User talk:JBW/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JBW. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Coupe utility

Im only changing it to state what it actually is wich is a coupe utilty not a pick§up truck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.202.169 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

--Arain11 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)excuse me im sorry for trying to be helpful but u know what nobody evan likes wikipedia so u should be glad im on and also dont call it vandilism on aweb sight that cant figure out where somone was born

        thanx,
      --Arain11 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)--Arain11 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)arain11

Scarlett (G.I. Joe)

I’m sorry to bother you, but I thought I should let someone know about a user called Doctorfacts[1]

He/she keeps deleting and adding wrong info on the G.I. Joe Scarlett page and never gives any explanation as to why[2]

To explain what is going on the page as best as I can... he/she keeps stating on the page that there was it implied that Scarlett was romantically involved with the character Duke and then goes on to say that they were together... now that doesn’t make any sense since implied is not an answer and yet in the Relationships section, it says that they were together. There's no source or episode from that cartoon show to prove that. I'm trying to be as accurate as I can on that page and I have listed which episode and have written out the scenes that explain that. But looking at that person's history page, that user goes on to remove any info that says otherwise no matter what and gives no reasons too any of this or that he/she will listen or stop and it seems that very little control goes on over there. Again I'm sorry to be a bother, but I thought someone should know of this. That person just keeps doing that.

This person is out to delete information just because he/she doesn't agree with it.[3]

Something needs to be done. 75.60.208.208 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the edit history of Scarlett (G.I. Joe) since 6 August 2009, when Doctorfacts started editing. It is clear that Doctorfacts has been continually edit warring over that period in an attempt to keep certain claims in the article. I know nothing about Scarlett (G.I. Joe), and so have no opinion at all as to the accuracy of the information Doctorfacts has been adding, but consensus is clearly against Doctorfacts, with several other editors having reverted edits by Doctorfacts. However, as far as I can see no attempt has been made to discuss the issue, which should be a first step. If an editor continues to work against consensus after an attempt has been made to resolve the issue by discussion then further steps can be taken, but discussion should come first. I strongly recommend explaining what you see the problem to be, in as courteous and constructive a manner as possible, on the article's talk page, and also drawing attention to that on Doctorfacts's talk page to make sure that Doctorfacts is aware of it. If after a reasonable time the attempt to resolve the issue by discussion has not made progress then please feel welcome to contact me again. However, I think in the first instance discussion between the editors who are involved in the dispute should be tried. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your time on this. When it comes to people who knows more of this type of info... I can't find any that are still here who has the power to do something. I don't know how one would go about finding such a person here. When it comes to talking... that user has made no attempt at talking about this about at all and it seems that nobody is there. Well see what happens 75.60.208.208 (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Even so, you should try to start a discussion. If the other editor fails to respond then we can move on from there, but if you are seen not even to have tried to sort it out by discussion then you are less likely to get support if it does turn out to be necessary to go further. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have taken this too at least two other people who have or should know more about this than I do and I have said something on the talk page. How long should I wait until I come back to you if nothing happens? 75.60.208.208 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a note on the user's talk page calling their attention to your comment on the article talk page. If no response comes soon I will add a more specific comment, and we can see where it goes from there. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Also, I should let you know that I'm using DSL 2wire and it has sometimes cut out on me and when I get back online I am force to have a different IP address. So if you see someone talking to you about this later today, the next or a few days from now with a different IP address, it will of course be me. 75.60.208.208 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You could, of course, register an account. You don't have to, but it helps in several ways, including avoiding the problem you have just mentioned, and providing a fixed place (your user talk page) for other editors to get in touch with you. Another point is that some editors tend to take anonymous editors less seriously than named ones. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do, probably because many vandals and other unconstructive editors edit anonymously. If you do decide to register, let me know what your user name is. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's me, 75.60.208.208. I now of course have one. Before I did get an account I had to re-edit that user once again on both of those pages. That person made those edits on at 17:28, 12 May 2010, 17:29 and then at 18:54.[4] You said something to that user at 17:53... if this keeps going? NamelessConsular (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I left another message on the talk page that says, if someone can explain this implied thing (episode(s) listed and scene(s) written out) that doesn't exaggerate or speculate, then that would be ok. As of right now, nothing has happen on those pages since I re-edited... but that person could come back in a few minutes, days, weeks and it will start all over again. But we'll see what happens. NamelessConsular (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems that this person has ignored any type of discussion on this matter and they're just going to do what he or she wants. I don't know what else to do. Like I said, anybody who has more info on this hasn’t been here in weeks, months or almost a year or doesn’t care. The only thing else I can do is to just keep going on with this edit war, and those like this, just don’t end. I know a person must be given a warring before there blocked and I am of course no administrator, but it seems that the only thing to do is to either protect the page where only people like you can edit it for however long pages are protected or… block the person (a warring or two first of course). NamelessConsular (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I really need your help... there's no reasonable solution to this edit war. I have done everything I can do. I now need your help with this. NamelessConsular (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think that there is more scope for discussion. If you have good reasons for the changes you have made then you ought to be able to explain those reasons on the article's talk page. In the meanwhile I have given Doctorfacts a message warning about edit warring, and inviting discussion. If you both explain your reasons there then there may be hope for resolution. If one of you shows willing to discuss and the other doesn't then unfortunately other methods may have to be used. You have certainly made a start at discussing the matter: for the moment let's see how it goes from there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you know... it seemed as if for a second or two... I was going to be able to talk with this person about it... well that didn't last long because he/she doesn't care about the facts or the facts that this person claims to know. That person wrote on the Scarlett page that she and the character Duke kissed and that never happen in the show. That person edited that out of their, but that user still refuses to have anything that adds to that section of the page or anything that says otherwise. I don't see this ending in a discussion. That page needs to be kept an eye on. That user could come back in a month or 2 and just keep this unexplainable editing because that's what this user has done before. If that person just edits back to the way he/she wants again sometime in the next few minutes, hours, days or weeks... what then? NamelessConsular (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User Doctorfacts has ignored your warring and gave another unexplainable edit.[5][6]. I knew that this wasn't going to end in a discussion. That person is not going to stop even if someone like you warns them. The only thing there is to do, is to block the person. NamelessConsular (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"If this does not work I recommend that you do not revert the next edit by Doctorfacts, as you could be in danger of being seen to be edit warring yourself, but feel welcome to put a note on my talk page, and I will move on from there."

Very well, if that happens I will of course come to you first. I won't revert. To let you know, I'm still trying to find people here who have more info on this than I do. NamelessConsular (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Doctorfacts

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Doctorfacts's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have noticed that most of those changes are more based on character preference pairing (Scarlett and Snake Eyes) than anything else. What most fans have failed to accept is the fact that the Sunbow cartoon series took another approach. While citations have been used to support the following comment: "Duke kisses Cover Girl" in the episode "Cobra Claws are coming to town", the reality of it is that she kisses me on the cheek; hardly ground to state that they were in a relationship.

