User talk:JBW/Archive 53

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 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Deletion of my page Jilla

Why you have deleted the page Jilla ? It was the page for an upcoming Tamil film which had its Official launch on March 11th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalkrishna333 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific? Without knowing what you want to know that you haven't already been told on your talk page, it is difficult for me to answer. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism Help!

Hi JamesBWatson!

You helped me before. I am dealing with vandalism from a user called Paperroses. He created this account and then proceeded to make 7 edits over the following pages: Witness Lee, Watchman Nee, and Living Stream Ministry. Each of these edits were obvious acts of vandalism consisting of him complaining of something. I want to add a level 3 warning to his page but it looks like he created his account just to vandalize. I have some feeling that this may be an instance of sockpuppeting. What should I do? Can you please help me through this? Thanks.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

The edits are certainly unacceptable, being unsourced expressions of a point of view, but it is not obvious to me that it is vandalism As far as I can see, it may well be simply someone who sincerely believes that he or she is writing the truth, and is unaware of Wikipedia's policies on sources and neutral point of view. As for sockpuppetry, do you have any evidence? If you do, let me know what the evidence is, and I will let you know what I think. However, it's not possible to do anything on the basis of "some feeling" without evidence. The editor has not edited since being warned, and I think at present the best thing to do is to wait and see. However, please feel very welcome to contact me again if the problematic editing starts up again. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As for vandalism, this user put phrases like "go and be a catholic" (in a random spot) or "unless your name is alan" (context was a theological school being set up for college graduates but, according to this user, you could not attend if your name was Alan). And his more substantial edits do not match the context of where he put them at all, have no proper capitalization or grammar, and consist of him or her ranting about gossiping and trying to directly talk to the readers of the articles . This user's edits sounds like angry commentary. If this does not constitute vandalism than what does (and I have read the vandalism information page and tried to follow the steps for responding to vandalism)? [This question is for my learning, please do not get the impression that I am arguing with you or angry, I am not. Although, truthfully, I am a bit frustrated that someone would do something like this.]

Secondly, and this is for a more general case, if someone adds something to any page saying things like this user did (expressions of anger or talking about bad experiences with something), and did find some sort of unreliable citation (e.g. a blog, a source that is no longer up-to-date, a personal website, etc.) is that grounds for that edit to remain? If I found "authortitative" sources, would that be grounds for removing something that is "incorrect?" And I guess this is a tricky question when it comes to religous pages since it can be quite subjective sometimes.

Thanks again, Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Yes, I did see the nonsense about "but if your name is alan you cant" and so on, but by the time I had finished checking all the edits, I forgot that. Thanks for correcting me. It does throw a completely different light on the user's purpose here.
You ask "if someone adds something to any page saying things like this user did (expressions of anger or talking about bad experiences with something), and did find some sort of unreliable citation (e.g. a blog, a source that is no longer up-to-date, a personal website, etc.) is that grounds for that edit to remain?". The answer is "No". You ask "If I found authortitative sources, would that be grounds for removing something that is incorrect?". The answers is "Yes". Just any source is not good enough: it has to be a reliable source, and blogs, personal websites, etc are not reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
I will post a level 2 vandalism warning to the user, but after that, I still think we should wait and see if he/she does any more: for now, a couple of warnings are all that are needed. However, in view of the "but if your name is alan you cant" nonsense, it will take only a little bit more vandalism before I decide that a block is justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm glad that I asked you before I went ahead and did something rash. I guess I was upset that someone would treat Wikipedia like a forum and put whatever he wanted to say on it. I'll keep watching and I'll let you know if anything else happens. Thanks again!

Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Hi JamesBWatson,

Thanks for the correction. I thought that was what you meant! Thanks again. And do you think you could help with the incorrectly moved page?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

What incorrectly moved page? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson!

The page is Recovery Version. It's about a particular translation of the Bible my friend and I like. It used to be on the page Recovery Version of the Bible but we noticed that all the other Bible translation pages were titled "King James Version," "English Standard Version," etc. So we wanted to make the title consistent (getting rid of "of the Bible") but I noticed recently that he just copied and pasted the content over to a different page. After I continued to work on the page more I noticed that my comment was the only one on the talk page and that the history was not complete. Can you somehow move the history from Recovery Version of the Bible to Recovery Version?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Sorry, it turns out that I was the one who just copied and pasted the page over. I don't even remember doing that or why I didn't use the "move" function. Sorry. Can you still help me move it properly?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

I can easily move the history of Recovery Version of the Bible to Recovery Version, but I am reluctant to do so unless there is evidence that there is a clear consensus to do so. The translation of the bible authorised for use by King James VI/I is very widely known, and commonly referred to by titles such as "the authorised version", without mention of what it is the authorised version of. The "Recovery Version" of the bible, by contrast, is much less well known (I had never heard of it until I read your post here. A quick internet search suggests that use of the "Recovery Version" in its own, without context saying what it is a version of, occurs rarely if at all. Most commonly some mention of the bible is included, as in "The Holy Bible Recovery Version", "Holy Bible Recovery Version", "the Recovery Version Bible" etc. In the few cases I have seen where plain "Recovery Version" occurs, it is either in a context in which it is already clear that versions of the bible are under consideration, or else in a place where the expression is pretty well immediately followed by a clarification using the word "bible". I also found a picture of the front cover of the book, in which the title is given as "Holy Bible Recovery Version", so "Recovery Version" on its own does not even have the merit of being the "official" title. Under these circumstances, I don't really see the proposed move as being consistent with Wikipedia's naming practises, and unless there is clear evidence that the issue has been discussed and consensus is in favour of the move, I don't see it as justifiable. (Incidentally, I found some interesting information about the people who produced this translation. For example, "Footnotes from the Book of Revelation state that denominational groups are spiritual fornicators for taking on names other than that of Christ (Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc), that Christianity is degraded for taking on these denominational names, that denominational groups are the harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon, and that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Judaism have become an organization used by Satan as a tool to damage God's economy...") JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson!

Firstly, I see your point about the title. But I figured that if someone were to search for the Recovery Version they would just search "Recovery Version" and that would lead them to the Bible. Strangely, when I search "recovery version" in Google and Yahoo all I get is the Recovery Version Bible, nothing less. Even Ask.com gets me just about all Recover Version Bible. I wonder if the country we are in makes a difference (assuming we may be in different countries)? I do see your point though. So what do you think is the best move? Should I ask on the talk page and see if anyone responds?

Secondly, the statement you showed is composed of different parts of unrelated footnotes from the Recovery Version that were reworded and then joined together. It does not even closely approximate the attitude and thought of the people who made the Recovery Version or the content of the Recovery Version itself. In fact, it is the opposite. The reason I know this is because there was a huge controversy surrounding those who produced the Recovery Version in the United States and many statements, like the one you found or others that claimed the group was cultic, heretical, aberrant, deviant, etc., came out. However, organizations like the Christian Research Institute (CRI), Fuller Theological Seminary, and ‘’Christianity Today’’(and even law courts) completed extensive research and all concluded that these statements, such as the one you found, were distortions of what the group really said. In fact, these organizations were so impressed with those who made the Recovery Version, they not only approved but highly praised the group. The problem is that a lot of inaccurate statements like the one you found were never removed or changed and come up first on search pages. In case you’re interested, an outcome of the controversy was an issue of ‘’The Christian Research Journal’’ entitled ‘’We Were Wrong’’ by CRI and does a good job of giving the whole story of the controversy.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Well, this all goes to show how you can't rely on information just because it's posted somewhere on the internet. Thanks for giving me more information about it. As for the move of the article, I am still doubtful, but I don't really have strong feelings about it, and so I will move it. However, if there are objections from other editors I may well move it back pending discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson!

Thanks for the help. I will let you know if some editors feel like the article should be moved back. My main concern was just to make all the titles of the Bible articles consistent. And in case you read the Bible, I highly recommend the Recovery Version. Depending on which country you live in, you can get a free copy of the New Testament with no strings attached like I did (e.g. from Bibles for Canada, Bibles for America, etc.). It's very well done. I look forward to working with you in the future. Thanks again!

Sosthenes12 (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Viking/Vikings

Hello, on 14 February 2013 you made this edit which moved Viking to Vikings. I completely agree with the move; however, the talk page was not included in the move, so clicking the "Talk" link on Vikings takes one to Talk:Viking. Can you please correct this? Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Antony1821

Hi there JB,

regarding the message you sent to this "user" (please see here at the bottom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grandstyle), this guy is this no good lowlife sock, who promised to sock and sock over and over again if he was blocked, he does so anon and now with an account. I kind of lost it in my message to this "person", i apologize but he's doing this with a smile!

You have been briefed, cheers --AL (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reminding me, just had to go offline for a few hours. Bjelleklang - talk 18:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mailsite article - follow up

Hello James. Thank you for your feedback on the new article I have created (Mailsite). You have expressed some concerns that as the author and major editor of this article, there may be a conflict of interest and a compromise of Wikipedia's authorship guidelines. I would like to respond by stating that my reason for writing this article was to share some of the research that I have done regarding mail servers. In the early part of my research, I used Wikipedia to gather information about various companies and mail server products. Realizing that there was a lack of coverage of Mailsite, I began the task of writing and publishing this article. I have made several edits to other mail server articles, to further contribute to the Wikipedia content community. I have no conflict of interest, nor affiliated with Mailsite. Some of the information I have presented in this article are value-added and not available in the same information flow on Mailsite's website. I greatly appreciate your consideration and ask that the article remain anchored to the Wikipedia content community. This content is consistent with other mail server companies/services that exist in Wikipedia. I am a relatively new author to Wikipedia, and very excited to be participating in the contribution process. Please allow me to add useful content to the Mailsite page so it can grow and continue to inform the community of readers. I also have plans to publish several additional articles on this subject domain. Thank you. Dargyle (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for all of your help and expertise. I really appreciate that there are administrators like you working on Wikipedia. Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Dewritech's talk page.
Message added 08:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dewritech (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Note

Hope everything is ok! Good luck to whatever you are doing! Sosthenes12 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Anthony Ausgang recreated

A courtesy note that I've accepted a candidate article for Anthony Ausgang and placed it into mainspace. It looks sufficiently improved that it is not subject to speedy deletion under G4. Since you'd protected the title, I wanted to make you aware, though with your extended absence, I went ahead and moved the page rather than wait for clearance. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Niemti, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you were previously involved in blocking this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you, but could you take a look at user Xfansd edits on Yohio and other simlar topics. The user has been told again and again by me and other users not to change information about visual kei especially in the Yohio article. The user continues to POV push and also changes categories to make it appear like Yohio is cross dressing which is not correct. I have tried to convince the user to get involved in discussing the issue and get a consensus before adding this material but the user continues to add it back. And states that "I will do it anyway" basically. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the history of this, as you asked me to. I see a content dispute between the two of you, with discussion on Xfansd's talk page, in which you each insist that you are right. I see a small amount of slow edit-warring on the issue. I have not seen the "others" who you say have also told Xfansd about this: can you give me some links? Do you have any reliable sources that support your opinion and oppose Xfansd's? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello JamesBWatson, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers!

Arctic Kangaroo 15:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ferguson

Hi, having a similar problem as with the Louise Camuto article..this time it is Rebecca Ferguson (actress) article and a representative of Rebecca that wants to change the article. I find it troubling. The username is Aisassistant. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor has made only one edit, which was removing a statement not supported by the reference which accompanied it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion of Tuxera Page

Hi, a week ago you have proposed Tuxera page for deletion due to promotional content. I wanted to ask if it is possible for you to revert to the previous text and we will add new information step by step? The content was outdated and we wanted to refresh it. Unfortunately we did not know the rules and have not seen any warnings. We are very sorry about it would like to have an opportunity to make amends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.136.68.98 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the article. However, I see no evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if it doesn't, the article is likely to be taken to a deletion discussion. If it is deleted as a result of a consensus at a deletion discussion, then it will not be restored on request, as I have done this time. I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which contains, in my opinion, a good summary of many issues that arise in connection with articles about companies. Also, you may wish to look at the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of companies. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will consult the pages and rework the Tuxera page so it adheres to Wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.136.68.98 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Jersey Premier Soccer

Hi JamesBWatson,

I wanted to ask you about your deletion of the Jersey Premier Soccer Club wiki page. Obviously as one of the largest clubs in the south Jersey region, working with hundreds of children a year I was shocked that the club was not deemed notable enough. I was just wondering what I would need to do or provide in order to change this, by verifiable second/third party sources are we talking newspaper articles and mentions on other websites?

Obviously there are a number of other youth soccer organizations with wikipedia pages such as; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Texans_Soccer_Club ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindletop_Youth_Soccer_Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Bronx_United http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonestar_Soccer_Club

I appreciate that they are obviously very notable sides and clearly deserve and require their wiki pages I would like some advice or suggestion on what our page could do to emulate these.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerseypremiersoccer (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Mostly, it is only professional sports clubs that satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, unless there are special reasons. It is natural fora newcomer to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, but unfortunately it is not an entirely valid guide. Thousands of articles are created which do not satisfy Wikipedia's standards, and although many of them are deleted very soon, some of them escape fora long time before anyone notices them and nominates them for deletion. At least some, and perhaps all, of the articles you have listed do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. One of them has now been deleted, and two more have been nominated for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Move Talk Page

Hi JamesBWatson!

