding of the process. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Skanderbeg page
Hi,

I wish to report abuse on the page of Skanderbeg, which is the National Hero of Albania, (widely acknowledged as Albanian medieval hero by historians, writers, various governments and cities erecting statues and other acknowledgments), by serbian users who abusively try to claim a slavic origin for him and his people, by diminishing his legacy or putting claims of the war between Skanderbeg and Ottomans not as a war between Albanians and Turks, but between Albanian themselves and other similar nonsense, which are contradictory even within the Wikipedia article itself. I tried to erase such sections, but was instead accused of putting an edit war. I understand that the edit should have some rules, however such claims over renowned figures and facts (such as Albanian identity of Skanderbeg and its cause, acknowledged by the whole Europe on its time and later centuries) threatened by some anonymous ethnicist users, should be restricted by Wikipedia.

We are also talking about Albanian national Hero (not some regular historic figure) and anti-Albanians should not be involved in harming it.

For further references, please refer to the changes I have made to the page. Hoping in your understanding and assistance, Thank you Marsel KonomiMARSELIMADHE (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I had already blocked your account for edit-warring before I saw this edit, but being told that your editing is motivated by a nationalistic wish to promote your view of someone you call a "National Hero" is interesting. That aside, however, you were edit-warring. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Saurabh Dey
Hello! A page you recently deleted (Saurabh Dey) has been recreated for a third time... Seems like a clear case of WP:SOCK as the new creator has zero previous edits. are you able to tell me who created the page the last 2 times? I want to file a sock report but don't know who the previous creator(s) were. Thanks! -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no sockpuppetry, as the same account Cyberjusticeman has created the article each time. That account is due for an indefinite block if it does the same again. The "zero previous edits" is because all the previous edits have been deleted. Even though a non-admin editor can't see what the deleted edits were, you can check whether there are any deleted edits or not by clicking on the "Edit count" at the bottom of the editor's contributions page. For this editor, that will take you to this page, where you can see that there are seven deleted edits. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ananda Shankar Jayant
Hi mate, I have re-created the article on Ananda Shankar Jayant, a page which you recently deleted. Feel that the person is notable for her four major awards as well as for her other activities. Please have a look. Cheers !!--jojo@nthony (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article you have created is far better than the one I deleted. Good work. Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nice words.--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Requests_for_page_protection
You are invited to join the discussion at Requests_for_page_protection.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   03:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sage of the Six Paths
Hi JBW, Sage has been editing again. This is the problem I first experienced with him--incompetence, poor communication, and then self-entitled disregard for community. Not suggesting any action, only pointing out the Union City, New Jersey IP edits to keep in the back of your head. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whenever an IPv6 address needs blocking, it's always worth bearing in mind that the editor is quite likely to have access to a large range of IP addresses. In this case, it turns out that Sage of the Six Paths has edited using 80 IP addresses in the range 2601:8C:4000:1177:0:0:0:0/64 since June. That range has been blocked a couple of times, in addition to blocks on individual addresses in the range. Blocking an individual IP address in this situation achieves nothing at all, and the only thing which stands any chance of achieving anything is a fairly long range block, so I have blocked the range for four months, as you can see here. Obviously, keeping an eye on affected articles too is a good idea, in case Sage turns up on other IP addresses outside that range. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that 76.116.196.115 is also blocked fro six months because of persistent block-evasion by Sage of the Six Paths. I also see that the range 2601:8C:4080:7AA:0:0:0:0/64 was used before 2601:8C:4000:1177:0:0:0:0/64, but the likelihood of it being possible to block a range big enough to cover both of those without substantial collateral damage seems low, and I don't have time now to do the necessary checking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know of an on-site primer for range blocking? I'm curious to try it, but it seems gloriously complicated to my underdeveloped brain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid I don't, but maybe I could write one for you. I won't have time to do it for at least a week or so, but after that if I don't get back to you, please feel welcome to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. And if I can't figure it out, so least you'll have something handy to teach the next guy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Elevator edit filter turned off
I just noticed that the edit filter for the elevator vandal was turned off in the middle of last month. Just wanted to alert you and John of Reading since you two were the most likely to spot him. The last hit was in March, so MusikAnimal turned it off for it not being hit much. If it becomes a problem, we can probably turn it back on. But perhaps he finally went away? Or shows up infrequently enough that a simple revert will suffice instead of the filter? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As one of the filter authors, I could have at least notified you that I disabled it. Sorry about that... :/ but yes, as we create more and more filters I try to find old ones that are stale, which seemed to be the case here &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  16:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. =) The filter is pretty esoteric and the guy is not very active.  He was in the beginning, but seems to have tapered off.  Maybe he found another outlet for his elevator reviews.  Never knew that was a thing, but apparently it is on YouTube. Ah, the Internet; a niche for everyone. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see there's as whole "elevator community" out there. Who would have thought it? As for our friend, he or she has either not been very active on Wikipedia for a long while now, or has shifted to some sort of editing that doesn't trigger this edit filter (for example, maybe editing somewhere other than Portal talk:Current events pages), so the filter is not serving much purpose (if any), and it obviously makes good sense to disable it. There was a gap with no hits from 7 June 2015 to 3 October 2015, so it's possible this is just another, even longer, gap and he/she will become active again, but we can hope not.
 * If it's of any interest, Gogo Dodo, I am not "likely to spot him", since I never do anything on the Current events portal. I forget how I originally came to be involved with this, perhaps John of Reading made a report at WP:AIV which I dealt with, but, however it happened once I had become involved John took to contacting me when he spotted the vandal again. I never spotted any of the vandal's activity myself. However, thanks for letting us know about this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Marquis de la Eirron back already
Special:Contributions/78.197.142.131 is painfully transparent I believe? Thank you.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, painfully, and stupidly. Anyone with a grain of intelligence could easily make it look less obvious. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt response and action.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Evan Evans (brewery)
I thought I had fixed the spam problem in Evan Evans (brewery), but I see it's now been deleted. Can you please undelete it to my sandbox? I'm happy to fix whatever else is wrong with it. Little Will (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, the article was certainly not as blatantly promotional as it had been at first, but it still reads to me more like a promotional page for the brewery than like a neutral third-party account. However, you are certainly very welcome to work on improving it, so I have restored it and moved it to User:Little Will/sandbox. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've restarted the article from the neutral version, as I had left it this morning. I'll keep an eye on it for any more of the marketing that sank the last attempt. Little Will (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Eisenia fetida
The IP spamming of the external Youtube link has resumed after you lifted the semi-protection of the Eisenia fetida page. Thanks. Neil916 (Talk) 22:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I had a note to remind myself to check for spam every so often, but your message meant I saw it much sooner than I would otherwise have done. I've restored the protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Schools are back
Schools are back and the amount of vandalism has shot up. Since it was started in March 2015, User 190.0.148.228 contributions have produced nothing but vandalism. Could you deal with them please after today's attack. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's another consistent vandal 165.138.189.139 who made another destructive change today. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Since 165.138.189.139 has returned to vandalism after being repeatedly blocked, I have blocked it again, for a longer time. However, although you are right in saying that 190.0.148.228 has produced nothing but vandalism, the vandalism is very sporadic, with a six month gap between the last two edits, and ten months since the edit before that. There is a pretty wide consensus that blocks should not be used in situations like that, where there is no reason to expect continuation of the problem in the near future, so I have not taken any action over that IP address. Naturally, if you see further vandalism from the same IP address soon, then that can be reconsidered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello
I just thought that I should inform you that BeyonderGod is back doing exactly the same edit that he always does whenever his ban has ended: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyonders&type=revision&diff=739607029&oldid=735832650 David A (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Favor
Could you help User_talk:MBisanz submit his article at WP:AFC?  MBisanz  talk 01:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Page deletion of Evan Evans
I am associated with the company, my apologies if it appeared promotional. I intended it to be purely factual and worked hard to keep anything personal out of it. Could it be put back online? I also accidentally put the wrong copyright on an image on Wikimedia - how do I change it? Sorry I'm very new at this — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdlyLoveable (talk • contribs) 14:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request for Mr. Raffy Tulfo
Sir, I would like to ask how can I edit Mr. Tulfo's page without being deleted? Yes, as per what I said before, I'm working for Mr. Tulfo and I didn't intentionally edit it just to be bias to my employer but he wrote that article himself. How can I post it in his page without violating your COI rule? Is there any possible way to make it better without affecting the article that Mr. Tulfo wants to put in his own page? Our main goal is just to improve and update his page so that people will be able to read and discover his new shows and achievements - in one click - as well as his deeds as a public servant, since the one in the current article is outdated. Your immediate response is a big help for I am fairly new to this kind of editing. Thank you so much for your kind consideration. Rwprod (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Block Evaiding Editor
A lot of this person's edits that you reverted back, some of the ones prior had a lot of incorrect details and spellings. An example of something incorrect was "Non is preserved" when the block evador knew it's "Non ARE Preserved" basically the block editor found errors and your undoing this persons edits is putting said errors back. I'm NOT him or her, but I agree with him or her. He or She isn't trying to get into an edit war, their only trying to fix real errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourlaxers (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A lesson on English grammar from someone who can't spell "none", "evader", or "evading", who doesn't know the difference between "their" and "they're", and who thinks that "none is preserved" is grammatically incorrect! Wow! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay so I goofed in some spelling and stuff, but that's what this person was trying to fix. He or she really was looking for typos and errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourlaxers (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's my fault for trying to be funny, rather than just stating what I wanted to say in straightforward terms, but you have missed my point. My real point was contained in the remark who thinks that "none is preserved" is grammatically incorrect. In traditional English grammar, plural is used only when there is more than one thing involved, and singular when there isn't. Thus "none" (which is "one" with a negative prefix) does not indicate more than one thing, and it is therefore traditionally singular. When I was a schoolboy, "none are" was in fairly common colloquial use, particularly among uneducated people, but it was regarded as incorrect, and generally not found in published writing. Since then, "none are" has increased in use, and also grammatical prescriptivism has gone out of fashion, and those two facts have resulted in "none are" becoming generally regarded as an acceptable alternative to the more traditional "none is". It is very likely that in another generation from now "none is" will be obsolete, and "none are" the only acceptable form, but we aren't there yet. Personally, I don't have a strong preference for one or the other. Someone who says "Granted that both 'none is' and 'none are' are both accepted usages, I prefer 'none are', as it is now more common in colloquial English" would be expressing a perfectly reasonable point of view, but someone who simply says "Writing 'none are', is obviously an error" is simply mistaken.


