User talk:JBW/Archive 9

Holographic Metaphoric Mathematics
I'm inclined to just let Int21hexster ramble on his user page, on the theory that pushing for deletion is more likely to cause a problem than just looking the other way. Any thoughts?&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, as long as it is just on the user page. However, if at some he time branches out elsewhere I think it will need reconsidering. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Modifications of ICIM
I made some changes according to the editor's advice. Please see if you could delete the of ICIM.

Thanks for your help.

Huihui

reverts of Dutch nationality law
Could you indicate to me why you reverted the changes to the Dutch Nationality Law. I thought it would be very relevant to note that the Dutch nationality covers all citizens in the kingdom and that no separate Antillian/Dutch antillian nationality exists and that this topic would be the place to place them...~groet! L.tak 08:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At first the edit looked like vandalism, but I have looked again and decided this was a misreading. I have now restored your edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * no problem. thanks! L.tak 09:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Rockyman512 11:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

LVP 1946
We could use an editor with your experience on the London Victory Parade of 1946. I would ideally have you contribute to consensus editing, which would make a huge difference because there are very few editors working on this article. But if you don't want to get bogged down with mission creep, it would also mean a lot even if you simply add the page to your watch-list and contribute to the Talk page. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just now the controversy seems to have settled down somewhat, but feel welcome to call on me again when you think help is needed. The trouble with watchlisting it is that I have far too many pages on my watchlist, and often don't keep up to date with checking it. Also the sheer volume of text on the talk page puts me off: if I don't study all of it in depth I may make misinformed edits, and if I do it will take ages. However, this is not a "no", it is more of a "yes with reservations". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit annoying...
...to keep seeing you on WP:AIV. And on first impression you seem like the sensible type. Have you thought about one of those RFA things...? Peter 09:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Errm... I don't fully understand this message. I sort of think I get the point, but could you clarify it a bit? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you thought about becoming an admin? RFA = Requests for adminship. Peter 09:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realised that you probably meant that, but sorry to have (apparently) annoyed you. I am not sure I want to go through the RFA process, having to defend myself against criticisms, and also I predict that I would get some negative reaction to the very limited amount of article writing I have done. Anyway, I'll think about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise! I didn't mean that you had annoyed me. It was supposed to be a complement (i.e. that you're reporting a lot of vandals, which is a good thing). Yeah it does seem that RFA is getting tougher, I don't suppose I'd have passed mine if it had been held now (most for the same reason, lack of article contribs). If you do want to pursue it further anytime, feel free to let me know and I'll take a closer look at your contributions and consider a nomination. Only if you want of course, I won't be offended if you don't :) Peter 10:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll get plenty of criticisms, but even though you and I have disagreed from time to time, I will be the first in line to support you if you come up at RfA. You do good work, and you represent necessary ideals. Thank you for that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to co-nominate you if you do decide to accept the offer, James. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing name
Hello!

I'm first time using Wikipedia and alrady got so many warnings I don't really know how it works and instead of help and let me finish project, they trying to pull me out and asking me to confirm everything, change username ( I don't know much how edit and create wikipedia pages and will appreciate help instead of being banned all the time)

I changes my signature ( seems like it is only way I can change my username) WIkipedia said that if I will change username it will delete my account. The only option I had is change signature. Arch-TRHO 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I will appreciate if you can help me with:

1. Picture was uploaded on my page is confirmed and has autorization for use and it was provided by email to wikipedia. Another simmilar picture of Konstantin Mustafaev who is also the model - was removed from other website, just to make sure it is only on wikipedia.

2. Information we are trying to submit is only begining - it is not finished. Please remove warning from page and allow us to finish it. We need help we person who write in good English and it takes time, What can I do? Can some one from admins just tell me directly what is wrong and what needs to be changed - but I just started. I'm not talking on my page about Osman Monarchy - it doesnt exist - it's history, but they have 3 today's descendants who are ONLY carring the title by blood and do not pretend to be rullers.

Please I need some admin who can really help me with that.