Welcome back! Hope everything went alright! I noticed that the talk page for the Recovery Version was not moved from the original page Recovery Version of the Bible. Do you mind moving the talk pages over as well? Thanks.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Thanks for letting me know. I have moved it now. Normally, when an article is moved, by default the talk page is moved too. This is the second time recently that I have moved a page and its talk page has for no apparent reason not moved with it. I shall have to try to remember to always check whether the talk page moves. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help! Glad to see you back! Hope all things are well. Sosthenes12 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

(talk page stalker) The move process isn't very user-friendly: if the target talk page is not empty, the talk page is not moved, even if you have ticked "Yes, delete the page" for the main article and (if I remember right) the only warning is a negative one - the absence of the line that says the talk page has been moved. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for the explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Human Factors Lab

Hello, I am writing in regards to the wiki page for the band Human Factors Lab. This page cans under attack in 2010 by former band members citing it was not notable. We believe Human Factors Lab meets all requirements to have a wiki page. What can be done to re instate,or recreate a page for Human Factors Lab? Here is some basic info. Human Factors Lab is an Industrial Metal band based out of Orlando, Florida. Established in 2004 ,Touring Nationally since 2006 . Independently released 3 full length albums and 2 EP's. We have also independently toured the United States and Canada 11 times. As a live band Human Factors Lab is known for their highly visual imagery and sometimes bizarre stage shows they are armed to the teeth with crunch guitars, live keyboard arrangements,pulse pounding drums,and aggressive vocals

NOTABLE TOURS :

-Support for Mushroomhead-

April , 2008 October, 2008 December, 2011 -Support for KMFDM- August, 2011

DISCOGRAPHY : Plastik : 2004 - 10,000 sold Pap3r : 2008 - 28,000 sold L1V3 : 2009 - 600 downloads (digital only / limited time release)

We All Fall Down (EP) : 2011 - 1,700 sold

The Blade (EP) : October, 2012 The Blood (EP) : March, 2013

We are currently in the process of releasing a new series of EP's to eventually be combined to form a full length album entitled "The Suicide Diaries" produced by Chris Vrenna, best known as drummer for Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson, as well as his own project called Tweaker. We did the recording at the world famous KDS Studios in Orlando, FL. This studio gave the band access to cutting-edge technology and equipment as well as staff that are no strangers to breeding successful artists. It was formerly known as TransContinental Studios where many of the Orlando Pop bands such as NSYNC, Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears got their start. We are recording vocal tracks and conducting final mixes at Chris Vrenna's personal studio in Los Angeles, CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevensevensevenseven (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it is more helpful to put a new section at the bottom of a talk page. That is where new sections will be expected, and they may be missed if placed at the top.

I have put a significant amount of time checking up on this. There are several issues involved, and I will give you a summary of the main points of what I have found.

You say that the article "cans [came?] under attack in 2010 by former band members". It certainly does look as though at least two accounts acted maliciously, but that is of no relevance, as the deletion was assessed on the basis of the validity of the arguments put forward. Deletion discussions on articles on bands frequently attract people with an axe to grind (either for or against deletion) and I am sure the closing administrator is capable of making a judgement unswayed by irrelevant factors.
Having released a number of recordings is no evidence of notability. Anyone with a moderate amount of money can release recordings, and thousands of totally obscure bands have done so.
The fact that a studio which is "no stranger to breeding successful artists" has provided facilities to the band is no evidence of notability. Pick any successful recording artist or band you like: Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, whoever you like. You can be 100% certain that the studios they worked with have also had many other artists that nobody has ever heard of. "This band recorded at the same studio as bands that are notable, so this band must be notable too" is a completely invalid argument.
Having toured as support for a notable band is no proof of notability. (In fact, the most notable bands don't tour as support: they tour in their own right.)
I have waded through the interminable and tedious deletion discussion. It is perfectly clear that the arguments claiming to show that the band satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines fail to do so.
I have not relied solely on the comments in that discussion, but have made my own searches for evidence of notability. As an indication of the sort of things I found, I will give a summary of the results of a Google search for "Human Factors Lab". (This is not the only search I made, but the kind of thing I found with other searches was substantially similar.) First, I had to weed out hits for other meanings of "Human Factors Lab", such as the Human Factors and Aging Laboratory at Georgia Institute of Technology. When I had done that, I found a string of such things as Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, discogs, Twitter, a web site called shop.humanfactorslab.com, which is evidently not an independent source, and so on and so on. Not only do sources like this fail to qualify as reliable independent sources within the terms of Wikipedia's guidelines, but also, and more importantly, the are exactly the sort of thing one finds for minor bands that are trying hard to publicise themselves as much as possible. If I make a search for a really notable band, I very easily find a quite different kind of coverage.
Since you are clearly associated with the band (probably a member of it), you are not the right person to write about it. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. An insider does not have a neutral point of view, and his or her involvement will colour his or her view of the subject in various ways, including perhaps giving him or her a much higher impression of notability than will be apparent from the detached perspective an uninvolved outsider.
The answer to your question "What can be done to re instate,or recreate a page for Human Factors Lab?" is "Become notable." You may be very notable in your own terms, you may be very notable in the terms of your fans, or in the terms of a small community of people with a special interest in your particular kind of band, but unless and until you become notable in Wikipedia's terms, your band will not qualify to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, and your time will be better spent trying to publicise yourself elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lonestar Soccer Club

Hello JamesBWatson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lonestar Soccer Club, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's borderline, and what's here as presented would probably fail the GNG, but there's some credible assertions of importance in termes of titles won, national league ranking, Nike premier, national championship win. Collectively this mounts up. Enough to pass A7, needs to go to AfD if necessary. . Thank you. Ged UK 12:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is borderline, which is why I tagged it rather than deleting it myself: I wanted a second opinion. Thanks for giving me just such a second opinion, which I will accept. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

AS PER YOUR REQUEST

im withdrawing that statement at the present time,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Maria0033

Er, what?[1]

I had blocked her for a week so I could engage in a bit of mentoring advice, although I had slim hopes of my efforts being fruitful. I don't see anything in the sockmaster's SPI record about this account. Is there some evidence that came up of which I'm not aware, or was this a WP:DUCK judgment? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See the checkuser comment here. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Too bad. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

AN discussion

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 thread is "RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti". Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

BangImage

Hi James. I have recently created a page for "BangImage", but it was deleted as my account name was also called "bangimage". I created a new account, this time with a username I'm using for other online activities (m2online). Can I recreate the "BangImage" page ? They offer a really nice and free service, and I thought I give them something back in return. Let me know. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by M2online (talk • contribs) 13:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you from creating a new article on the subject, but before you do so, there are a few things you should consider.

First and foremost, does the subject satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines? If it doesn't, then no matter how you write the article, it will not be suitable, and is likely to be deleted. There is therefore no point in spending any more time on even considering writing an article unless and until you have established that it does satisfy the notability guidelines. I have searched for information about it, and what I have found very strongly suggests that it does not.
I allowed you to create a new account (rather than hard-blocking you so that account creation from your IP address was impossible) on the basis of a statement that you were not associated with the web site, but, looking back at what you wrote about BangImage, I see that you used the word "we". If you are associated with the web site, then you have a conflict of interest, and should not be creating an article about it.
Whether you are affiliated to the web site or not, writing content that promotes it will be unacceptable. For some reason a large number of newcomers to editing Wikipedia think that the word "promotion" cannot apply to any editing done by someone who does not stand to gain financially, so we get people saying "it can't be promotional, because I don't work for or own the business", or "it can't be promotional, because it is a not-for profit organisation". Not so: anything that tells us how good something is promoting it; anything that exists to publicise something, and make it better known to the public is promoting it. Your statement that you intend to "give them something back in return" does suggest that you have in mind promoting it.

If, having read that, you are still considering creating an article on the subject, I suggest first looking at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. In my opinion it does a fairly good job of summarising various issue relating to writing articles about businesses and other organisations. Also relevant, if you want to go more deeply into the issues, are the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of organisations and companies), and the guideline on reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

James, IMHO the answer here is "No", at least if we are talking about the page as originally created and subsequently deleted. But he asked you, so it's your call. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes: I thought it was implicit in what I wrote that the answer is certainly "no" unless the page was substantially rewritten, and probably "no" anyway. However, since your raising the question suggests that it wasn't as clear as I intended, I shall make it explicit. (1) The page as originally written was unacceptable, and will still be unacceptable if it is re-created: it was promotional, and it also failed to show that its subject was significant enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. Either of those alone would be a good enough reason for speedy deletion. (2) As I said above, what I have found on searching very strongly suggests that the subject does not satisfy the notability guidelines, and if it doesn't then it should not be re-created, and will probably be deleted if it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies; I can only imagine that I looked at an earlier version and then edited to add my comment without going to the latest version. Very careless; sorry once again. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an easy mistake to make: I have done it myself before now. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Duck socks of Flowers of the world sock drawer

I think the below accounts are sock puppets of Flowers of the world,

User:Merenjith

User:London_at_night

User:111.92.2.111

Kunchacko Boban is the article flowersoftheworld frequented the most.

Mollywood1 pushing promotional commentary diff

111.92.2.111 adding the same content diff

Merenjith adding the same content diff

London at night warning me for removing the above content diff

Understanding between Merenjith and London at night diff
Merenjith removing the refimprove tags diff

Should I formally request an investigation? Thanks JK (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope this is enough Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Flowers_of_the_world JK (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Huggle help

Hey James,

Would you be able to please help a user out, over here - in regards to installing Huggle etc. - I had trouble myself during the installation process a few months back and I don't want to give out the wrong advice! Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be glad to help, but unfortunately I have to go offline now. I will not be able to help at least for several hours, and probably not until tomorrow. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, don't worry; I'll find another user or ask if the editor is able to wait a bit. Thank you anyways! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Manchester Wikimeet

Hi James. You wanted a reminder about the Wikimeet in Manchester next Saturday, so here it is! Hope to see you next week. Bazonka (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please reverse the damage

It is good this Maria0033 has been blocked on English WP but she is still creating havoc on Wiki Commons. Please do something to her there too. She has deleted this map [2] and brought her own [3] and pasted on many places. Please block her on Wiki Commons too and revere her damages. I have requested this to Amatulic here [4] too. Thank you --Khalid Mahmood (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Chances are others on Commons will undo any damage she does, you'll need to see a Commons Administrator if you want to have her blocked on Commons though as Wikipedia Administrators do not ~~often / necessarily~~ normally have the same powers on other Wikimedia projects such as Commons. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator on Commons, and have no more power or rights there than you. You may like to contact a commons administrator: there is a list of them on this page, under the heading "Administrators as of April 2013". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Jem Singapore

Hello!

I am very very new to Wiki, and am trying to figure my way around and realized my page got deleted :( Are shopping malls probihited from posting about themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jem Singapore (talk • contribs) 09:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Jem.

I have left you a notice on your user talk page kindly read over it and maybe you will have a better idea of how things work around here. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If by "posting about themselves" you mean people who work for the businesses concerned posting promotional articles about the malls, then the answer is "yes". Both the fact that Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising and the conflict of interest guidelines have been pointed out to you on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dean Anthony Gratton

An arbitrary deletion with no explanation or review of the said article. Please explain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconovate (talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Anthony Gratton. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Faisal_Farooqui

Dear James, I am Noopur. I see that you speedily deleted the article on Faisal_Farooqui. I am not able to see the last version of the article. However, the one I could access on web archives doesn't seem that bad (it really doesn't look like self promotion to me). Would you care to share logs of the last version, please? The references from the older version also seem just fine. Thanks! Noopur28 (talk)

(Talk page stalker) Are you asking just to see the last version or are you asking for him to userfy it to you? if you have it userfied then you can work on improving it at your own pace. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 15:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the deleted text of the article and it requires cleaning up. However, the article has existed since 2006 and hence does not qualify for speedy deletion under G11 criterion. I would recommend allowing some time for users to clean it up and if required, running it through AfD. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire tone of the article from start to finish was promotional. It even contained such blatantly promotional language as "Faisal's idea has emerged as a powerful concept", and such like. The article that I deleted has actually existed since 6 October 2007, not 2006, though another title under the same title was created and deleted in 2006. However, that is irrelevant, because, contrary to what Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (who signs as "Nearly Headless Nick") for some reason seems to think, there is no time limit for a G11 deletion. However, I have userfied the article at User:JamesBWatson/Faisal Farooqui. If you do want to edit it to prepare a better version for restoration as an article, you are welcome to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sir Nick, MIVP and James. For me it wasn't so much about protecting the article as about learning why an article existing for seven years got deleted, especially since the person concerned was worried that this is motivated by paid editors and so on. I have pointed him to the userfied article.Noopur28 (talk)

The subject seems to be a notable personality in India ( Mouthshut.com is one of the premier online portals in India). IMHO, Doesn't fit to merit to delete the article of its CEO though. May be I can also chip in to clean up and perhaps run it through an AFD to get some opinion if needed. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The tone of the article is indeed promotional and requires cleaning up. However, the article does not qualify for speedy deletion under G11 criteria, not only because it has existed since 2007 (as you have pointed out above) but also because it contains links to reliable and verifiable secondary sources which discuss the subject of the biography which is the reason why the article existed in the first place. I could have restored the article myself given the misapplication of G11 criterion, however I chose to extend the courtesy of running it by you first. I hope you will take up on this invitation. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, neither of the reasons you give disqualifies it from G11. Firstly, you say "not only because it has existed since 2007", implying that for some reason you still think that G11 applies only to recently created pages, but I am aware of no policy, guideline, "essay", or anything else anywhere that says that. There is certainly nothing in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to say so. Secondly, the fact that the article contained "it contains links to reliable and verifiable secondary sources which discuss the subject of the biography" is irrelevant, because it was deleted as being promotional, not as lacking sources. An article can have dozens of reliable sources, but if from start to finish it tells us how wonderful its subject is, then it is unambiguous promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

theonesean's Edit Reversion

Hello, Mr. (Dr.?) Watson. I am theonesean, an editor for two years, and I have recently come back after a very long wikibreak. You claim on your page that you assume good faith in new editors. However, my review and denial of a proposed page creation was reverted as being "vandalism." This does not lend itself well to your claim of good faith. If this was the activity of a bot, my sincere apologies. If it was not, please reconsider your reversion. Please contact me further on my talk page. Thank you. TheOneSean | Talk to me 18:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and my apologies -

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

TheOneSean | Talk to me has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
TheOneSean | Talk to me has also included a special message: Thanks for helping me out, and I'm sorry for being short with you. I hope this tea will make it up to you :)

Coffee -

There's certainly plenty of that to go around. Here you go:

TheOneSean | Talk to me has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To make the situation more comprehensible to anyone else reading this talk page, I am consolidating the three sections you created into one. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Tinkatolli

12:41, 4 April 2013 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Tinkatolli (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.tinkatolli.com/parents/faq/, http://bake.or.ke/blog_feed_item/17460, etc)

I've noticed you've deleted the page as it appears that there is copyright infringement of certain areas, due to content being used directly by the website that is referenced. The information I used wasn't intentionally used to advertise or promote any website and text used wasn't intentionally used for plagiarism etc. Please may the page be restored and these areas be removed, consent was given by any http://www.tinkatolli.com/ for any text used however due to the deletion any areas that have "unambiguous advertising or promotion" with directed text used will be changed. Please allow this page to stay up, any "unambiguous copyright infringement" will be changed. Thanks for taking your time to read this.

