User talk:JBW/Archive 52

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 45

←

Archive 50

Page deleted

My page was deleted and I don't understand, since it was in sandbox for me to practice. I intended to revise and make it up to the wikipedia standards and send it for review. I don't believe the page intent was for advertisement or such. Please explain. Daniel Danilczyk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.198.235 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What page are you referring to? At present you have given me no way of knowing. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You recently deleted a page I wrote on Benji Boko the english DJ. I emailed the page to him to look at to make sure I got some details correct before I went ahead and uploaded it. He accidentally uploaded the page on his own account which I believe is the reason for the page being deleted. The article its self was not promotional nor blatant advertising, I do not know him personally I am just a fan of his. I wish to re upload the page I had written, will this be allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92 Wilson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you writing a new article on the subject, but if you sincerely think that an article full of such language as "Benji Boko prides himself and is well known for his completely improvised live remixes. This means that each live show is different and unique from the previous" is not promotional, then you may have difficulty in writing an article which satisfies Wikipedia's requirements that content be written from a neutral point of view. Also, YouTube and FaceBook are not suitable as references, as anyone can upload whatever content they like there, meaning that they are not reliable sources. If you wish to post an article on this subject then I suggest you look at the content you write very carefully, and try to imagine how it will seem to a neutral person, not a fan or supporter. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I will take the notes you have left on board for the future and I will make the small language changes before re posting. I would, however, argue your point about suitable referencing. If a Youtube video can be referenced in a University paper and is accepted in the Harvard Referencing technique then surely it must be suitable enough to be used on Wikipedia? There are many magazines which conduct interviews and post them on Youtube as do newspapers such as The Guardian and The Independent. The information gathered from the Youtube videos were legitimate interviews from legitimate music vlogging channels. I can understand the issue concerning the Facebook reference and will try to find a better one. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92 Wilson (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My own opinion is that some YouTube videos are perfectly good as references, while some others are useless, and intelligence needs to be applied in each case. However, a large proportion of Wikipedia editors have a strong tendency to dismiss any references from YouTube, no doubt because in practice well over 90% of uses of YouTube as a source are unsuitable, so it is advisable to be cautious about using YouTube. Perhaps instead of "YouTube and FaceBook are not suitable as references" I should have written something like "FaceBook is not suitable as a reference, and YouTube should be used only with caution". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Block notice

Hello,

When imposing a block it is advisable to place a suitable notice in the chronologically appropriate place on the user/IP Talk page. For blocks shorter than 3 months, it is recommended that you do not duplicate this notice on a blocked IP's talk page and instead use other user block templates to provide immediate notification to the vandal of the block. (Template:Anonblock, emphasis mine). Actually, this is of particular help when quickly reviewing block history of a given user/IP after block is lifted and anonblock template is removed.

Surprised you feel so much of an owner of the block notices on that IP's Talk page as to make a revert. kashmiri 22:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The quote from the template documentation that you give is completely irrelevant, (a) because I didn't "duplicate" the anon block notice: I added one to a page that didn't already have one, (b) because the block was not "shorter than 3 months". I do not understand your point about one kind of block notice being of more "help when quickly reviewing block history of a given user/IP after block is lifted and anonblock template is removed" than another one: why should removal of an anonblock notice while leaving another block notice in place be more likely than the other way round? In any case, anyone with any sense who wants to see the block history would look at the block log, not assume that all the old block notices are still in place on the talk page. To accuse someone of "ownership" on the basis of one revert seems to me a bit of a jump. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

revdel

I may have violated BLP in trying to gain consensus on a BLP issue. I have redacted my own post, but a revdel may be in order. possible violating diff here. To repeat, I have already redacted the accusation in the most recent edit. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Indef Block needed

Can you review [[1]] and also the User talk:Jeb2003. Purely promotional account, multiple recreations of afd articles and at least five removals of csd tags thus far today, and this is after another admin tried to speak with them. it appears the other admin is not online at this point..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted article

Please send the copy of the article you deleted from my username space. My email is jngatwiri@gmail.com. Thanks James —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I am very short of time now, but I will try to do that tomorrow. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet another IP sockpuppet

Hi, James. 177.18.139.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is another sock from Brazil. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And Leandro Rezende Carvalho61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back. --LlamaAl (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding Dramafest

Hi JBW. When you get a few spare moments, do you think you can look into this renewed sockpuppet case? To be honest I cannot even remember the correct project page to report that sort of thing. I know it's neither AIV nor AN/I which leaves me clueless. Many thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply and the instruction guide. I just couldn't for the life of me remember where to post the information and I had the feeling that the place I posted would have been ignored which is why I thought of contacting someone I knew to be an admin. I suppose one's only hope is that a recent changes patroller will spot it and take an interest. If none does, it gets lost in the jungle of pages. Cheers. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A request

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Braithwaite seems to have ground to as halt. The nominator is agreeing to a suggestion of ending as no consensus. I've already !voted - any chance you could have an uninvolved look? Ta. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Done A very easy close, because there was clearly no consensus, and it was perfectly clear that, after almost three weeks, the discussion was not heading for a consensus, either. Personally, I was really surprised that so many people think that winning a medal in the commonwealth games is not enough for notability. After all, we have thousands of articles about sports people who have never come anywhere near representing their country in a significant international competition, let alone winning a medal in one. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of the ones I close are because I've just deleted the article... Peridon (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure, but this may be the first time I have ever closed an AfD after a full run, rather than as speedy delete, or very rarely as a snow keep. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A quick question, since you seem to be online at the moment

In a discussion with a relatively new account at RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Kition) the question of when to use a "citation needed" tag has come up. You wouldn't happen to know what our policies concerning adding "citation needed" tags in place of references to your own edits are right off hand would you? See [2]. I have asked them to stop and find adequate citations before adding information and explained that I didn't think the purpose of such a tag was to ask someone else to cite your additions for you. They think I am misinterpreting the purpose of the tag. I tried looking through some of the archives of the talkpages for wp:cite and wp:citation needed and the archives of help desk, but nothing specifically popped out at me, although this has to have come up before. Any insight would be appreciated, thanks. He iro 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added a comment to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Mylaptops

Facepalm I was going to come ask you what tipped you off that User:Mylaptops (who was just showing signs of becoming a problem on some caste article talk pages) was User:Redaloes...and then I looked at Mylaptop's last message, where he admits that he was the one who created it before. We need more sockpuppets/eers like that. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is helpful, isn't it? Perhaps we should have a special barnstar for editors who do this for us. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I even had a sock email me recently to tell me his new account! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Colin Lamont