Whereas there are quite a few episodes to support the implication that Duke and Scarlett were romantically involved (couple of examples):

1) "Cobra stops the world" - she asks Duke to take her to dinner and a movie and he agrees 2) "Battle for the train of gold" 3) "The Mass Device" 4) "There's no place like Springfield"

I am uncertain how familiar you are with the animated series, but if you were to watch those episodes, I am quite sure my facts would be supported.

As for Gijoe Resolute, she tells Duke while both were trapped in the Siberian facility that it took her a long time to know what she wants, now that she does, she would spend the last 5 minutes with him (not word for word, but context is same).

While I do not prefer one pairing over the other, it was obvious to me that some of the users that have been contributing to the article have one focus in mind: Scarlett and Snake Eyes; to me that is not objectivity but rather preference; especially when one side is eliminated (place the Duke character with other females instead) to elevate the other.

I am sorry if I have given the impression that I have refused to discuss this matter, I did not realize about this "Talk" feature until yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorfacts (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You should have stated that on the page and not said "impiled", because that is not an answer. I have already taken off the relationship thing with Duke and Cover Girl. Also, it was never stated on the page where Duke and Cover Girl kissed but it needs to be said that it happen and it's just left that it was just a kiss. All of it will be listed on both of there pages. That's all I wanted, for it all to be stated on the page. NamelessConsular (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I usually prefer to keep discussions in one place, on this occasion I have decided that my talk page is not the most appropriate place for this discussion to continue. I have posted a reply to Doctorfacts on their talk page, and I strongly suggest that both Doctorfacts and NamelessConsular should discuss this matter at Talk:Scarlett (G.I. Joe). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nepa=SBR

Hi my name is Nepa, please tell me what I have been vandalizing, and if I have, then i am truely sorry for whatever I have done. Nepa=SBR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepa=SBR (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nepa. Because of the large amount of vandalism that takes place on Wikipedia, vandalism patrollers use automated tools to help find vandalism. In this case, several of us were using a tool called "Huggle", which picked up that you were removing nearly all the content of the article, which looked like vandalism. Since you have raised the question I have looked again, and I now see that you were in fact removing material which had been flagged as copyright violation. I have removed the offending material again, and I shall remove the copyright notice from the article (though that does not mean it may not be deleted for other reasons). I shall also remove the vandalism warnings from your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Again this is Nepa, I don't think that you understand that I am the one that made the page, that is why I was wondering why I was getting warnings. I was just trying to delete the information because I was doing infringement. Nepa=SBR (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that, but I didn't realise at the time when I took the action on it. You were quite right to remove the copyright infringing material. I see that another editor says he has rewritten the original information to avoid the copyright problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I have earned any barnstars, if not how should I help you so that I can earn one? please just let me help you with anything you need help doing, or if you need any assistants. Nepa=SBR (talk) 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For this edit, thank you for assuming good faith and helping out two wikipedians--one a newbie, and the other, presumably a mistaken new page patroller, I award you this barnstar. --I dream of horses @ 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses @ 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--I dream of horses @ 19:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Talk:SuperB Experiment.
Message added 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh look, somebody has already left you a comment on the talk page. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert on my talk page

Just like to say thanks for that speedy revert =] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And the same to you! JamesBWatson (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry

i'm sorry i dont know why i did it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.181.75 (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

igloo

Thanks for your interest in igloo. igloo is no longer in approval only mode, and you should be able to use the program. Let me know if you have any problems. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

		The Special Barnstar
		For the reverting of unhelpfull edits by User:Ulrich Von Happlestein I award you the Special Barnstar. Spitfire19 (Talk) 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sofa Workshop/Sofasandstuff - clarifications

You have deleted information I added on the SofaWorkshop site about Andy Cussins which means the information continues to be commercially and legally inaccurate. Andy Cussins is no longer a shareholder or manager of the company - he has not been for some time.

You have also deleted the small entry I submitted about what Andy Cussins has since gone on to do - ie set up Sofasandstuff. If it is deemed of sufficient news worthiness to mention Andy Cussins numerous times in the Sofa Workshop story it seems illogical not to cover what he has subsequently gone on to do.

Please re-read the deleted copy and reconsider in the interests of accuracy.

Stephen Prendergast —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephendePrendergast (talk • contribs) 08:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken in thinking that I have deleted information from Sofa Workshop. The edit history of the article shows that I have never edited it at all. As for Sofasandstuff, I posted you a message in response to a comment you made on the talk page of the article. This was an attempt to help you understand why another editor (not me) had nominated that article for deletion. As far as I know that attempt to help you is all that I did concerning the article. I am not aware of having removed any information from that article, and indeed I am almost certain that I didn't, but if I have done so perhaps you can remind me more specifically. Since the article has been deleted I cannot see what edits were made to it, and since my average rate of edits is around 150 per day I cannot remember them all. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm an administrator I can see deleted edits, and can confirm that JBW didn't edit Sofasandstuff. It was tagged for deletion by Flint McRae (talk · contribs) and deleted by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs); the latter is the person you should speak to about getting it undeleted. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Chandana Prasanna

Please see this Article Please suggest do don't delete best Chandana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.175.28 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

CCIE Certification

CCIE Certification article was not a promoting any company or brand. This article has all the information related to CCIE Certification tracks. The only external referencing done are pointing to Cisco's CCIE Certification information page. As I am totally new to creating Wikipedia articles Please explain which part of the article made you feel that is was blatant advertising. Please advice & let me know what needs to be done. CCIE Certification (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)CCIE Certification

Unfortunately, since the article has been deleted I cannot see what about it made it appear to be promotional. The page User:CCIE Certification was deleted by Nyttend, who is an administrator and can look at the records of deleted pages, so you could ask on Nyttend's talk page if you like. However, it may be helpful to you to be aware of a few other problems. The fact that you say that the only referencing was to Cisco's CCIE information page indicates that you did not provide any evidence of coverage by an independent source: coverage of the certificate by the company responsible for it does not indicate notability, since any company is likely to write about its own products. Secondly, you user name makes it look as though you are editing on behalf of Cisco. If that is so then there are two problems: firstly, you are likely to have a conflict of interest, and in that case you would be strongly discouraged from writing on the subject. Secondly, for copyright reasons, accounts are for individuals, not for companies or other organisations. I strongly recommend that before doing any more editing, you make sure you are familiar with some of Wikipedia's essential policies and guidelines. Unfortunately there are rather a lot of them, which can be bewildereing for a newcomer to editing Wikipedia. However, I shall post to your talk page a welcome message, which will include links to some pages which tell you the basics. I recommend reading the one about "Your first article". The "Tutorial" is also very useful. Those pages should, I think, be helpful. If you want to have a more complete understanding of the issues I have touched on above then you could look at some or all of the policies and guidelines on general notability, Reliable sources, conflict of interest, usernames. Also the guideline on notability of organizations and companies has some relevance, even though the page you wrote was not actually about a company. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