 * More important than all that, though, is the fact that the reverting I did was nothing to do with the quality of the particular edits, it was part of an attempt to dissuade an editor with a very long history of disruptive editing from evading blocks. The editor in question certainly a history of trying to correct what he or she thinks are errors, as you say, but in many cases he or she is absolutely wrong in his or her assessment of what are errors, and there are other cases which are perhaps debatable, in which case Wikipedia works by consensus, but this editor ignores consensus and deliberately and knowingly makes edits which are contrary to clear consensus among other editors, because he or she arrogantly thinks he knows better than anyone else. He or she is persistent, and there is no simple way of stopping him or her, but experience shows that in cases like this, if the disruptive editor finds that everything he or she does is reverted, there is a chance that his or her rate of disruption may reduce. I do not choose to spend the amount of time it would take to individually check each edit the block-evading disruptive editor does to see how good it is, which would mean taking time away from other work, and in any case I am not sure it would in the long run be helpful to do so anyway, as the whole point is for him/her to find that everything he/she does is reverted. Hence, I do a mass rollback of any outstanding edit he/she has done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this block Evader tries to find real errors in articles, like missing punctuations, misspellings, lack of spaces (Example they see "bigchair" and change it to "big chiar") and other incorrect stuff. Apperently this person doesn't think or see Him or Herself as better than anyone else, they were only trying to fix real errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourlaxers (talk • contribs) 21:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You have selectively commented on one aspect of this person's editing. If what you have described were the only thing that he or she did, then he or she would not be blocked. Yes, he or she "tries to find real errors in articles", but he or she quite often doesn't know what he or she is doing, as for example in the case mentioned above, where he/she, like you, thought for some reason that "none is" was grammatically wrong. However, far more important than whether he/she is "right" or "wrong" is the fact that he or she often edits against consensus. A Wikipedia editor who insists on repeatedly doing what he or she thinks is right even when he or she knows full well that most other editors disagree is disruptive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Kamran the great
Are you sure about Kamran the great. Indefinite block seems a bit harsh.

31.218.161.96 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He has been doing substantially the same sort of thing for over six years. He was blocked for it five years ago, and unblocked on the basis of a promise to change. He can ask to be unblocked again, if he wants, and see whether he can persuade an administrator that this time he really will change. If he can do that, then the block can be lifted. If not, I don't see any reason to let the block automatically expire, which in view of his past history will virtually certainly mean that he will return to the same disruptive editing as before. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

EventQL
Hey James. I added a comment to the EventQL talk page. Could you please consider it? many thanks! ~paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnord555 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hi. I'm Kurt Evans, a high school math teacher and former U.S. Senate candidate from South Dakota. I know very little about Wikipedia protocol, and I'm having trouble finding the information I need. I found your username at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance). I need assistance at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota,_2016), and it would probably be easiest for me if you responded to me there. Would you mind helping me or directing me to someone who can? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.107 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Quantrix Modeler
Hi. Could you please give me more information on why the page "Quantrix Modeler" was deleted. Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuantrixModeler (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Deletion of the article Quantrix was proposed by K.e.coffman, the reason given being "Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; advertorial content." Since nobody expressed disagreement with the proposal in more than a week, the article was deleted. The page Quantrix Modeler was a redirect to Quantrix (and had been for over 10 years) so it was deleted too. I may add my own observation that the article Quantrix had no independent sources, except possibly one source which I can't check as it is on a web site which is currently completely inaccessible.
 * Both your username and your editing hsitory indicate that you have a special interest in editing about Quantrix. Can you tell me what your connection to Quantrix is?
 * Incidentally, there should not be any need for you to post to this page, as your account seems to be autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit my main talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Why was the page "P4risAndStuff" deleted?
Hey JamesBWatson, I made that page, and I'm confused, how did it break the wikipedia rules? P4risandstuff (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social networking site. A Wikipedia article needs to contain significant information about a notable topic. It is not appropriate to create an article which tells us nothing except the username of some Wikipedia editor. 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 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) 09:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Modifications to Ziad K. Abdelnour page
Hello JamesBWatson,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions and feedback about the modifications. As per your suggestions, we have gone through the WPSPAM, WPEXTERNALLINKS sections and removed unnecessary external links from the content.

It would be of great help if you can review the content and let us know your opinion on the same. Below is the content for your reference.

[Content starts here.]

Ziad K. Abdelnour From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ziad K. Abdelnour is a Lebanese-born American investment banker and financier and activist on Lebanon-related issues. He is President & CEO of Blackhawk Partners, Inc., Founder & President of the Financial Policy Council and President & Founder of the U.S Committee for a Free Lebanon.[1][better source needed]

Abdelnour is the son of Lebanese industrialist and former MP Khalil Abdelnour (1992-2000) and the nephew of former Lebanese mogul financier and MP Salem Abdelnour (1960-1964 and 1972-1992)[11]

Education[edit source] Abdelnour was born in Beirut, Lebanon.[2] He received a BS degree in Economics in 1982 from the American University of Beirut, and an MBA degree in finance from the Wharton School of Finance, University of Pennsylvania. [4] Activism[edit source] Abdelnour was a founding member of the United States Committee for A Free Lebanon, an immigrant association lobbying the United States government to oppose Syria's influence in Lebanon, supporting the Syria Accountability Act.[5] He supported the neoconservative Middle East Forum, co-authoring a Forum study whose signatories included later George W. Bush administration officials Paula Dobriansky and Douglas Feith.[6] Career[edit source] Following graduation Abdelnour worked as an investment banker at Drexel Burnham Lambert,[5] where he was a successful junk bond trader under Michael Milken.[2] In 2006 he founded his own investment company/private family office after a career on Wall Street trading physical commodities and advising and investing in privately held companies.[7][8][9] In 2011 he wrote Economic Warfare: Secrets of Wealth Creation in the Age of Welfare Politics, arguing that governments should focus on wealth creation, not job creation.[10] Abdelnour is a regular speaker[12][13] and prolific writer on wealth creation, physical commodities trading and Middle East geo-political analysis at industry conferences & TV outlets nationwide including but not limited to Freedom Fest, The Atlas Society, Fox News, Newsmax, and World Net Daily.

As of early 2016, Richtopia ranked Abdelnour as one of the 500 Most Influential CEOs in the World[3]

Books[edit source] •	Abdelnour, Ziad (2011). Economic Warfare: Secrets of Wealth Creation in the Age of Welfare Politic. Wiley. ISBN 1118150120.

References[edit source]
 * 1) ^ "United States Committee for a Free Lebanon". Source Watch. sourcewatch.org. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
 * 2) ^ a b Landon Thomas Jr. (August 1, 2006). "From Lebanese- American Financiers, Differing Views on the Strife". The New York Times. Retrieved February 24, 2014.
 * 3) ^  "The Most Influential CEOs in the World". Richtopia - Retrieved June 5, 2016.
 * 4) ^ "Ziad K. Abdelnour". Middle East Radio Forum. Middle East Radio Forum. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
 * 5) ^ a b Amity Shlaes (September 30, 2002). "Freedom for Lebanon". Financial Times. Retrieved February 24, 2014.
 * 6) ^ "To Beirut with a Bullet: The Armchair Invasion of Ziad Abdelnour". New York Press. September 23, 2003. Archived from the original on April 18, 2009.
 * 7) ^ "About Us". Black Hawk Partners. Black Hawk Partners. Retrieved 25 February 2015. family office
 * 8) ^ "Blackhawk Partners and Golden Sea Ways sign a 200 Million Euros Partnership Agreement to Fund". issuu. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
 * 9) ^ "Economic Warfare: Secrets of Wealth Creation in the Age of Welfare Politics". wiley. wiley.com. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
 * 10) ^ Jones, Forrest; Martella, Ashley (December 1, 2011). "Abdelnour: Government Needs to Let Businesses Create Jobs". Moneynews. Newsmax.
 * 11) "Ziad Abdelnour". - Lebanese SA. Retrieved August 8, 2016.
 * 12) "Ziad Abdelnour". - Freedom Fest Las Vegas Conference. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
 * 13) "Ziad Abdelnour". - The Atlas Society Conference. Retrieved May 11, 2012.

[Content Ends here.]

We have removed the links to the websites and kept the links which are from the reliable sources. Please go through the content and let us know if there are any modifications. Thanks for your support and help.

Prasad0052 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasad0052 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously expect me to make a sentence by sentence comparison between that and the article, to find every change you have made? I haven't done that, but I have seen enough to see that you have removed content unfavourable to Ziad Abdelnour, such as mention of his history of fraud, and have also added laudatory content. It is abundantly clear that your only intention is to turn the article into a piece presenting him from a favourable point of view. I have explained on your talk page why doing so is unacceptable, and what is likely to happen if you continue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWAtson,

Thank you very much for your quick reply.I'm not working Under Ziad Abdelnour. When i am searching for ziad abdelnour profile. I found this interesting news about him, so that i want to update this information in ziad k Abdelnour Wikipedia.

I have updated the content with unfavorable information of ziad.

Please have a look on it and let me know if any modifications need to be done as per the Terms & Conditions of Wikipedia.

[Content starts here.]

Ziad K. Abdelnour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ziad K. Abdelnour is a Lebanese-born American investment banker, financier and activist on Lebanon-related issues. He is President & CEO of Blackhawk Partners, Inc., Founder & President of the Financial Policy Council and President & Founder of the U.S Committee for a Free Lebanon.[1][better source needed]

Abdelnour is the son of Lebanese industrialist and former MP Khalil Abdelnour (1992-2000) and the nephew of former Lebanese mogul financier and MP Salem Abdelnour (1960-1964 and 1972-1992)[9] Education[edit source] Abdelnour was born in Beirut, Lebanon.[2] He received a BS degree in Economics in 1982 from the American University of Beirut, and an MBA degree in finance from the Wharton School of Finance, University of Pennsylvania in 1984. [4]

Activism[edit source] Abdelnour was Chairman and a founding member of the United States Committee for A Free Lebanon; an activist organization lobbying the United States government to oppose Syria's influence in Lebanon, supporting the Syria Accountability Act.[5] He supported the neoconservative Middle East Forum, co-authoring a Forum study whose signatories included later George W. Bush administration officials Paula Dobriansky and Douglas Feith.[4]

Career[edit source]

Following graduation in 1984 from the Wharton School, Abdelnour worked as an investment banker at Drexel Burnham Lambert,[2] where he was a successful junk bond trader under Michael Milken.[2] In 2006,  after a 22 year career on Wall Street advising and investing in privately held companies[7][6], he founded his own investment company/private family office, Blackhawk Partners, Inc. engaged in the physical commodities trading and private equity businesses.

In 2011 Abdelnour wrote “Economic Warfare: Secrets of Wealth Creation in the Age of Welfare Politics”, arguing that governments should focus on wealth creation, not job creation.[7] .In early May 2013, the SEC and Abdelnour settled a securities case which included a five-year sanction from the securities industry and a fine[13]. As of early 2016, Richtopia ranked Abdelnour as one of The 500 Most Influential CEOs[3] in the world.

Abdelnour is a regular speaker on TV [12] and prolific writer on wealth creation, physical commodities trading and Middle East geo-political analysis at industry conferences nationwide[8] [10] [11].

Books[edit source]

•	Abdelnour, Ziad (2011). Economic Warfare: Secrets of Wealth Creation in the Age of Welfare Politic. Wiley. ISBN 1118150120.

References[edit source]

1 ^ "United States Committee for a Free Lebanon". Source Watch. sourcewatch.org. Retrieved 26 February 2015.

2^ a b Landon Thomas Jr. (August 1, 2006). "From Lebanese- American Financiers, Differing Views on the Strife". The New York Times. Retrieved February 24, 2014.

3^ "The Most Influential CEOs in the World". Richtopia - Retrieved June 5, 2016.