Just saw your revert, and fully support it. User:Havengore was doing a lot of POV/peacockery some time ago and I feared it was happening again - I just hadn't had time (due to family issues) to check all the recent changes. I don't know if you have time for it, but the recent changes at Scottie McClue could do with similar attention. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the version of Colin Lamont that I reverted to is indubitably better than the one I reverted from, but it may well be be possible to do better still with a bit more checking, so there's something for you to do if and when your family issues give you time! A very quick check through the editing history of Scottie McClue did suggest that some recent edits have been dubious, but it is not as immediately clear as for Colin Lamont, and it looks as though there may be some good changes in amongst the bad. I may come back and have another look at it sometime, but, frankly, painstakingly searching through numerous edits to find which changes should be reverted and which kept is not one of the aspects of Wikipedia editing that I find most rewarding, so, again, there is scope for you if you find time and I don't. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean - I'll look at it if I have the time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Good to hear from you. Haven't been in touch for a while. I did see, though, that you had put the mop aside, which I thought was a pity, but obviously you know best what is suitable for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No, we haven't talked for a while - I must try to make another Manchester meetup (unfortunately couldn't make the Liverpool one yesterday). As for admin, I just needed to get away from it for various reasons - I may come back to it, but haven't decided yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Brian Evans

And we have block evasion.l..again [[3]] can we block for a longer time this time? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've just bopped the IP on the head for a fortnight, but even that seems excessive; it's a dynamic IP, so long blocks wouldn't be particularly effective. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the dynamic IP (and previous page protections), I've also silverlocked the article for two months. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Good call thanks! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree, Yunshui. While it is listed as a dynamic address, and therefore in principal could be reallocated to another user, in practice it is clear that it has been used only by one user, and that user has used it for nearly seven weeks. Also, no other IP edits have been made on the affected pages, so it seems that the user does not have access to any other IP address. Under these circumstances, blocking the IP address for a couple of months might well be effective. Also, since the IP has also edited some other pages, mostly the article's talk page, semiprotecting the article does not completely deal with the problem, while semiprotecting all the affected pages might prevent legitimate edits. Taking all this into account, at this stage I would have blocked the IP for a couple of months, keeping page protection in reserve, to use if and when there is evidence that the user has started switching IP addresses. However, we can see how things go, and consider the options if and when the problem restarts. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to defer to your judgement; if you think unprotection and a longer block would be appropriate, I'd be perfectly happy for you to make those changes (or ask me to do so). Yunshui 雲‍水 14:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

IP Address user giving me problems

Hello, can you please deal with this IP Address user 69.47.180.20. He keeps on picking on me and keeps on accusing me for being a sock puppet. But I'm not a sock puppet I'm telling the truth to you, he just won't leave me alone. Can you do something about him so he can stop bugging me please. Supermariokart64 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have given a warning. Let me know if the problem continues, and I will consider whether a block is justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Supermariokart64 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Check this diff [4] , from a confirmed sock puppet of blocked sockpuppeteer [user:Bigshowandkane64], with this diff [5], noticing the exact same typo in both edits. Bigshowandkane64 and Supermariokart64 also have remarkable similarities to another confirmed and blocked multiple socker, [User:Television Radio]. Notice the extreme similarities in interests in all 3, Childrens TV shows, voice actors, wrestling, video games, and railroading. Maybe the "Harrassing" IP has a point, says this former registered (and currently unblocked) user(Total edits, including deleted =56,783), sock hunter, and vandal/spam patroller. I know a sock of this user when I see one, and would greatly appreciate it if you would not dismiss an IP edit as harrassment, when the same edit would not be treated as such if made by an account. 69.47.178.42 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing me in the direction of evidence of sockpuppetry. Having looked further, I have confirmed it beyond all doubt, and blocked the account. Without your very helpful information, I would never have discovered the sockpuppetry.
Continually taunting a user about being a sockpuppet, without producing any evidence, is harassment. That is so no matter whether it is done by someone using an account or not. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, then by all means contact an administrator about it, or present your evidence at a sock puppet investigation. Those are constructive approaches, whereas harassing the user who you believe is a sockpuppet is not.
There are, unfortunately, many Wikipedia editors who treat IP editors as though their contributions are automatically of less value than those of other editors, and as though IP editors do not deserve the same respect as registered editors. If you have any evidence that I am one of the editors who do that, then please present it. If you do not have any such evidence, then please don't assume bad faith without evidence, and throw unsubstantiated accusations at me.
More edits like this one may lead to your being blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

PINK

I think it's a cocked up image upload rather than an article - she really is a person, an installation artist even. The title sounds exactly like an image blurb. And that's my limit on knowledge about images. Poor guy might need some help, but I'd only make it worser... Peridon (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me it might be an attempt at uploading an image, but I expect you are right. It didn't seem to make any sense at all, but I thought just possibly the user just might do something that would clarify the situation, given a little time. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I made a mistake in uploading a file, indeed. Pleae remove it a.s.a.p. I need assistance in the footnoting as well. Thank you in advance Donald.louw 16:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs)

The page you accidentally created in trying to upload a file has already been deleted. What help do you need with footnoting? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

NCLab

Just curious what happened to the the wiki for the NCLab. When I search for it, it says it has been deleted. I use some of the features from the NCLab in my classes and the wiki was a good source of information to quickly guide students through rather complicated set of features that're mentioned on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.221.134 (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion by D.Lazard as being promotional. Wikipedia policy is that articles which exist principally for promotion are not acceptable. Looking at the article, I agreed with D.Lazard. There followed a fairly substantial discussion of the deletion, amounting to well over 5000 words, with 15 editors taking part. In that discussion, there was a clear consensus among all contributors who were aware of the relevant policies that the article was unacceptable. Amongst other things which came up in the discussion, it became clear that Wikipedia was being used, in effect, as a free web host to hold a manual to explain to students how to use NCLab. However, as was pointed out in that discussion, that is not a suitable use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be manuals or "how to" guides, and it was pointed out in the discussion that, if an article contains the sort of detailed instruction that a student needs in order to be able to use the software, then it is written at the wrong level for the general encyclopaedia reader. That seems to be essentially what you are referring to, saying "a good source of information to quickly guide students through rather complicated set of features". A detailed guide for students posted on a readily accessible website is no doubt a good idea, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ktfield/Mark Wilkinson

Only after closing this as delete did I read the talk page (I know, I know, always look at the talk p first in case there is a surprise there!) and see that the author has re-surfaced after two years, is under the impression that what she had made was a full article, and is not sure what's going on. I haven't studied it in detail, but there is enough there to pass A7 and maybe enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. I will put a userspace draft header on it and tell her to use the "Submit" button to send it to AfC, but perhaps I should leave you to withdraw/close the MfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

IP hopping vandalism

Hey James, I just ran across this. That person (WHOis points to Israel) is active on a bunch of those articles, hopping happily all over the place. I just protected The Biggest Loser UK (series 4) and I'm about to do a few more; I have no idea if there's anything else we can do. See also Renzoy's note on my talk page ("Biggest Loser"); I'll gladly take any suggestions. Is there any point in blocking these IPs at all? Drmies (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If I had watchlisted the talk page of the IP you mention, I would certainly have removed talk page access long ago.

The person in question seems to have started editing in June 2012, and since then has used well over 100 IP addresses that I have seen, and there may well be more. However, things may not be as intractable as they may seem. As far as I have seen, all the edits come from a few IP ranges. (But do tell me if you know of any outside these ranges. I have not checked every single IP edit on every one of the affected articles, so there may be others that I have missed.)