HELLO ,I AM NICOLE NICE TO MEET YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.184.76 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Basta..

welle,, ans where is the right place to say you and all puritans how you seems ridculous ? Jean de Parthenay (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardin the page Them CLones

Hello sir this is regarding the page Them CLones which i recently edited.I have completely edited the page with a neutral point of view please point out my mistakes so i can correct them.In addition i have taken permission from the Band members for doing so

Regards Sreejit Dutta (sreejit.dutta@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.184.245 (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you genuinely see "Inspired by the dramatic world of rock n’ roll and of course themselves, their tryst with songwriting has directed them across the course of the thoughtful to confessional, from the assertive to the provocative" and "Followed with their super successful single release" as being written from "neutral point of view" then i suggest you are so closely involved with the band that you are unable to step back and see how your editing looks from an independent perspective. The members of the band cannot give permission for you to edit the article, nor to edit it in any particular way, as they do not own the article. Editing the article must be done in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, and adding promotional hype is not in line with those policies. The fact that you indicate you are personally in touch with members of the band also suggests that you have a conflict of interest, in which case you should not be editing the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

sry for that i ll edit. i dnont get to kno when u reply to my post! so i didnt get to kno the changes.sry i ll edit those —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejit Dutta (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed" SUPER SUCCESFUL" from the page i kno dats not neutral.i was just going through the webpages of famous indian bands like parikrama,them clones etc. so when i saw them clones' page i thought its VERY SMALL considering the fact that they are a succesful band so i added each member on facebook nd den tried to contact dem. finally i got hold of 1 member and consulted him for changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejit Dutta (talk • contribs) 09:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote above, I have found that the text you added is largely a copy of material at http://oml.in/artists/. That page includes the copyright notice "© 2010 OML. All Rights Reserved". it appears, therefore, that your editing constitutes a copyright infringement. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rectifications

Respected Sir Could you now please check the page after the corrections ive rectified and please tell me about the copyright violations. Regards Sreejit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejit Dutta (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Permission

now can i add this stuff at least??- Debut Album In October 2009,Them Clones came up with their Debut Album-Love.Hate.Heroes.

Track Listing

Colour
Downer
Follow the Prophet
Horizon
In the Name of God
My Life
One Way through
Sindrome
Spunk
The Bomb Song
Zephyretta

and remove a few lines?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejit Dutta (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 May 2010

You can add that material if you like, but I think it only fair to let you know that I am doubtful about the notability of the band. If it is not notable then it is quite likely that the the whole article may be deleted soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a notable band. has won many competitions. voted among top 5 Indian bands in many polls and surveys.At one time it was the best in the country.Now other bands are also ther like parikrama etc but the band is still notable. Please dont delete it or any othr indian band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejit Dutta (talk • contribs) 10:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether this particular article should be deleted or not I don't know. Certainly at present the article does not establish notability. but it may be that that can be corrected. However, asking not to delete any Indian band's article is not helpful. Whether an article on a band is deleted depends on whether the band is notable, not on what its nationality is. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a notable band. has won many competitions. voted among top 5 Indian bands in many polls and surveys.At one time it was the best in the country.Now other bands are also ther like parikrama etc but the band is still notable. Please dont delete it or any othr indian band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejit Dutta (talk • contribs) 10:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If u read the link u wrote about the copyright,youll see its a notable band. And just for your information i took the information from the bands homepage with the bands permission,they also have a copyright. Copyright © 2009 Them Clones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejit Dutta (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since anyone can edit Wikipedia, we cannot take an editor's word for it that they have copyright permission. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to see how it is possible for copyright owners to make their materials available to Wikipedia. (On a separate matter, it makes it much easier to follow talk page discussions if you add new comments on an existing topic to the end of the discussion on that topic, rather than at the bottom of the page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Refer to this page- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rock speciaally the line"Notable bands from Delhi include Parikrama, Indian Ocean, THEM CLONES, Menwhopause" as you can see its a notable band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejit Dutta (talk • contribs) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. All that the article you have mentioned shows is that some Wikipedia editor has said that the band is notable. Since anyone at all can write anything they like on Wikipedia this is not evidence of notability. I suggest reading the guideline on reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright

Can you please chek the page now??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejit Dutta (talk • contribs) 11:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article gives no sources. I suggest reading the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability for musicians and the guideline on reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hackforums AfD

Hi, I wanted to clarify my current position without cluttering up the AfD.

My current position is neutral, in as much as I've struck thru' my delete !vote. I may yet revert back to delete, however.

When I referred to SqueakBox's "point", I took it to be that some editors (including me) had not properly looked for evidence of notability. In hindsight, that was certainly true in my case. I intend to rectify that mistake, and have struck my !vote until I have done so. I acknowledge that I may very well return to my original decision - your comment suggests that research doesn't return any evidence of notability, and if that's the case I certainly will be !voting delete.

Hope that makes sense!

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 13:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it makes perfect sense. My own "delete" was originally meant to be provisional, pending the possibility of finding better sources. The current situation is, it seems to me, that the site has attracted a good deal of attention, but it is difficult to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Even without reliable sources, I do not see it as quite as straightforward a "delete" as would be the case if it had received less attention. The result of this is that I am still sticking with "delete" for the moment, but I am still very much open to persuasion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to stop by and say thank you for all your work with Counter-Vandalism. HistoryStudent113^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Rational triangle redirect

Hi,

I disagree about where Rational triangle should be redirected to. A rational triangle is the same thing as an integer triangle, up to a multiplicative factor. A Heronian triangle is a special case of either, and indeed a common usage of Heronian triangle is as the integer version. So the broader category is rational or integer triangle, and a particular case is Heronian triangle. If someone wants to learn about rational triangles, he'll learn more about it from the integer triangle article, which has a link to the Heronian triangle article. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have though carefully about your comment, and looked more carefully than before at the articles in question. Clearly you are right to say that a rational triangle is the same thing as an integer triangle, up to a multiplicative factor. In fact the two are really the same thing viewed via different scales of measurement. It seems to me that there is no real justification for having two separate articles, and it would make more sense to merge them into one, and turn the other either into a redirect or into a brief stub giving a definition and a link to the other. I am much inclined to do this, but I before doing so I have posted merge-proposal notices to the articles to see if anyone objects, or has any other constructive comments. Naturally I shall be interested if you have any comment to make about this proposal. If so I suggest posting it at Talk:Integer triangle. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

vandalism from this IP address.