4^ "Ziad K. Abdelnour". Middle East Radio Forum. Middle East Radio Forum. Retrieved 3 March 2015.

5^ a b Amity Shlaes (September 30, 2002). "Freedom for Lebanon". Financial Times. Retrieved February 24, 2014.

6^ "Blackhawk Partners and Golden Sea Ways sign a 200 Million Euros Partnership Agreement to Fund". issuu. Retrieved 26 February 2015.

7^ "Economic Warfare: Secrets of Wealth Creation in the Age of Welfare Politics". wiley. wiley.com. Retrieved 26 February 2015.

8^ Jones, Forrest; Martella, Ashley (December 1, 2011). "Abdelnour: Government Needs to Let Businesses Create Jobs". Moneynews. Newsmax.

9"Ziad Abdelnour". - Lebanese SA. Retrieved August 8, 2016.

10"Ziad Abdelnour". - Freedom Fest Las Vegas Conference. Retrieved July 8, 2016.

11"Ziad Abdelnour". - The Atlas Society Conference. Retrieved May 11, 2012.

12"Ziad Abdelnour" – FoxNews. Retrieved April 17, 2012

13"Investment In Paranoid Fantasy". Dealbreaker. Archived on December 29, 2014.

[Content Ends here.]

Thank you.


 * Once again you have posted me the whole of what you intend the article to look like when you have edited it, suggesting that you expect me to do a word-by word comparison of that with the current version, to see what changes you are making. That is unrealistic. Much more helpful would be to say "I propose to add such and such text, or "I would like to replace such and such text with such and such other text, so that I can see immediately what changes you are suggesting. However, from what I can see at a quick glance, you appear to have stopped trying to remove all content unfavourable to Ziad Abdelnour, but to be still adding wording which seems to be intended to present him in a positive way. To what extent that is justifiable in terms of how he is shown in most reliable sources, I don't know, so I can't comment on that. I also notice that you frequently use the word "we" in connection with your editing. Does that mean that your account is used by a group of people, rather than an individual person? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson,

I would like to add in Career Section as he one of the The 500 Most Influential CEOs,

"As of early 2016, Richtopia ranked Abdelnour as one of The 500 Most Influential CEOs in the world." Source "https://www.rise.global/500-ceos"

And

Abdelnour is a regular speaker on TV [12] and prolific writer on wealth creation, physical commodities trading and Middle East geo-political analysis at industry conferences nationwide[8] [10] [11].

Source:

8^ Jones, Forrest; Martella, Ashley (December 1, 2011). "Abdelnour: Government Needs to Let Businesses Create Jobs". Moneynews. Newsmax. http://www.moneynews.com/InvestingAnalysis/Abdelnour-Government-Businesses-Jobs/2011/12/01/id/419692/

10"Ziad Abdelnour". - Freedom Fest Las Vegas Conference. Retrieved July 8, 2016.https://freedomfest2015.sched.org/speaker/ziad_abdelnour.1tllvcz9

11"Ziad Abdelnour". - The Atlas Society Conference. Retrieved May 11, 2012.http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-summit/atlas-summit-blog/3213-ziad-abdelnour-in-the-news

Please verify it as per Wikipedia terms&conditions and let me know anything else need to modified.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasad0052 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hagay Mizrahi
Hi James ,

I noticed you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagay_Mizrahi, i had a none blocked user create this page and a blocked user claimed to be the creator to this page which is false i have all the verification's needed to verify "hagay mizrahi" please help me un delete this page thank you ! let me know if need to provide any proof thanks ! :)

[Content Ends here.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagybear (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If I have correctly understood what you are trying to say, you are saying that the article was created by an editor who was not evading a block at the time. However, it was created on 17 August by the account Troyforce334, which has been confirmed by a CheckUser (in addition to behavioural evidence) as a sockpuppet of the account 17 August 2016 . . Troyforce334, which has been blocked ever since 23 April. That alone would be enough to persuade me that restoring the article is not acceptable, but in addition to that there is the fact that the article was created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, and the fact that restoring the article would probably be a waste of time, since it would go straight to Articles for deletion and probably be deleted, as I can find no evidence that the subject of the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:Permalink/736151403: Tried to help, but it's WP:TOOSOON. Hagay Mizrahi has been recreated by a new account (oddly ½ an hour before OP's msg here), is as far as I can tell verbatim identical to the deleted (in its first revision), and a new filing has been made at Sockpuppet investigations/New Editor 121. — Sam Sailor 22:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Persistent pest
Please consider blocking User:170.185.213.17. Despite warnings since the account was created at the start of the year, edits have been, not simply unconstructive but often deliberately destructive. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I originally didn't bother to reply to this post, because by the time I read it the IP address was already blocked, so there didn't seem to be anything more to be done. However, since you have recently edited your message, I will comment now. I agree that the edits have been unconstructive, but at present there have been no edits since the block expired. However, it was a very short block, and if you see any more from the same IP address, please feel welcome to contact me again, and I will consider whether another block is needed, and if so whether a longer one is justified. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the block. However short, let's hope it caused a little reflection. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look
Hello, JamesB, there's been a renewed attack on The Boy Who Cried Wolf, a common target that is a good candidate for partial protection. The culprit in this case was User:165.225.98.66, who seems to be a persistent vandal. Could you take a look at him, please? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but over the past six months there have been only six vandalism edits, and vandalism at the level of on edit per month, while annoying, is not enough to justify article protection, which would also sometimes cause inconvenience for legitimate editors. I'm afraid it will just have to be a case of reverting each time. That particular IP address, however, is a web host, and I have blocked it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I didn't know enough on some of those edits to tell whether vandalism was going on. But what about User:170.185.213.17 mentioned above? Some of their edits look consistently destructive. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

CyberBrinda
Hi JBW, re: your recent warnings on CyberBrinda's talk page, I thought I'd mention that there's an open ANI case on the user. I'm abstaining from action because the user would benefit from opinions other than mine, and a fly-by-night IP editor suggested that I might be WP:INVOLVED, which I disagree with, but I figure there's no harm in stepping aside. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it nice when block evaders announce they're IP hopping?
174.6.221.238 –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. And then there's the edit summary here, just to make absolutely sure we can't miss it. And the inevitable follow up is here and here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Charles Laughton
Hi!

Looks like ware having trouble again with the Charles Laughton page. An editor is persistently removing relevant and well-sourced content in spite of not securing consensus on the talk page and being told to cease and desist by another editor on his own talk page. The editor in question has even attempted to cite WP:BLP as justification in spite of Laughton being dead for more than 50 years! I know you have previously assisted in securing semi-protection status last time it was subjected to similar vandalism/disruptive edits and would appreciate your assistance in this. Thanks! Holanthony (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Boomerang block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion by BeyonderGod
My apologies for bothering you again, but the administrator Boing! said Zebedee does not seem to be present at the moment.

In any case, BeyonderGod seems to be back to edit some of his favourite topics about supposedly "omnipotent" characters within fiction again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:A000:60C1:800:F93A:6859:9173:B101 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:A000:60C1:800:91A1:10EF:44A4:7BB2 David A (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I see that the only other edit ever to have been made from the 2606:A000:60C1:800:*:*:*:* IP range was clearly the same person, back in December last year (see here), so I have blocked the range for a year. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am the one who should be thanking you. David A (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Westminster Palace Gardens
Hi, I've taken down the PROD on this page as the building is, as the text said, listed at Grade II (so comparable to an NRHP designation, although this is the lowest level of statutory protection in the UK). I've put a message on the creator's talk page (a property management company) telling them that they need to clean the article up by removing promotional text. Hope that's OK. Blythwood (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aashika Bhatiya
Hello, JamesBWatson. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Aashika Bhatiya, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Aashika Bhatiya to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tony, I didn't start the article. All I did was move an earlier version of the article (now deleted) to another title, leaving a redirect as the first edit in the editing history of Aashika Bhatiya. That was back in 2013, and it remained as a redirect until yesterday, when another editor made it into an article, so if anyone needed notifying of the deletion proposal it was that editor, not me. It's always a good idea to check the origin of an article in its editing history before nominating it for deletion, for several reasons, perhaps the most important one being that if there is an acceptable version of the article in the history then you should revert to that, rather than nominating it for deletion. On this occasion, there were several reasons why the article should be deleted, and I have speedily deleted it, but it is really better to check before proposing deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! I normally do check the page history, but it was showing up in the new pages feed and didn't see any sources, so I assumed the page curation tool would notify the correct person. I'll be especially sure to double check in the future! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that it showed up in the new pages feed, since as I said the page has existed since 2013, but presumably the software must recognise changing a redirect into an article as a new page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. Found that surprising too when you said it.  Anyway, thanks again for the heads up! TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

TW review
Please see here You emptied a "See also" section with this script--you should probably review this spate of edits to see if you have any more like it. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Block of 86.178.74.0/24
Thank you for blocking. Would you mind disabling talk page access for the range as well? Sro23 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have also deleted two disruptive talk pages created during the block. If there are any more that I missed, let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tiger_bansal
Hello. Here's another sock of Special:Contributions/Dharmendra_bansal_businessman. Has created an article too. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And two more: Special:Contributions/Dharmendra_kumar_singhbharat (looks old now), Special:Contributions/Dharmendra_vinod_bansal (this one created a page again). Quite a persistent one, can't get around why would you keep create an article and always make it a point to publicise it at VisualEditor/Feedback? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't really understand it either, but many persistent sockpuppeteers do things that seem to be exactly what one would do if one wanted to be caught, so maybe it's a form of trolling. Alternatively, it could just be stupidity. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

User:72.48.94.146
There has been a vandalistic attack to Talk:Andrew Marvell from the above address, despite a claim there that this was supposed no longer to happen. Could you take a look, please, and fire a shot across their bows. Unconstructive edits from there were fairly persistent at the start of the year and we could do without it starting all over again. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked this when you posted the message, and I thought I had posted a message here, but it seems I didn't, so here is my answer a couple of days late. The edit from 72.48.94.146 looked as though it might be a one-off vandalism edit, unrelated to the vandalism earlier in the year, so I decided to leave it and watch to see if any more happened. Now another edit has come, and it looks very much as though these two edits are the start-up of a new vandalism spree, very probably from the same person, so I have blocked the IP address for a year. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Labsalah Duhul Hassan
The creating of multiple copies seems to be his whole point, in order to see if one of them can get by into article space. He is also using two accounts to try to get the article approved. See Sockpuppet investigations/Labsalah Duhul Hassan. Thank you for trying to be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realised that creating of multiple copies seemed to be the whole point, but I assumed good faith and gave what I thought under the circumstances was a reasonably mild, benefit-of-the-doubt, warning. However, I hadn't noticed that there were two accounts involved, and that puts a different complexion on the matter, so I have somewhat changed my tune. Thanks for pointing it out to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. He didn't know that he was going to get the same reviewer on draft versions of the article created with two accounts.  I agree that reviewers and administrators should be relatively patient, although not too patient, with single-purpose account new editors, who can be very persistent about getting one article approved.  Eventually I sometimes ask them about conflict of interest.  However, COI is only strongly discouraged, not forbidden, and sockpuppetry is forbidden.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Desierto
Just about to log a request for page protection and you saved me the job! Nice work - thank you.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Clash with DD. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