IP range 176.13.0.0/16 (i.e. 176.13.0.0 - 176.13.255.255). Potentially, this could include a huge number of users, but in practice almost all edits are from this one person. For example, just counting edits from the beginning of December 2012 to now, there have been 106 edits from this editor, three vandalism or otherwise unconstructive edits that look as though they are not from this editor, and a grand total of one edit from someone else that is not obviously vandalism, and may be constructive (though even for that edit, my searches have failed to produce reliable sources). There is a similar pattern going back earlier than that, but I have not done a count of the exact numbers. A range block of that range over a period of months therefore stands to do substantial good, with little if any collateral damage. (Over 99% good, and less than 1% collateral damage, if we give the benefit of the doubt to the one uncertain edit I mentioned.) I shall therefore block this range.
IP range 109.253.0.0/16 (i.e. 109.253.0.0 - 109.253.255.255). A similar picture, though the proportion of possibly constructive edits is a little higher.
IP range 95.35.63.0/24 (i.e. 95.35.63.0 - 95.35.63.255). A similar picture to the last range.
IP range 84.109.0.0/16 (i.e.84.109.0.0 - 84.109.255.255). This is somewhat different. There is a significant amount of editing by other editors in this range, making a block of the whole range unacceptable. However, only three IP addresses in this range have been used by the disruptive editor, as far as I know, so it should not be too difficult to keep an eye out for edits in this range, and block individual IP addresses as and when necessary.

Of course, the editor may start using this last range more, once the others are blocked, or start on a brand new range, and it is also, as I have already said, perfectly possible that there may be other IP addresses in use that I have missed. However, I do think that blocking the three ranges I have mentioned above should be a significant step forward. Semi-protecting the articles which have been most affected may be helpful too, but it is essential to consider what other IP edits there have been, and how many of them have been constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi just to add one in the list of vandalized Biggest Loser articles:

Marele câștigător (season 1) - Just one edit vandalism. However, it has an edit count point of 163,302. Quiet heavy for vadalism. The person has this IP address: 109.253.147.73. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 11:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The IP address used for that edit is now subject to a range block. Since we can't realistically protect every article that has had one unhelpful edit, this is a confirmation that, for the most part, range blocks are likely to be more helpful in this case than article protection. However, it is still probably a good idea to semi-protect the articles which have been most affected, such as Marele câștigător. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that all affected articles should be semi-protected. I have encountered this problem just last year. The Biggest Loser Pinoy Edition and The Biggest Loser Pinoy Edition (season 1) were the ones I was watching over. They kept adding Hebrew kind of entries... vandalizing week by week. I reverted them, as always. I tried to scan other Biggest Loser articles too, cause I was planning to improve the PH articles. However, my plan eventually changed as I encountered vandalism on Brunei's article, then Asia. I scouted for all the other Biggest Loser articles, the problem is persistent. US was also vandalized too, but the other editors there had handle the problem. I will continue patrolling the articles, and will report them all to you.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

James, thank you so much for taking the time to write up such a comprehensive answer. You may know that I'm the last person one should ask about range blocks so I'm glad I knocked on the right door. (Renzoy, I hope you understand why I turned this down at AIV: it's not that simple until one looks into it: it took me a while to figure this out. Now it's clear as glass.) Will you set up those range blocks? Or should we take this to one of the boards for extra input and confirmation? I'm perfectly happy to give you carte blanche here, but I don't know if blocking ranges is just par for the course. Renzoy, you know this stuff best. It may be a good idea, whatever happens with range blocks, to document this somewhere--which IPs/ranges and articles are affected. It's a bit of work, but it will save time in the long run. Thanks again, to both of you, Drmies (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked 176.13.0.0/16, 109.253.0.0/16, and 95.35.63.0/24 for 3 months. For the reason I gave above, I haven't blocked 84.109.0.0/16. Unfortunately, I have also discovered another IP range, which I had missed: 46.210.128.0/17, which I have added to the block. Please do let me know if you find any other edits not covered by these ranges.

There is a large number of articles affected, and the following is probably by no means a complete list: Marele câștigător, XXL, The Biggest Loser UK (series 4), The Biggest Loser Asia (season 2), The Biggest Loser UK (series 3), The Biggest Loser UK (series 1), The Biggest Loser: Pinoy Edition (season 1), The Biggest Loser Brunei (season 3): Lose It All, The Biggest Loser Asia (season 2), The_Biggest_Loser_(Brunei_TV_series), The_Biggest_Loser_Asia‎, The_Biggest_Loser_Australia:_Singles, The_Biggest_Loser_Asia_(season_2), The_Biggest_Winner_Arab_(season_2), The_Biggest_Loser_Pinoy_Edition, The_Biggest_Loser_Asia_(season_2)‎, The_Biggest_Loser_(Netherlands_TV_series), The_Biggest_Loser:_Pinoy_Edition_(season_1)‎, The_Biggest_Loser_UK_(series_5), The_Biggest_Loser_Pinoy_Edition, User talk:84.109.118.177, The_Biggest_Loser:_Challenge_America‎. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Promotional or facts?

Tell me... do you like power grabs or the facts? Don't over step your authority. Asher Heimermann (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I unblocked you from an indefinite block, and I then very vigorously defended my unblock in the face of criticism from other editors. When I saw that you were again editing in the same sort of way that led to earlier blocks, I could easily have just restored the indefinite block which I had removed, but instead I simply gave you a couple of messages pointing out that the kind of thing you were doing was in danger of leading to another block. And that message above is how you respond to me? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Request from Sanillin1

Dear Mr.John, I would like to know, Is it wrong to raise voice for edition of page with proper reference. I had given several original link and requested editor to remove the abused massage which are totally biased and not agreeable at all.

Kindly help me in improving the site billava similar to bunts and mogaveera.Sanillin1 (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Electrofeel

Hi there, may you help me to investigate this user? An IP placed a suspected sock template on his talk page, he removed it and I restored it. Then, he thinks I am a sock of User:Iaaasi. Please refer to the conversation on my talk page. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo 11:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we can dismiss the suggestion that you are Iaaasi. As for Electrofeel, is there any evidence at all that that account is a sockpuppet, other than the unsubstantiated say-so of the IP user? The IP user is certainly a banned user: he/she effectively admits it here, and I have confirmed that he/she was using open proxies to edit. If you can find any evidence whatever that Electrofeel is a sockpuppet then please do let me know, and I will be very willing to consider the evidence, but I have not been able to find any. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You may want to refer to this diff, although I'm not sure whether it can be considered trustworthy evidence. And, thanks for your trust in me. :D Arctic Kangaroo 12:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious resemblance in the edit summaries. I am not by any means dismissing the possibility that the account may be a sockpuppet, but I really don't see any evidence. However, feel free to ask someone else for a third opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, noted. Arctic Kangaroo 12:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

video camera tube

This guy guy (under 200.77.173.192 IP) also vandalized the Video camera tube article too, deleted patents , the URL of contemporary patents and other references. Can you protect it? Thank you!--Electrofeel (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you may want to consider requesting protection at WP:RPP.