86.131.57.96 Just writing to apologise for the continued abuse from this IP this evening. I had friends over and they seem to think its brilliant to muck about on wiki. i assure you guys that you will not get anymore trouble from the IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.57.96 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

m8 i dont like you attitude but i like u.. i will strike u a deal yeah me blood? u leaves me alone and i will set u up with some verry nice ladies i can introduce to you.. spect? Im feeling generous... buy one get one free if u nows what i mean yeah blood? chill out... have a wank... peace out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helscream123 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Nuujinn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)

Hi, JamesBWatson. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "Proximity Ligation Assay"

Dear JamesBWatson,

I hope you are well. I authored the Proximity Ligation Assay post and I was informed by my company to remove it. I am not sure how to do this, perhaps I don't have the permission. I was wondering if you can help me remove it. My company asked me to remove all traces of the post including its history.

Thanks for your help!!

Supersaiyintwo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersaiyintwo (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you a specialist in the history of philosophy?

So what if Rome was in Italy? Konigsberg is now in Russia. Does that make Kant a Russian philosopher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.177.243.61 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rome is in Italy. Ancient Roman philosophy existed in Italy. Kant is irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that in the talk page of the article you give a more reasoned defence of your position. I fully agree that Hellenistic philosophers who happened to be Roman citizens but not from Rome can reasonably be said not to be Roman philosophers. However, that is not by any means the same as saying that Roman philosophers were not Italian philosophers. It may also be of help to you to realise that other Wikipedia editors are more likely to read your comments in a sympathetic spirit, and therefore more likely to be persuaded to your views, if you are seen to be civil to other editors. Dismissing the opinions of others because you think you know more about a subject than them is likely to turn people against you and discourage them form listening to you, whether or not the opinion that you know better than them is justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree

Kant may be irrelevant, but not the analogy. "Italian" refers to a modern nation (state constituted int the 1860's, language emerged in the Middle Ages), and not to the inhabitants of ancient Italia. The geographic location is not a criterion in the history of philosophy. Adamantios Corais, to give an example, was a Greek philosopher living in Paris at the time of the French Revolution. No historian of philosophy would say that he was a French philosopher, or even a French man of letters. Descendents of the Romans, as Italians may be, they are not by any means the only descendents of the Romans. So are Frenchmen, Portuguese, Spaniards, and Romanians, among others. Each of these nations could claim Roman philosophy for themselves. To put it in simple words: no Italians were living in the Roman Empire at the time of Plotinus. One problem with historical truth is that it is not democratic: it has nothing to do with the agreement of Wikipedia editors, but with historical facts. Do as you like, I only tried to improve the scientific quality of an article which was not scientific and even not encyclopedic. I rest my case here, you should go and read a reliable history of Italian philosophy, or at least an entry in a reliable printed Encyclopedia of philosophy. Ignorance is to be fought with truth; bad faith can not be fought with anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.177.243.61 (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My signature Bogdan rusu (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the words "Italy" and "Italian" must be restricted to the modern state and may not be used in reference to the earlier history of the same geographical area is an unusual one. If you are serious about expunging all other uses of those words from every Wikipedia article in which they appear then you have a lot of editing to do. Perhaps you may like to start with Dante Alighieri. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I also made reference to Italian language. "Italian philosophy" can not mean 'philosophy done on the present-day territory of Italy, in any historical epoch". It can only reasonably mean 'philosophy of the Italians', and not only of the Italians living on the present-day territory of Italy. What makes an Italian italian is his/hers language (and culture). Ancient Etruscans were not Italians, even if they lived within the geographical borders of present-day Italy. Neither were the ancient Romans Italians, for the same reason: they spoke a different language, they had a different culture, and they considered themeslves Romans, and not Italians. An Italian is one who lives in the Italic penisula and speaks a neo-latin language. Italian vernacular emerged from spoken Latin in the Middle Ages, after the Germanic invasions. From that moment on one can speak of Italians, of Italian culture, Italian philosophy. Dante was Italian, that's for sure, even if there was no state of Italy at the time; just as Luther was German when no state of Germany existed. But Cicero was not Italian. The issue here is to distinguish between a merely geographical meaning of 'Italian' and a historical-cultural meaning. Studying 'Italian philosophy' in the geographical sense would be both historically and philosophically meaningless: what then would distinguish Italian philosophy from French or Austrian philosophy? Several miles? Further more: who fixes the refernce of the word 'Italian'? International treaties establishing political borders, or geographical treatises delimitating a given natural entity? When one speaks of 'Italian philosophy' proper, one means, or should reasonably mean, a part of the Italian culture. We are speaking here about a national or an ethnic philosophy, not about a geographical philosophy. I am not against a geography of philosophy, even if I doubt very much that this is a sensible concept; but surely, this is not what we mean when we want to learn about Italian philosophy. Think about it: would it be correct to say that Aztec thought is a part of Mexican philosophy, only because Aztecs used to live where Mexicans live today?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.253.21 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 May 2010

I understand everything you say, and I agree with most of it. However, I think the crux of the matter is your sentence "The issue here is to distinguish between a merely geographical meaning of 'Italian' and a cultural meaning." You acknowledge here that there are two meanings, yet you insist that only one of these meanings may be used, and that it is wrong to use the other. That the ancient philosophers who were included in the article have so little cultural and philosophical connection with modern Italian philosophers that it is better not to include mention of them in the same article is a reasonable view. However, to declare that nobody has a right to include them in the same article because that is not what "Italian" means, and that anyone who does so must be ignorant, is to assert a very different proposition. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What I said previously concerned the scientific character of the entry. But the entry does not meet Wikipedia standards concerning no original research:

- it is original research (of a sad originaliy, indeed; inclusion of Roman and Hellenistic philosophy within Italian philosophy hasn'n been done by any serious historian)

- it doesn't quote any reliable sources, doesn't stick to any reliable secondary sources. I repeat: no history of Italian philosophy written by an expert on the subject is used as source.

Fabricating a longer cultural history for one's country by means of including facts connected to the same territory, but not to the same people, using geography to conclude in historical matters i this way, is a kind of nationalisic fallacy, is mere sophistry. Imagine a history of French philosophy beginning with the thought of Druids!

I have one more think to say, relating to the categorization of the entry. You will find that it falls under the category European philosophy, Sovereign states. Have a look at the other articles already written (on British philosophy, German philosophy, French philosophy, Romanian philosophy etc.). You will see that none of these understands its subject-matter in connection with a geographical space, but in connection with a nation and with a language.