SomeImage.jpg

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not added any image to that article. Maybe you would like to check the editing history and find out who really did add it, so that you can post this message to the right person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am SO sorry!!! I did look at the revision history but clicked on the wrong editor when I went to post that message! Hope you didn't take any offense, certainly didn't mean any. Keep up the great work. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No offence at all. It's a very easy sort of mistake to make, and I have done things of that sort many times. I just wanted to let you know to give you a chance to post to the right editor, that's all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Becambuisness
You semi-protected User:Kashish Arora, but our friend Becambuisness took the trouble to become autoconfirmed as and started moving it. WP:30/500 is now available "where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective... to combat disruption", so if he does it again we could consider that. JohnCD (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Right now I am out of time, but if you are still around maybe you would like to do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also was about to go out, but I see you have done it, good. He targeted another semi-protected user page, and I have offered that user 30/500 protection if he likes.
 * On another subject, it's funny how one forgets some of these persistent sockers. I actually gave Swapnil Pathre a routine WP-is-not-for-writing-about-yourself message this morning before I remembered him, looked further, and then spent about an hour digging out all his socks, before finding that David Biddulph and you had already done the job. My list had only one you hadn't already got. I have also nominated half a dozen of his selfies for deletion from Commons. Sigh... JohnCD (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot
Good afternoon -- If you have a spare minute, I have an IP who needs a "time out" for edit warring and refusing to engage. I'm at 2RR so can't respond myself. Thanks in advance. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, except that the editor has not edited since being warned about the edit-warring policy, so we should give him or her a chance to take note of the warning. If the editor continues to edit-war now that a warning has been given, let me know and I will block the IP address, but if he or she now stops, then there is no need to do anything more about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good enough. I figured 3RR was sufficient grounds per se, but I see your point. Another editor reverted him, as you probably noted.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Qasymbek
Hi, would you be able to restore Qasymbek (given name)? It was odd deleting it while there was an ongoing AfD. Besides, G5 wouldn't apply if the page has no substantial edits by other users, and this page did. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) There isn't anything "odd" about deleting a page which qualifies for speedy deletion when there is a deletion discussion for the page: it happens very frequently. Indeed, it would be odd if for some reason that were not permitted, as it would enable any individual editor to disruptively create a deletion discussion page for the sole purpose of preventing speedy deletion in a case where the speedy deletion criterion in question is clearly valid.
 * 2) There is room for debate about what "substantial edits" means. However, G5 originally applied to any page created by a banned editor, and when the words "with no substantial edits by others" were added, it was stated that the purpose was to deal with the situation "someone creates a stub, it is expanded greatly by others, and then the creator turns out to be a sock of a banned editor, the article is deleted". In this case, the changes made by editors other than the creator of the article (almost entirely by you) were largely removal of content. There were a few changes of wording, such as replacing the wording "- Turkic male name" with "is a Turkic masculine given name", and in one place where two sentences were abbreviated they were joined into one by the linking words "which is". In fact, the only change that was not essentially either removal of content or minor rephrasing was replacing the word "Beck" in the etymology by the form "baig". I think it would be questionable to regard the changes as "substantial", and certainly they did not constitute anything remotely like the process of being "expanded greatly by others" which the words "with no substantial edits by others" were intended to protect.
 * 3) Even if one does regard the editing in question as "substantial", the fact remains, as I pointed out in my closure of the AfD discussion, that there was, at the time of the deletion, only one article to which the disambiguation page could reasonably link, so that speedy deletion under criterion G6 is valid.
 * 4) The reason for having a policy that pages created by a block-evading editor can be summarily deleted is that otherwise a blocked editor knows that he or she can keep creating sockpuppets and creating pages, and get away with it, because even if a sockpuppet is blocked, he or she just goes ahead and creates a new one, and his or her block-evading edits remain, just as if he or she were not blocked. The only method available to us to try to discourage such long-term serial sockpuppeteers is to let them learn from experience that each time they use a sockpuppet to create a page they are wasting their time, as their work will be lost. One has to balance that against the possibility of collateral damage to the work of other editors, so that if there really has been substantial expansion of a page by others, then that may outweigh the disadvantage of letting the sockpuppeteer see that he or she has got away with sockpuppetry, but in a case such as this one that really does not apply.
 * 5) You ask if I am "able" to restore the page. Certainly I am able to, but for the reasons I have explained, I am reluctant to do so. In addition to the consideration of wishing to discourage the sockpuppeteer, there is the fact that I still regard it as a valid G6 speedy deletion. If the page were restored, I would reopen the AfD and argue strongly for speedy deletion again. While of course I cannot predict the outcome of the AfD in that situation, my guess is that it would not survive, so the only effect of restoring it would be to take up more time of editors who would take part in the discussion and of whatever administrator would eventually close it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed explanations, they were helpful and have made me better understand aspects of the G5 criterion. However, I disagree on a few specific points:
 * 1. Fair enough, but if there is a valid keep !vote in a discussion, it still strikes me as odd to expediently close it with a speedy delete.
 * 3. I'm not sure why you're referring to WP:G6, I'd presume you're viewing the article as a disambiguation page, but it's not one. It is a name article and follows different guidelines on notability (although the fact remains that unsourced name articles with only a single link to a person with the name have generally been deleted at AfD). But now, as was the case at the start of the AfD discussion, there are again at least two articles about people with the name: Kasymbek Yeshmambetov and Zhenis Kassymbek.
 * 4 & 5. That's valid reasoning, but the discouragement of a sock has to be weighed also against the possible collateral damage to content. If the only reason to delete this article is the fact that it was created by a sock, then we're losing legitimate content and, in this case, I think we're also fuelling further cycles of socking, re-creation and re-deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to restore Kasymbek Yeshmambetov as well? It was created before the user was blocked so WP:G5 doesn't apply. Cheers. – Uanfala (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be right about that, so I have restored the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just letting you know that I've created Qasymbek. Feel free to bring to AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Megiddo Music Academy
Hi sir,

I am very new to wikipedia. I have to put an information about my institution, is that possible? Yesterday I have created a page but it is not available now. I am seeing it now it has been deleted. Can you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merfinalex (talk • contribs) 08:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article you created was deleted because it was written in a way which appeared to be intended to impress us with how good the Megiddo Music Academy is, rather than simply describing it from a neutral point of view, as required by Wikipedia policies. For example, while you may believe that the academy "plays an important role", that is an opinion or judgement, not an objective fact.


 * I see that you refer to it as "my institution", which indicates that you have a connection to the academy. Experience shows that it can be very difficult for anyone with such a personal connection to what they are writing about to stand back from their writing on the subject and see how it will look from the detached perspective of to an outsider. That has the result that someone writing about an institution they are connected to is likely to write in a way that looks promotional to other people, even if they genuinely intend to be objective: that is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest discourage us from creating articles about organisations we are personally connected to.


 * Another important point is that Wikipedia does not have articles on just any subject, but only on subjects which satisfy our notability guidelines, and my searches for information about the Megiddo Music Academy strongly suggest that it does not: for example, in a Google search for "Megiddo Music Academy" every single hit that I got (apart from the now deleted Wikipedia article) was on Facebook. Problems with how an article is written can be cured by rewriting the article, but no amount of rewriting an article can chnage the notability of the subject of the article. If, as seems highly likely, the Megiddo Music Academy does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then any work put into writing about it for Wikipedia will probably to be wasted, as the article is likely to be deleted, no matter how the article is written.


 * 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 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. If you do decide to go ahead and try to write about your institution, then rather than creating an article directly, follow the instructions at Drafts to create a draft article, which can then be assessed by an experienced editor who is unconnected to your institution, so that he or she has no conflict of interest. However, in view of the apparent failure to satisfy the notability guidelines, my advice is that doing that would probably be a waste of your time, and my advice is to put your time into publicising your institution in other ways, rather than on Wikipedia. That may seem unfriendly, but in fact I think it is more friendly than encouraging you to put further work into something which will almost certainly finish up deleted again. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia about other subjects, then you are very welcome to do so, but if your only interest is in posting about your institution, then Wikipedia is probably not the right place for you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Mail
-- VViking Talk Edits 13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Christian Berbers
In view of the immense number of Wikipedia articles linking to Christian Berbers, it would seem to make sense to have an article on the topic. Your ad hominem deletion may be blessed by some normative rules of Wikipedia, but it appears to work to the detriment of Wikipedia and its users. Michael Hardy (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. If you think that there should be an article on the topic then you can create one, but that doesn't mean that preventing blocked editors from believing they can endlessly defy blocks with impunity "work[s] to the detriment of Wikipedia and its users". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

GroIMP
Hi James,

I admit I was a bit surprised about this radical measure though I understand the motivation for it: However, please consider that the page was still under development and that at least four people were actively working at it (all of the text is from their publications!!) to make it conform to Wikipedia when you simply deleted it. I think this is not very constructive. Can you restore the page, so that we can continue working on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mh001 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Wikipedia policy does not allow restoration of a deleted article which appears to infringe copyright without evidence of copyright permission. Also, you should check that the topic satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines before spending any more time on this, because if it doesn't then any article on the subject, no matter how it may be written, is likely to be deleted, so that time spent on it will be wasted. Also, if the people working on the article are the authors of publications on the subject, they should read Wikipedia's guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Updater Page
Hi James,

I saw that you had removed the Updater page due to blatant advertising. I wanted to edit the page to reflect the company's current information without blatant advertising. Could you restore the page so that these changes can be made? I want to make sure the info is fair and accurate while maintaining a page for the company!

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkeane3 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "maintaining a page for the company"? What is your connection to the company? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Matlacha-ish
Hi, created a page MATLACHA-ISH and it was deleted for non-conformity probably for an included business link. I want to re-establish this page without any links. how to revisit posting of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezguy (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted for two reasons:
 * It was on a subject on which we already have an article. Fragmenting content on one subject into different articles is unhelpful for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most important reason is that it makes it hard for readers of the encyclopaedia to find the information on that subject: they cannot be expected to search around for multiple articles. Another reason is that it makes it hard for Wikipedia editors to coordinate the information across different articles, to perform such tasks as checking that there is no duplication and no inconsistency between different articles, ensuring that updates and corrections are applied to all relevant pages, and so on.
 * The article was unambiguously promotional. It was full of such unambiguous marketing-speak as "The diversified population of Matlacha creates a vibe like no other town in Florida where everyone is friendly and visitors are quickly made to feel like a local" and so on and so on, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policies that content must be presented from a neutral point of view and that promotion of anything is unacceptable.