Arctic Kangaroo 14:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Association of Business Executives

If I understand WP correctly, there used to be a page on the Association of Business Executives, but now there isn't, and you are the prime person to contact about it. Also, if I understand correctly, the page was deleted on the grounds of containing just promotional material. At a guess, it might well have contained this material from their web page. My only reason for writing to you is to note that at least two WP pages about colleges refer to it, along with disambiguation pages for FABE and MABE (for fellows and members of this association). In fact, I must admit to having turned some plain text "Association of Business Executives" on some WP pages into redlinks, in anticipation of creating the page (before I realised that it had previously existed, and been deleted). My only question is whether it is worth re-instating the page... and writing it in a encyclopedia-worthy way. If so, what is the best way to set about it? (If not, don't worry, I will just go off on to other de-orphanage work). Thanks in advance for any thoughts and suggestions. TheAMmollusc (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The deletion was really for a hybrid of two reasons. A previous incarnation of the article had been deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Business Executives, notability having been questioned. The article was re-created shortly a few months after. At that time, the article would have qualified for speedy deletion as a repost of an article deleted as a result of an AfD, if anyone had noticed it and tagged it. About two years later, after much more editing, it was nominated by Afterwriting for speedy deletion as promotional. By that time the article was indeed an unambiguous advertisement. It would have been possible to have dealt with that problem by reverting to an earlier, pre-spam version, but then we would have been back to the situation of qualifying for speedy deletion as a repost. Combining these two reasons together, there did not seem any justification for keeping either version. The deletion was then discussed at [[6]]. You can, of course, read that discussion if you like, but my feeling is that it would probably be a waste of your time. As far as I am concerned, if you can provide evidence that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines, so as to address the issue raised at AfD, then there should be no problem in writing a new article on the subject. I am sure you have enough experience of Wikipedia to be able to avoid writing it as promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Perhaps I had better go round removing all those redlinks on other pages, to cut down the chance of someone else instinctively recreating that deleted page... until the moment that someone is really convinced of its notability. Thanks for the explanation. TheAMmollusc (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Socks of Bigshowandkane64

He is back, see [7]. This IP looks to be a proxy, by my eyes Also, can we speedy delete two badly written, highly inaccurate articles created and edited almost exclusively by this smelly sock drawer? [Frisco 1630] and [Canadian National 7470] 69.47.178.42 (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have blocked the IP address, and deleted the two articles you mention. However, I can find no evidence that it's a proxy. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Replied. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved

The section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Havengore - topic_ban? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Harder block

Could you block talk page access from Supermariokart64 as he seems to hold a grudge against you and repeatedly calls you a bully. A please alert me if the the boomerang of civility lurks around the corner. By the check the page for evidence.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 19:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I was intending to leave it for now, and remove talk page access if the same happens again, but prompted by your message I thought about it again, and it is clear that he/she is not likely to do anything other than more of the same, so I decided to go ahead and remove talk page access, as you suggested. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Apology note

Hey James.... listen I want to apologize to you for my rude behavior I didn't mean to call you a bully. I was just in a bad mood this week and I took it out on you by mistake, sorry about that. And just to clear things up I'm not a mean person, but on the out side of me I'm a really nice person in real life. So please can I have a second chance to edit wikipedia again please. I promise I won't create anymore sock puppet accounts. And I just want to have friends on wikipedia too. But it looks like no one won't accept me.... do you accept my apology? reply back to me as soon as you can. 72.71.209.43 (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to see your change of attitude, and if you really are willing to change your ways then perhaps you may be unblocked. I have unblocked editors in the past who have a history of vandalism but have said they are willing to change. Sometimes they just go back to their old ways, and are just blocked again fairly quickly, but quite often they don't, and unblocking works out well. However, the way to request an unblock is to log in to your original account and request an unblock there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

But Mariokart64 has his talk page access blocked. By my request.So could you unblock it for pretty much obvious reasons.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 14:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no such user as Mariokart64, but if you can remind me of the exact username then I will do that. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Supermariokart64. Mariokart64 was a shortening.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 14:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've found the original account, which is Bigshowandkane64. That's the one I needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks dude, you just made my day much better. By the way, those pages you protected that I was editing before, once the protection expires in April can I edit those articles again? because they are my favorite articles I like to edit on the website. 72.71.209.43 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

NYU Tech

Yes, I was about to respond to RonnySqueaky saying there appeared to be some disagreement regarding his proposed update. I think I will now tiptoe away, not being au fait with the Squeaky/ies and the alumni of the institution. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

That user Supermariokart64 was really ticking me off. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I also have an apology for you too Smartie2thaMaxXx. I'm writing it on your talk page right now. 72.71.220.180 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Dear Sir, I'm writing to apologise on behalf of my recent actions on your webpage. I thought it would be a funny joke at first but I now realise the full extent of my actions. I'm sorry and I will never repeat the same mistake again.

All the best, Bishop of Llandaff student — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.25.117 (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a Google search on 'Bishop of Llandaf' and it turns out it's a high school. I've dropped a 'Shared IP' template on the talk page. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Leopards and spots

Hi, I don't know if you recall this [8] when an IP was making silly, repetitive, niggley edits to a narrow selection of articles and you blocked them for a short while? Playtime appears to have re-started.....[9] for at least one of the IPs. I did try to report it at WP:AIV on 16 Feb [10] but I think they thought it was me being disruptive or a tad pedantic? Although the alternate IP used [11] has not been quite as active since the previous block, occasional same old, same old edits are sill being made. Seems Leopards do indeed never change their spots! SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see why your AIV report was declined. For an administrator who has seen only a brief note about the problem editor, it can be very easy to miss the relevant evidence, especially with an editor who has made a lot of edits, because the admin doesn't know what he or she should be looking for. I find it is very often helpful to add a few words about what the vandalism is, and not be too intimidated by the instruction to "keep it short". Also, it is often more helpful to go to an admin who already knows the background of the case, as you have done here. (On the other hand, that may not help if the admin you choose is offline.) Anyway, I have blocked both IP addresses for three months, and we can see how it goes from there. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Your help is very much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Make me famous

Hi James, could you please move the above article to Make Me Famous? The proper name was protected a year ago in accordance with the A7 CSD. This new version is sourced with reviews, while also indicating recordings on various charts since protection. I'm not the article creator, just cleaned it up and tried to move it to no avail. Thanks, Cindy(talk to me) 01:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of User Page

Considering it is my own user page, that I made myself, does it really matter that it is a "blatant hoax". Its intention is to be satirical, not informative. Can you please undelete it. Willgraham7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willgraham7 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to see the satire that you refer to. Perhaps you can explain to me what it satirises, and how. However, even if that is the case, the vast majority of your editing has been spent on this one fictional user page, and if we discount such nonsense as this unambiguous vandalism, and this edit with no evident point to it, the conclusion is that almost all of your editing of Wikipedia has been dedicated to using the Wikipedia servers as a free web host to hold content totally unrelated to work towards building the encyclopaedia. This is contrary both to the user page guidelines (see WP:UPNOT) and to the policy on what Wikipedia is not (see WP:NOTWEBHOST). JamesBWatson (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"Zepetto" deletion