To conclude, I will say again that whoever finds it reasonable or justified to include Roman and Hellenistic philosophy under the heading of Italian philosophy must be doing so either out of ignorance, or of bad faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.253.21 (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help!

Hello,

I recently contributed to the VIEW Conference page and was wondering if the improvements I made are acceptable, because my main concern is upholding the wikipedia policies, which I now have gone through extensively. I would really appreciate your help.

michelemcd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelemcd (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have read your message just as I have run out of time. I will try to look at the article and give you an answer soon. If I don't respond within a day or two please remind me. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Igbo Jews

As I posted on the talk page for that article:

If there are sources to confirm the anonymous poster's claims of forensic evidence, then please reference them.

Otherwise, the claims by Rabi Behrman, that the there is no evidence should stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopitarian (talk • contribs) 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Restore Larry Wardlow

Mr Wardlow is on wiki unders maryland state election, I had a page for him which was deleted I have access to his administrtation and I would like his page restored because there updating me each step up the way. He's the only black republican from Baltimore City to run for office

(Trelan (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)).

I am not an administrator and cannot restore the article. As far as I know the only involvement I had with the article was pointing out to you that removing a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself was not acceptable: I certainly took no part in the deletion. However, it may be of help to you to be aware of the following points. Firstly, Wikipedia articles are only acceptable if they are on subjects which have received a substantial amount of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. no matter how much you may feel that a person deserves publicity, if he does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines then an article on that person is likely to be deleted. Secondly, if "I have access to his administration" means that you have a close connection with the person you have written about, then you are likely to fall foul of our guideline on conflict of interest, and in this case you should probably not be writing an article on the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(Trelan (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)) Thank You for the information

RE: Anthony Hill (chemist)

The article has been moved to Anthony F. Hill (chemist). I refer you to the scholar search by that name [7], and the book search [8]. True, there are no pictures of the man forthcoming by a Google image search (very few contemporary chemists would yield a gallery of faces), but with the full name you will get images of publications and several interesting molecules of his creation.[9]. Details of awards and further noteworthy research findings will be added in the near future. MrGalton (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Troublemaker

You are a trouble maker who tries to irrateate people at every turn, hunting for a new chance to try and ban someone. I say nay to you sir! NAAAAY! Stop try to hound people with your pettness! At evry edit you try to look for peolpe to report, pages to ban and users to harass and pester. I say this to you! Leave people alone you! Do not bother people any more and do not go to great lengths to banish people you you deem "undesirable" or "riff-raff". Sir i say that you shall pay if yet another user is pestered by you! Good Day to you SIIIRR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.20.3 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations JAAAAMES, I didn't know you'd been elected to ARBCOOOOOM or employed by the FOUNDAAAATION! Olaf Davis (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Martin Lewis

Hello - I don't know enough about editing pages to do this safely myself but I have thought for a while that the job title given to Martin Lewis on his Wikipedia biog is misleading. I noticed you might have recently made some changes to this. The description at the very top of his page says financial journalist. I don't agree he is a financial journalist as he does not report for the City/Business media. He is a consumer journalist for those who think he is most accurately described as working in journalism. Although he does not publish his earnings, I think it is fair to say the vast majority of what he earns comes from his affiliate marketing business moneysavingexpert.com of which he sole owner and sole director. A source to support this would be this article from the Daily Mail which compares his business to a competitor moneysupermarket.com

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=501559&in_page_id=2

By comparison with his earnings from affiliate marketing, I would guess what he earns from journalism for his appearances on TV are tiny. When he writes columns for the News of the World, Telegraph, appears on BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show etc, he is almost always billed as Martin Lewis, moneysavingexpert.com which is promotion for his business. Whether newspapers like the Telegraph or the BBC pay him a journalist fee when he is promoting his business I doubt.

He has written about the distinction between business and consumer journalism here:

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2009/12/01/second-in-most-trusted-biz-journalist-poll-but-i%E2%80%99m-not-a-business-journalist/

A clear distinction between his work as a journalist and what his business does is quite important. When he is being paid as a journalist there are strict rules about editorial informing the public and not having any commercial interest in what is written. This is to preserve the impartiality of journalism so when things go wrong e.g. Icelandic banks journalism is there to inform us, at least that's the theory. Thefourthestate (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ben Harmer

Hello JamesBWatson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ben Harmer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. NW (Talk) 12:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy B Watson

What the hell is your problem? Also, please divulge why you are so closely monitoring this matter with your petty-assed BS. There is something seriously wrong with you and if you cannot come up with something actually valid, you'll be reported. But maybe that doesn't matter, depending on whose pocket you're in. In any case, your role will become known far beyond this page. I did not come here by accident to correct this abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsocc (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I regard the above as completely unacceptable, and have issued the editor with a final warning (they had had several recent warnings for other matters already). I have left their comment in place in case you wish to retain it, or reply. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had decided to give a civil response on Fsocc's talk page rather than a formal warning, but a formal warning from a third party is probably a good thing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Johanna Budwig

Thank you for your work on Johanna Budwig. This article is prone to attack by fanatics of one sort or other. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I see you have put quite a bit of work into dealing with this article. Congratulations on your persistence. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Budwig

You have explained nothing. The whole article is devoid of useful information and somehow you seem to have a very important role in keeping it that way. Please explain. Also, please explain your expertise on the subject and how you determined that everything that is currently there is both adequate and complete.

Your reversions of information are nothing less than reprehensible as they are totally indiscriminate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsocc (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My reversions are not indiscriminate, nor are those of the other two editors who have reverted your promotional and unsourced editing. I have explained that the reversions were on the basis of Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and verifiability. I have also offered to give you help on understanding those guidelines, but instead of taking up the offer you have proceeded with vandalism, despite the fact that another editor had given you a final warning that such action would lead to your being blocked. I do not understand why you chose that course instead of choosing to accept the offer of help. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings JamesBWatson - we seem to be sliding into a sort of unnecessary edit war re. Hans Adolf Von Hindennburg. The article is up for speedy delete/AfD and just about everything else under the sun. Let's spend our time here more productively and leave the editor alone unless s/he actually does any vandal edits. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I see no evidence of an edit war. Who has repeatedly reverted what? Secondly, as for "unless s/he actually does any vandal edits", he/she has created an article which you have agreed seems to be a hoax: isn't that vandalism? Finally, even if the article is not a hoax, it gives no evidence of notability and ~~is a BLP with~~ has no verifiable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to having deleted your warning at the user's talk page. I reckon we just need to wait for the outcome of the AfD to define any possible notability. BLP? If the guy ever lived, according to the article he's been dead since 1877... Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Err, yes, silly me, not really a BLP, more a BDP. Even so, unsourced. As for my last warning on the editor's talk page, I accept it probably wasn't really needed. I didn't realise that was what you were referring to. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(smiley) --Technopat (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Another disputed edit on Mister World 2010