"Secondly, for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images copied from other web sites or printed material. See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion" -- apologise for this, I didn't intentionally mean to do this, please allow me to change the areas of where this is, this won't happen again.

The first reason you had mentioned it looks like for promotion only, it isn't, it's well known and has a big audience similarly to other Virtual Worlds e.g. MiniMonos & Club Penguin, re-writes of areas I would do straight away unless areas of where this is shown you would remove. Once again, sorry for this. Lokiterry (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you have also posted a message to me on your talk page, I have put my reply there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page. Thanks Lokiterry (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't need IP unblocking now :)

Maybe because my new IP address isn't on its blacklist. Thanks all the same :) Sky6t (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

bumanate

I never seen a meaning for someone who doesn't work at work. Why was this deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.213.59 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence, but the answer to your second sentence is that it was completely untrue: there is no such English word. If you want to invent a word and try to get it established in the English language then you are welcome to do so. however, until it does get established in the English language, it does not belong in Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Dylarooo

YOU ATTACKED ME BY DELETING MY PAGES I WORKED ON FOR 5 HOURS SO HOW ABOUT YOU PUT THEM BACK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylarooo (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not "attack you". I do sympathise with editors such as yourself, who come here, no doubt in perfectly good faith, sincerely believing that it is a legitimate use of Wikipedia to post material about their band, hoping to get publicity for it, only to see their work deleted. However, I'm afraid that your editing conflicts with at least two of Wikipedia policies. Firstly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything, and articles are not acceptable unless their subjects satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion, and your editing, containing such language as "Adestria adds a sense of classical drama to their trance-influenced metal excursions", was unambiguously promotional. Also, if I remember correctly, at least some of the content has previously been published elsewhere, meaning that it is likely to be an infringement of copyright. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Adestria isn't my band? Its a band I really enjoy listening to .... Maybe you should figure out information before yo start making things up. I referenced that I got that from mtv artists or whatever. I wasn't "promoting" them. Oh and also I talked with them and they allowed me to use their pictures, and I rven supported the evidence. How about I was trying to be a nice person and make them a wikipedia because they deserve it. I don't see the pages Adept, Chunk No Captain Chunk and other bands getting deleted. I had a lot of valid information and was just making it for people who want to know about them and love the band. They're signed by Artery Records as well. I put information as you would for other bands. I don't see other bands wikis getting taken down. Also it was nominated for deletion because theres no proof that they're real? Uhm.... They have an EP, an album, are signed, twitter, youtube, myspace, on youtube, albums are on iTunes and elsewhere, so clearly I'm not making it up. You people on Wikipedia really need to get uour self straight and not delete articles for false information when it isn't at all. Everything I had there was not copyrighted at all. The band also thanked me for doing it. You guys just delete pages for fun to piss others off just because they know how to make an article thats better then anything you have ever created. So I'm going to keep reuploading there article and making it over and over and over until you people get it through your head that they're a real band and are actually known enough for a wikipedia and I'm sure as hell people want to know things about them that they don't know and would like to know the information on their albums. That's all I have to say because I'm right and you're wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylarooo (talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This user severely violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:SHOUT and clearly has missed WP:GNG, sigh. I'd call for a block but that'd be WP:BITE. I mean GNG is excusable but the others are common sense am I right? That said also forgotten to sign his post. Isn't this stuff usually the sign of a sock? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 21:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing your concerns to my attention, Dylarooo. My apologies for the fact that it has taken me several days to answer you. When I first read your last message here, I thought that it would take me some time to compose an adequate reply, and, rather than do a rushed and inadequate version, I would leave it until I had more time. Unfortunatley, it then got forgottten. However, I will now try to answer some of your concerns. I hope that what I say will be of some help to you.

You say "it was nominated for deletion because theres no proof that they're real". There were a total of 15 edits to the article by eidtors other than you. I have checked every one of those fifteen edits, and none of them was a nomination for deletion because "theres no proof that they're real". Nobody suggested that you are "making it up". I found a substantial portion of the text you posted on a page at http://www.midomi.com, which said "Portions of Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2009". I also found an extensive unattributed quote of material to be found in a page at Amazon. There does seem, therefore, to be evidence of copyright infringement, probably of more than one source. You say "I don't see other bands wikis getting taken down." Well, in that case you can't ahve much experience of Articles for Deletion discussion, because in my experience articles about bands are one of the most frequent subjects of deletion, often aggressively and angrily defended by members of the band, or people connected to members of the band. You indicate that you are in contact with the band, and that they have authorised your writing about them. That suggests that you may have a conflict of interest. A Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and an insider, or someone closley connected to the subject, may find it at best difficult, and at worst impossible, to write from a detached perspective. For that reason, Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest strongly discourages anyone from writing an article about a subject they are closely connected to. You say "You guys just delete pages for fun to piss others off". I am not sure how you cliam to know the inner motivation of administrators, but I can assure you that, in my case at least, that is not the case. I have already stated above that I sympathise with editors such as you, who come here in good faith, and unexpectedly find their work deleted. If you persist in believing that that is a lie, there is probably nothing I can do about it, but I hope that is not the case. I am willing to believe that what you wrote was an expression of your perfectly natural feelings of frustration and annoyance at finding your work lost, and that you do not necessarily stick to that opinion. My task as a Wikipedia administrator is to administer Wikipedia policy, and that is why I deleted the article, not to "piss you off", as you choose to put it. You say "I wasn't 'promoting' them", but such langauge as, for example, "Adestria add a sense of classical drama to their trance-influenced metal excursions" is not neutral reporting: it is an attempt to convey a positive view of them, and quite counter to Wikipedia's policy of writing from a neutral point of view.

I hope that the time I have taken in writing this has not been wasted, and that it will help you to understand more clearly what some of the issues are. Please do feel welcome to post here again if you need any further clarification of what I have said, and if you do so then I will try to reply more quickly. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright you know what, I am done with this. I'm sorry for flipping out and doing that, it was wrong of me. You are right and had your reason to do what you did. But there is one thing, I did actually see it get nominated for deletion because of it being fake, but that could've been the one I made before. I'm just going to let the band or someone close with them or whatever make it when/if they do in the future. Sorry for all of this, I was just frustrated because my work got deleted and I was having a easter dinner, etc etc. I just wasn't to happy. Anyways, I hope this doesn't affect my account or anything, I am new to Wikipedia and have just been trying to help, which I have been contributing a lot. Thanks for the reply, everything you said there was right and I apologize again for this misunderstanding and my freak out. Good day. Dylarooo (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops

Thank you. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Matt Fiddes

Hello,

I noticed that you had reverted back to an edit that I had done before the page was locked and discussion at the BLPN. I noticed user Kungfu (Who is Matt Fiddes) undid this edit. By the looks of his talk page, it appears that he has been warned about editing out negative stories. IS there anyway to solve this? This article is full of stories which are exaggerated and there is a lack of citation to credible stories to back up the claims. Anything that can be done? I do not want to get in to another edit war with him which happened the last time. Any advice? (Edinburgh loon (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC))

I have blocked Kungfu10 for a month. Maybe that will help for a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I have reverted the article back. However, I am guessing that a new user or IP address will change it back but I will keep an eye on the page. Thanks. (Edinburgh loon (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)_

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if you are right. However, we can cross that bridge if and when we come to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Bmwtroll

Read your message. Issue closed. Biker Biker made the mistake of deleting a file without following protocol and checking with the uploader. BMW R 1200 C article rehauled now generally - not only picture Bmwtroll (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There's still issues on that page. I count at least 5 reverts by Bmwtroll [[5]] with Melbourne Star and Biker Biker both agreeing that there is commons licensing issues. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Caccrop has again deleted certain contents of my page, Talk Page without my consent. Can I do something to protect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jule Firework (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in, JBW. I've indefinitely blocked Caccrop (talk · contribs) and removed their talk page access. I messaged them only to see them repeat their disruption. If you see any overstepping on my part, feel free to make any adjustment you feel necessary. Regards Tiderolls 22:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

HELP with new article submission recently declined for the 3rd time.

Dr Watson, I found your name on the talk page of the high school student ( his profile info ) and new editor, who just rejected my Article for Submission with nary a comment. It involves the thorny question of "notability" which I believe the submission now fulfills. It is an entry for a composer named Robert Lombardo, who is already mentioned as a composition student of Arnold Franchetti.

You must be quite busy with other endeavors on Wikipedia, but I would appreciate it very much if you could review the article yourself. I originally submitted it last year and made a number of changes and additions based upon useful suggestions by the first two editors. I firmly believe that the submission is valid and appropriate at this time. Perhaps TheOneSean, in his enthusiasm as a new and young editor, declined the submission in error. I hope this is the case.

Thanks for your attention and your continuing work on Wikipedia. Final4one (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

AN notice

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. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 10:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For patience, caring, and love when dealing with my learning process. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of My Sandbox.

Hi,

I think you accidently marked my sandbox for speedy deletion. I spend a lot of time adding research to it just the night before and never had a chance to contest the deletion of my sandbox. I hope it can be recovered somehow.

Thanks,

Meishern (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't at all accidental, but I have restored the history of the page, and given further explanation on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Problematic IP again

That user Bigshowandkane64 is back using the IP 72.64.9.74. Isn't it time to give this IP a range block? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I said I was sorry, please give me another chance Sjones. I told you my internet is connected on a shared network and my IP Address numbers change everyday. It's not my fault that my numbers change. Please give a chance Sjones! 72.64.9.74 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have concerns about my behavior, take it up to ANI and provide diffs there. (But watch out for the boomerang effect!) You have had too many second chances. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Having checked the editing history, I decided to place a range block for three months. I clicked the button to block, and found that a checkuser (Elockid) had already placed a three month block, starting one minute after Bigshowandkane64 posted the message above. I decided to check another range that Bigshowandkane64 had used, and found that Elockid had already put a three month block on that range too. However, Bigshowandkane64 has also occasionally used other IP addresses that are outside those two ranges. I have checked, and can't find any sign of use within the last couple of months of any IP address that isn't now either blocked directly or range-blocked, but do let me or Elockid or both know if you see the same person coming back on another IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 05:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My page needs protection

IP User 92.251.115.3 sockpuppet of User:PeterAmbrosia has committed personal attack to my user page. Protect my user page and talk page from anon users if you please. Deltasim (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Doc james

I would like to let you know that doc james is indeed known to engage in edit warring. That is at least what happened between me and him a few month ago. I also think its not important if he engaged more in edit warring than the other editor. I think the other editor is right, if doc was involved to the same extent or even less, he should have received at least a warning. I also observed that it happens many times when related to alternative medicine. Doc is seems to be a senior doctor in mainstream medicine. Thats why i have proposed him to avoid editing alt med articles because it seems that he has a coi. Of course his personal believes that alt med is not reliable wouldn't constitute coi by itself perhaps, but it seems he is applying these believes while editing. .20:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs)

You may well be right. However, as I have already said, I restricted my investigation to the aspects of the case which related directly to the unblock request which I assessed. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. On that topic I may just say that what the user requested seems valid to me. I think Doc James should (have) received a warning (if not a block) for his participation in the edit warring. Ryanspir (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Advice Needed

Hi again JamesBWatson!

How are you doing? I had a question regarding the page: 6th April historical long march. It seems to be quite a historical event that occured in Bangledesh in the past few days. However, the article was written so poorly I did not even know how to begin to fix it. I wanted to delete it because it seemed just to be some kind of promotion from the way it was written but stopped because it seemed important. So instead I left many tags on the page (I think 11, I know, way too many). I was wondering what you think is the best thing to do with the page. Thanks!