Hello James,

Our page Zepetto has been deleted although we had attempted to contest it. We would like for you to explain to us the reasoning and how to correct the areas which caused the deletion to occur. Please advise so that we may undelete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 제페토 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

I am involved at Bill Browder and I didn't completely understand the WP:OUTING policy, and I outed someone. I don't want to go into diffs again so I don't violate it in seeking help, It was not intentional and oversight was requested and completed. I do not want to violate this policy again so I read the policy and so I made a completely different claim using comments made by the user merely saying it appeared they have a COI. This lead to an accusation that I was edit warring. I have very clearly sought help explaining the policy how the second comment was against policy as I did not add information that said where that person worked, merely that the person appeared to have a conflict of interest [[12]] and no where near the original comment that was not in line with our guidelines[[13]]. I think that the first two comments really made the editors in question just think anything I was saying was a violation but if it really was I need to know how the second comment was a violation so I do not repeat, as I want to follow wiki policy. Can you please offer some guidance in this so I don't screw up again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at present I have just a couple of things to say, which, unfortunately, may not be much help to you. My personal view is that the outing policy is commonly interpreted and applied in a way that is just silly. If a Wikipedia editor intentionally gives information in Wikipedia which reveal who they are, then I do not see why we should not refer to the identity that they have thus revealed. However, the policy is commonly taken as forbidding that. I can't comment on your edits that have been oversighted, as I can't see them. As far as your comments which are still visible are concerned, though, I personally see nothing wrong with them at all, and I totally disagree with some of the other editors' comments about your comments. However, since I really do not see eye to eye with the policy (at least as it is usually interpreted) my view may not be worth much. I'm afraid I have to go off line now, and don't have time to look into this further. Very sorry that I have not been able to be more help. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mistake Made! Please Help!

Hi!

I made an error in moving a page and wanted to ask if you could help me fix it? I was not aware of the "Move" function in Wikipedia so I copied and pasted the information over thinking it would be alright. But the talk page and history did not transfer over and then I got a message about how to move a page the right way. I am sorry, I did not mean to cause any complications. Can you help me move the page again? I heard it was time consuming from the Wikipedia page about moving pages so I was also wondering if it was even worth the time to fix it. Maybe I can put a note dircting readers to the old pages? Thanks so much. Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Hi JamesBWatson!

Please ignore my message. Another editor fixed it for me! Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Thomas Murray House (Virginia Beach, Virginia)

FYI...it's on the National Register of Historic Places, which confers notability. The article needs a lot of work, tho'. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Contest deletion for AIFMC

Hi, I was wondering why you have deleted my previous post for AIFMC. All of the information was reference to its original content and I worked meticulously to make sure that the content does not violate any copyrights （all copy rights were referenced). The encyclopedia article about AIFMC was meant to be a knowledge page rather than a promotion page. AIFMC is a subsidiary of Aegon and I was working on a page similar to it that provided basic knowledge of our scope of business. The information was purely informational and does not serve the purpose of promotion. If you believe the content to be of promotional purposes, please provide advice for me to write a informational article similar to Aegon.

I feel that the deletion was premature and does not take into account all relevant information. I first published the material before I had some time to edit it, thus the tag for speedy deletion. But I am sure that after my various editing work, the page was verifiable by wikipedia's content standards. As for why I deleted the speedy deletion, this is my first wikipedia contribution and I deleted it by mistake. I'll defeinitely look out next time per your advice.

If there was another violation that I wasn't made aware, please kindly state so. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Regards, Jim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshang2000 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as removing the speedy deletion tag is concerned, please don't worry. I am well prepared to believe that it was done in all innocence. Wikipedia can be confusing to a new editor, and, even though the deletion tag on the article said "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself", and the message on your talk page about it said "please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top", there is so much information thrown at you that you may well have overlooked or forgotten those two messages.
You say "all copy rights were referenced". However, merely stating where you have copied something from does not absolve you from following copyright law. It is possible that you may be confusing copyright infringement with plagiarism, which are two quite different concepts, but very often confused. Plagiarism is passing someone else's work off as though it were your own, and clearly stating where you got the work from is a defence against a charge of plagiarism. Broadly speaking, copyright infringement is using someone else's work without their permission, and the fact that you openly say that you are using someone else's work does make it all right to do so. You may work for the owner of the relevant copyright, in which case you may think that you have the right to re-use the content. However, things are not as simple as that, for three reasons.

We cannot take the word of just anyone who chooses to create a Wikipedia account and edit here that they have copyright permission. Unfortunately, we often get people who make false claims about who they are. I could give you a link to instructions on how to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with evidence of copyright permission, but in my experience it is invariably a waste of time doing so, because of the following two points.
Whenever you edit Wikipedia, just above the "save" button there is a message that says "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Substantially, this means that you are giving permission for the content you post to be re-used by anyone in the world, modified or unmodified, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, under very broad and open licensing terms. There is no provision at all for saying "my business gives permission for this content to be used in Wikipedia, but only in the form I give it, only in Wikipedia, and only for the purpose of describing my business." Very few businesses are actually willing to license the contents of their web sites for reuse under Wikipedia's terms of use, and it is very unlikely that a business that puts "© Aegon 2013" at the bottom of its web pages will do so.
Even in the rare occasions when a business does license its material for open reuse, contents of a business's web site are almost never suitable for use in a Wikipedia article, because those contents are invariably promotional in character. Time and again, I have seen a new editor whose work has been deleted as copyright infringement spend time and trouble providing the Wikimedia Foundation with evidence of copyright release, only to see their work deleted again as promotional.

You say that the article you created "does not serve the purpose of promotion". However, that is not the way it seemed to the editor who nominated it for deletion, and it was not the way it seemed to me when I reviewed that nomination. If you can write a whole page of such stuff as "has adhered to the primary objective of “maximizing shareholder’s interests”, following a policy of integrity, compliance and solidity and building a management style of precision, pragmatism and efficiency" , and sincerely not see it as promotional, then I can only assume that one or both of the following apply: (1) you are so closely involved in the subject you are writing about that you are unable to stand back and see how what you are writing will look from the detached perspective of an independent observer (This inability to see one's own writing about your own business is, in fact, one of the reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourage us from writing about such subjects we have a close personal involvement in. A Wikipedia article needs to be written form an independent point of view, not from the point of view of an insider.); and/or (2) you work in marketing or "public relations", and are so used to marketing speak that you are desensitised to it, and can't see when it is right ion front of you.
You may find Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Natalac / Nat (rapper)

== Natalac ===: i added some references but added them on the talk page as you requested Nat (rapper)Yameka (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Bigshowandkane64