Thank you

Arch-TRHO 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Royal House of Osman (talk • contribs) 23:00, 27 April 2010


 * The message I gave you concerning your user name had several useful links in it, including a link to the page explaining how to change your username. You can find the same page by clicking here.
 * As far as permission to use images is concerned, if you have emailed about permission to the correct email address it should eventually be dealt with, but unfortunately the people who deal with copyright permissions on Wikipedia frequently find it difficult to keep up with the amount of work needed, so it can sometimes take a long time. If you need to contact one of the copyright team directly you could try Moonriddengirl.
 * Unfortunately nothing I saw in HIH Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev or elsewhere suggested that he meets the guidelines for notability. If he doesn't then no matter how much rewriting you do any article about him is unlikely to remain for long. I suggest reading the guideline on notability of people and probably also the general notability guideline to see what is needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
{&#123;Sonia &#124;talk&#124;simple}&#125; 10:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Neighbourhoods in Thane
I know this category is currently empty. If there are articles on Thane city's Neighbourhood they should ideally use this category e.g Chandanwadi,_Thane,Hiranandani_Estate,currently they are using Neighbourhood of Mumbai. Sorry i am new to Wiki editing.I am creating a page on panchpakhadi and will add it soon.

Marcuard Family Office
I removed the "services" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minders1 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 April 2010

Network of Buddhist Organisations
Dear JB Thank you for your intervention on this page. Please eradicate any changes I make that are not clearly evidenced. If possible, could you communicate the need for editors to watch the page as it is turning into an edit war. I DO have previous. However, having committed the crime, I did the time. I have learned my lesson and am now trying to adhere to principles. I believe the pro NBO editors, (who are clearly of the NBO ["NBO secretary" is one!]) are simply inexperienced in wiki principles rather than inherently malicious. Anyway, I am also sometimes responsible for mistakes. Keep an eye?94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)I'll also try to work out the way to message you suggest94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear JBW, I realise that it is difficult for editors to master all the abstruse arguments that go on over disputed edits. Your recent reversion to an earlier and disputed version of the NBO article must have been based on WP guidelines of which I'd be grateful for an explanation. From my point of view, the original stub was colonised by a contributor with a past history of vandalism and vituperation (he was the Yonteng of the NKT discussion page, for example). His interpretation of the publications he quotes has been challenged; he has also quoted as evidence anonymous web pages which there is evidence that he created himself; he has quoted a letter that is not in the public domain; he has wrested the substance of Parliamentary replies to questions available for all to see in Hansard. The Discussion page covers most of this questioning of his 'evidence' which your reversion has allowed to stand. Please tell us what we have done wrong that has caused you to take this action and what appeal is open to us against what we argue is a misrepresentation even of publicly available facts. Thanks Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the edit I reverted was promoting the organisation, and simultaneously suppressing information not favourable to the organisation. I have now looked back at the changes involved, and checked some of the references which were removed. This seems to confirm my initial impression. Editors should not remove well-sourced information from articles unless you have a good reason, and can explain that reason. In addition to this the history of articles created by you makes it look very much as though you may have an involvement in the organisation. If so then you have a conflict of interest, and tour editing is quite likely to not be impartial. The editor who removed the sourced information from the article has a history of editing entirely restricted to this one article and its talk page, so there may be a conflict of interest there too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear JBW, I'll admit that I was responsible for the original stub. I was about to leave NBO and so thought it would do no harm to set the ball rolling. However, that doesn't prevent me feeling outraged at the appearance of a contributor who has been abusing NBO anonymously for a number of years, and other Buddhist organisations for even longer, and has a long history on Wikipedia of similar attacks on at least three other entries. Since your reply makes clear that this is news to you, forgive me for boring you with the transcription of previous complaints below. Before that, however, let me comment on the fact that in his latest edits this contributor has considerably modified his attacks over the last few days when it has been pointed out to him that his sources (I notice you described them as 'well sourced') do not bear out his allegations. I note in particular that he has dropped all mention of the book by Robert Bluck which, as the contributor Ahimsa argued, said very much the opposite to what was alleged, while still maintaining the same allegations undocumented. I fail to see, also, how the citation of an email that is not available in the public domain (the present note 12) can be considered a proper source. You will understand our frustration with an attacker whose prejudice led him to make such unfounded allegations in the past and in his anonymous letters to politicians and educators in 2007 insinuated that the NBO Executive was made up of pederasts. Reading over your replies to other readers, I have taken heart from the fact that they are invariably courteous and helpful. I'll therefore ask whether it is possible to revert to the original stub without having to suffer from the kind of obsessive mud-slinging that has been charateristic of 94.192.139.167 over such a long period?