Sosthenes12 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Unfortunately, there was really only one thing to do with the article, namely deleting it, as it existed only to blatantly promote a point of view. I have, however, explained to the author of the article that it will be acceptable to write a new article on the subject, from a neutral point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sosthenes12 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Delete article of Alvaro Sobrinho

hello, 1. My article about "Alvaro Sobrinho" was deleted a few days ago and I would like to know what was wrong there. What do I have to change there to enable for Wikipedia? Unfortunately I could not find the deleted article. How can I get it back in order to modify it? 2. The article of "yoomee" is propesed to be deleted from you, what should I modify there, to be accepted?

Thank you in advance-Eser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eser83 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

More Advice Needed

Hi JamesBWatson!

I was wondering what you thought about the user Jayanitor. This user seems to keep creating articles that are not important or are possible hoaxes (he was warned on his talk page already). I just nominated one of his pages for deletion called The Little Avengers. It's about a film that does not seem to exist and it seems an obvious joke to me. What would you do about this user?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Nevermind, the page got deleted already. Sosthenes12 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

I had a look at the editor's history anyway, and it is perfectly clear that this account is a sockpuppet of an editor already blocked in at least two accounts, so I have blocked this one too. I also found two more hoax pages created by the same person, and deleted them. Thanks for calling it to my attention. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, how did you figure out that he was the same person from the other two accounts? What gives it away (I don't know what the other two accounts were)? Thanks and glad that I helped.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

The other two accounts are User:The Deadly TV series and User:The Sparrows: Film. The evidence comes from deleted edits, which is information available only to administrators, so it's not surprising that you didn't see it. Once I had spotted a first clue suggesting a connection between the accounts, I looked at other aspects of the editing history of the accounts, and I found loads of evidence, enough to make it clear beyond any doubt that they are the same person. I'm afraid, though, that I am not going to say any more about what sort of evidence it was, because I don't want to warn the user what kind of give-away signs to avoid if he/she makes any more sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks so much! Feel free to delete this section if you feel to.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Blocked user?

Hi, Can you advise me. I thought both User talk:213.98.51.34 and User talk:83.61.20.30 (the same person apparently) were blocked last year. However I’ve come across their merry edits on the same topics again recently.Nickm57 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

They were both blocked for just a month last year. They are clearly the same person, and pretty certainly a blocked user, so I have blocked them again, for longer. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Socking?

Hi JamesBWatson!

I think I may have found another instance of sockpuppetry. I found and nominated the page Building Collapse in Ma Tau Wai Road for deletion only to find that it had been deleted prior to my nomination. But the page is still there with my nomination. That doesn't make any sense. So I checked and it seems that this page was created by a user named Jennimak4 (the article's content is in her sandbox). It was then deleted by the admin RHaworth. Then another user named Phoebchau2 was created today and created the page again with the exact same content in Jennimak4's sandbox. I tried to alert RHaworth about what I found but I wanted to see what you thought about this as well as a follow-up to my last inquiry of how you figured out another user was socking. Thanks.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Update:

I checked other accounts that were involved in editing this article and found that these users also have Building Collapse in Ma Tau Wai Road content in their sandbox but in pieces. The users are Chelee4 and Wlleung45. Yinglam2 only has edits to the article of interest. So a total of 5 accounts including Jennimak4 and Phoebechau2. Then an IP address showed up: 183.179.3.75 They may have accidentally used it instead of an account. What do you think?

(talk page stalker) I'm no expert, but if I had to guess, I'd say that they're not sockpuppets; rather, those are all probably members of the same school class, and their teacher has given them an assignment to work on this article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Really?!? Why do you say that? It's the same content in the sandboxes and the article. At least one of these accounts was created today, following which was the recreation of the article. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing here. I really would like to know your thoughts. Interestingly enough, the IP address that I found with the accounts traces back to the place where the accident happened: Kowloon, Hong Kong. Maybe you are right. Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

I agree with Writ Keeper. Why? It has the overall appearance of several editors collaborating in the sort of way that I have seen before from members of school classes who have been set editing Wikipedia as an assignment. Also, if it were sockpuppetry, what would be the point? The accounts have not been used to vote-stack in a deletion discussion, or to remove speedy deletion tags from a page one of the accounts created, or to edit war, or to try to give the impression of support in a talk page discussion, or to evade a block, or anything else I can think of that sockpuppets can be used for. So why has the user bothered to go to the trouble of creating several separate accounts, use different accounts to prepare different parts of the same article in different sandboxes, and jumped from one account to another, only to do things which could easily have been done from one account? It makes much more sense to see it as a group of people working together, each of them preparing their own bit of the article in their own sandbox, and then adding it to the overall article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that makes total sense. So it's ok to have a group of people who know each other collaborate on an article? I guess I misunderstood meat-puppetry. Hmm, I wonder if I should get rid of the deletion tag despite the fact that it was deleted before...

Sosthenes12 (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry both only apply to abuse of multiple accounts. There is nothing wrong either with having more than own account owned by one person or with different people working collaboratively as long as it is not done abusively. An example of meatpuppetry is if I say to a friend "hey, my article is being considered for deletion: can you come and support it is the deletion discussion?" However, it is not an example of meatpuppetry for me to say to a friend "hey, I've got this great idea for an article, but it's going to take quite a bit of work: can you help me write it?" Quite simply, one is dishonest, the other isn't. As for the deletion tag, I really don't see the article as satisfying the notability guidelines. I can see a case for removing the PROD tag to avoid biting some no doubt good-faith editors, especially if they are school kids who will be in difficulty over their school project if the article is deleted, and if you want to remove it then go ahead. However, personally I am not removing it, for several reasons. For one thing, it might not actually be doing them a kindness, if all it means is that they are allowed for a little longer to waste their time on an article which will be deleted soon anyway. Unfortunately, many teachers decide to set their classes projects on editing Wikipedia without first finding out enough about how Wikipedia works, with the result that their pupils are allowed, or even encouraged, to waste their time on articles which are doomed to deletion from the start. That is extremely unfortunate, but it does not, in the long run, help them to try to distort Wikipedia's standards to accommodate them. My preference is to leave the PROD tag in place, but it is entirely up to you whether you do so. If you do remove it, then I can almost promise you that the article will be taken to AFD, where it may or may not survive. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks so much for the help! Sosthenes12 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Your input and help would be appreciated

Hi James. If possible, can you please comment in a disucssion I'm having on admin Drmies' talk page. I think I may have stumped him, so he's looking for input from others to help us on this matter. Thanks! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

By the time I got there, Yunshui had already closed the discussion at Talk:Mobile metropolitan area. However, for the record, I will say that I would have done the same. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Typo?

Hi, typo? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I meant to do Control-c to copy text to use as an edit summary, but evidently missed the "Control". Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I have to tell you that the Camuto group once again has sent out its employees to change the articles concerning Louise Camuto and Vince Camuto. The two usernames are TalkIsChic and AmandaLeslieMiller.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the accounts and semi-protected the accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

restore article request

Hi, would you mind restoring Impact_Sourcing to my userspace, so I can see what the issues were and try to address them? If you could also restore Impact sourcing that would be useful as well - not sure if they were different. thanks so much. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Impact Sourcing has been deleted twice. Although the deletion log mentions copyright infringement only for one of the deletions, in fact both the deleted articles were unambiguous copyright infringements, and I can't legally restore content which I know infringes copyright, whether in userspace or anywhere else. On the other hand, I see no problem with restoring and usefying Impact sourcing, which yo will now find at User:Obiwankenobi/Impact sourcing. (However, whether you will find it of much use is another matter - I leave that up to you.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your guidance would be appreciated

Hi JBW. I just removed the two sources at Deathstep with this edit. I'm writing to you about it for two reasons: (1) you're a great editor/admin, and (2) you made this edit yesterday at the article. ;) I asked for opinions at the help desk if the two sources were reliable, but received no response in two hours. So I made the decision to remove them. As I said at the help desk, I noticed that the editor who added the two cites and also removed the PROD tag (174.52.148.35) only has that one edit. Anyway, if I'm wrong and you think either of those cites are reliable, please feel free to revert me and ban me for life. :p Thanks! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: The article is now at AfD. Have a nice week! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor who created the article (User:A11HAV3FA113N) removed the AfD notice and spammed the article by putting a YouTube video in the external links and adding content about a singer/band. Here's the edit. A bot reverted it right away. I put another warning on the editor's talk page, right below the one you left. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is an unreliable source, consisting of user-submitted content, with attempts at regulation by volunteer editotrs, rather like Wikipedia. The other source cited seems to be even more unreliable, as it does not even have the limited attempt at regulation that Urban Dictionary has. Neither of them is remotely suitable as a source for a Wikipedia article. You were perfectly right to remove the references. As for how it will fare at AfD, we will have to see. Personally, I long ago decided that it is not worth my time bothering to try to sort out music genres. For some reason that I have never understood, there is a whole species of Wikipedia editors who seem to have a complete obsession with music genres, and they are invariably completely impervious to any attempts at discussion. Also, the genres they are obsessed with adding to articles are usually obscure, I have never heard of them, and the time and trouble it would take me to find out whether they are valid or not just not worth it for something so trivial. My guess is that "Deathstep" is probably not notable, but I don't know, and frankly don't much care. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw your comments on my talk page, at the help desk, and at the AN/I I started. What you said at AN/I was really great. Thank you! 76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Kzeniya

Hello,

May I ask why you keep interfering with a page i am trying to contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeNiLao (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly you may. Let me know what further explanation you need, in addition to what you have already been told, and I will do my best to clarify the reasons for you. I am sure there is no point in just repeating what you have already been told though, and unless you tell me what is not clear I don't know what further information you need. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi JamesBWatson!

Thanks for handling the situation with the user TinyTim1932. I had deleted a hoax page he created but was not sure how to warn the user not to do it again. Thanks again! By the way, how did you know that TinyTim created a hoax page on his own user page?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

How I came to be looking at the user's contributions I don't remember, but once I did, the fact that it was a hoax was totally blatant. Amongst other things, the page purported to be about the mother of someone who was born before the page said the mother was, and there was other nonsense too. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi JamesBWatson,

I was wondering how many times a user can vandalize Wikipedia before he or she is blocked. One case is the User:Wikikikikik who created a hoax page. I tagged it for speedy deletion, then he blanked the page, including my tag. Then he created the same page with the same title but different capitalization. That was tagged as well. What's the limit before they are blocked?

Thanks, Sosthenes12 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

There is no definite answer to that. It's a matter of administrative judgement. Factors that are likely to be taken into account include the nature of the vandalism and what warnings the user has received. Only in the case of severe vandalism, such as serious libel, is a vandal likely to be blocked without any warnings at all. On the other hand, in the case of an editor doing minor bits of childishness, my personal view is that they should normally have received at least one fairly mild "please don't do this again" type of warning, followed by at least one "if you do this again you may be blocked" type warning, and still continued. Some administrators will rarely block a vandal unless he/she has received several warnings, so if you ever report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism it may be safest to make sure the vandal has received at least three warnings, at least one of which mentions the possibility of a block. In the case of this user, personally I would say that one more vandalism edit and I would block, if it weren't for the fact that for some reason the user's talk page has been deleted, so I have no way of knowing whether he/she has seen the warnings that were there. This is most odd, as user talk pages are not normally deleted, and the reason given for deletion (vandalism) looks to me like nonsense, as the edits to the talk page were not vandalism. My first instinct was just to restore the deleted page, but instead I have asked the blocking administrator why the page was deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm a bit rusty and am rereading the policies. I have restored the page and will reverse the block with a final warning.--File Éireann 10:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the further useful tips on not deleting user pages unnecessarily.--File Éireann 11:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for restoration Lloyd Insulations (India) Limited

Hi, Without waiting you have deleted Page, Lloyd Insulations (India) Limited, as you mention category G11 & A7. I request you to reconsider the same. LIIL-AGS (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that, without waiting for a reply, you took this to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and that your request has been dealt with there. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Bedson socks

You might want to take a look at an IP's comments at User talk:Agricolae, User talk:Amatulic and my talk page. Now I wonder why I'm being singled out for the deletions. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted page EDUBB

Hello James,

This morning you deleted the article EDUBB which has been on Wikipedia for months. Obviously I violated a rule by re-creating the page after it had been deleted however in the months preceding, other contributors/editors have assisted with the page and found no fault with it. This band is notable not just because they are a band, but because they have created a new English term "Whooty" which they have trademarked nationally and internationally and said term is now being used as the standard expression for a type of person. The band is representing urban music as the only hip hop group sponsored by an international brand and they and/or their song has finally earned national media coverage as well as international notability via major television segments. I have tried to find the talk pages for the deleted article so I could find out the reasons for previous deletion however as I am fairly new to Wikipedia, have not successfully been able to navigate to that information.

I am led to believe that one earns notability by gaining major news coverage, which they and/or their music has obtained; earned notability via their music releases/sales/awards, which they have; contributed to the overall music landscape in a manner recognized by independent reliable secondary resources which I provided AND I also provided proof of the term "Whooty's" impact on the English language via a Google search link which returned more than 1 million items just surrounding the term, created by EDUBB.

One of the changes I noticed to the EDUBB page I created was their name, their name is copyrighted and trademarked as EDUBB NOT Edubb as I mentioned on the article's talk page.

This band is connected with multiple other notable entertainment personalities who currently have Wikipedia articles on them and mention their association with EDUBB in their musical credits, to include several Grammy Award winners.