I'm not going to stop AGF, but I'm beginning to sense competency issues here. What do you think.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 15:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have been trying to give the user as much of an opportunity as possible to show that he/she is going to be OK, but the longer it goes on the more it looks as though he/she really just doesn't understand. i will wait a little longer, but I am not hopeful. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried to clarify your question on their talk page. Hopefully that helps.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 19:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like clarifying your question helped. I think he answered what you were looking for.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 02:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What do we do about this edit here? I was going to re-revert per your earlier revert but thought it best to inform you first. - Fantr (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the edit is no longer by a block-evading editor, as I said when I reverted, and there are numerous sources for this, e.g. [14], [15]. I'm not sure whether any of the sources are really reliable, but unless you have specific reason to doubt it, I suggest leaving it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Thank you James, thank you for giving me a second chance on Wikipedia. You are the Best! =) Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way James, can I re-create those articles of my favorite railroad trains Canadian National 7470 and Frisco 1630 again please. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but be sure to provide some sources, which you didn't last time. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, this time I will add sources for real this time. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

== Natalac ===: i added some references but added them on the talk page as you requested Nat (rapper)Yameka (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

User page deletion

This is to mention that the user page : 'Abdulla Hisham' has been deleted and since it was done mistakenly, it would be great if you can allow me to create a single/double line/sentence user page for the same.

--Abdulla Hisham (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't done mistakenly. The page was written in an unambiguously promotional tone, including, for example, the statement that your business "builds innovative web applications". You are perfectly free to create a new user page, but my advice is to stick to giving no mire than bare minimal information about anything unconnected with Wikipedia. For example, tell us that you are a director of a company that builds web applications if you like, but don't tell us what you think the qualities of those applications are, which is irrelevant to your contributing to the encyclopaedia. Likewise, by all means tell us, if you like, that you are a graduate in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Kannur University, but don't tell us that you "won the nation-wide attention", which, apart from being irrelevant, looks rather like peacock wording. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

One other thought has occurred to me. Don't link to photographs of pages of newspapers, which, not being on the newspapers' own web sites, are pretty certain to be copyright infringements, as if you do so your page is likely to be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We do not treat purported scans of newspaper articles, etc. as reliable sources anyway, since they can have been altered so easily in this era of Photoshop and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with editing user page

I do apologize for that I was attempting to edit and costomize my userpage but Im confused as to how to do it. Smjeanbaptiste (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Talbot Heath school

The Talbot Heath school page is very old and out of date. We note that recently there were a series of updates and then a deletion of content by yourself stating it was unsourced and the page was not meant to be an advertisement. Having looked at the pages of other schools in the area such as Bournemouth Collegiate school and Canford school, our content appeared no different, in fact far briefer, than theirs.

We have also been trying to change our school shield on the page as it shows the old shield. It will not allow us to do that even thought we are officials from the school with the genuine school shield. I would just like some clarification please. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenLeahy (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Kolega2357

Please change protection to Indefinite ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite). Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Query deletion of LPD Risk Management

JamesBWatson,

I would like to query the immediate deletion of the Wikipedia entry for LPD Risk Management.

The company exists and is a legitimate trading company, operating in the security industry. Material on the page is accurate and factual, and although descriptive of services provided / industries served / key personnel / etc., is not promotional in any way.

It is therefore unclear what Wikipedia guidelines it breaches?

Your deletion reference cites the following:

G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion

A7: Article about a company...which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject

Addressing these specific points, I would suggest that:

G11: the page content is factual and accurate. It indicates what the company is and does, and for whom; and identifies the key individuals associated with the company. There is no overt or "unambiguous" advertising of the company, nor any reference to pricing, sales, or any other invitation to contract with the company.

A7: Please refer to the pages for other private security companies (several of which can be found at List of private security companies), which do not themselves make any clear statement of the "importance or significance of the subject". It is therefore unclear how the page for LPD Risk Management contravenes this guideline...? Further to point A7, the "importance and significance" of LPD's business is intimately linked to its application of key principles of human rights and social responsibility best practice in the delivery of security services - as indicated by the presentation of a main section on the company's Code of Conduct and Ethical Practices. This is a significant differentiator within the industry, and of itself represents an important piece of factual information relating to the company.

I would be grateful if you could review the above points, and if you feel that further changes are required to the LPD Risk Management page then please indicate the nature of such changes and we would be happy to amend the page so as to comply more fully with Wikipedia guidelines.

Many thanks,

Gbhsc

EDIT: I have re-posted the page as a userspace draft, and would welcome any constructive edits you might wish to make on that page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbhsc (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Query deletion of LPD Risk Management

JamesBWatson,

It appears that you have simply deleted my userspace draft of the LPD Risk Management page, and re-stated the reason as G11 (though I may be mistaken, in which case I apologise for the misunderstanding).

Looking at the Wikipedia definition of G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, it is expressed as follows:

Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organisation, a point of view, etc.

If you have in fact deleted the userspace draft (and even if you haven't) I would be grateful for some clarification as to why you feel that the LPD Risk Management page:

is exclusively promotional, and
would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic...?

I would suggest that the current tone and content of the article can legitimately be said to describe its subject from a neutral point of view; however if you do not believe this to be so then could I please ask you to indicate which particular section(s) are probelmatic?

Many thanks,

Gbhsc

EDIT: the apparent deletion appears to have been a glitch, as the userspace draft is now visible. As promised - I apologise for the misunderstanding! However I would be grateful for constructive feedback on that draft, suggesting changes to any points you feel are non-compliant with G11 as above.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbhsc (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

deletion of page " SEYED AMIR PARVIN HOSSEINI "

Hello,

You have deleted the page i had created about an Iranian film producer. The initial problem with my page was lack of reference but then I added my reference. but you deleted the page anyways. I wanted to see if there was any possibility to retrieve the page and edit it according to Wikipedia rules and your suggestions.

Thanks

Pantea.p.h (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Camuto

Hi, I would like to ask you to look into the issue with the numerous user pages set up by the Camuto group concerning the articles Louise Camuto, Vince Camuto and Robert Camuto. The user pages are used only to change the truth about the people in question deleting information as they have now done again at all three articles. Is there a way to try to tell them to stop I have tried numerous times. The user pages in question are CamutoPR, Megan.corrigan, Bloomieslp, Kathryn.asarnow, JonRothenberg and IP 24.157.62.162. As you were the user to block user page Louisevince I thought you might know what is best to do when a company/business group is trying to influence articles. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Legg

I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Flora85 (2nd nomination) as "move to mainspace and list at AfD"; here it is. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Andrew Payne

Hi. On 13 Feb 13 (at 13.13) you deleted Andrew Payne, a probably rather brief article about the Somerset first-class cricket player. I'm not sure what the rationale was or what state the article was in, but Payne would qualify as notable under WP:CRIN and WP:GNG having played cricket at the highest domestic level. His deletion leaves a redlink on the List of Somerset CCC players which is otherwise a complete list. Can you reconsider and maybe reinstate, please. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Done JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Great: thanks! I'll tidy him up so no one else is tempted! Johnlp (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Block