 * There were several other reasons why the article was not the sort of thing which is considered suitable, such as that its ostensible topic was a word which does not seem, as far as I can determine, to come anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so that even if it had avoided the two problems that led to immediate deletion, I doubt that any article on the subject would have lasted long without being deleted. 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 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) 19:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Eric Powa B
Hello James B Winston, even if it's not your name... you are in charge for the edition of article in wikioedia. You deleted a work that it took me hours of research - you found i don't know what excuses to delete it. This man who died yesterday WAS the KING OF ALL EU DeeJay even yours in The UK. and you decided to delete the article, like a snap of fingers. Do you know what are you doing? I doubt. Wikipedia Encyclopedia is made for the people who want to know a bit about history. This Man, i made the article of, is part of our history, evolutionaly, culurally talking. He Is even mention in an english book which has a wikipedia page. This Man i did an article, has changed the way of producing music, to performed on a scene, he changed everything concerning the way of playing music, create a genre of music, he is a Beethoven. And you delete this access to knowledge, you smashed his legacy without knowing. So put it back because others will come to put more stones to this edifice. i put the 1st stone and you throw it away. you should be collegial on this one, you should be fraternal one this one and not acting like an novice. Read This Book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Night_a_DJ_Saved_My_Life_(book) and you will know your error. watch this and you will have to put it back this 1 st stone i put. Read This NEWS http://hoholok.com/belgian-housepionier-eric-powa-b-beysens-died/

Frankie Knuckles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_Knuckles IS The Godfather Of House Music and he gots a wikipedia page, eric Powa B IS the Godfather Of Belgian House Music (NEW BEAT) He had influence 5 differents générations of deejays, clubbers, audience... you have to put the article back  where it was. I started a 1st step, let it be like it was.

Thank you.

Kind Regards,

Amadelo Amadelo (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason for the immediate deletion was that the article was entirely promotional. It was clearly written with the intention of impressing the reader with "Eric Powa B" and how great he was. It referred to him as "Fabulous", "IMPRESSIVE" (in capitals), "unbelievable groovy", "The Godfather Of Belgian House Music", and so on. Wikipedia policy is that an article must be written from a neutral point of view, and must not be promotional, and that any article which is clearly promotional can be deleted immediately.


 * I have restored the contents of the article to a draft, to give you a chance to work on it in an attempt to make it suitable as an article. However, before deciding whether to do that, you should be aware of exactly what would be entailed.


 * Firstly, of course, the article will have to be rewritten in a neutral way, merely telling us the facts about its subject, without any attempt to impress us with how important or wonderful he was.
 * You will need to check whether he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if so then provide references to reliable sources showing that he does. The sources you provided did not come anywhere near to doing so, and my searches have mainly produced more of the same. (The sources you provided are: a page mostly about other matters but including a one sentence announcement of his death, a download site, a discogs page which gives a discography listing, and his Facebook page. None of that is the sort of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources that is needed to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.) Please note that the first thing to do is to determine whether he does satisfy the notability guidelines, and if he does then edit the draft article to show that he does. Various problems in an article may be put right by editing the article, but no amount of editing an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. Over the years I have seen countless new editors come to Wikipedia, keen to start contributing, and put a lot of time and effort into writing and rewriting an article which, had they only realised, was doomed to eventual deletion no matter what they did, as the subject did not satisfy our notability standards, and I don't want you to waste a lot of time and effort in the same way. (Please note that I am not saying he is not notable: I don't know whether he is or not, and I am trying to make sure that you check whether he is first, before deciding whether to put more work into editing the draft article.) It is worth noting that previous articles on the same subject had been deleted by two other administrators, one of whom cited lack of evidence of significance as a reason for deletion.
 * The English will have to be cleared up, as there are various points where, although English words are used, they are not connected into proper English phrases and sentences.
 * If you do decide to put work into improving the draft in the hope of making it suitable as an article, it is now at Draft:Eric Powa B. When you think it is ready, click on "Submit your draft for review", to ask an experienced editor to review it. He or she will either accept it as an article, or give you feedback on why it is still unsuitable, so that you know what, if anything, may be done to make it suitable. I wish you the best of luck. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi
hello. OK so since Ive returned and am in a stable place now could you remove the wikibreak from my account User:MaranoFan? I need to use an autoconfirmed-only feature now.--MaranoFan (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I was rather confused at first by the fact that this message seemed to have been posted by an editor with a wikibreak enforced, but I worked it out in the end! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

San Lawrenz
Hi! I see that you deleted San Lawrenz as a non-notable club (and for all I know, that's all the page was about). However, it's a definitely notable village in Gozo, with its own municipal local council. If there was any content about that village, could I ask you to restore it? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am really glad you pointed this out to me, because the deletion was a mistake. It was about the village, not about a club. I must have accidentally clicked on the wrong link. I have now restored the article. Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's all right, then! Many thanks! As pretty much expected, the article has many problems, but at least we do have something on the place. The non-notable club is presumably St. Lawrence Spurs F.C.? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:104.153.125.238
Could you take a look at this user, please? He has already had three warnings for disruptive edits to the same article this month and has now turned to inserting an opinionated rant at Talk:The Fox and the Grapes. Do you think a warning shot across the bows would bring a useful pause for reflection? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but the latest post, while certainly "opinionated", as you say, is not vandalism, unlike the edits a couple of days earlier, and since it's on a talk page rather than an article there is no requirement not to express opinions. If, as seems likely, the edit is from the same person who did the vandalism, then it may be a mild form of trolling, but the "if" and "may" in that statement allow enough room for doubt that we have to assume good faith. If the same IP address comes up with more of the same soon, then feel welcome to let me know, and I'll reconsider the matter, but I don't think that there's anything to be done at present. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

S. Michael Hudson page
Hi James, I notice that you tagged the S. Michael Hudson page. I have been a reviewer on that page during it's draft process. Just to give you a background, from what I can gather, the University at which Mr. Hudson is a board member, requested that he create a Wikipedia entry. Mr. Hudson, under the account SMHud, created the first version draft of S. Michael Hudson. I declined it for lack of inline citations. During conversations on my talk page I mentioned the lack of notability and COI. He then got string of 'personal assistents' to edit the page but it was a disaster, so it was eventually deleted. During this period, Mr Hudson also created another draft Draft:Sydney Michael (Mike) Hudson, which also was eventually deleted. Just recently, the draft page was recreated, which I declined. The editor then created a sock account to bypass the failed AFC and created the same page, with all the same problems, on mainspace. Can you please investigate the issue as it seems to be a case of abusing multiple accounts, COI and tendentious editing. Thank-you David. moreno 72    02:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've posted a fairly long message at User talk:K. I. Forline, attempting to explain what I see as the main problem. I hope it helps. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi James. Thanks for that, and as always, keep up the good work. Cheers David. moreno 72    13:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Airdate vandals
2602:304:ce7c:140 has been repeatedly adding "present" to the air dates of cancelled TV shows. A rangeblock, if possible, will at least keep away the most recent ones (2602:304:ce7c:140:f52c:ae9e:dd48:525f & 2602:304:ce7c:140:75aa:ca88:fa07:fdd9). –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the range for a month. The editing from this range started in late September, so that may be enough to deter the editor, but if not, let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They went back to using 76.231.192.20. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I've blocked that one too, and increased the block length on 2602:304:ce7c:140... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Latest one I've seen came from 2607:FB90:65C:B644:58EA:B01C:CEBA:A1FF. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked that one too. Sigh... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now at 172.115.74.167. 172.56.31.205 has also been used but not recently. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2607:FB90:B2B:AA9E:2064:58F8:A295:65FD is the latest. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked that one. It's clear that this is one of those persistent disruptive editors who doesn't give up easily, and has access to several IP ranges. Such people are difficult to deal with, but at the very least each time we place a block, it puts them to a little more trouble and slows down their disruptive editing. Also, experience shows that most such editors eventually give up if they keep getting blocked, even if it takes a long time. There's just a handful of truly obsessive vandals who keep this sort of thing up for years on end, but luckily they are a very small minority. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like we need a rangeblock encompassing 172.56.31.151, 172.56.31.43, 172.56.31.124, 172.56.31.173, and 172.56.31.205. Include 172.56.41.103 if possible, they're being disruptive as well but in a different way. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's taken me a while to find time to deal with this. While checking the history of the range covering those IP addresses, I found a few more too, such as 172.56.41.99. However, I'm afraid a single range block covering all of them is out of the question, as there are far too many edits which don't seem to have any connection to this editor. I have compromised by blocking two ranges for a month. Almost all edits in the range 172.56.41.0-172.56.41.255 over recent months are clearly this editor, so the amount of collateral damage will be very small. (If there were no edits from anyone else at all then I would have blocked for longer, but as I said, this is a compromise.) All recent edits from the range 172.56.41.96-172.56.41.127 have been from this editor, so I've blocked that too, but it's obviously a much smaller range, so it is entirely possible that the disruptive editor will simply be able to move to a nearby unblocked IP address. However, blocking a larger range in that area doesn't seem to me to be justifiable, as the proportion of edits that don't appear to be this editor is much higher. Not perfect, but the best I can manage at the moment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * New one today: 24.180.22.220. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As you may by now have seen for yourself, I blocked that one after I read your message about it. When I checked, no related IP addresses had ever done any similar editing, so there is no basis for a range block this time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed the header to better reflect the content. That said, 208.54.39.210 and 208.54.39.195 have recently made such edits. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and 208.54.39.252, 208.54.39.160, 208.54.39.143, and 208.54.39.227 too, see here, here, here, here, and here. Probably also 208.54.39.251: see here. On the basis of "present" edits, it is clear that 208.54.39.210 has been exclusively used by this editor since August 2016, and on the basis of preferred subject area for editing (cartoon series etc) it looks as though he or she may have had that IP address since August 2015. Other IP addresses, however, are more ephemeral, and there are other IP addresses scattered among these with edits which don't look remotely connected, which makes a long range block for the whole range unacceptable, though vandalism such as this makes the idea of a range block less unacceptable than it would otherwise be. I'll block the specific IP addresses for a while, and think about whether there is scope for some limited range blocks in parts of the range.


 * By the way, I too had been thinking that the section heading, although OK when you first posted here, was no longer really relevant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
 * That's good. There's another group that's been changing original (i.e.: non-US) channels & airdates to US-centric ones, the editor known as SummerPhDv2.0 has been keeping track of them. They've been confining themselves to Puerto Rican IP addresses of late. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

 * Wow! Someone thanking me for something I did 6 months ago! It's nice to occasionally get recognition for one's attempts to be helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hudson
Dear JamesBWatson, Subject: Article about Michael Hudson Thank you for your effort in reviewing my attempt to write the subject article and the through explanation. As a colleague of his many years ago at Pratt and Whitney I decided to give this a try when the intern at Marian University (Ms. Wilson) had failed as a summer project and Hudson had tried to provide references which she had reported to be the problem. I did the same research as you did plus discussions with Hudson. He suggested I look at articles on Paul Bevilaqua (who he had worked with to create the F35 lift fan concept base on a paper he had done in the ‘70s) and Russ Meyer who was president of Cessna when they created the Citation X. I thought what I drafted as an extension of Ms. Tayler Wilson’s efforts and Hudson’s additions exceeded what was done on either of the above mentioned articles. Discussions with people from the aviation industry and the National Academy indicate that it is recognized that Hudson provided the technical direction for revitalizing Allison resulting in recognition via six Collier awards and provided the business direction that took the company private and then into Rolls Royce. I am disappointed that I was not able to make a case for this individual. Again thanks for your attention to this matter. K. I. Forline (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

James - would it offend you or David Moreno if I worked on the Michael Hudson article via the Articles for creation help desk? This would get into proper format should the lacki8ng proper reference show up.K. I. Forline (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't offend me, and I don't suppose it would offend David.moreno72 either. However, I have explained to you why I think any article about him is unlikely to last, and you may wish to consider whether it is worth putting time and work into it, that being so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hi there. Regarding Sockpuppet investigations/Fleets/Archive: You said "if there is anything more definite then please provide diffs." Compare the behaviour of this editors' previous incarnations with:


 * Me calling him out on it.
 * His immediate response and continuation:, , , ,.