My thanks, and here are the transcripts of the web entries I have hunted out referring to this contributor. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

1.	http://encyclopedia.sprinko.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive108#Yonteng_aka_94.192.139.167_reported_by_Emptymountains_.28Result:_Stale_.29

a)	Yonteng aka 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: Stale ) •	Page: New Kadampa Tradition (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) •	User: Yonteng (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) •	User: 94.192.139.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) •	Previous version reverted to: [25] •	1st revert: 04:49, 21 August 2009 (edit summary: "") •	2nd revert: 08:11, 21 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 309233984 by Atisha's cook") •	3rd revert: 08:23, 21 August 2009 (edit summary: "same nkt goons-remember scientology!") •	Diff of 3RR warning: [26] and [27] and [28] and [29] and, today, [30]. To show that Yonteng is 94.192.139.167, please see in the archive: [31] and [32] and [33] and [34]. •	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]. This user's past few edits on the talk page have been entirely unconstructive, especially [36]. Emptymountains (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

b)	94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: 1 month to the IP) •	Page: New Kadampa Tradition (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) •	User: 94.192.139.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) •	aka User: Yonteng (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) •	Previous version reverted to: 08:28, 21 August 2009 •	1st revert: 04:48, 24 August 2009 (edit summary: "") •	2nd revert: 05:46, 24 August 2009 (edit summary: "") •	3rd revert: 03:31, 25 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 309754225 by Tim Song") Please note that this is a continuation of last week's edit warring reported here: [162]. This editor keeps inserting the word cult into the lead section of the article. The reasons against such an inclusion have been discussed on the talk page: [163], but he is insistent. His methods continue to go against the advice of non-involved editors: [164] and [165] and [166], whom he flat-out ignores. •	Diff of 3RR warning: [167] and [168] and [169] and [170] and [171]. •	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [172]. Emptymountains (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)(and his response [173].) Atisha's cook (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC) comment - This comment is not meant to defend Yonteng's silly and obviously intolerable random addition of the word "cult" to the lead, but to give some general context. Although i often disapprove of Yonteng's style, i can perfectly understand his frustration as it is very hard to get any results on the NKT related pages. Almost all of the editors are NKT affiliated and fight ferociously (including taking turns in reverting) to prevent criticism - or what appears to them to be critical or unfavourable - from entering "their" pages. If it was left to them, the NKT-article would consist of merely an exact copy of the NKT's own publicity material. This behaviour at least does come across as a bit cult-like from time to time... To be fair though, there have been times in the history of that article when it was the other way round and critical views were very dominant in the article. Also, User:Emptymountains, from my experience, is the most reasonable of the NKT-affiliated editors, striving for compromises and a more NPOV in difficult discussions. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC) •	Result - IP editor blocked 1 month. It is understandable that some admins may have lost patience due to the many complaints about New Kadampa Tradition, but this issue seems like a pure form of silly edit warring about the word 'cult', which the IP insists belongs in the article instead of the word 'organization'. It is believed that the IP is actually User:Yonteng who for some reason has not used his registered account since June, when he was given a two-week block. The IP was also last blocked for two weeks, so now it is increased to one month. I realize that an indef for Yonteng and an SPI filing might be the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

2.	http://www.filepie.us/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive98#94.192.139.167_reported_by_Emptymountains_.28Result:_semi.29 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: semi) •	Page: Dorje Shugden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) •	User: 94.192.139.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) •	Previous version reverted to: [219] •	1st revert: [220] •	2nd revert: [221] •	3rd revert: [222] •	Diff of 3RR warning: [223]

Please note that today I added sources which support my edits, but the user continues to remove them. Emptymountains (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC) I've semi'd the page for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Please consider doing the same to the related Dorje Shugden controversy article, where this user is also active today. Emptymountains (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC) I am the user Emptymountains speaks of. i have reported this group to the relevant authorities and would ask that you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism as well as all the stuff in the talk page of New Kadampa Tradition as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive140#POV_edits_from_a_group_of_users_on_Dorje_Shugden These people are dodgy/slippery and this must be watched!!!YontengYonteng (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3.	http://www.filepie.us/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive98 Yonteng / 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: 24h) •	Page: New Kadampa Tradition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) •	User: Yonteng (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) aka •	User 94.192.139.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) •	Previous version reverted to: [277]