Hey, I've been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and appealed to it many times. I don't think the admins who declined my requests actually read my arguments. Blocking someone should be a last resort measure and is something that should be done only if there is clear evidence of continuous violation of policies and all alternatives have failed, like appropriate warnings. Blocks are extremely discouraging to contributors. Please, review my block process because I don't think it was justified. And please, be cautious when blocking someone, you may scare potentially valuable contributors away. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Another IP sockpuppet

Hi! 187.113.197.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is another sock from Brazil. -LlamaAl (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Merging "Covenant Eyes" into "Accountability software"

Hi JamesBWatson. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and thank you especially for PRODding the Covenant Eyes article. I never thought of doing so, but it's a sensible idea. I have added {{Proposed deletion endorsed}} to the article. One idea: maybe it would be better to shrink Covenant Eyes down into one or two paragraphs, then merge them into the (admittedly lousy) article Accountability software? Please let me know what you think; here is fine. If you could please wait two weeks before archiving this discussion, it would be appreciated. Also, please note that if the PROD attempt fails, I may move this entire conversation from our talk pages to Talk:Covenant Eyes. Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bigshowandkane64

Hi James, sorry about the whole copyright thing that I did by mistake. Thank's for letting me know about the whole copyright thing you told me. I won't do it again, sorry about that. I didn't know that there was a copyright thing on wikipedia. And I didn't mean to edit war ether. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry James, it's just that this user Smartie2thaMaxXx keeps on giving me a hard time. He won't leave me alone no matter witch article I go to he follows me and keeps undoing my edits when ever I try to find sources. It just annoying me a little and just yesterday he went to my talk page and called me "His Worst Enemy!" That made me a little upset and it's a not nice thing for him to say. I just want him to apologize to me but he never did. Can you do something abut him, because he won't stop giving me a hard time. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

James, you give massages now? ;-) Bigshow ... you cannot every force an apology - after all, that would end up being rather hollow apology, wouldn't it. If they're formally hounding you, then ANI is the place to go, but you'll have to prove it's hounding. You're right, being called someone's "worst enemy" stings - after all, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we don't do battlegrounds. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know, I read that message several times, and couldn't understand what you meant by "James, you give messages now?" it was only long afterwards, when I came back to this page, that I saw what you had really written. Very often we see what we expect to see, not what is there. (Of course, it didn't help that the thing you were referring to had been refactored, so that your comment was completely out of context.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you kind message Bwilkins. By the way James I want to let you know I wasn't really edit warring on the Dan Green (voice actor) article I was showing user Smartie a source that Dan's been acting since 1983. But Smartie doesn't believe me, I don't know why he doesn't like me. I wasn't causing any problems ether I was following the rules like you said and providing sources. But I guess if this is how I'll be blamed by. then I guess I won't edit articles anymore on wikipedia..... =( Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that back. I'm still going to edit wikipedia. I was just gona take a break that's all. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I just want to ask you a quick question. Are you not mad at me? Because can you see I'm trying really really hard on wikipedia and providing sources to articles. User Smartie was giving me a hard time. He follows me were ever article I go to and undos my edits when I was looking for sources. I was trying not to edit war against him, he was edit warring against me and I know it's wrong to edit war it's not right at all. I think it's because he doesn't like me. I think I'm just gona take a little break from editing for a while so I can relax and do..... well I don't know..... something. But whatever I did, I'm sorry. But I hope your not made at me? Peace! Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for your message. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S.S What does provoke mean? I can't remember. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not "mad at you" at all. I can see that you are really trying to do the right things, and are sometimes finding it difficult. I am willing to try to help you learn how Wikipedia works if I can. At the same time, though, it is necessary to make sure that you understand what the problems are, so that you can avoid them, and sometimes warning you about problems may seem a bit like being "mad at you".
What I meant by "provoke" is that another editor has been doing things that were likely to encourage you to react in unhelpful ways. That means it was not totally your fault when you did things that were not helpful. I think the fault was mainly from the other editor, and that is why I blocked that editor and not you. However, that does not mean that there was no fault at all from you. If that editor, or anyone else, keeps on doing things that might encourage you to act in ways are not helpful, you need to resist the temptation to react. Even when someone else does completely unacceptable things, such as attacking you on your talk page, try to make sure that you still stick to behaving perfectly. Otherwise, you are likely to be blocked again, as well as the other editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, now I understand. And yes I still behave well, I don't and never leave nasty messages on talk pages like what Smartie did on my talk page. Thanks for your kind reply message.

Hi, James. Since you gave Bigshowandkane64 a second chance to edit Wikipedia once again a few days ago, I want to help him learn more about how the encyclopedia works without having him resort to sockpuppetry or edit-warring again and help him learn more about essays, the five pillars, policies and guidelines such as WP:CIVIL and edit warring as well as WP:BRD. I don't want to cause any edit wars (I have even been blocked once for it, but that was back in October 2010) or be uncivil, so I am thinking if we should just offer some helpful tips to the user if we come up with issues. However, if he does resort to sockpuppetry or edit-warring again should the disruption rise again, what would be the best option here? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the answer has to be to restore the block. I have really tried hard to give Bigshowandkane64 every possible chance, as some other editors have, but unfortunately he/she just does not seem able to learn about edit warring. Yes, I gave a second chance, but that chance has not been taken, so I have restored the block which I had lifted. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There's big trouble going on on my talk page: Bigshowandkane64 is using 72.64.3.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to evade his block and post on my talk page. I filed an WP:RFPP on the situation, but can you please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The elevator vandal

He's back. If you're interested, check out the latest entry in User:John of Reading/CSD log. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have deleted the vandalism page and range blocked for a short while. What a weird obsession. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(Yawn) And again. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(Yawn) Deleted & blocked. Interestingly, this is outside the IP ranges used before. Whether that is significant I can't say, but it is possible it may mean that range blocks are forcing the vandal to move around, in which case it is worth continuing with the range blocks, to restrict his/her freedom of movement. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I might be wrong here and then I will let it go. But there are pressure to change the Jacqueline Fernandez birthdate information from 2 June to 11 August and I still havent seen any reliable sources for this change. But users keep changing the information. Is there something you could do or? A full protection for a month so a good discussion could be held or similar. Because her birthdate is 2 June but users are POV pushing like never before now. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion of full protection for a month, and have done that. I hope it gives a chance for the issue to be resolved, but the dispute has been in existence for a long time (nearly two years to my knowledge). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes it has been ongoing for two years. I have not been involved in it for that long but what is problematic is that I have not seen any reliable sources for the 11 August claim. Anyway, hopefully the issue can be resolved within this month. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this possible sockpuppet case if you have the time concerning IP 87.232.1.48 edits at Death of Travis Alexander. I believe that this IP and IPs 134.226.254.178 and 87.232.101.49 are all the same. Also involved are user MaxxFordham. I have a gut feeling atleast two of the IPs has been used by the same user to give impression of consensus at the Travis Alexander article, and the user page MaxxFordham has very possibly been used by IP 87.232.1.48 to create confusion and appearance of consensus. It is a week old or so old discussion but I feel that if sockpuppeting or bad faith edits has been madde by one person then some kind of action is in order. If I am wrong about this I would be surprised. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

[16], [17], [18],[19] they all uses the same kind of language and tone. IP 87.232.1.48 is the main one being used. Also a fourth already blokced IP seems to be involved [20]--BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like me informing you about this problem triggered the IP to create yet another account and insulting me and a number of other users and getting its username blocked. [21].--BabbaQ (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi there JBW, AL "here"

User:Boing! said Zebedee, after reading my message to him (found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee), suggested that i contacted you on the situation. What is your intake, if any?

