User talk:JBW/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

List_of_family_offices_in_Switzerland

I have the content of this list created from VSV, the phone book (www.tel.search.ch) and Google. I searched for Family Office. How should I reference this best?

I added the VSV as reference, but do I need to reference the phone book and Google? From the phone book and Google I have only added organisations with a website, where I could be sure that they are family offices. Unfortunately, family offices are not regulated and have only a SRO like VSV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minders1 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 May 2010

Information in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be supported by coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Thus, for example, the list includes Beekay Family Office LTD., Zurich under the subheading Multi Family Office. To justify including this entry in the list there should be a reference to some reliable source which tells us that Beekay Family Office LTD is indeed a "Multi Family Office". At present there is none: just the inclusion of the name of the company in the list, and that is all. In principal it is also not sufficient that the company exists and is a "Multi Family Office": there should be enough coverage of it to show that it is notable. However, the amount of notability needed to justify putting an entry on a company in a list is less than the amount needed to justify having an article on the company, so a moderate amount of coverage is likely to be sufficient. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I spend some time to find a better source than http://www.vsv-asg.ch/htm/mitgliederliste.htm (has over 1000 members), where I could find all other organisations as well. Only 4 organisations are regulated by SAAM (I found one more family office). Any ideas how we could proceed? Because it is so difficult to create a list, I think it is valuable to have a list. --Minders1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

The whole issue of list articles is one on which there is considerable disagreement, with some Wikipedians thinking we shouldn't have any at all. Personally I don't go that far, but I do think that there should be evidence of notability: just having a list of pet gerbils because someone interested in pet gerbils has decided to make such a list is not good enough. To indicate notability there must be at least some source cited to justify inclusion of an item on a list. I am just about prepared reluctantly to accept a link to a Wikipedia article about the item in question, provided that article has good sources, although Wikipedia articles are not really reliable sources, and this compromise is not ideal. As far as this particular case is concerned, I know very little about the subject, and do not really know what sources might be available. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the list and checked all the entries against the Federal Commercial Registry, where a comment about the businss is included. I removed the organisations which did not have a clear entry. I think you can remove the "This article does not cite any references or sources." entry. Best wishes, --Minders1 (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You have evidently put quite a bit of work into this. Apart from links to the companies' own websites (which are not independent sources) you have given two external links: one to Swiss Association of Asset Managers and one to Central Business Name Index. Both of these seem to be pages from which it is possible to search for particular businesses. I pasted in the name of one of the businesses, and had no success with either of the searches. Perhaps I had not understood how to use them. However, even if a business listing site provides an entry for a business, that is only evidence of existence of the business, not evidence of notability. I hope you have looked at the general notability guideline, the notability guideline for organisations and companies, and the guideline on reliable sources. If you haven't then I would encourage you to do so. Also worth a look is the FAQ on organisations. On the whole if a business does not have a Wikipedia article then there is a good chance it is not notable by Wikipedia's criteria. (However, that does not mean, as I have known some new editors to think, that all you have to do is write an article to make the business notable. That is likely to be a waste of time, as the article will probably be deleted if there is no evidence of notability.) I think, unfortunately, you may be making a mistake which is common among inexperienced Wikipedians, namely thinking "how can I produce evidence that this business is notable so I can include it" rather than thinking "how can I tell whether this business is notable, so I can decide whether to include it". Just because a business exists it does not follow that it is notable, and it may well be that the businesses you have listed simply are not notable in Wikipedia's terms. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I found an exellent source now. http://www.institutional-money.com/cms/magazin/uebersicht/artikel/familiy-offices-schweigen-war-gold I would estimate that all single family offices manage about 50 billions and the all multi family offices manage more than 200 billion. Minders1 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please have another look at the page List of family offices in Switzerland and let me know if the reference is sufficient now? I also included the link to the multi family office article after somebody added the link to family office. I hope this is okay. --Minders1 (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

• Swiss Association of Asset Managers (SAAM)

Minders1 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric Pickles

I think my change should upheld solely on the grounds of style and accuracy. Celebretionary isn't even close to a real word, and confectionery was misspelt. If you must, make it celebratory confectionery, but better still get rid of them both as they are redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.88.188 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you look at the following edits I made you will see that I removed the sentence in question as vandalism. Reverting your change was just a first step. Sorry that a side effect of my editing was that you were given a vandalism warning by the anti-vandalism tool I am using (Huggle). I have now removed that warning. However, it should also be considered that this edit which you made was completely unacceptable. I accept that the later one was well-intentioned, but it did not completely remove the vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your reverts without discussion