To show this has been going on for a week: •	1st revert: [278] •	2nd revert: [279] •	3rd revert: [280] And, in the last 24 hours: •	1st revert: [281] •	2nd revert: [282] •	3rd revert: [283] •	4th revert: [284] •	Diff of 3RR warning: [285] •	5th revert: [286] •	6th revert: [287] •	7th revert: [288] •	8th revert: [289] •	9th revert: [290] •	10th revert: [291] •	11th revert: [292] The user was reported for 3RR the day before on another article here: [293], the result of which was a semi-protect, which is why they have since registered a username. I posted this to the user on the discussion page: Yonteng, the onus is on you. Per WP:NPOV dispute, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." Emptymountains (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC) The user is active on the article's discussion page, but never listing any "specific issues that are actionable" concerning the content of the article, saying that removing his tag is "cyber bullying." I asked the user on the Dorje Shugden controversy dicussion to "agrue facts not personalities," but that continued unabated, including an attempted outing which I reported here: [294]. There was talk of a block by the administrators who responded, but I don't know if anything came of it. Emptymountains (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) New user Yonteng also making unpleasant ad hominem attacks on the talk page (and Edit Summary boxes). (Truthbody (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)) 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding comment added by Mzilikazi1939 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 April 2010


 * My impression that the material I referred to was "well sourced" was based on a fairly quick look at a couple of the sources cited. Unfortunately I was short of time, and did not give it as much attention as ideally I should have. Judging by the detailed account which you have given above clearly the situation is by no means as clear-cut as I thought, and certainly the editor you refer to has been somewhat troublesome. There are clearly problems on both sides, but at present I have no intention of taking any further action, as I do not feel I know enough about the situation to judge what is best. I shall keep an eye on the situation, and it is possible that at some future time I may feel I can usefully contribute, but for now I will leave the matter to you. Feel free, however, to contact me again if you wish. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

why is page User:Sazarian/EVER_TEAM tagged for ambiguous advertising
Hello, you have tagged this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sazarian/EVER_TEAM - for deletion, and i really beleive that it is not an advertising page, can you please specify why you think it is? looking at similar companies / competitors on wikipedia such as Documentum, laserfiche,Open Text Corporation, IBM... i do not see any difference in the way they write their articles. please advise. thank you. --Sazarian (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks rather promotional in tone to me, but having looked again I don't see it as blatant advertising, so I have removed the tag. This should give you a chance to work on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't permit the use of © ® or ™ symbols in articles. In addition, there is never a legitimate reason to use the word "solutions" in any article not about solutes dissolved in solvents. This article fails both those tests. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. When I wrote the above post I considered mentioning the word "solution", but decided not to. I decided that, for a page in user space we could afford to allow a little leeway for a while to allow time for improvement. However, i certainly don't think the present tone of the page is suitable for an article, and even as a user space page if it stays as it is for more than a little while I think it will not be acceptable. I should really have made this explicit in my comment above. I certainly wouldn't argue against anyone who restored the speedy deletion tag. Finally, as far as the other articles referred to are concerned, at a quick glance I think one or two of them are indeed not a lot better, and maybe they should go too. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have updated the content and removed the word solutions, I think now the updated content is ok, and with all the references that i have added. I will be adding more references in the coming days. meanwhile, can i publish the content online?Sazarian (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved EVER TEAM to article space at Saz's request. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Mamas & Papas
I am not a writer but a person who wants the public to know the other side of where it all went after the break up of the Mamas & the Papas in the late 60's! Are you still involved in this piece and if not who shall I write to? I am new on wiki and I hope that I am not breaching guidelines for this forum.

I feel that there is a need to put things right in the history of "The New Mamas & Papas"  As a key vocalist with the folk-rock quartet from 1986 until 1993, Laurie Beebe (now Laurie K. Lewis) has earned a place in the history of the band who worked and spent seven quality years of her life, energy, heart and time into the M's & P's.

Laurie started out as a replacement for Mackenzie Phillips while she was trying to get her act together and get clean & sober so she could have her son (she shared this on the Oprah show in 1990) However, from the time she came back in June of 1987 until December of 1991, Laurie filled in for her on numerous occasions because whenever they left the country (which was too many times to count) a red flag would come up on her passport so Laurie was called in to do the international tours.