Happy weekend from Portugal, thank you very much in advance --AL (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You say that you are "99,999999% sure" that 186.225.8.138 is User:Bruno corinthiano, aka 177.0.204.119. I am certain that 177.0.204.119 is Bruno corinthiano, but I can't see any clear evidence that 186.225.8.138 is the same person. (Note: I am not saying that it isn't the same person, just that I don't see clear evidence that it is.) There are some similarities, such as an interest in editing articles about footballers, a vaguely similar style of edits, editing from the same geographical area, and a tendency to make pointless changes that will not actually make any visible difference to the article, such as the removal of white space in the infobox in this edit. (That sort of apparently pointless edit could be due to using an offline editor and pasting the text back in.) However, I have not seen any edits that really make me think "Aha! that looks suspicious!" and something much more defintie would be nedessary to justify any action. It is notable that 186.225.8.138 has not edited any page that either 186.225.8.138 or Bruno corinthiano has edited, whereas there are ten articles that 186.225.8.138 and Bruno corinthiano have both edited. However, my impressions are based on a fairly brief investigation, and I may well have missed important evidence, so if you can give me definite reasons for your suspicion, I will be willing to consider it. Diffs for specific edits would be very helpful.

(I shall be visiting Portugal in a week.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Really your report has been quite comprehensive (much more than mine) and i have to add it's just a hunch, i cannot provide other evidence other than they both replace (in box) the U19, U21, U17 national team info with U-19, U-21, U-17. As you very well say, this other guy also edits from Brazil and in football, but they do not edit in same articles.

Not a case to be worried (for now), no vandalism no siree! Ah, happy stay in my country, but brace yourself, even though we have a reputation for sunny weather and we're reaching spring, weather is as poor as can be right now. Keep it up, thanks anyway --AL (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't told me about the weather. however, it's probably better than where I live. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is where if you don't mind me asking? --AL (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A village in the Pennines, not far from Manchester, and one of the wettest parts of a wet country. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Juan Sebastián Elcano

Hi. Guetaria, Guipúzcoa, the place where Elcano was born, was part of Castile and Leon in 1476. The Basque Country there was not such as nationality or region. If you require, we removed it from Basque and left it in Castilian. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What is and is not a "nationality" is debatable, but it certainly was an ethnicity. Nothing in the article said that it was a "nationality", as far as I know. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There is much to debate on this issue, but unfortunately my english is too bad. Anyway, thanks for your reply. Greetings, --Bashevis6920 (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi James all the info used is owned and created by me therefore there's no copyright infringement. What do I need to do differently to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intern2Owner (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you willing to release your content under Wikipedia's open licensing terms? This will mean giving permission to anyone in the world to re-use it, as it is or amended, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, under very broad terms. If you really are willing to release it under such open licensing terms, then can give you a link to instructions on how to give Wikipedia copyright release, but...
...doing so will almost certainly be a waste of your time, as the content was, as I have already said, purely promotional, and would be deleted again for that reason, even if the copyright issue were dealt with. Any page anywhere on Wikipedia which seems to exist to tell us how great or wonderful someone or something is will be likely to be deleted.
Before you spend any more time on this at all, I strongly recommend that you first consider whether the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, because if he doesn't, then no amount of rewriting the page will make it suitable as a Wikipedia article. This may seem unfriendly, but I am actually taking the trouble to say all this to help you. Time and time again over the years I have seen new editors create an article, see it deleted as a copyright infringement, rewrite it to avoid that, see it deleted as promotion, rewrite it to avoid that, see it deleted as non-notable... I really hate seeing that happen, and the reason why I am spending several minutes writing all this, instead of a few seconds pasting a standard message here, is to try to save you from going through all that waste of time and effort. My impression is that the subject probably does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but that impression is based on a fairly quick look, so I may be wrong. The guidelines that are relevant in this case are Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (music) Please do look at those pages to see what sort of thing is required. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page 'Waterford Institute of Technology Students' Union'

You deleted the page entitled Waterford Institute of Technology Students' Union which was is about the students' union in Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland. i created the page to outline the history of the students' union and its active involvement at local and national levels in the protection of students and raising money for well deserving charities as well as its involvement with the Union of Students in Ireland. it was a 'work in progress' prior to deletion. i would like to have it undeleted. 20046117 23:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please put my page back? 20046117 00:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Fennessy (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have "userfied" the article. I will post further details on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets of Tom Sayle

I've requested deletion of that category because I'm currently using this account, and there won't be any more in future.--Laun chba ller 09:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That is good news. However, if that is so then there is no harm in leaving the page there, and if not then there is an advantage in keeping it. In neither case is anything to be gained by deleting the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop Vandalising Pages

Please stop vandalising pages of Churches in Singapore. This is a warning! There is no basis for nominating them for deletion. They exist, and even if you deleted them, they can be added back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

NENCGuy

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

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

OK. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect of 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix to 2013 Formula One season

this redirection is completely false... 2013 Formula One season is not the same as 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix (and the interwikis are false too...) Cobra bubbles (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You probably got a bunch of these but one more shouldn't hurt. Thanks for helping me out! Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved Page Wrong

Hi JamesBWatson!

I hope it's ok for me to ask you another question. I noticed that a page my friend and I had worked on was moved incorrectly. We were collaborating and wanted to make the title more consistent with other, related pages on Wikipedia. But I checked just now and I think he just copied and pasted the information from one page to the other. Is is possible for you to move the page to the new title the correct way? Or should I just leave it the way it is?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

mafia state

since you have accepted the mafia state edit as non vandalism, can you please help me remove the putin photo in the article since i cannot do it myself because you protected the page, the putin photo is irrelvant because the article is also about other contries government like montenegro kosovo italy and japan 90.236.167.119 (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The photograph of Putin is certainly relevant, because he is mentioned prominently in the article. The fact that other countries are mentioned too may perhaps be grounds for adding other photographs, too. However, all I have done is protect the article to prevent disruptive editing, and I have no intention of getting involved in disputes about the content of the article. If you believe there are good reasons for the change you suggest, then you may place {{edit semi-protected}}, followed by your request, on the article's talk page. You may do this when your block runs out, not before. Since you have been avoiding that block by using different IP addresses, the length of that block has been increased, and it is now due to end at 14 Mar 2013 21:05 GMT. To make this absolutely clear: if you have been blocked then you may not edit, except to request an unblock, until the block expires or is lifted by an administrator. Evading the block by using another IP address is unacceptable. I will block the IP address you used to post here for the same amount of time as the other one, and you may request an unblock on the IP talk page, if you think an unblock is justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)