This time around he has attempted to disguise his inexplicable caption removal project a little better, but surely this is enough evidence now. It's like deja vu, same disregard for sockpuppetry rules, same energetic continuation in the face of evidence that he's going to be caught. The old cases tell us with certainty that there's an individual out there who is willing to continue creating Wikipedia logins to ensure image captions are removed from rugby league biography infoboxes (an extremely specific and strange project) and this is just another one. It clearly means an awful lot to him. I refuse to believe it means this much to more than one person.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the comment you refer to in the sockpuppet investigation, I had been looking into the history, so I had a fairly good knowledge of what sort of things the known sockpuppets had done, but that was a month and a half ago, and I no longer remember it all. Searching all through the editing history again is likely to take a lot of time, and just now I don't feel I can devote that much time to it. I may have time to do it in a couple of days or so, but since you evidently know more about this than I do, maybe you can help by giving diffs of the known sockpuppets doing similar things, so that I can see immediately how the editing from Fleets and/or Theanonymousentry are similar to those of Londo06 and/or known sockpuppets. (As I said in the sockpuppet investigation, I do think the editing looks suspicious, and I would really like to be able to settle the matter, but I do need very definite evidence of a connection to justify taking any action.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * At Darren Lockyer: Londo06 Fronsdorf Fleets
 * At Matt King: Londo06, Fleets
 * At Michael Ennis: Londo06, Fleets
 * I understand about the time consumption, so these were grabbed very quickly. If you'd like me to find more I will.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also: Londo06's insistence that the standard name be repeated in rugby league biography infobox's "fullname" field replicated with Fleets. More here too.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In the sockpuppet investigation, I said that I had spent a long time checking the editing history of the accounts. Yesterday, I spent more time on it. I kept getting so many bits that looked similar that it really was looking too much of a coincidence, but each bit in itself could have just been due to two editors with similar interests. It really comes down to the question of how many little bits do you have to add up before you decide they are collectively enough to be convincing. To me, the thing about the full names in info boxes was the last straw: one more little thing which on its own would prove nothing, but with the other similarities it was too much to believe. I have blocked Fleets. Theanonymousentry has not edited in just over two months, and at present I shall leave that account, but if it starts editing again I shall be willing to reconsider that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, James. For me the last straw was his response to my calling him out, which was essentially an admission of guilt. I view Theanonymousentry's ceasing all activity once I opened his sockpuppet investigation in a similar light.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Crew Management
JamesBWatson, why have you deleted the page for Crew Management. The reasoning you have provided is not accurate. Material was mostly uniquely written. Anything that was taken from another source was clearly referenced, as should be the case. Please put back on. If any edits to content are required, you are welcome to do so, but not delete entirely Graptaloyia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Large chunks of the article were word-for-word identical with the content of other web sites. "Anything that was taken from another source was clearly referenced" is not enough: copyright law doesn't somehow cease to apply provided you say where you have copied the content from. (It is possible that you are confusing copyright with plagiarism, which is a very different thing.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Would not say "word-for-word", as it was edited. Some parts that are/were the same, was intentional and should be so I believe, as you are referencing facts as stated by a major industry body/organisation. This gives credibility to the content and assures its accuracy to the wider industry and audience. Copyright and plagiarism are not being confused. Just like any report that is indexing another source, and is able to do so, as it is clear citing this is the source. Who here is claiming copyright infringement? These industry organisations would encourage this, as they have done, since sharing their information publically, and wanting other sources to reference it accurately and offer a citation. I should also add, that this information is important for a better understanding of the page, and valuable to the industry at large. Nevertheless, it has been re-edited to post. Will go through again and edit even more where possible. Please feel free to also edit some text, or suggest specifically where it should be edited, as per your view. Graptaloyia (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

More edits have been done. In the parts that are referenced, believe it is essential to maintain accuracy in wording, as publically stated and heavily promoted by the respective industry organisations Graptaloyia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You are being very irrational and simply on a malicious agenda, for whatever reason. This is the case, as this content is unique written by this contributor. Please stop, otherwise you shall be reported for this. Many articles on Wikipedia, the vast majority are taking content. It is known as intertexuality, and the point. If all content on Wikipedia was written by a user with not reference or source, then all would be in question and only heresay and fantasy. Graptaloyia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding clash with DD article
Dear sir thanks for moving my article to the desired link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_with_DD. Now the matter arises that you nominated it for deletion as I have already had a tough time in providing proofs to one of the Wikipedia editor. The editor has been having an eye on the whole article and aftr strict instructions followed up he had said me to move it to wikipedia. I have done everything in the moderation of editors and u still doubt the article which is not good. So I request u that if any editing work in article I am ready to do but don't nominate it for deletion.(Tiven gonsalves 12:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)) Tiven gonsalves 12:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)
 * If you can produce evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines then that will be fine. However, I have searched and failed to find any such evidence, and I really doubt that any exists. If none is produced and the current deletion proposal is contested then I shall take it to Articles for deletion. Assuming the editor you are referring to was Jimfbleak, in his last post about it that I can see, he said "I still can't see that it meets the notability guidelines". He also said "When you are ready, you can use the 'move' tab to move it back yourself", but that is not at all the same thing as saying that you should move it back now, and his statement about notability makes it clear that he did not think that the draft was now ready to become an article. Personally, I would not have encouraged you to do it yourself, but would instead have suggested submitting it for review by a more experienced editor as an "article for creation", because my experience is that far too often advice such as "move it yourself when you are ready" is unhelpful to an editor with little experience, since the whole point is that the new editor lacks the experience to judge when it is ready. 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 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. I see you did make a few edits to other articles before creating this one. That shows that you are not the sort of person who is here only for the purpose of promoting one thing and who has no interest whatever in any other kind of contribution, so you may well be able benefit from taking that advice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear sir Thanks for your reply, I am satisfied by yr research and experience in the field of wikipedia. Coming to my article what proof should I provide you to make you understand that it really exists. Do reply to it and help me in publish my article on Wikipedia (Tiven gonsalves 02:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

Koldunovn
Hello, James. Thanks for the warm welcome! :) I have some experience in Russian part of the Wikipedia, but FESOM is my first English language article. Please have a look at the justification at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FESOM page.

Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koldunovn (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I'll try to find time to check within the next few days and see whether you are. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: My User Page Deletion
Hi James, I saw that recently you deleted my user page and I know the reasoning behind it, however still don't understand how to create a User Page that doesn't violate anything. I checked the Wiki Page about User Pages, but don't fully understand the conditions for making one. Could you help me understand it? Thanks, Helak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helak (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you actually interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia? If you are, then I suggest getting on with doing that, and not bothering about a user page until you have more experience of editing Wikipedia. By the time you have made a significant number of edits to the content of the encyclopaedia, you will have some idea of what is worth putting in a userpage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

16 October 2016
Hi, I see that you had dealings with a previous similar article recently, this pops up on the new pages feed Qasymbek (given name) by an author with a similar name, can you take a peek? XyzSpaniel Talk Page  20:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me. I've blocked that one. He really doesn't seem to be any good at trying to hide his sockpuppetry, either because he's pretty stupid, or because he's trolling and wants to get caught. Could be either. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * PS the creator User:OrazbayQasik likes your userpage so much he copied it! XyzSpaniel  Talk Page  20:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * !! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hudson
James – Again thank you again for your advice on references satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would likr to reformat the article toseparate the material about Hudson and the material published by him. Also I have aske some of his colleagues for reference material about him. If nothing turns up I will then withdraw the article. Thanks again. K. I. Foeline (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply
I apologized for being gone for so long. Listen, James. We need to talk. I explained by Multiple accounts. It was blocked Jonathan Albrardo Alexis Meza and JonathanMeza310. Mostly i changing passwords and emails because i know it's being blocked for some reason. Gibberland Network (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Creating User:65.117.99.111
This user seems to be continuously and persistently disruptive. Could you block him for a while? He does not seem to respond to repeated warnings. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by the time I saw this message. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Return of the Airdate Vandals
Hanging around the 172.56.30 series now. Some were blocked for a short period, worth keeping an eye on. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since almost all the recent edits are clearly from the same disruptive editor, I have blocked the range for a while. I am reluctant to block for longer, though, as there have been a few constructive edits. I have also semi-protected some of the articles affected, but it's likely I didn't get them all, so if you see any more that you think might need protecting, please let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Just ran across a different set of vandals in the 2600:1017:b005:13e4 series with 70.209.143.200 making the same edits. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would certainly have blocked those if I had seen them at the time, but since I can't find any edits by those IP addresses more recent than 5 November, there is no point in blocking now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I gave myself a barnstar (the original one) on my main userpage.
Is that okay...? --P4risAndStuff (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you have made it clear that you gave it to yourself, I don't think it does any harm. It's a different matter when people post barn stars to their user pages in ways that are likely to give the deceptive impression that they come from someone else, such as copying one from another person's user page complete with the signature of the editor who put it there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for confirming. -- User:P4risAndStuff / User talk:P4risAndStuff 16:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Or copying a user's entire user page! Muffled   Pocketed  17:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Declined unblock request for 69.75.54.130
Just a heads up: the veiled threats of block evasion might not just be threats. and. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  01:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was fully expecting that the threat would be carried out, but I didn't expect such an immediate large-scale preparation for block-evasion as this! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, that caught me off guard, too! I have to admit, I was expecting something more sophisticated than "Hur hur, lets see how many accounts I can make, hur hur." To be fair, I don't know how CheckUser works, so it's possible he tried something in addition to all the new accounts (normally I would give examples, but I've got ten bucks that says he's reading this and I don't want to give him ideas). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