In 1991, Mackenzie told Laurie about her relationship with her dad. She kept tight lipped about it until Mackenzie's book came out and then she was contacted by the press and appeared on several tv shows to confirm her story. Mackenzie Phillips left the band for good when she could not work under the conditions with her dad. Laurie was called again and was told that Mac was leaving permanently. She continued to work with them from January 1991 until March of 1993. John Phillips was with them until June of 1992 when he had to get a liver transplant...then Scott MaKenzie took John's place and Denny, Spanky, Laurie and Scott continued to be the Mamas & Papas until Laurie left in March of 1993, Spanky left in September of 1993 and then the band split.

Laurie was a significant part of the group and a "Mama" who spent more time performing with with the M's & P's than Jill Gibson or Michelle Phillips put together. But I would not say that she was more important than either one of these women...just a factual person who was a part of the group and an official "Mama"!

The New Mamas & Papas story is another factual and historical story that should be amended into the article. I feel this need to bring it into view before it is no longer relevant to the next generation of music lovers who are absorbed in the history and color that surrounds the Mamas & Papas, even aftr the death of John!

All in all, most of my "proof" and references is hard copy. The internet was not a big thing until Laurie was long gone and the band long broken up...so all there was to tell was the past band and TV shows with Spanky, Mackenzie, John & Denny

There are numerous publicity pics with Laurie in them...including 8x10 pics that were taken after Mackenzie left...one with the configuration with John, Denny, Spanky and Laurie and then the configuration after John left and Scott taking Johns place. These pics were done in a local photo studio some where in Las Vegas and the other outside of Jack Pot Nevada...so ther are no copyrioght information that I am aware of. There are also many articles, Media stories and press releases involving the New Mamas & Papas that included Laurie as one of the featured key vocalists in the quartet. Referencing these things are difficult to find on the net. You may find M's & P's pics on Laurie's my space page at [www.myspace.com/laurieklewis]

It was a very important time in the life of this band and a true historical event in the history of John Phillips and the Mamas & Papas. Please help to get this information on Wiki. For more reference please see article

Bebfire (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you have sent this message to me. I have no memory of ever editing to do with this, and certainly I have not edited the article The New Mamas and The Papas, as the edit history of that article shows. Perhaps I once edited something related to it, but I have made well over 20000 edits on Wikipedia, and I don't remember all of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mohammad Arif
I am Shadowbhia Arif my father Mohammad Arif is a candidate for California Governor in upcoming June 8, 2010 election in California. I tried to fix the speedy deletion but find myself in vain because I'm not too familiar, I need your help and support to upload Mr. Mohammad Arif page on Wikipedia. He is one of the 23 certified candidates, people in California who wanted to vote for him are looking negative when they find deletion on his Wikipedia. I am sending you the basic fact about him and photo will be available:

Mohammad Arif (born January 30, 1969) is a candidate for Governor of California in California's 2010 gubernatorial election. Arif is running as a Peace and Freedom Party candidate. He was a Secretary of the Treasury during Howard Johnson Campaign for Senate in California. According to his campaign website, Arif is a supporter of the common people of California, leading to the adoption of the campaign slogan, "People are Power".

Hailey College Educated Graduate in Commerce and Master in Economics is willing to perform California Executive and Leader as a Governor. He was elected Executive Member of County Central Committee, he got top one-third votes as an "Independent Candidate for California Governor in 2003."

Mr. Arif is the Chairman of Peace and Freedom Party in Kern County, Peace and Freedom party is one of the ballot-qualified parties on the ballot in California.

Regards

Shadowbhia Arif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowbhia (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 May 2010


 * Have you read Articles for deletion/Mohammad Arif? If you haven't then I suggest doing so, because that explains why the article has been deleted. Nothing in the article indicated that Mohammad Arif is at all notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Nor does anything you have said above, nor anything I have seen anywhere else. If you have not done so you should certainly read the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for politicians. If you can show that he satisfies those guidelines then a new article can be created. However, on the basis of what I have seen it seems to me that he does not satisfy them, in which case you are probably better off accepting the fact that he does not qualify for a Wikipedia article, rather than wasting more time on it. It is a common mistake to think that Wikipedia accepts any contributions on anything, but in fact we accept only articles on subjects that satisfy our notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for help
Hi James,