Hi, JamesBWatson. There's been another disputed edit (from a slightly different I.P.) to Mister World 2010. I added an update to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Mister World 2010. I am thinking I could either ask for the article page to be again semi-protected, or I could contact the admin who semi-protected it last time and ask him to take a look at what's been happening now. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks very much --Susfele (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have filed a request for page protection. If this request is granted it should deal with the IPs. There have also been a few registered accounts involved, and if further problems arise a sockpuppet investigation is a possibility, but at present page protection seems more likely to be helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done the semi-protection. I'm so out of practice with page protections - they've really made all the templates and things more complicated than a few years back! Now I have do decide if my next big job is getting you into a position that you can do it yourself, or actually do some article writting... Peter 10:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. Yes, article writing is really what this is all supposed to be about, but so much crap has to be dealt with... JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. --Susfele (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at David Biddulph's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Martin Lewis job title

(Sorry I think I just put this in the wrong place on your Talk page)

Martin Lewis

Hello - I don't know enough about editing pages to do this safely myself but I have thought for a while that the job title given to Martin Lewis on his Wikipedia biog is misleading. I noticed you might have recently made some changes to this. The description at the very top of his page says financial journalist. I don't agree he is a financial journalist as he does not report for the City/Business media. He is a consumer journalist for those who think he is most accurately described as working in journalism. Although he does not publish his earnings, I think it is fair to say the vast majority of what he earns comes from his affiliate marketing business moneysavingexpert.com of which he sole owner and sole director. A source to support this would be this article from the Daily Mail which compares his business to a competitor moneysupermarket.com

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=501559&in_page_id=2

By comparison with his earnings from affiliate marketing, I would guess what he earns from journalism for his appearances on TV are tiny. When he writes columns for the News of the World, Telegraph, appears on BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show etc, he is almost always billed as Martin Lewis, moneysavingexpert.com which is promotion for his business. Whether newspapers like the Telegraph or the BBC pay him a journalist fee when he is promoting his business I doubt.

He has written about the distinction between business and consumer journalism here:

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2009/12/01/second-in-most-trusted-biz-journalist-poll-but-i%E2%80%99m-not-a-business-journalist/

A clear distinction between his work as a journalist and what his business does is quite important. When he is being paid as a journalist there are strict rules about editorial informing the public and not having any commercial interest in what is written. This is to preserve the impartiality of journalism so when things go wrong e.g. Icelandic banks journalism is there to inform us, at least that's the theory. Thefourthestate (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Thefourthestate (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are appear to be referring to the article Martin Lewis (financial journalist). If so, your statement "I noticed you might have recently made some changes to this" is mistaken. When I received your message I had never edited this article, and as far as I remember I had never even looked at it. Nevertheless, since you have asked for my help I have now looked at it, and the following is my conclusion.

Reading the comments in the page of his blog that you have linked to, I see that Martin Lewis has concerns about accuracy in how he is described. Specifically he does not accept the description "business journalist". He lists four subcategories of "money journalists", and of these four he considers himself to be a "personal finance journalist". Since he lists "consumer journalist" as one of the four subcategories but chooses another one of the four as his own preferred description he is clearly not advocating use of "consumer journalist" as a description of himself. You say that the "description at the very top of his page" is "financial journalist". This can only refer to the title of the article, "Martin Lewis (financial journalist)", since that wording does not appear anywhere else in the article. I find it difficult to see "personal finance journalist" (his own preferred description) as anything other than a subcategory of "financial journalist", to which you object, and moreover, as I have indicated, he himself explicitly mentions and then implicitly rejects "consumer journalist", which you prefer. I have edited the first sentence of the article to specify that he is a "personal finance journalist" rather than just a "journalist", but I can't see any good reason for any more change than this.

As for your other point about "affiliate marketing" being his main source of income, I do not understand what change to the article you are suggesting. If what you have in mind is that the article gives most prominence to aspects of his life which are not his main source of income, then the answer is that Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion of information is notability as indicated by coverage in reliable published sources, not the amount of money that the subject makes out of an activity. If this is not what you meant then perhaps you would like to post here again and clarify what you did have in mind. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The law is different for financial journalists, for example the BBC's guidelines for financial journalists are specific because there are specific laws relating to financial journalism as set out here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/financejournal/

'Financial Journalism

'There are additional constraints on financial journalists. People working in financial programmes for the BBC should register all their shareholdings and other financial interests or dealings. Clear advice on this is given in the BBC Guidelines for Financial Journalism, which are available online and from the Editor, Economics and Business Centre.

'These additional guidelines for financial journalists protect the integrity of the BBC's output in this area. It is also important to remember that there are particular legal constraints which affect financial journalism. As stated earlier, it is illegal to use financial information acquired in advance to trade ahead of the markets.

'It is also illegal to promote financial services without proper authorisation from the relevant regulatory authorities. It is vital that no BBC financial journalist ever calls their integrity into question by appearing to promote any financial product or investment, especially if they or members of their immediate family have a financial interest in that product or investment.'

As stated above special rules apply to financial journalists and these guidelines constitute the detailed guidance referred to in the Conflicts of Interest Guidelines.

In light of this Wikipedia might not consider financial journalist an accurate title for its page on Martin Lewis but thank you for making the distinction withint the copy. Thefourthestate (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

EVER TEAM Page Deleted

Hi, do you remender the EVER TEAM page that you tagged for deletion for ambigious advertising? i have worked on the content and soemone had removed the tag. there was still the notability issue. it was tagged for possible deletion but then some other people and i were debating on it. i was gathering additional references to add them on the page but then, out of nowhere someone else deletes my page! this is really becoming a pain in the neck, and i really would like you to help me recreate it, in a way that it does not get deleted this time. what should i do so that you help me? thank you.--Sazarian (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully sympathise with the frustration you must be feeling. You clearly put a good deal of effort into this article, and to see it deleted must be disheartening. Since you made a number of contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EVER TEAM you will be aware that the issue is finding suitable sources, and you will also be aware of what objections were raised to the sources you gave. I see that the company claims to be "the leading European software vendor in the field of integrated Enterprise Content Management". If this is so then it should not be too difficult to find suitable independent reliable sources. In the articles for deletion discussion you said "if you try to research on google.fr about EVER TEAM you will see results". I have tried a search on google.fr, and found there were numerous hits. I have not examined them in detail to see how many if any of them are significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the company, but at a quick glance it looks as though at least some of them may be. However, some of them certainly aren't: for example, the company's own web site, Wikipedia, business listings, etc. Also even French Google manages to pick up numerous totally spurious hits such as "China to dispatch its biggest ever team to Vancouver". Sorting the wheat from the chaff will take some work, but if the company is anywhere near as significant as it claims then there must be suitable sources. (If the company is not anywhere near as significant as it claims then it is probably not notable, and it is likely to be a waste of time trying.) Naturally it is more helpful on English Wikipedia to give sources written in English, but this is not essential. Do make sure you are acquainted with the essential ideas of the general notability guieline, the notability guideline for companies, and the guideline on reliable sources.