I have no personal stake with either the music or artist, however as a working journalist, I believe the group has made significant contribution or impact on the music industry, has earned graduated national media coverage and is recognized for their historical addition to the funk world.

I respectfully request that you conduct a review of this group, their media coverage adding to their global notability for their music, their contributions not only to music but also the English language and re-instate their page on Wikipedia. If that is not an option at this time, please provide me with some guidance as to just what FURTHER impact this group would need to be accepted by Wikipedia. There does appear to be some discrimination against national urban media outlets being recognized as "significant" media outlets which I must protest strongly. Hip Hip Weekly, The Hype Magazine, TMZ and others ARE the media outlets recognized by the urban music community worldwide, no so much Rolling Stone, Billboard, etc. I am formally suggesting that the editors and administrators are specifically aiming to denigrate urban media outlets and their importance to the music community as well as the artists they cover.

RespectfullyTheurbanlink (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A few of the "references" in the article did not even mention "EDUBB". Most of them were links to pages where one could view, hear, or download their work, or other things which could not by any stretch of the imagination be viewed as independent coverage. Only one of the references, a Yahoo interview, could possibly have been seen as independent coverage, and that one did not constitute sufficient coverage to demonstrate that the subject satisfied Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I admit, however, that one of them was a link to a site that didn't let me see the content, so I can't assess it. Being "connected with multiple other notable entertainment personalities" is irrelevant, because notability is not inherited from other notable people that one has associated with. I found nothing to indicate that the recent article gave more evidence of notability than was the case for the older one that was subject to a deletion discussion.
I assure you that I am not "aiming to denigrate" anyone or anything: I am simply trying, to the best of my ability, to administer existing Wikipedia policies. If you disagree with those policies, you are free to try to get them changed, but in the meanwhile I will attempt to work to the policies that exist, irrespective of any accusations of bad faith.
The article was written in terms which made it seem that the purpose of the article was to impress us with how wonderful EDUBB is, which is to say to promote their image. A Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, which this one certainly wasn't.
The change of title of the article was nothing to do with me, and I have no comment to make about it.

JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

James, if you could userfy the page to Theurbanlink's space, I will do some work with him on it to see if we can scrape off the promo, and to see if we can more properly source things. (There is one specific claim, that their music has been in rotation on MTV, which would automatically qualify them under WP:BAND if it can be substantiated; the problem faced in the AFD is that it had not been substantiated.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Request on my part withdrawn. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear James,

Thanks for the advises and i'll try to maintain the policies & neutral point of view. I'm willing to contribute here and i enjoy creating articles so i think it will be best for me to submit my articles to AFC. Thanks again. - Voidz (t·c) 20:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at RobertMfromLI's talk page.
Message added 20:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for looking into this. Sorry if the talkback ends up being messed up. Pretty painful affair from my cell phone. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! DoRD has put an IPBE in place for me while things get sorted out. Best, Rob

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

New Section

Hello James.

An hour ago you deleted the article 'Patrick Schöffski' which has been on Wikipedia since this morning. You said:

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Patrick Schöffski. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

My article is about Patrick Schöffski, head of the Department of General Medical Oncology and the Laboratory of Experimental Oncology at the University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium. It may seem that it's an autobiography because my username is 'Patrick Schöffski'. But I'm not Patrick Schöffski himself, I'm his medical secretary. So I'm not writing an autobiography, I'm writing about our professor at the University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium.

Can we say it's an error?

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Schöffski (talk • contribs) 13:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Grabby Awards

I notice you deleted this page for copyright violations. I created the page several years ago and can assure you that there were no copyright violations then; I would like to have access to the page in its deleted version to correct any violations and restore the article. Please advise. —D'Ranged 1 ^talk 16:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You didn't create the article from this account. Have you used one or more other accounts? If so, what other accounts? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It was another account - ChiDom or Rentaferret, I forget which.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 15:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring

Hi, James, GeorgeLouis's first change made the policy inconsistent hyphen-wise. However, his second change made sense as he changed only those that were modifiers, which is supported by the MOS link in his last edit summary. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. However, I personally still prefer the hyphenless version. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, you should see what I do at ANEW. Sometimes I use hyphens, sometimes I don't, and although I haven't paid much attention, I doubt I'm consistent. Of course, I'm not personally a policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Quantum calculus

Hi JamesBWatson,

Sorry to keep bothering you. I found a user whose edits were a mix of vandalism and good-faith edits (as far as I could tell) but I am not confident about the current state of the page. Users kept editing and because I'm not an expert on this subject I can't tell if they are actually good-faith edits or subtle vandalism. Can you take a quick look?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

It was unambiguous vandalism. By the time I saw this, the IPs had already been blocked, and the article was semi-protected. However, it was still useful that you contacted me about it, because I looked at the IPs used, and found one of them was an open proxy, so I considerably increased the length of the block on it, which had been set at just a couple of days, appropriate for an ordinary vandal but not for an open proxy. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The page was actively being vandalized and fixed while I was there so, besides for the obvious vandalism, I wasn't sure what to do. I was also trying to test out rollback but because multiple editors were doing things it was hard for me to test it out. Anyway, thanks for taking a look at the page for me!

Sosthenes12 (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

P.S. I just saw the really blatant vandalism you were talking about. I must have left before it got that bad. I also can see that the user was using a proxy. Thanks for the help again! Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Enlighten me

Can you explain how edits I made to my own user page constitute vandalism? -- Oz the Great and Powerful (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It was complete nonsense, as you know. It also contained an invitation to make sexual propositions to an email address which you posted, which was a complete abuse of Wikipedia. That may well have been someone else's email address, and if I knew for certain that it was then I would have blocked you indefinitely. However, whether it was someone else's email address or not, it was way outside the acceptable range of uses of a Wikipedia user page. The user Special:Contributions/I am One of Many tagged the page for speedy deletion as an attack page, and if its content referred to a real person other than yourself then that characterisation was fully valid, but even if it wasn't, the page was nothing but vandalism. A Wikipedia user page is for posting information about yourself in relation to your work contributing to the encyclopaedia project. It is not a personal page to use for whatever purposes you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For Nate Bell. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi JamesBWatson,

I wanted to alert you to a user: User:Baconcorn. He made 6 different edits, all of which were acts of vandalism and were reverted by ClueBot before I could get to them. Anyway, just wanted to alert you to his or her presence.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Thanks. I have added the user's talk page to my watch list. If you see any more, let me know: one more similar edit and I will be willing to block. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way, I decided to request permission for rollback privileges the other day since it became tedious to go from page to page to revert a single user's vandalism. Do you know how long it takes to get approved? Sosthenes12 (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

It is very variable, but sometimes it can take a long time, because the number of administrators who regularly work at Requests for permissions/Rollback is fairly small, and there is often a backlog of requests. However, I have given you rollback rights, as I have enough experience of your editing to be confident you will not abuse them. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will use this carefully and properly.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Hi JamesBWatson,

I was wondering if rollback lets you revert all edits made by a single editor on multiple pages or does it only allow you to revert all edits on a single page? Thanks!

Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

The normal "rollback" link just reverts on a single page. However, if I look at a user's contributions page, such as Special:Contributions/Sosthenes12, at the top of the page I also see a tab labelled "rollback all", which will rollback every page displayed on that contributions page for which that user made the latest edit. On the other hand, when I log into my alternative account, I don't see the "rollback all" link. I think this may be because I have Twinkle installed on my main account, but not my alternative one. If you don't see a "rollback all" link, and you haven't installed Twinkle, you may like to try doing so. Obviously, "rollback all" should be used with considerable caution, and only if you absolutely are sure that all of the pages involved really should be rolled back. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson,

I enabled Twinkle but I can't find the "rollback all" link. Is it a function only for administrators? Also, what's the purpose of having permission for rollback when anyone can just enable Twinkle with no pre-requisite? I enabled Twinkle for a new account I created and I have the same functionalities as my main account. Thanks again for your help. Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Twinkle does have a function which it calls "rollback", but it is not the same as the rollback that you get if you have rollback rights. In my opinion, it's unhelpful of Twinkle to use the same name for something different. Genuine Rollback is a one-click thing that rolls back immediately, whereas Twinkle Rollback just takes you to an editing box to type an edit summary, and then you have to click again. Also, genuine Rollback is available directly from a page's history, whereas for Twinkle Rollback you have to first go to a diff, so if you are looking at the page history, to use Twinkle Rollback you have to make several clicks, compared to the single click for genuine Rollback. Rollback rights are not that big a deal if you are making individual edits manually, but if you are making a lot of reverts quickly, it can make a significant difference. Where rollback rights really make a huge difference, though, is with some automated editing tools. Huggle, for example, won't work at all without rollback.

It seems I misinformed you about "rollback all". It's so long since I installed "rollback all" that I forgot that it's a special script that has to be installed, and doesn't come automatically with rollback rights and Twinkle. If you go to User:JamesAWatson/vector.js you will see the script that you have to install to get it. You can copy it to User:Sosthenes12/vector.js if you like. I find that for my alternative account, instead of producing a "rollback all" tab at the top of the page, it produces a little downward pointing arrow which I have to hover the mouse over to see it say "rollback all". (It is lots of little details like that which cause me to avoid the default Wikipedia interface, known as "Vector", and use an older interface, called "MonoBook", which I find much more convenient. If you are interested in trying it, click on "Preferences" at the top of the page, then go to "Appearance". I don't recommend anything other than Vector and MonoBook for everyday use, as some of the others are very old, have not been updated, and completely lack various useful features, but it's up to you if you want to try any of them.)

If you have an alternative account, I strongly recommend mentioning the fact on the user pages of both accounts, to avoid any risk at all of anyone thinking you have them for deceptive purposes. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

HiJamesBWatson,

Thanks for the clarification, it really helps. I copied the script you suggested and I see the little arrow. Is it possible to undo the rollback all action if I accidentally clicked it? I will make a note that I have 2 accounts. Also, I like the look of MonoBook. Thanks so much! Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

As far as I know, the only way to undo "rollback all" is to revert each revert, one by one, which means you need to be careful with it. I use "rollback all" only very rarely, usually in cases where one editor has done a huge amount of vandalism, making manual reverts of each edit really unattractive. If I think there is any doubt at all, I don't use it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. As for the alternative account, I created it but I do not really use it. It was made for teaching someone else how to use Wikipedia but afterwards I just left it there. Should I still make a note even though it is not really in use? Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

My feeling is that most likely it won't make any difference either way, whether you declare it or not, but you may as well declare it just in case. However, that is just my opinion, and it's up to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Q regarding opening a SPI

You closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KatieBoundary/Archive on April 16th, but I think I have stumbled upon another IP sockpuppet of KatieBoundary/PPdd that was created on April 19th plus a handful of other IPs created earlier (all with the 64.134.XXX.XXX range). I've don't believe I have ever contributed to an SPI before. Should I create a new SPI, or post at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PPdd or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KatieBoundary. Thanks! -Location (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I figured out how to re-open a case. Thanks, JamesBWatson! Location (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, but to be sure, you need to go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, find the box labelled "Investigation (case) to create or re-open:", type in the name of the master account (E.g. KatieBoundary), press "Click to open investigation", and go on from there. As for whether to file under PPdd or KatieBoundary, I haven't checked the history of PPdd thoroughly enough to be sure whether he/she is the same person as KatieBoundary or not. However, if you do reopen either sockpuppet investigation, I suggest mentioning the possible connection with the other one. Would you like to tell me what IP address you have in mind, and, if it isn't obvious, briefly what kind of evidence you think connects it to the accounts? It is possible that I may be able to deal with it more quickly than a sockpuppet investigation is likely to take. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I saw that 64.134.224.150 edited Eric Diesel three days after you closed the KatieBoundary SPI (diff), so I initially suspected that the IP was User:KatieBoundary or rather his/her sock User:PPdd whose SPI noted a number of IPs in that same range. I subsequently noticed that all those IPs edited in Traditional Chinese medicine which make me think that those in the 64.134.XXX.XXX range are User:ParkSehJik who has a history of editing in Traditional Chinese medicine and Eric Diesel. Although the history of Eric Diesel shows a lot of IPs in that range, there has only been the one edit recently so I'm not sure that it's worth bothering with. -Location (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for continuing to guide me on Wikipedia! Sosthenes12 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to know that at least some of my efforts are appreciated. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ooops

I usually message them myself but due to the nature of the edits I have seen some admin block them for a short period as a more effective message. I didn't want to say that outright as it may be a block threat, advising admin, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Frank page

Hi James,

Curious as to why the page I created was deleted. I am not associated with Mr. Frank, but am an avid reader of his work and the site he edits, CounterPunch, which is also a monthly magazine. The site is one of the most popular left-wing political magazines in the United States - he replaced the late Alexander Cockburn as co-editor and is significant alone on those grounds. As such, this alone is notable as Frank's place in this spectrum is significant. Please visit's CounterPunch's page for verification of this assessment. Additionally, Frank has been awarded journalism awards and is often cited as a significant environmental journalist. I believe the references I used as well as the external articles I linked verify this. Please review. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Counterp (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

An article on the subject was deleted at a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Frank (4th nomination). (Why "4th nomination" I have no idea, since I can't find any record of any previous nominations.) The new version of the article was nominated for speedy deletion by PeterWesco, as a repost of a page deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. My task was to assess whether the new version of the article was sufficiently different from the old one to address the issues in that discussion, and, having examined it, I decided that it wasn't. Note that my task was to assess whether the new version sufficiently addressed the issues raised in the discussion, not to make my own independent assessment, but, for what it is worth to you, I will give brief comments on the sources given in the article, both those cited as references and those given as external links. greenmuckraker.com is clearly not an independent source, being evidently a personal web site of Joshua Frank. Similarly, the article in www.seattleweekly.com is by Frank, not about him. www.theinvestigativefund.org makes a brief two-sentence mention of him. That leaves an interview in the local billingsgazette.com and one on motherboard.vice.com. The Billings Gazette article was not considered very significant in the deletion discussion, and neither of them constitutes very substantial coverage. The deletion discussion mentioned the notability guidelines for "Creative professionals", which includes journalists and authors in its remit. As was stated in the deletion discussion, I see no evidence that Frank satisfies any of the criteria listed there. Incidentally, I see that the administrator who closed the original deletion discussion described it as a "snow" deletion, which means that he thought it so clear that the article had no chance of surviving that it was scarcely worth waiting for the discussion to run its course. (I.e. it didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks James. It sort of baffles me that many editors don't perform there own research to improve the quality of a page, but are quick to dismiss it based on what they see as a lack of references/secondary sources. With that said, what would be take to explain 1) the significance of said author and 2) his frequent, well regarded commenting on numerous environmental issues. He's a frequent guest on many radio and TV shows, for example, as a journalist and expert. Would the addition of these types of source material add to his credibility and significance? Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Counterp (talk • contribs) 21:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The essential point is that you need references that show substantial coverage in independent, third party reliable sources. Coverage in sources associated with him, such as CounterPunch, are of no value in establishing notability. The most relevant guidelines are the general notability guideline, the guidelien on notability of people, and the guideline on identifying reliable sources. You should also bear in mind that if, as seems likely, you are associated with Joshua Frank or CounterPunch, then you have a conflict of interest, and you are probably not the right person to write an article on this subject. Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest strongly discourages writing an article on a subject that you have a close personal connection with, as it is very difficult to maintain the detached, neutral, point of view that is required for a Wikipedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping fix the block.