Sir, you ignore my edit summaries and just issue threats. Your behavior is uncivilized. I will no longer edit this page, but you've just lost my respect despite numerous barnstars you display proudly. 71.146.87.61 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you consider my editing in this light. I have read the two notices which were placed on your talk page as a result of my actions, and I cannot see why anything there should be regarded as a threat, but since you have seen it that way I apologise. You do not have to stop editing the article in question. At first sight replacing "Many Hungarians fled to the United States after the Soviet invasion in 1956 and during the Second World War and Holocaust, a significant percentage of whom were Jewish" with "The constant influx of Hungarian immigrants was marked by several waves of sharp increase" did not look constructive, but I am perfectly willing to consider your opinions on this if you would like to explain them. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Electric Mist

It's not vandalism Goodman's first name in this movie is Julie it's not my fault !! See the imdd page : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910905/

Not so good for an anti-vadalism !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.130.143 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. It does help to use edit summaries to explain what is going on. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tantalum Capacitor

Thank you for reviewing the edits I made to the Tantalum Capacitor article. Could you indicate to me why you reverted the changes I made? I added references which I found to be very relative to the article and sourced the current information very well. Thank you for your time --Lindseyrose 09:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindseyrose (talk • contribs)

I thought your edits to the article, all of which consisted of adding links to material from one company, looked like spam. I have looked back at them, and, while the links may be seen as a little promotional, I accept that they do provide useful sources and are not blatant spam, so I have restored them. Thanks for letting me know about your concerns. Incidentally, when you post to a talk page it is best to type 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end of your post. This is automatically replaced by your signature. Not only does this save you the trouble of typing your signature by hand, but it also gives a links to your talk page etc, which can make it easier for other editors to follow up your contributions. JamesBWatson (talk)

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

hmm

Ok, how's this an attack on anyone though, Jesus is a commonly used name and if someone's nickname is Obviously Jesus, I don't see how that can instantly be referenced to the religious figure if nothing in the article brings up any religion. Someone will click on this article and not see anything religious whatsoever, this is like saying if I made a page for a guy named Jesus Gomez, it would be taken down for saying that the religious figure Jesus is of a hispanic decent when he is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptotinman (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 May 2010

The article contains completely unambiguous attacks on the person it is written about. For example, you refer to him as a "shark", and make childish remarks about his growing up "loving giant penises and guns shaped to resemble penises". So far as I know nobody has suggested that there is any religious issue involved: certainly I haven't. The fact that the person you have attacked has used a nickname with religious connotations is irrelevant. What matters is that you have attacked that person. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Spam???

Please stop falsely caracterizing as spam that which its not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.13 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you told me what edits you are referring to. At the moment the only edits of mine that I can see have any connection with you concerned addition of external links contrary to the guideline on external links to avoid, but I did not refer to them as spam. if you are referring to something else then please let me know exactly what, so I can judge whether I have made a mistake, and if so correct it. JamesBWatson (talk)

My apologies. I had forgotten that the level 3 template on inappropriate links uses the expression "it is considered spamming". I have now removed that wording. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The official pages of the political party/alliance the article refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.13 (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I am leaving those links in place. However, the YouTube link is more questionable. JamesBWatson (talk)

Article on artnet

Hello James,

I am very sorry to hear that the article about artnet does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Of course I am happy to include more footnotes in the various sections, the new annual report was just published - I have to say though that the annual report is probably the most important printed source artnet has; would that be sufficient, or do I need to include various different kinds of sources?

Thank you very much for your help.