In the deletion discussion you said "for the ones that you say do not mention EVER TEAM, in fact they do, but the document in which they do is a document that should be purchased, thus cannot be put online. if you provide me with your email address i can send you a snapshot of what they say about EVER TEAM." You can email this at Special:EmailUser/JamesBWatson if you like, provided you have set an email address of your own at Special:Preferences. If you do so I will look at what you send and let you know whether I think they are usable as sources. However, if suitable sources can be found which are freely available it will be better, as anyone will be able to check them. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that it was probably not clear to you what the nature of an "articles for deletion" discussion is. Normally discussion is allowed to take place for a week, after which an administrator reads the discussion and decides whether to delete it. Also, if you can find suitable sources then it may not be necessary to write the whole thing from scratch. You can ask for the article to be userfied, and then add references to the sources. However, I would not recommend asking for this until you have found suitable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

thank you. your reply is very useful indeed.. one question though how many sources or references do we need?

this is what i will do:

I will gather all the references available and send them to you on one page, to facilitate the review process.
I will wait for your feedback on these references and sources
i will then ask to userfy my article, update it with the confirmed references and then ask to put it back online.

Note: for the time being most or EVER TEAM's references and sources are in French due to the origin of this company. you should note that this company is expanding its activities in other regions of the word, and I will provide additional sources and references in english once they become available.

Another question: i am trying to send you an email as you mentioned in the message above, however i am not sure how i can send an attachement. can you advise? thanks --Sazarian (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi JamesB, as mentioned in my message above, here is the list of independant sources and references in French and English that prooves EVER TEAM's notability. kindly review the links and let me know what do you think about them, to re-publish my page:

other litearature :

2008 European Insurance Claims Management Product Differenciation Innovation Award, by Frost and Sullivan (the award is verifiable at and http://frost.com/prod/servlet/meawardsevent.pag?id=176240184 this link, the full report can be emailed)
ECM Report 2009, version 4, published by CMS Watch , related link on: this link
Forrester wave The Forrester Wave™: Enterprise Content Management Suites, Q4 2009 report: related link at this link and this link
Other: Member of the AFNOR committee: AFNOR COMMITTEE --Sazarian (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So, any feedback? thanks --Sazarian (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have certainly produced a long list of links. You must have put quite a bit of work in to doing so. I have had a quick look at a sample of the linked pages. Some of them may be good sources. However, I found that several of them did not, as far as I could see looking quickly, mention "Ever Team". Some of them were just listings, giving no substantial coverage. Some were no more than announcements of business releases. It is not clear that these were independent sources, apart from the question of how much coverage they give. A couple that I looked at were articles written by employees of Ever Team, so they were certainly not independent sources, and at least one of those did not seem to mention Ever Team at all. However, it is entirely possible that somewhere among them there are excellent sources. If you think so then you may like to go ahead with the article, and see whether it survives this time. What I saw was not really conclusive, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

James, you used rollback on the Zapata Western article which I was improving and referencing here. This is an unacceptable use of a tool reserved solely for the reversion of vandalism, and be aware that repeated misuse will result in your access being removed. Please be more careful in future. 86.45.130.146 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If I have made a mistake then I am sorry. To help me avoid similar mistakes again perhaps you could explain why I was mistaken on this occasion. That would be more helpful to me than telling me that it was "misuse" and threatening me with loss of rollback rights but not indicating why I was mistaken. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To quote the guideline, the tool is for "undoing blatantly unproductive edits". These are the three edits you used it on. Now you tell me, if you don't believe you are mistaken, how that term applies to those edits please. 86.45.130.146 (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrol log on Anwaar Ahmad

Hi. I much appreciate your work, particularly the anti-vandalism, where I also make some effort. Marking Anwaar Ahmad "patrolled" on New Article Patrol without tagging it might not have been optimal, since I only came across the article by chance, have removed a third of the content, and have concerns that much of the rest is informal, promotional WP:PEACOCK.[10] Piano non troppo (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. I made one small edit to the article, and intended to come back to it and do some more editing, but I must have forgotten to do so. Clearly it would have been better not to have marked it as patrolled until after I came back to it. The trouble is, though, that even a small edit, such as the one I did, takes away the "Mark this page as patrolled" link, so it is tempting to mark it as patrolled right away, before any other editing. Thanks for pointing this out to me: I shall try to make sure I mark articles as patrolled after rather than before working on them in future, despite the inconvenience in doing so for the reason I have described. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually there might be a (convenient) misunderstanding on my part. Or maybe something's changed. I thought that new article editors had one of two options: mark an article as patrolled, or, alternately, add tags, make changes. If an editor makes changes, then they do not mark as patrolled.

On reflection, I'm not sure what sense that process makes, but that was my understanding. It seems the patrolled flag is just a mechanical flag to ensure the same articles aren't reviewed twice. I dunno. I usually do new page patrol when I'm in the mood for easy challenges, (as opposed to confronting my Watchlist, for example). Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I was certainly under the impression that clicking "Mark this page as patrolled" was just to indicate that it had been dealt with, to prevent anyone else wasting time doing it again. I am almost sure I have read advice somewhere which in effect said you should mark as patrolled if either the page was OK or you had dealt with any problems, e.g. by tagging for deletion. Unfortunately I can't now find where I saw that advice, so I can't check whether my memory of it is right. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This..

..is an user subspace. Why removing it? Yeah, it's nonsense, but it's not like he/she was publishing it on the main space.. --Jargon ^๏̯͡๏) 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed so many times, and yes I know that there are Wikipedians who think we should allow people to use user pages as personal web space and do virtually anything they like with them. However, I disagree, and unless and until Wikipedia:User pages and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not get changed to allow this kind of use I shall continue to disagree. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

and do virtually anything they like with them.