Bearian (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

More elevators!

If you're interested, check the last two entries at User:John of Reading/CSD log. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Away from the IP ranges used before, but still the same ISP. I have blocked this IP address, for what it's worth. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi JamesBWatson,

I was reviewing an article and an IP address and a username tried to make two very similar edits claiming the immortality of a person. Another editor rejected the first attempt on grounds of lack of evidence and I rejected the second attempt on grounds of unreliable source.

The IP address is 131.91.137.97 and the user is Kreevesimmortal. The edits are below. The page is Paul Mounet.

131.91.137.97: Mounet continues to act under the assumed name of Keanu Reeves.

Kreevesimmortal: Mounet has not yet died, most evidence points to his immortality.^[1] He is currently living under the alias Keanu Reeves.^[2]

What do you think?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

My first thought was that this was a minor incident of silly vandalism, and I posted level two warnings to the talk pages of both the account and the IP address. I then looked at the editing history of the article, and it seems that this is probably the biggest example of persistent vandalism I have ever seen. It has been going on since October 2009, with huge numbers of IP addresses and a few accounts being involved. Here is a small sample of the edits: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. The article has been temporarily semi-protected five times because of this nonsense, and I would have given it permanent semi-protection, but for the fact that it already has "pending changes" set. In view of the extremely persistent nature of the vandalism, and the fact that almost all IP edits are this vandalism (100% of IP edits since 2 October 2013, and the vast majority of them over several years), I wonder if semi-protection would be better, to save editors' time and trouble rejecting the vandalism edits. However, for now I have extended the pending changes protection to indefinite, instead of the existing protection, which was due to expire in just under two months. I shall also post a message on the article's talk page, suggesting semi-protection. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson,

Glad you caught that. I'm surprised it has not come under indefinite protection earlier. Since 2009? That's dedication on the part of the disruptive editor. Thanks again! Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Deletion Appeal

You deleted the page Gustavo Pedraza for having no sources, but if I remember correctly, didn't it have two sources? Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 00:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the article under the terms of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. As you will see if you look at that page, when an article has been proposed for deletion under those terms, it is not sufficient to add sources: they have to be reliable sources. Neither of the sources provided satisfies Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. It was potentially misleading that the standard deletion log message for BLPPROD used to say "with no sources present", rather than "with no reliable sources present". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Therion (software)

In February you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. There should be a big misunderstanding because that PROD is long time ago and after that the article was completely rewrite from scratch. If you check the "Therion (software): Revision history" you will see that there is contribution: 22:17, 2 January 2012‎ Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,048 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (declined prod: orphaned status isn't valid criterion for deletion. There's a review in Linus Links that I added. Article benefits and improves Wikipedia, making Wikipedia more comprehensive. Declined prod (edited with ProveIt)) (undo). So probably there was hanging PROD which was declined . BTW, there is much longer article in French Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therion_(logiciel) Msluka (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Uyghur language

Hi there, I am sorry to interrupt you. I found a user made some strange edits to the Uyghur language, so I undo it, and correct another mistake. Then I found he/she undo-ed my edit. E.g. the uyghur text is uyghurche/uyghur tili, so the IPA should be [ʔʊjˈʁʊrtʃɛ]/|[ʔʊjˈʁʊr tili], but he/she wrote [ʔʊjˈʁʊr(tʃɛ)]. I think this is vandalism, but as a beginner, I do not know what to do, and my English is not good enough. Could you please help? Thanks. --Hahahaha哈 (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have time to look into this now. I will try to remember to come back to it when I have time. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Powerofawesome (talk · contribs)

Hi James. Just noticed your comments in the unblock request for the above user, regarding my original block being surprisingly short, and I just thought I'd clarify. I had looked at the guy's contributions and decided that the edits he'd made back in January looked like the edits of a user that's pretty young but basically well-intentioned - then he was obviously playing the idiot at school and vandalising in a very juvenile way yesterday. I eventually decided to be lenient with a 31h "stop doing that" sort of block in the hope he might return and be productive in future. But yeah, after his silly unblock template tantrum I'm entirely happy for you to have indeffed him! Thanks and all the best ~ mazca ^talk 11:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading my comment, I see that it looks like a criticism of you for the short block, but that is not what I intended to do. What I had in mind when I wrote "An indefinite block should have happened long ago" was that long ago a short block such as you gave should have been given, and if the vandalism had continued then well before now it should have become indefinite. However, granted that that had not happened, and this was the editor's first block, your decision to start with a short block was reasonable. However, on reflection, perhaps both jumping straight from 31 hours to indefinite and removing talk page access was a bit harsh, so I will restore talk page access. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't take it as a criticism. Trying to figure out users' intentions while blocking them is always going to be an inexact science; and your rationale makes perfect sense. Thanks again. ~ mazca ^talk 12:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Jaybias Cook, Jr

I noted that JohnCD (talk · contribs) blocked Wilfred Cook (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of The Deadly TV series (talk · contribs) after the creation of an article very similar to Robert Jaybias Cook Jr Films, an article you just deleted. (In the prior case, the article was Wilfred Cook's Filmography.) There is not an open SPI against "The Deadly TV series" so I'm not sure how the puppetry was uncovered, but perhaps you can address the new issue using the same avenue. Or should I just open an SPI for this case? I am going to notify JohnCD as well, as the admin who performed the initial block. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. One look at the deleted edits of the various accounts involved is enough to make it perfectly clear that these are sockpuppets of one person: they have created pages with so many features in common that there is no doubt at all. I have blocked the account that created the article that I deleted. I find that the person has used at least nineteen accounts: see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Deadly TV series and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Deadly TV series. I may start a SPI to ask a checkuser to check for other accounts, but I'll look a bit more deeply into the history of the known sockpuppets before deciding. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I edited your comment above to prevent this page from being included in the sockpuppet categories. (Difference between [[Category:...]] and [[:Category:...]]). Hope you don't mind. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I almost always forget to do that. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll start the SPI - I have got a list of all the accounts (I'm fairly sure, though I missed this latest). After the ANI thread where Alison said she had run a CU on the first nine or so, I asked her if there was an SPI. She hasn't replied yet, but it seems clear there isn't, and we need somewhere to keep track of the one or two socks a day he's creating. JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had just found the ANI thread. I was thinking that there was no point in an SPI, as all the accounts are Ducks, and the person doesn't seem to use sleepers (at least, I haven't yet found evidence of doing so) but jsut creates a new account when an old one is blocked. However, your idea of somewhere to keep track of them is a good idea. Also, a checkuser might possibly be able to use a range block, so that's another reason for an SPI. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Deadly TV series. I kept a list of the IPs that also edited these pages, and I'm afraid they're too widely scattered for a rangeblock. JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I discovered that too, after I posted the comment above. Unfortunately, all the ranges I have seen also contain numerous edits that seem to be from other editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that the number of known accounts now stands at 28, plus quite a number of IP addresses. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thats' my total too. What surprises me is that Alison's list included nine we hadn't identified before, going back to 7 March (a lot older than the nominal sockmaster). Seven of them had never edited, but one of the earliest gives practically his whole family tree. Unfortunately, his father's is a fairly common name, but if the nuisance continues it should be possible to locate him with a few phone calls, and I think that would be worth doing for his own protection. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a level of personal involvement I wouldn't be willing to go in for, but it's up to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it would take some thinking about. The last similar case, a 15-year-old football fantasist who got up to 200-odd socks, stopped soon after I put warnings on his latest pages about contacting his parents; that may work here. JohnCD (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

...and, on schedule, here come #29, 30 and 31. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that two of those three got blocked without making any edits, and the other after one edit. If we can keep that up then maybe there's a chance that the vandal will give up. I get the clear impression that, in many cases, even "getting away with" silly edits for a little whiel is enough reward to encourage people like this to keep going. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

SIF Mechanism

You forgot to speedy delete SIF Mechanism. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Saraiki language

Dear, Saraiki is a language, it is not a dialect. Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect,Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect articles. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Kindly See these External Links #1 and #2.

Department of Saraiki, Islamia University, Bahawalpur was established in 1989^[3] and Department of Saraiki, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan^[4] was established in 2006. Saraiki is taught as subject in schools and colleges at higher secondary, intermediate and degree level. Allama Iqbal open university Islamabad,^[5] and Al-Khair university Bhimbir have their Pakistani Linguistics Departments. They are offering M.Phil. and Ph.D in Saraiki. Five TV channels and Ten Radio Stations are Serving Saraiki language. 182.186.116.104 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For zapping the obnoxious Voice Cast Vandal. Next time I will come directly to you instead of AIV, as you know this little creep's behavioral patterns. I had hoped that they had stopped, but it was wishful thinking. Cheers :) Doc talk 09:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Montrell Mathieu-LeBlanc

Hey, I saw you deleted this page—is there any way you could take a look at Garciela Beauchamp? It was created by (presumably) the same person and I can't find any sources; there are some in the article, but the first, leading to the subject's blog, doesn't support the cited birthdate, the second is a broken link and the other two don't mention Beauchamp. Not really sure what to do. Thanks a lot, – 296.x (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out to me. Only the first source referred to anyone called "Garciela Beauchamp", and she was clearly a very different person than the one described in the article. I have deleted the article and blocked the accounts that created both the articles. Investigation revealed that the editor has used at least five different accounts to create and re-create hoax articles: see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of EliLondon. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre. Thanks for looking into it. (There seems to be a Beauchamp AfC floating around as well.) – 296.x (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not any more, there isn't. Several of the edits to that page were from IP addresses in an IP range that I had already got a note of, because of edits to the other pages created by this sockpuppeteer. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Grammarly

Hi JBW, Kindly refer to Mike Rosoft's talk page, and restore Grammarly; the content you deleted is entirely different from the one discussed under AfD, and as such, G4 do not apply! Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The content is not identical, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "entirely different". My view is that it does not address the issues that led to its original deletion, but I have given you the benefit of the doubt and restored the latest version of the article. However, I will seriously consider whether to take it to a new AfD discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, JBW, I am very glad that you "restored the latest version of the article"; please can you restore the latest version of the talk page too, so I can leave a comment concerning this, because you are the second administrator to delete the article based on previous AfD discussion. Another thing, you did not restore the entire history of the main article. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I meant to restore all revisions since the AfD version was deleted on 16 March 2012, but instead I restored only revisions since 16 March 2013. I have corrected that mistake, and also restored the talk page. Thanks for pointing this out, so I could correct it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi JamesBWatson,

I have noticed that user 167.206.169.52 had just vandalized the Wikipedia "Phonograph" article. I did not correct it, for I left it for you to see. This same user has been vandalizing articles on Wikipedia since Sept 2008. As an administrator on Wikipedia, why can't this user be permanently blocked ??