More PhantasusMagician sockpuppets
Hi James, unfortunately it appears PhantasusMagician has reappeared in the form of a user named. They are again blanking references and sections of EDM artists' discographies (particularly Martin Garrix, Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike, Tiesto, etc.) with either no or misleading edit summaries like "Updated". Their user page also has the same format as what was written on the user page of some of the banned accounts, with the typical note that it is their user page, they registered in such and such a month and that they are from Brazil: "Hello, my name is X-Skull (stylized as X̶-̶S̶k̶u̶l̶l̶̶ ), and here is my page.I am 21 years old, and I've been a member of Wiki since November, 2016. Last but not least, I am from Brazil." I really don't hope we have to go through another laborious CheckUser/SPI-lodging process, as I think this one seems pretty obvious. I also think they have edited from (recent edits blanking references and content), as they and X-Skull tag-teamed on Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike over several days (except the IP geolocates to England, but perhaps this is a proxy). I don't know how they've registered again considering you blocked their IP and other accounts, but I suppose that's the way of certain problematic users.  Ss  112   01:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They've stepped up their edits in the last hour. Now they're edit-warring with Jim1138 on pages I reverted them at, claiming they're a legitimate user who wants to improve Wikipedia and asking not to be blocked.  Ss  112   03:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Add to the list. V-Mort has copied several of my edit summaries when they've blanked thousands of bytes of data, trying to throw off anybody investigating them. They're now tag-teaming with X-Skull on Hardwell discography and Armin van Buuren discography. The username and intro on their page is very similar. Perhaps these could be blocked and then an SPI lodged under PhantasusMagician for a further CheckUser for any sleepers?  Ss   112   03:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI: X-Skull has been Indeffed. Jim1138 (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Wow! Two identical messages telling me about this! You must be really keen to get me to stand for Arbcom. However, no thanks: out of all the Wikipedia jobs, that is perhaps the one I am least likely ever to volunteer for. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think this is just requesting your votes for the applicants. I don't think they are accepting any more entries. (Of course, voting is completely voluntary.) Patient Zerotalk 14:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, of course. I was joking, but in any case I am totally uninterested in taking part in the Arbcom elections in any capacity, whether as a candidate or as a voter. Frankly, it's even worse than AN/I. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification. I am not particularly great at spotting humour sometimes! I do agree; I read the thing about family members being contacted - that was enough to put me off running for ArbCom ever, as that of course would be a large intrusion of anyone's privacy. I did vote, as I saw some good candidates this time round - but no, I could never apply. Patient Zerotalk 19:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

More of the same?
Hi, pseudonymous James! You gave "block evasion" as the reason here. There's now an editor apparently, so I wondered if it might be more of the same. I see that also blocked that IP, but for a different reason. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After more than two months I did not remember the circumstances of the block I placed, but I have now looked back at the history of the IP range and of the account you mention, and the following are my observations.


 * 1) When I placed the block, there had been a considerable amount of editing by a persistent block-evading troll, who actually boasted about evading blocks, so no doubt that was the block-evader that I had in mind. There is an overlap with the IP addresses used by the editor you mention, but the type of editing bears no resemblance to that of the editor you mention, so I don't think it's the same person. Most, if not all, of the edits by the troll have been revision-deleted, so unfortunately I can't point you to them and let you judge for yourself, but they are so very different from the editing of the editor that you mention that I am confident that anyone who saw them would agree.
 * 2) I see that the IP range is now subject to a web host block, and that some of the IP edits from the editor you mention fall inside the blocked range, and some outside it, which makes me wonder whether the web host may cover a larger range than the block, in which case the block should perhaps be extended. Certainly it is the same ISP, but I can't tell whether the whole range is used for web hosting or not, so I have asked the administrator who placed the web host block (Bbb23) if he will look into it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Allan Johnston (psychiatrist)
Dear James, I can confirm I have not received any payment or other inducement to contribute to this article. I am new to Wikipedia so am not aware of many conventions or mechanisms for example I think this is the best way to message you but I'm not sure? I have edited the article as I am familiar with the work of Dr Johnston as a Rugby League follower. You mention that a contributor has a close relationship with Dr Johnston but I'm not sure how you could know this so clearly? I'm presuming you mean me? I previously removed the note on this basis, and also that the article appears to have a range of editors perhaps as many as 10. You have again reinstated the note on conflict of interest. I understand that editing wars are discouraged? I ask that you please provide me this evidence. Please feel free to advise me on Wikipedia etiquette. If you are so minded I would appreciate any support you feel you can offer in terms of the appearance / layout of the article as I have requested in the talk page. kind regards Stephen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHutchinson (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you are not the editor that I know has a personal connection to the subject of the article. The fact that you have edited exclusively on one subject did make it look as though you might have, but I am perfectly willing to accept your assurance that you haven't. Another editor, however, certainly does have such a personal connection. While I would very much prefer to state how I know that, Wikipedia policy does not permit me to do so, as it would involve revealing information about an editor which he or she has not made public on Wikipedia. As for your request for help with layout and so on, I'll try to remember to come back to that when I have time, but unfortunately right now I have to go offline. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Thanks for your kind offer of support for the layout etc its much appreciated. I'm happy to do some of the editing myself I'm just not yet overly familiar with the Wikipedia code but I'm trying to pick it up! I thought I had edited another article on the Bradford Bulls but perhaps it didn't save. Will try again. I won't remove the note you have left currently but will try to update the article (and others) until it follows more of a typical layout and then perhaps re consider this with your advice. kind regards. Stephen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHutchinson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear James, I hope you don't mind me bothering you again. This article has been very helpfully edited by someone called BAMyers99. They have really improved the appearance and also (to my eyes) the encyclopedic tone of the article. I researched and tried to consider what is meant by encyclopedic tone in this context and it talks about use of slang, brash terms, bias etc which I don't believe the article now has. When you have chance would you mind casting a glance at this article (or any other edits I've made) to see whether you think it is now reasonable to remove the "encyclopedic tone" tag? Kind regards Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHutchinson (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

deleted page
hi i have found some good news sources on anzhelika tahir, a page u deleted.
 * 1) # http://www.samaa.tv/arts-culture/2016/10/pakistani-girl-from-sheikhupura-bags-gold-medal-in-miss-earth-2016/
 * 2) # http://www.india.com/showbiz/qandeel-baloch-murder-miss-pakistan-world-anzhelika-tahir-speaks-up-against-honour-killing-1343198/
 * 3) # http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cagayan-de-oro/local-news/2016/10/19/ten-miss-earth-candidates-visit-iligan-ciy-504459
 * 4) # https://www.thequint.com/world/2016/05/11/meet-anzhelika-tahir-pakistans-miss-world-2016
 * 5) # http://us.blastingnews.com/opinion/2016/10/miss-anzhelika-tahir-is-miss-pakistan-2016-in-snub-to-muslim-extremism-001167053.html
 * 6) # http://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/miss-world/when-pakistani-beauty-queens-dazzled-in-bikini/eventshow/52688299.cms
 * 7) # http://www.abplive.in/lifestyle/check-out-these-pakistani-beauty-queens-who-made-headlines-380467
 * 8) # http://www.indiatimes.com/news/world/pakistani-man-lashes-out-against-his-nation-s-double-standards-on-beauty-259057.html
 * 9) # https://www.geo.tv/latest/115835-Ali-Kazmi-To-Play-Antagonist-In-Na-Band-Na-Baraati
 * 10) # http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/photomazza/bollywood-hollywood-photogalleries/movie-pakistani-beauty-queens-who-made-headlines/photomazaashow/53204921.cms
 * 11) # http://www.newstracklive.com/news/pak-says-beauty-queen-prostitute-1071045-1.html
 * 12) --Salut65 (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the deletion was because the article was created by a block-evading editor, not because of a lack of sources, that is not relevant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

So can u help me put her article up, as its not fair that her page is deleted because the writer was blocked. please advise. --Salut65 (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Creating a page which has been deleted earlier
Hi James! It seems you have once deleted a page titled TexValley. I would like to create the page considering the significance of that shopping place. But I don't know what happened during the earlier creation and deletion processes. I like to know the procedure to recreate that page. Kindly guide me in this regard! With regards Senthil
 * The first step should be to request an unblock of your original account. If and when such a request is granted, I will be happy to help you from there on. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * James, I accept your suggestion.


 * But how can I get it unblocked? Please guide me! I have did some useful editings. I don't want everything to get reverted! User:Senthilsgsm —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You probably know how to post an unblock request, as you have done it before, and if you have forgotten, the instructions are still on the talk page of your original account. In such a request you will need to persuade an administrator (1) that you realise why you were blocked, (2) that you will not repeat the things that led to the blocking, and (3) that you will not continue to use sockpuppets. The third of those may be the one that is most difficult to do, in view of your recent history. It may be that the best you can hope for is the standard offer, which will it is likely to take at least six months before you are unblocked, but since you have been blocked for not far short of six years, that will not be that big a deal. Anyway, that depends on the administrator who reviews any unblock request, and how persuasive your unblock request is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Acting President of India listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acting President of India. Since you had some involvement with the Acting President of India redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey
You are an admin, right? Well, I think we should set up an MfD for User:Yoshiller and possibly block him. Although I am admittedly a fan of him and he has not edited for 2 years, almost all of his edits just have him focus on his userpage, which he is clearly just using as a personal profile. I would do this myself, but I find the guide to setting up MfDs confusing. Do you mind if you help me please? Foxnpichu (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about the instructions about setting up an MfD being confusing. I used to find setting up any kind of deletion discussion (MfD, AfD, RfD) a real pain until I realised that there is a much easier way to do it, using Twinkle. If you haven't already done so, go to your account preferences (via the "preferences" link at the top of the page) select the "Gadgets" tag, and enable Twinkle. You can then create an MfD, an AfD, or whatever, at the click of a couple of links, and Twinkle handles all the confusing details for you. You can read more about Twinkle and all the things it can do for you at Twinkle if you are interested.


 * Having said all that, on this occasion no MfD is needed, because the user page clearly satisfies the conditions for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion G5, i.e "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages". You could have nominated it for deletion by posting or  on the page, but drawing it to my attention by posting here has had the same effect, and I will delete the page.