I don't think so either. Racist, advertisement and other content like that should be removed as soon as possible, even if it's on an user's subpage. But the one you removed was harmless (that is, unless the user publish it), no curses, only.. nonsense. I don't want to start an edit war, but I'd personally rollback your edit. --Jargon ^๏̯͡๏) 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have said, this issue has been discussed many times. I have no intention of going through all the arguments here, but I think there is a clear majority of opinion which holds that, at least in the case of an editor who makes no other contributions to the encyclopedia, use of user space for playing is not acceptable. There is a significant majority which takes the line that you take. On the other hand there is also a minority on the other side, taking the harder line that it should not be tolerated from anyone, even those who do make constructive contributions too. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your POV. I still don't agree, but appreciate it. :) I feel though that many users (who could or already are good) leave wikipedia because of our strict terms. Oh well. --Jargon ^๏̯͡๏) 19:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right. However, it seems to me about equally likely that allowing use of Wikipedia for playing around may encourage people to be less likely to take Wikipedia seriously. It is also entirely possible that the number of people who would have turned from this sort of thing to constructive editing (but instead leave) is equalled or even exceeded by the number of people who would have turned from this sort of thing to vandalism and other unhelpful editing (but instead leave). It is, unfortunately, impossible to tell, and we have to make a judgement. Different Wikipedians take different judgements, as clearly you and I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Pavel Kopecký

Talkback: I didnt know it, please delete or change it to agree with policies. Pavel Kopecky|Kopecký 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)User:KopeckyPavel Kopecky|Kopecký 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopecky (talk • contribs)

Rant by vandal

Dear James Bernice Watson, it is a pity that people like you live on this earth, you refuse to learn new facts. How can you be so closed minded? I survived the Auschwitz concentration camp, lost both arms and a leg, but I still learned to love the nazis like my own brother(RIP 1907-1942). I hope someday you can learn to accept new facts. Your pal uni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.240.215.252 (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This appears to refer to a post of mine on User talk:210.240.215.252, where I tried to encourage the editor to edit constructively at the end of a short block (31 hours), so as to avoid a longer block. Instead the editor has chosen to go for the longer block (2 weeks). What a pity that people live on earth who try to encourage people to edit constructively and avoid being blocked. Shocking, really. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Lwxmagix's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at PeterChickenCampbell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Prod2 Error

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at ElationAviation's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Page: DiscoStudio.com

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Technicalspartacus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA

Hi there. I just noticed User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA when searching your talk page archives whether someone suggested it before - since I was about to suggest it myself. Alas, I cannot suggest it anymore now (since someone else already did) but let me state that I'd support you trying RFA (it's up to you of course to decide whether my thoughts on that matter are of any importance to you ;-)). If you need any help with that, I'd be happy to help and barring any skeletons in your closet, I'd also offer to co-nom you :-) Regards So Why 11:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Several editors suggested it to me a while ago, and I decided to invite them to nominate me. However, for various reasons none of them has rushed into it. You are very welcome to co-nom. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Also feel free to contribute to User:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA, by providing diffs that are good (as in illustrative) examples of James' editing. I will use those in my nomination statement. Peter 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're watching it fairly closely, but as it requires your direct attention, I'm just drawing your attention to the questions I left there, for you to answer at your leisure. Peter 22:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
And as you're on, just to point out in case you missed it - I left a question for you on my talk page, and also another has been left by your potential co-nominators at User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA. Cheers, Peter 20:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Seen and answered. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Matthijs Ivo Niks

Hello, James Bernice Watson, thank you for your message! I'm sorry about Jeanne Calment, but now I can always do it correctly! But one question: how did you found out about my mistake in Calments page? Anyway, I hope I can credit as many pages as poissible.

Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthijs Ivo Niks (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the name "Bernice" was invented by the vandal above, and although it does no harm I don't particularly encourage you to use it. Secondly, as for how I mistake, I don't remember. In the course of new page patrolling, new user patrolling, and vandalism patrolling I come across hundreds of edits, and don't necessarily remember how I found each one. Finally, don't worry about the odd mistake: we all make them, and more so when we are new to editing Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Question from Oaxspot

why was my additions to Nebraska state fair removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaxspot (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The information is of fairly minor importance in the history of the fair, and doesn't warrant the prominence of being included in the lead to the article. A brief mention further down the article might be more appropriate, if suitable sources confirming it can be found. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

i will move the info then becouse it was a big deal Oaxspot (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Infinity Guitar Works

I see you tagged the page... I hope I didn't screw something up. This article was originally posted under 'Infinity Guitars'. Since this is an ambiguous term, I moved the article under 'Infinity Guitar Works' and changed the 'Infinity Guitars' page to a disambiguity page. I don't really care if it 'Infinity Guitar Works' gets deleted, but don't want it to be because I screwed something up. It had been posted for several days before I moved it. Cmo design (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't screw anything up, it was an article which I would have been proposed for deletion once I saw it anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.. I didn't think it should really be there... but, there are other companies listed so didn't know, but 'Infinity Guitars' is a song by the band Sleigh Bells. Could it still be an article? Cmo design (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't say, as I don't know anything about either the band or the song. My own view is that individual songs should not have their own articles unless they are particularly notable, and in most cases I prefer a mention in the band's article. However, there are many Wikipedians who don't share this view, and if you want to write an article on the song I won't interfere. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:deletion of article 'Canberra Choral Society'

My first serious talk page stalker (at least in a long time), I must be getting famous! Feel free to do so again (actually if you're in the mood, take a look at User talk:Peter#The Word Alive, and see what you think of the sources listed there, and draft at User:Markythrills). Also, I was wondering if you got the email I sent a few days back about your RfA. No rush, but I'll wait for your response to that before doing the next stage, so thought you should know if case you missed it. Cheers, Peter 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I received an email from you on 23 May (you sent it on 22 May, but I read it on 23 May), and I replied immediately. I have no idea why you have (apparently) not received it. I will send you another email, and you may feel free to try sending me one again to check that everything is working. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you have sent me another email, which I somehow failed to see. I will reply to it now. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Peter 23:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Trekkieman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LBG

Hi James.

I just saw your recent edit. You're right about the Disambiguation page. I just wanted to say that it wasn't me in the first place who added those meanings with no links to articles, it was user Smithfarm, I added a link to the Locust bean gum article. However, today I saw that the lines he added are no longer there, so I thought that I accidentally deleted them, so i just redid it to how it was.

Thanks, Chezi-Schlaff (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Lwxmagix's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mister World 2010

The vandal is back, now using a registered name. I reverted the changes and left a message at User talk:Taztouzi. I'm not sure if I should be reverting the changes. Is this incorrect edit warring behavior on my part? What should happen now? Thanks. Susfele (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I hope this will achieve something. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,--Susfele (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

YOUR REVERSIONS OF MY EDITS

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR INTERFERENCE WITH MY EDITS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virreal (talk • contribs) 14:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, your edits were quite unashamedly adding your own personal commentary, evidently in an attempt to promote a particular view. Secondly, you removed well sourced information added by other editors. Thirdly, you added distinctly controversial claims, but provided no source to support your edits. Fourthly, your edits gave undue weight to a fringe theory. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)