--Historianbuff (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You underestimated the problem: this IP address has been the source of vandalism not just since September 2008, but since May 2005, as you can see here. The general policy is that IP addresses are not blocked indefinitely, on the grounds that even a static IP address may one day be re-assigned, so that a block intended for one user can affect another one. My personal opinion is that, when an IP address is assigned to a school, and has been the source of nothing but childish vandalism for several years, the high likelihood that a long-term block will do a large amount of good far outweighs the slim chance that it may prevent a few good edits. However, many other administrators take a more cautious view, and some will never block for more than a year under any circumstances. Because I believe that an administrator should essentially follow consensus, rather than going out on a limb, I tend to moderate my own view. When I first found this IP address and saw its history, my inclination would have been to block for five or six years, which was, at that time, approximately how long the vandalism had been going on, but I compromised, and blocked for two years. As I fully expected, the result is that, two years later, the vandalism has started up again, so I have blocked again. To be realistic, a small number of vandalism edits every few years followed by a block is not a big deal, so even though my own preference would have been for slapping a very long blocks on the school years ago, I can live with this sort of compromise. I do, however, find it hard to understand why some admins will blocks for periods such as one week to school IP addresses that have been blocked numerous times over several years for endless vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One other thing. In such a case it is better if you do revert the vandalism. it was not necessary to leave it there for me to see it, as I could see it by checking the article's editing history. The less time a vandalism edit is allowed to stay in place the better. In fact, another editor reverted the vandalism anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection on earthworm

Could you review the full protection on earthworm please? I can't understand why that was done, which is not to say there isn't a reason. Thanks. William Avery (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake: it's not indefinite. William Avery (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not indefinite, but I can't think of any earthly reason for even temporary full protection. It must have been a mistake, and I have changed it to semi-protection, which is no doubt what I meant it to be in the first place. Thank you for calling this to my attention, so that I could put it right. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi JamesBWatson,

I have a random question for you. Is there any priviledge or right that allows non-administrators to block users that consistently vandalize Wikipedia? And a second question, my "send Wiki love" button is gone. Do you know why?

Thanks, Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

No, nobody except administrators can block editors. The best that a non-administrative user can do about persistent vandalism is either report the vandal at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in the hope that an administrator will block the vandal, or consult an individual administrator about it.
No idea about the "send Wiki love" button, but, now you mention it, I see that I haven't got one either. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and my button came back the next day. Must have been a glitch. Sosthenes12 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Nicaea Creed

Thank you for your patience. The person who did that article sighted an author "Skoff" who was in Error. I've been reading their sources. Out of Courtesy I'll locate a Greek Dictionary and illustrate, in hopes that you will endorse an edit to the "Council of Chalcedon". I edited out the "Robber" extension to the sentence. = Because that is slander, from someone who has not read Protevangelion and does not understand the debate between the Nicene edits, and the Chalcedon who got the story correct.

Someone has vandalized Wikipedia. "Protevagelion" is missing and being redirected. = I'd restore and lock that article.

Thank you for your time. And Good morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.107.228 (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please lock this article = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon It is really well done. And can not easily be improved. Other topics should in their notes point here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.107.228 (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't see an reference to "Skoff". Can you clarify exactly where it is cited? As for "locking" an article which you think is "really well done", I'm afraid that isn't possible. It is fundamental to the whole spirit of Wikipedia that we don't stop editing because we think an article is finished. We allow anyone to make further edits, unless there are serious problems with disruptive edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:75.130.64.242

Hi JamesBWatson,

This IP address was given a final warning but continued to vandalize again. Should it be blocked? Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Definitely, yes.

Done JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at AcademicBusinessResearch's talk page.
Message added 00:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

198.228.192.0/18

I've unblocked that range since it is a massive mobile netblock centered on New York City. As such, it is having a large amount of collateral damage. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AcademicBusinessResearch

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

Just to let you know i've been blunt with this user and told him to focus on something other than Wiley or end up blocked. COI is probably going to see him kicked out if he keeps his current course. Suggestions? MIVP - (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - (Chocolate Cakes) 11:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Grabby Awards

You moved this discussion to your archives without a response to my latest response. Is it possible to get the article released to me in user space for editing to deal with copyright violation claims? Also, I would like the links to the source of those claims; there hasn't been much published on these awards! I'm pretty sure I would have been editing using ChiDom at the time of this article's creation. Thanks! —D'Ranged 1 ^talk 19:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no question of restoring the article, whether in user space or anywhere else, as it is an unambiguous infringement of copyright. Contrary to what an astonishing number of Wikipedia editors think, knowingly making copyright-infringing content visible on the internet is illegal, whether or not the word "user" appears in the title of the page. If I did that, I personally (not the Wikimedia Foundation) would be legally responsible. Also, contrary to what you have stated in an earlier message on my talk page, the very first version of the article contained the copyright infringement. (There was an earlier redirect with the same title, but that cannot be what you were referring to.) I did not myself archive your previous comments, that was done automatically by a bot when nobody had edited the section in a while, and I then forgot about it, on an "out of sight, out of mind" principal. The reason why I did not respond to your last comment on the subject before the bot archived the section is that I was unsure what to do, and wanted time to think about it. The reason I was in doubt was that there was evidence that you might be a user who has had several accounts blocked for sockpuppetry. Following up what you have now said, I have found more evidence that points that way, and I am once again considering whether to take further action. It would not be helpful to state what all the evidence is, but the single most striking point is that you claim to have been the creator of an article, despite the fact that no account that you admit to using ever edited that article, let alone created it. In order to clear your name, I suggest that you do one or both of the following: (1) declare any other account that you have ever used, apart from Rentaferret, Chidom, and D'Ranged 1; (2) suggest why you may imagine that you created an article which in fact you have never edited at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I was once accused of sockpuppetry, but it was an erroneous accusation and a huge misunderstanding at the time. I was quite sure I had created/edited the Grabby Awards, but it was a long time ago. I used to be quite active in creating/editing articles related to gay porn awards and performers. Is it possible to e-mail me the article and let me work on it? Or e-mail me the edit history somehow? I'm now thoroughly confused; I assure you I am acting in good faith. Thanks for any help you can give.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 20:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've also looked at the links you provide in your summary on the page deletion: http://acrazycatlady.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/josh-wolf-independent-media-and.html. This appears to be a copy-and-paste of the Wikipedia article, not the other way around, as it includes numbers for footnotes that are not expanded in the comment. I can't get the other site to load - http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/1694979_comment.php#1695205. Doesn't the creation of the Wikipedia article predate the November 2006 comment at acrazycatlady.blogspot?—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 20:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Pretty sure something wicked happened. I originally created List of Grabby recipients on August 1, 2006, along with a companion article, Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards both of which somehow got renamed/moved/deleted. Either ChiDom or Rentaferret should be listed as creating/editing those articles. The creations also predate the comment you cite as evidence of copyright violation. Maybe this will help sort things out.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 20:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just discovered something which clears everything up. I will be able to restore the content. However, it will take some work, because of a mess of articles being created, moved, changed to redirects, copied and pasted to other articles, and so on. Unfortunately, I am out of time and have to go offline, but I promise I will deal with it tomorrow. And sorry about the sockpuppet suspicion. JamesBWatson (talk)

No worries, these things happen. But it's one of the reasons that I got out of editing in this genre to start with. I've just pulled up a Wayback version of the Grabby Awards article (http://web.archive.org/web/20111104225634/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grabby_Awards#References) which shows it as a well-sourced (22 references) article; now the list of recipients has been modified as a redirect to the article about the host magazine, partly based on your deleting the main article on copyvio grounds. Could you also restore that article, or will that take a community discussion? And thanks for your help on this.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have restored Grabby Awards. It was originally created under the title "Erotic Gay Video Awards", and then moved to Adult Erotic Gay Video Award, in 2006. In 2009 it was copied and pasted to Grabby Awards, without any indication that it was a copy-paste, so that it appeared to be a new article. I found that the text existed in pages on other web sites, dating back to before that copy-paste move, so it appeared to be a copyright infringement. Prompted by your messages, I looked at the mater further, and eventually I managed to track down the original Wikipedia article, which dated to before the content appeared on other sites. It took a hell of a lot of work to find it. I have history-merged the content of the two articles into one. The thing which called my attention to the article in the first place was a speedy deletion nomination on grounds of being promotional. I am not dealing with that speedy deletion nomination now: I have spent more than enough time on this article, and someone else can assess it. Finally, there is your question about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grabby recipients. My feeling is that, although the AfD nomination was originally made on the basis of deletion of the other article, the discussion raised other reasons for deletion, and, what is more, not a single voice was raised in favour of keeping. Consequently, I see it as a valid deletion discussion, and the issue of deletion of the other article makes no difference. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking further and finding the correct cause of action. I disagree strongly with your decision about the list article, but this is why I stopped editing these articles - they were under constant attack from claims of "not notable" with no one else championing them. What is notable in gay porn does not begin to meet notability requirements for straight porn and what is notable for straight porn doesn't begin to meet notability requirements for general subject matter - it's always been an uphill battle; one I got tired of fighting nearly alone. It doesn't surprise me that there were no "keep" votes on the AfD nomination; however, lack of "keep" votes doesn't validate the non-notable opinions stated. As I have said, I got tired of fighting the battles and I won't pursue this one; it's a shame that Wikipedia has lost good editors to this constant need for "defending" perfectly good articles.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 17:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the article's talk page didn't get restored - should it? Thanks.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You say that you "disagree strongly with [my] decision about the list article". To be clear, I have no opinion on whether the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as I have not even looked at it. All I was saying was that the deletion discussion came to an unambiguous decision, which was not invalidated by the other article being undeleted, so I don't think I can justify unilaterally overturning the decision of that discussion. There are, of course, other ways of raising the possibility of restoring that list article, which you can pursue if you like. Sorry about the talk page: I have restored it now. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

SiMPLE

Would you like to comment at WP:REFUND#SiMPLE? This was a PROD deletion, so would normally be restored on request, but you salted the title for repeated re-creation. If the requester was registered, I would tell him to find some refs to show notability and make a userspace draft, but it's an IP. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

ban

hello i was banned by you, and i want to say i didn't mean it, just the pats should have won super bowl xlii because they would have had an undefeated season and i hate the giants. please reply on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.3.121 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything to reply to. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Do ya understand though? Oh wait, you are just a stupid math freak,and you wouldn't understand because you are a giants fan and you are probaly reading this with a Victor Cruz shirt [Who I happen to share a birthday with].I hate Eli Manning and Wes Welker because Welker left New England for who else,PEYTON MANNING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.3.121 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Accelerating Expansions

I really don't understand you. How can you ignore Scientific fact - that 'Any accelerating pansion is Inward'?

In 1998 while looking to see how fast the expansion of the Observable Universe was slowing down, they found the expansion was actually accelerating. To account for this scientists fabricated (or dug up Einstein's self denounced Cosmological Constant) Antigravity - which they had to call Dark Energy in order to keep the expansion Outward and to sell it.

These accelerating expansions occur in Nature without having to fabricate anything - but they are all Inward. To pretend that one of them, ours, is Outward is Poor Science.

There, I've said it. I don't care what you think. And this accelerating expansion is something you know about? I think not. Try thinking of one (not your Universe) they are fairly common, and you'll be forced to agree with me. But by then you will have done me much injustice, I fear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Lamont (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This fully confirms what I said in the last sentence of my message on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Tbhotch

Hi I need some opinion on a particular Editor Tbhotch. Regarding Hummingbird heartbeat, the song was never released officially by Katy Perry's label but by a radio station. Does that still qualify the song to be regarded as a single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jule Firework (talk • contribs) 23:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain her/him why this this, this and this are disruptive edits, as apparently s/he is owning Perry-releated articles. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Elevators again

How dull. User:John of Reading/CSD log. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ugh. That's like the ceiling fan guy whose name I can't remember. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

From Da Darkness Of Da Kut (as Lil Fly) (Underground Album)

Just an FYI, SFleming93 (talk · contribs) asked me to restore several albums that were deleted per CSD A9 for Playa Fly. Since the artist's article was restored, I restored the album articles that I deleted. You did the deletion to From Da Darkness Of Da Kut (as Lil Fly) (Underground Album), so I referred him to you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can restore it if anyone really thinks there is any point. However, what I deleted was just a redirect, and before it became a redirect the article contained virtually nothing but a track listing. If the article were re-created in the same form, it would be likely to be converted back to a redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

stop

Please stop vandalizing my userpages. We went over this a while ago. Stop deleting my userpages. Bryan.Wade (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, you claim 16 years editing experience here for a site started in 2001. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hold up: James is a notorious vandal of user pages, so this complaint might have some merit. ;P Doc talk 03:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleting a page which contains nothing but lies is not vandalism. Repeatedly creating a page which contains nothing but lies is vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Help!!!

Some user has requested this page to be deleted, he's in the link provided, because I noticed you reverted an edit from the same user on a similar Kirby Page, is he allowed to do it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kirby:_Right_Back_at_Ya!_episodes&action=history --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to this edit, the answer is yes, anyone is allowed to propose deletion of an article. However, if you don't agree with the deletion then you are perfectly free to remove the deletion proposal, and then the article won't be deleted unless there is consensus to do so at a deletion discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As the most recent deleter of Tamara Holder,

could you take a look at Tamara Nora Holder? I suspect it may be the same as what used to be at Tamara Holder before it got deleted. Having said that, the article looks more than notable with numerous secondary sources. Please restore Tamara Holder and move Tamara Nora Holder on top of it (literally, a histmerge).--Laun chba ller 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Some of the references were unsuitable for one reason or another, e.g only barely mentioning her, or unreliable source. I am doubtful about it. However, I have given it the benefit of that doubt, and moved the article to Tamara Holder. I don't see any reason for restoring the history of the older versions, though, as the current article doesn't, as far as I can see, use any content from them. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Hi JamesBWatson,

It's Sosthenes12. I changed my signature (I spelled my name in Greek) so it would look more original but I wanted to check with you to see if I may be breaking any rule I'm not aware of. My signature is: —Σωσθένης12 ^μιλώ 00:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

No, I don't think there is any rule against doing that, and there are other editors who do similar things. For what it's worth, I personally don't like signatures that are not in the Latin alphabet, because they may be difficult for editors not used to the alphabet used. You may like to read WP:SIG#Non-Latin. However, this is just a personal preference, and you are free to make your own decision about the issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson,

Thanks, that's a good point. I changed my signature to be more easily recognized. Thanks!