 * I don't think I could justify a block though, because blocking an account for things which ceased years ago doesn't really fit into the requirement of the blocking policy that blocks should be preventive, and also because under most circumstances it is not good to block an editor who has never been told what the problems are with his or her editing. (There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them.) However, I'll post a message to the editor's talk page explaining the reason for the deletion, and then if he or she ever comes back and does the same again a block may be reasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well, thank you for your time. I hope I didn't take up any spare time. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. As I read it, the main point of your message was that the user page should be deleted: you were totally right, and by drawing it to my attention you got it dealt with. If the other comments I made are helpful to you, that's another useful thing that came out of it, and if not then the time it took me is not a big deal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of WP:G5
Hi James, I noticed lately that articles on engine shed (quite notable) were deleted (especially DSL-ED & ELS-ED) on the basis of WP:G5, since they were created by a blocked/banned user due to sockpuppetry. And i completely agree with the rationale of your edit, which went completely by the guidelines laid for. Both these articles were created by same user, of which the article on "Diesel Loco Shed, Erode" was in draft stage awaiting review through WP:AFC process. It was initially declined by User:DGG on grounds of insufficient sources, which i felt very appropriate, when i read it. Hence i decided to change the tone of the article largely by re-writing and re-structuring and added sufficient secondary and tertiary sources. After which, i commented on my contribution, cleaned up the submission and put up for review (by any random reviewer) again and wait for a positive outcome. And even i was hoping to do the same for "Electric Loco Shed, Erode" too, as i was digging for sources and information, since the article being in mainspace lacked language, tone and structure. But i was hell shocked to see my contributions disappear like anything due to the attitude and activity of the creator (User:Senthilsgsm or whatever/whomever), ignoring even the basic guidelines of WP. Even G5 is warranted, when "no substantial edits by others" is made. Hence i request you to review the deletion and restore back to its original place at WP:AFC (even "Electric Loco Shed, Erode" too), so that i re-work on the contents of the article to best possible level. Wish any random reviewer shall merit the presence of article in EN EP. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 07:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the history of Draft:Diesel Loco Shed, Erode, and I accept that it was a mistake deleting it, as you did make substantial contributions to it, so I have restored the page. Thank you for calling my attention to it. I shall also look at the other pages created by the sockpuppet and consider whether to restore them, particularly since that account has now been unblocked, so that the normal reason for applying G5 is less relevant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Any possibility to revert the deleted pages?
@James. Is there any possibility for reverting the pages which has been deleted by you, since they have been created by me using different user accounts while blocked. Not all! I like to revert some of the recent articles like Electric Loco Shed, Erode, Railway Mixed High School, Erode and few others. Reverting those pages will make any controversies to my account? Also I like to enhance the pages on titles TexValley, Abdul Gani Textile Market and few others with references to their notability and sources, which have been redirected. Considering them as needed and better articles, leave me your suggestions! Regards Sinsen
 * I have restored Electric Loco Shed, Erode and Railway Mixed High School, Erode. TexValley was deleted many years ago, for completely different reasons, and I think the original deletion reason still applies. However, there is nothing to stop you from creating a new article on that topic. The redirect of Abdul Gani Textile Market had nothing to do with me. I don't know whether it is notable enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article, but certainly the article you created did not demonstrate notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Newbie
Re: the newbie block you performed, I think it's highly possible the account is a sock of a previous user. I've seen the exact same behavior (copying and pasting the user page of another in their own user space followed by disruptive, almost agenda driven disruption) a couple of times previous during the last several months. All the behaviors are very similar with the other two, I just can't remember which accounts they were. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's very likely that you're right, because the kind of editing seen here, such as copying and pasting the user page of another editor and then harassing that same editor, is something I have seen before from blocked editors using sockpuppets for revenge attacks. However, I have no idea what previous accounts might be involved in this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User Cagwinn
I see that you are the user who blocked User Cagwinn for edit warring. He has insulted me on his talk page while blocked, now. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Easy to avoid being insulted, stay off a blocked user's talk page when you're asked to leave. Doug Weller  talk 19:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You can't be serious. He asked me to give him sources then he flew off the handle. The insults he's subjected me to are not ok, nor is calling me insane. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sxollie_Cider
Hi thanks for the delete of the above page. i discovered that on their facebook page they launched a competition to create the wikipedia page to win a hamper. I notified this on the COIN page here Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. I think the name should be salted. --Domdeparis (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Its been 6 months since you blocked me.
Dear James, Its been 6 months since you blocked my account. I have realized my mistake. I will refrain from editing Wikipedia now. And I was honest enough to use my real name as my wikipedia userid. I won't go into the socking allegation because its no use doing so. I got the punishment anyways. Your actions have ruined my life. I had to move out of my city. My wife is unemployed now. The man who you are protecting T.P Lahane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._P._Lahane) has a no negative edits by any of the doctors since the last 6 months. And looking at my example I don't think any of the resident doctors would edit that page. I request you to remove my name from the wikipedia pages of User:Soundofthesea & User:Notyacccp. You can keep me blocked. I don't want to increase the damage to my name by posting the unblock request on my talk page. Someone irresponsible, might write more damaging things on the talk page & then remove my access from the talk page. Therefore I request you consider my unblock request in UTRS. I would appreciate if you understand my difficulty. This is not a game for me. You are dealing with a real person who has hard-earned a good reputation in real life. User:Niranjandeshmukh 106.209.136.238 (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

301.li
Hi James, I'm curious as to why you proposed the deletion of the 301.li page, the page describes a legitimate service the same as any other page for bit.ly and others. What is it that you have taken a dislike to on 301.li's? edit: If it's lack of sources I've now added that linking to their blog post that details the creation and reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zykatious (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't "taken a dislike" to it: I just don't see any evidence that it's significant or noticeable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Also, since I posted the deletion proposal I have seen more about it, and I now think that it definitely isn't notable. I am much inclined to delete the article, but I'll wait a while on the distant off chance that someone can come up with reliable independent sources to show that it is notable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2016‎ (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the page "Manipal Global Academy of Data Science"
Hi,

Could you please tell me why the page that I created, "Manipal Global Academy of Data Science" was deleted? I went through a thorough edit of the page from the last time that I had it deleted, to ensure that the conditions that were mentioned were adhered to and there was no promotional information in the content. Yet, the page has been deleted again. I completely understand that there is a certain standard to Wikipedia's content, but I believe that I have thoroughly adhered to that as well. This is all the more confusing since there is a page for Manipal Global Education Group (The head of the Manipal group, and under which the Manipal Global Academy of Data Science is based under) The content that I posted, from my inference, did not have the two points that were mentioned in the deletion.

1. The article was not of a promotional nature, and did not advertise any products/services. It just served as a means of providing valid and verifiable information to anyone looking for it. 2. There was no vague content, and anything that was written was backed up with verifiable sources throughout the internet, including news sources and from the direct authorities of Manipal Group.

If there is anything that I could personally improve on for the quality of the content, please do let me know so that I could make the necessary changes for the page to be published. Your advice is greatly appreciated. Nouvelleist (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, apologies for taking so long to answer. It is true that in your second version of the article you cut out the most blatant examples of marketing-speak, such as "the best-in-business and extremely qualified", but it still read like a prospectus for the institution, sentence after sentence looking more like the kind of thing that would be written to impress prospective students and encourage them to apply. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Following The Rules : Neutrality
Dear Mr. Watson. I accept your explication, but I would like to place this back into a debate and a correction of this article. I am not sure how best to do this. My name is James M Driskill. There is substantial evidence that the article that is presently on the Wikipedia presented for many years is in fact bias to the truth. That bias places certain misunderstandings of this term into the memeplex of the society which is highly questionable to the motives and cause to effects of how the usage of this misunderstanding is used and can be used and/or abused upon users of the information society. I am not attempting to self-promote myself -- except that what I have to express is the truth. Before you delete me [ censor ] would you please open and read in full both the plato.standford.edu article and Computing and Moral Responsibility as well as the legal law brief of Kang on Information Privacy also at .ntia.doc.gov-PDF Both these position papers reflects what is necessary and in the correction of information online. That is in fact my only mission here. Thank you. BTW: If you look at the domain registration of realuphuman.net --- you will find that the Corp Name I hold this under is "In The Mindway" -- Would you please conduct your own google.books search for this phrase and realize that I am indeed a contributing source to this wikipedia's book title : Information Theory : Last Chapter Meme Information Warfare Also for clarity, you may delete my comments outright -- but they were substainally archived at this location : realuphuman.net/WebDomains/en.wikipedia.org/Party and Play I think maybe the tag was added because of all the homophobic subtext? A completely naive reader only reading this article might be led to think sex on meth was a purely gay phenomenon. PNP might be gay slang, but I highly doubt gay men are the only people who have sex while high. Quodfui (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Thank You Kindly For The Restoration Of My Talk Discussion It is much much apprecated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealUpHuman (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Although I normally reply to talk page posts on the page where they are posted, so as to keep discussions together, on this occasion I think it may help to have my answer recorded in the history of your talk page, so I shall post my answer there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

T.dauce ; Presto Engineering, Inc. deletion page
Dear Sir,

I allow me to contact you because I would like to know why the page that I created concerning the company Presto Engineering has been deleted. In fact, I ensured that the content of the page followed the conditions and standards of Wikipedia. According to me, the content was not really promotional information or marketing content but just some information concerning the company, what it does, what type of services it provides, a description of the acquisitions and milestones of the company. I am not an employee of the company and I just wrote some content concerning the business, such as many other companies do on Wikipedia.

Moreover, I thought that I had followed the rules of Wikipedia, especially concerning the content (the text was written with reliable sources throughout the internet from reliable microelectronics reviews) and also concerning the promotional nature (did not advertise any products or services but only a description of the services provided by the company). I'm really confused because I believed that I adhered to the standards of Wikipedia aforementioned.

Please let me know what I could improve on the content of the page in order to make the changes to publish the page. Thanks in advance for your answer. Sincerely yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.dauce (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I contacted you this afternoon in order to know why the page that I created (Presto Engineering, Inc.) has been deleted. Because I am not an employee of the company but I know what is the business field of the company, what it provides to its customers, and that's just a description, not a promotional or advertising content. Moreover, I truly don't understand why you deleted the page because I wrote entirely the page with an objective point of view without making any advertising and with my own words. So, I was thinking that I followed the rules and standards of Wikipedia, and apparently, it's not the case and I'd like to have some explanations to know how I could fix this issue.

I am a recent user but I did not delete anything as far as I know when I posted my message on your page, especially "MoboTap". I just wrote you about my page, not yours, and consequently, I don't understand of what are you talking about ?

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.dauce (talk • contribs) 05:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The contents of this page, including your earlier message, were removed by another editor, and replaced with a message about "MoboTap". That message was not from me, and had no connection to what you had written. I have now restored your original message.


 * A page containing numerous examples of such language as "considered as a leading provider", "Presto Engineering helps its customers leverage semiconductor technology into novel IoT devices that address new needs in the industrial, automotive, medical and consumer space", and "a unique design providing flexibility and reliability" reads like marketing copy. It is unambiguously promotional in tone and character, whether you intended it to be or not. Also, the choice of content for the article was in several ways typical of what a company's PR department would choose, rather than what an independent outsider writing an encyclopaedia article would write: for example, a long list of transactions that a company has made, partnerships deals it has signed, other businesses it has taken over, and so on, is the sort of thing that a company's PR department often includes, in the belief that it looks impressive, but it is not really of much interest to a typical reader of an encyclopaedia article. 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 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) 10:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Considering your comments, I changed a little the content of the page in order to avoid some sentences which could have appeared like promotional or marketing content. In compliance with the standards of Wikipedia, I just wanted to keep you informed. Sincerely yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.dauce (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

MoboTap
I found that I created the entry "MoboTap" you deleted, on the grounds that advertising, I would like to know where there is a problem, trouble you tell me！


 * I find it impossible to believe that anyone can write a page full of such blatant marketing-speak as "a highly innovative company", "continues to be at the pinnacle of the mobile revolution", and "focused on driving the mobile revolution by improving the way people experience the web through mobile devices" without intending it to be promotional. In the very unlikely event that you really didn't, then you are so unable to see the nature of your own writing that you are unlikely ever to be able to write in the neutral way needed for Wikipedia. Also, as I have already said, your present account is one of a series which over the years have existed for the sole purpose of using Wikipedia as a free advertising medium for your company. If the company continues to do so, it can expect all accounts used for the purpose to be blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the page "ATrack"
Dear Mr. Watson,

Could you please tell me why the page "ATrack" that I created was deleted? I modified the content and added a lot of references to support it from the last time that I had it deleted to make sure all information is neutral and provides valid and verifiable information to anyone looking for it. However, the page has been deleted again.

Please let me know what I should do to improve the content of the page in order to make the changes to publish the page. Thanks in advance and look froward to hearing from you.Annachiayinfu (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Such language as, for example, "ATrack has 15+ years of experiences in GPS tracker development, focusing on customized developments, firmware & hardware modifications" is the sort of thing one reads in prose written by marketing or PR professionals promoting a company: it is not the way that ordinary people giving a neutral, third party objective account express themselves. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)