Thats not problem I totally understand now. I will make the appropriate changes and re submit the page as required... only thing is i am finding this whole process really complicated... Maybe you can help me? I would like to delete both the Talent and Production page & also the Elliott Seller one and start again in the4 format you have suggested :)

How do i perform these actions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirs44 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I found editing Wikipedia pretty confusing at first, so I am not at all surprised that you do.
 * As far as deleting articles is concerned, only administrators can do that. However, if you have created a page and you are the only person to have made any substantial contribution to it then you can request deletion of the page by putting the tag db-self at the top of the page. Normally an administrator will then delete the page. In the case of Elliott Seller I have added the tag for you, and a note on the article's talk page explaining that you have requested deletion.
 * For the rest of the process, I see you now have a page User:Eirs44/Talent and Production Website. If and when this is ready to release as an article you can do so. Bear in mind the need for notability, and you may find it helpful to read the guideline on reliable sources if you haven't yet done so. Also remember that material which appears to be intended to be promotional is likely to be deleted. If you have any other questions about this please feel welcome to contact me here again. Also some of the links in the welcome message on your talk page may be useful to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

God this is stressful! lol
Hi James, sorry to be a pain but I am really struggling here lol. I appreciate what you have done with the Elliott Seller page regarding deletion, however when I altered it earlier it also got removed for being A7 or somthing? I have no idea what that is & I read the A7 guidlines but I dont see how my article about my career failed to meet guidlines??

Also I edited the eirs44/talentandproduction page to make it more 'neutral' and made the changes you suggested... I didnt know how to make that live so i clicked move and put it under the title of Talent and Production...

Have I done anything correctly, i feel like im fighting a losing battle now... Just want to know how to upload my own 'elliott seller' article, like my friends (charlotte Mcdonagh) and a Talent and Production article too

Is there a simple way to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirs44 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The first thing to say is that, since you refer to "my article about my career" you should really read the conflict of interest guideline, if you have not already done so. Wikipedia strongly discourages editing in a topic in which you have a conflict of interest, and requires great caution if you must do so. Next, I have already posted on your talk page examples of promotional language you have used, but you have kept much of the same tone, including some of the very examples I gave. In this context I can really do no better than repeat what I said on your talk page: "I can only assume you are so closely involved with the subject that you cannot stand back and see it from a distant enough perspective to see how it looks to an impartial observer. If this is the case then you would probably be better off not editing this article, as you are unlikely to be able to give an objective account." Next, I have looked at the article Talent and Production, and have seen no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability and reliable sources guidelines, although I drew your attention to the need to follow these. You have given numerous links, evidently intended as references for the article, but as far as I can see all of them are either links to Talent and Production's own web site or else links to web pages that don't mention Talent and Production: in neither of these cases do they even begin to contribute to showing notability.
 * I sympathise with someone who comes to Wikipedia thinking that writing a couple of articles will be straightforward, only to find a string of obstacles and, as you say, "feel like im fighting a losing battle now". However, I think you may be making a mistake that I find is often made by people new to editing Wikipedia who come here to write self-promotional material. That mistake is thinking of the question "how can I get my article accepted?" rather than of the question "am I suitable for a Wikipedia article?" From what I have seen it looks as though you probably don't satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. If that is the case then you would be better off saving yourself further wasted effort by not struggling to try to get your articles accepted. If, however, you do satisfy those criteria then it should not be too hard to find evidence that you do. However, that requires substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of you and your web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Eric Trautmann
Hello JamesBWatson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eric Trautmann, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you.  So Why  20:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, having thought about it I think you are right. I have tagged it for references instead. Thanks for letting me know of your decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I guessed with the amount of patrolling you do, you might not check again to see it. :-) Regards  So Why  20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed Prod
I have removed the prod tag from Historic Charleston Foundation, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! I removed this PROD because off this national recognition and the fact that this is a new editor's 1st article. Indeed it can be improved, but we shouldn't bite the new guys, we should mentor them instead.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Donncha1
In fairness to this user, I don't think he edited from an IP address after he was blocked, as you suggested on his talk page; those edits were made before the block. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On at least one of the articles in question IP edits came after the last edit by Donncha1, which made it look like block evasion. Thank you for pointing this out: I shall check more carefully in future. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Your suggestion of an RfA
I've replied on my talk. Peter 22:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I've created User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA, and added a reply. Peter 17:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank You for everything you do here on Wikipedia. --Fumitol (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)