—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 17:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Huizhou University

You recently put a week-long block on edits to Huizhou University due to "edit warring/content dispute". That's now expired and the warring has resumed. Would you mind taking a look at the history and let me know if I it's worth taking over to WP:ABUSE? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The case does not qualify for WP:ABUSE. Apart from anything else, it does not satisfy the criterion "At least one block was imposed for a year or more". However, I have blocked theIP editor involved for a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:181.134.32.116

You blocked 181.134.32.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a couple weeks ago for disruptive editing. The block has expired, and the anon editor is continuing to edit as before. I think another longer block is warranted. Quale (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Before I got there, Acroterion had already blocked for a month. If the problem resumes after that then I will be willing to block for significantly longer than that. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Matt Fiddes Page

Hello James,

After watching this page for sometime, I notice that a user named Kart34 has been reverting any negative stories, which are sourced, out of the page and adding in any positive stories. It reads very much like a promotional page when this happens. I have undone all the changes but it is my belief that, as with Kungfu10, Kart34 is Matt or someone linked to him. Any help/advice? (Edinburgh loon (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC))

I agree with your concerns. For the moment, I have posted a fairly long message to the user's talk page, detailing what seem to me to be the main issues. I shall wait and see whether there is any response, or any change in editing pattern. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed Kart34 had edited again and you reverted these back. Thanks for your help. I do believe that Matt Fiddes does not understand Wikipedia and the purpose of his page is for promotion. Will be interesting to see if a new user will edit the page once again. We sit and wait. (Edinburgh loon (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC))

Yes. I have blocked Kart34 for a week. I also see that there has been no response to my query as to whether Kart34 is the same person as Kungfu10. If the same problem continues, either from the same account after the block expires or from a sockpuppet, I shall consider what further action may be needed. Longer blocks, including possibly indefinite blocks, and article protection are both possibilities. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jordon Hodges for deletion

As you proposed this article for delition, I think I should inform you of this afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jordon Hodges is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordon Hodges until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that if all insertions about anyone are correct then his/her article should remain. Fact is fact and should not be erased from the pages of history. Who are we to choose a hierarchy of importance referring to individuals within entertainment (or any field for that matter)? Either everyone stays (as long as their pages speak only fact), or everyone within their respective industry gets deleted. No favorites.EdVanzd (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)EdVanzd (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You are perfectly free, if you wish, to try to get Wikipedia's policy changed, to allow inclusion of articles on anything, and abolition of the notability criteria that we currently work to. I think you will have an uphill struggle, though, because at present there is a pretty strong consensus in favour of the view that we should restrict coverage to notable subjects. JamesBWatson (talk)

Not Spam

My intention is not to spam, and not even primarily self-promotion. We are developing a Theosophical Wiki with information from primary sources to Theosophical concepts. I do not see why you consider this spamming. I carefully choose the articles that are appropriate, and offer people more resources specifically related to the subject. Why is this external link not acceptable when there are others that are not even directly related to the subject of the entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theosophical Wiki (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If there are links that are not related to the subjects of the relevant articles, then please remove them. No matter how strongly you feel that your wiki provides a good service, editing Wikipedia with the purpose of attracting visitors to it is regarded as editing to promote that wiki, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Whether your intention is to promote it is irrelevant: it isthe effect of your editing that matters. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: your appropriate decline of an unblock request

Of Anthonyqb2 (talk · contribs): I'd suggest a(n) SPI may be in order given the correlation with St. Vincent-St. Mary (talk · contribs). I attempted to explain policy to both, and believe it's likely they're the same editor. Thanks, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt at all that the two accounts were operated either by two people working together, or, more likely, the same person. However, since they are now both blocked indefinitely, I don't see anything that an SPI could achieve, unless you have reason to believe that other accounts are involved too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, no suspicion of other accounts, so you're absolutely right. More than anything I wanted to get that observation on record before any other administrator weighs unblock requests, and to your point, it probably isn't necessary. Thanks again, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Acting President of India

Please review the deletion notice made in this article by me which i think it should be deleted.Suri 100 (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Page Deletion

What is the difference between myself and other entertainers who are included on this site? All of my credits are verifiable. Why erase me from the history books? There is no grandiose statements made about me in any of my articles. Why delete mine as opposed to anyone else? Please explain your actions thoroughly and justly.EdVanzd (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you wish to know that isn't already mentioned on your talk page and in the deletion logs? Your autobiographical articles have been deleted mainly because there is no indication that you satisfy Wikpedia's notability guidelines. In addition, as you have been told repeatedly, using Wikipedia to promote yourself is unacceptable. (There are at present six messages on your talk page telling you that.) I am fully aware that many people come to edit Wikipedia in the sincere belief that "anybody can edit Wikipedia" means "anybody can edit Wikipedia in any way they like", and that one of the consequences of that is that many people come here thinking that they can use Wikipedia to publicise themselves. Probably you came here in good faith, believing that it was fully acceptable to use Wikipedia as a free advertising service for yourself, to get more public exposure, and I do have every sympathy with anyone who, because of that misunderstanding, spends time and effort in writing a self-promotional article about themselves, only to see that effort wasted. However, by now you have had more than enough messages explaining that such use of Wikipedia is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies. There are plenty of web sites where anyone at all can have a page about themselves, with no distinction between notable and non-notable people, but Wikipediais not one of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Image Question

this is a preview of an image from an eBay auction. I could care less about the auction, but the image is of the previous owner of WKEY in Covington, Virginia...an article I am working on.

I am wondering if it is possible to use the image for the article or would that fall under copyrighted images? The image is from a matchbook cover from the 1940s, so it might be public domain, I'm not sure. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Works published in the United States before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year are in the public domain. My guess is that, even if copyright was registered in the first place, something as ephemeral as a match cover would not have its copyright renewed, so it's a pretty fair bet that it is free from copyright. Of course, that is not a definitive legal opinion, but for what it's worth it's my bet. JamesBWatson (talk)

That's what I was thinking. So, when I upload the image (which I plan on doing), I just upload it as "public domain"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You may like to put in a brief note saying why it's public domain, but that's up to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I can do that, no problem. Thanks for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Just ran into a big problem. The uploader asks for the "original author of [the] work". I have no clue what to put. There isn't an identifying mark on the matchbook or anything in the discription of the eBay auction. Is there a way around the "author" field or am I stuck? I'm thinking "stuck". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have already got help from elsewhere. However, if it's of any interest, I would have said the same as Acroterion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

@James: Awesome, thanks. :) Thanks for your help yesterday as well. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sarah D'Alelio

I see that you deleted the Sarah D'Alelio page off wikipedia a while ago, and was wondering why. D'Alelio is very much notable under WP:MMANOT as she has fought for top tier promotion a total of 5 times. (1x Strikeforce, 4x Invicta FC), I understand that the account was created by a blocked user but it isn't necessary for removing this page from wiki beacause of this. So if you like, you can send me a copy of the page so that I can reinstate it under me, if that is possible of course. Let me know in the next couple of days as I do not use wiki very much so the sooner the better. CarlG313 (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a perfectly reasonable opinion that an article should not be deleted because it was created by a blocked or banned user, since if the article is a good one then it doesn't matter how it came into existence. However, there is also another, equally reasonable opinion, that if an editor has been banned or indefinitely blocked, and keeps coming back with sockpuppet accounts, then the net damage to the project by encouraging them to think they can get away with doing so, and no matter how many accounts are blocked anything they write will stay, is more than enough to offset any slight advantage that might come from a few useful edits they may make. The issue has been discussed repeatedly over the years, and each time consensus has supported the second of these opinions. That is why Wikipedia policy is that any page created in defiance of a block or ban can be deleted. Sending you a copy of the article so that you can post it as though it is your own (I assume that is what you mean by "so that I can reinstate it under me") is out of the question. Not only would it defeat the whole purpose of the deletion, as the blocked user's contribution would still stand, but, more importantly, it would be a copyright infringement, as it would fail to correctly attribute the content to its true author, as required by Wikipedia's licensing terms. However, there is nothing to stop you from writing a new version of the article from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The main reason I'm asking is for certain details that would otherwise take an unnecessarily longer time to write if it already exists such as the MMA record details. After this then anything else I have to do off my own back is ok by me, so if nothing else would you be able to at least just paste on your talk page the MMA record for her based on what the banned user did. For all I know it could just be crap but none the less if it could make my life simplier I'm willing to at least see it for myself first. CarlG313 (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your response

I have made deletion notices for Acting President of India as i think it duplicates the existing topicVice President of India.If you can ,you can take your decision for deleting the article.Suri 100 (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that Acting President of India has now been redirected to Vice President of India. I think that is the best thing to do with it, as the topic is adequately covered there, but I have adjusted the redirect to point to the section of Vice President of India dealing with the acting president. Acting President of India was very poorly written, and if it had been kept then it could have done with substantial rewriting. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You may be right,but if you would look closely to the articles Vice-President of India and Acting president of India and if you refer to the constitution of India(Not necessary).You would find that both are the same and in the matter of content too.Suri 100 (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I have deleted the history of the article, and just kept the redirect. Thank you for pointing this out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Move problem

I tried to move the article from Amendment of the Constitution of India to amendment to the constitution of india as latter would be more appropriate, but there was a problem which stated that there is an existing articles.I made attempts [[16]] but couldnt fix it out so it would be better if you intervene.Thanks.Suri 100 (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request of Michaeljackson56

Hello JamesBWatson. Michaeljackson56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. If you want to go ahead and accept/decline the request outright on your own, that's fine with me. Regards, - Vianello (Talk) 15:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am generally fairly well-disposed to give a second chance to vandals who say "I was silly to vandalise, and I won't do it again", but less so to those who deny that their editing has been vandalism, and the use of a variant on the WP:BROTHER defence makes me even less inclined to be generous. Nevertheless, I have posted a message to the user's talk page inviting him/her to provide further comments, and if a reasonably satisfactory response is forthcoming then a second-chance unblock might be reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Pictures

Hi JamesBWatson,

I uploaded 2 pictures when I first started to learn how to use Wikipedia. However, I am not using any of them and would like them to be removed since they have some information associated with me in the metadata. Is it possible for you to delete them for me? The files are File:Panda picture.jpg and File:A picture of a meerkat I took a picture of.jpg. Thanks.

—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 17:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Done JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JamesBWatson! —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Article incubator

Hello, I noticed your comment at this MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Group of stale articles from Article Incubator. You may be imterested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator#Proposed deprecation of this project. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Request

Greetings. Twice today my user-page was inadvertently recreated. Right now I am electing not to have a user-page so I was wondering if you would delete it once again and perhaps semi edit protect it to minimize its getting recreated mostly by new accounts that will inevitably make that kind of error. Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Done JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Telos AfD

Hi, "James". I see that you've nominated Telos Publishing for AfD. Might I suggest that in future, when making any AfD nominations, you check to see the article's talk page to see whether the article falls under the remit of any WikiProjects, and if it does, notify them? You previously nominated David J. Howe for deletion, and the article was deleted before the members of the Doctor Who WikiProject were able to establish his notability. (Howe's page was subsequently recreated via the Articles for Creation process.)

In general, nominating an article without notifying the members of relevant WikiProjects is considered bad form. It gives the appearance that you are more interested in deletion, for whatever reason, than in improvement. When combined with your repeated attempts to get pages related to Howe and Telos Publishing deleted, the impression is strengthened. It almost looks as if you're targeting Howe for some reason, which I'm sure is not the case. This appearance could easily be avoided by making a good-faith effort to let those most knowledgeable about the subject attempt improvement before going to AfD. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Nominating an article without notifying the members of relevant WikiProjects is considered bad form" by whom? Also, I am not convinced that the people who choose to call themselves a "WikiProject" are always, or even usually, "those most knowledgeable about the subject". In my experience they are more often the people with the most interest in the topic, with the result that they are likely to be heavily biased in favour of keeping articles on the subject. This means that notifying them amounts to something close to canvassing people with a particular point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not as active on Wikipedia these days as I used to be, but back when I was, notifying WikiProjects was the done thing. Perhaps things are different nowadays. Perhaps the deletionists have won, and it is no longer considered a goal of the project to improve articles rather than deleting them willy-nilly. But then again, I'm old enough on this project that I remember the days when the saying that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy had some meaning. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Antipodium page

Hi James,

The Antipodium page was deleted on 10 May and I was just wondering why and how we could possibly get the page back up, or what needs to be changed to do so. Thanks. Sarahmd8 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was written from start to finish like an advertisement: indeed, two successive articles under the same title were both deleted for that reason. In fact, the second version was such appallingly blatant spam that it was nominated tor deletion by DGG, who of all the really active administrators on English Wikipdia, is perhaps the one least willing to delete, and most willing to try to save articles if at all possible: if DGG thinks an article should be deleted, then it is almost certainly pretty unredeemable. As for how to replace the article, first of all, if you are working for Antipodium, then Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines suggest that you shouldn't be writing an article about it. Someone closely involved in a subject very often finds it impossible to stand back and see how their own writing will look from the detached perspective of an independent observer, with the result that, even if they are not intending to abuse Wikipedia by using it as a free advertising service, they very often fail to write in the neutral manner that is required for an encyclopaedia article. If you have got over that hurdle, then I think the best place to go to find what is suitable for such an article is Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

[1] [17]

[2] [18]

[3] IUB.

[4] Multan

[5] AIOU

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]