Best,

Wasserfloh (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The company's annual report is fine for confirmation of facts about the company. However, there is another issue involved, which is "notability", and for establishing notability the annual report is not useful. The point here is that Wikipedia does not aim to have articles about just anything, but only articles on subjects which have received a certain degree of coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subjects. The company's own annual report is clearly not independent of the company. In fact, since every company will have its annual report, the fact that there is one is no indication of notability at all. To get an indication of the sort of thing that is acceptable as indicating notability I suggest you look at the notability guideline for organizations and companies. It is probably also worth a look at the general notability guideline. The editing history of the article shows that Phil Bridger thinks the business is notable, whereas when I looked at it I didn't. However, that was just over three months ago now, and I do not have a clear memory as to exactly what I found when I searched for evidence of notability, so I cannot comment now on how good the evidence of notability may be that Phil Bridger found. What I can say, however, is that no indication of notability is shown in the article. If you can find suitable sources to show notability then I strongly encourage you to add references to them, otherwise the article may sooner or later be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. I understand your point regarding notability. artnet (like Sotheby's, for example) is one of few art companies to be publicly-traded on the stock market (pls. see http://www.skatepress.com/?cat=56). Significant coverage of artnet can be found in many third-party sources, e.g. The Economist, Hoovers, Art in America, The New York Times, etc. Please do not delete the article, I'll revise it by the end of the week; I will include the updated figures from the annual report, as well as independent sources. Wasserfloh (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can do that then that will be great. I have no plan to take any more steps towards deletion at the moment. (Of course that does not mean someone else can't do so, but I wouldn't worry too much: I am saying it is possible, not probable.) It is worth mentioning that any reliable published source is acceptable, though it is easier for other people to check your sources if they are publicly available on line than if they only exist on paper. This does not mean that you can't cite paper sources, but it does help if at least some of them are online. Also, nowadays even such sources as newspaper articles are likely to have online copies too. Let me know if you have any further questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, James, I appreciate it very much! Wasserfloh (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback on Illegal immigration to the United States

You rolled back this edit,[1] which does not appear to be vandalism. It's great that you're patrolling so actively, but please only use the tool for clear cases of vandalism.   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I can't now see any reason why I reverted that. It may have been a slip: possibly accidentally clicking the wrong button in Huggle. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I hit the wrong buttons all of the time.   Will Beback  talk  08:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have posted an apology to the talk page of the editor whose edit I rolled back. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"You're a gentleman and a scholar."   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Purloined User Page

Hi JBW. I seem to have gotten into bit of a scrap with Ofcourseofcourse (talk · contribs), and since you are listed on WP:ASSIST I seek your advice. After I had reverted and warned this editor about his repeated vandalism of the Fernando Alonso article, he created a user page as a copy of mine, complete with barnstars and stuff. I thought that a bit obnoxious, so I blanked it with a suitable comment. My new best friend didn't appreciate that, so with this pithy comment he reverted me. Somehow, the exchange of edit summaries does not encourage my belief in a negotiated solution, but what would be the appropriate way to proceed? Incidentally, I am strongly tempted to PROD Grand Prix Race Manager (Game), which he just created, for crystal balling and lacking notability, but that would probably look too much like a vendetta. Favonian (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor stepped in, but I would actually still like some advice on how to tackle this kind of situation, should it arise again. Favonian (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several ways of trying to deal with this sort of thing, none of them perfect. I will mention a few of them, and indicate my own feelings about them.

Sometimes if a new user creates a user page which I think is unsuitable but not totally objectionable I simply leave a message on their talk page explaining why it is unsuitable, and leave it at that. If I think the page is a bit more unsuitable then I may blank it, with a suitable edit summary, and perhaps a note on the corresponding talk page explaining that user pages are supposed to be related to contributing to the encyclopedia. This is, of course, what you did. Often this works, but sometimes, as in your case, it doesn't. Copying your page was evidently intended as a form of harassment, but of such a mild form that you probably would not get a lot of support if you tried get serious action taken on it. As far as the dishonest use of barnstars is concerned, a while ago there was a user who repeatedly put a user box making a false claim onto his user page. Several editors, including myself, thought this should be stopped, but the consensus that developed was that the user box system is based on trust, and if it amuses someone to use them to make false claims then they are being pretty silly, but it is harmless, and they should be left to do so. I have thought of raising this at Wikipedia talk:User pages, with a suggestion that Wikipedia:User pages should say that deliberate false claims are not allowed, but I think there is a good chance it would not gain consensus.

On the whole I think usually the way to deal with such incidents is: (1) Remove the silly material, with at least a suitable note in an edit summary, and perhaps one on the user's talk page. This is perhaps more likely to succeed if done by someone other than the "victim" (in this case you). (2) If that doesn't work then leave it. The sort of person who does this is essentially trolling, and fighting them is feeding the troll, which is exactly what they want. In such situations I tend to think that if the person's life is so empty that they have to get amusement by such silliness then it is their problem, not mine.

Of course, if the attempt at harassment goes further, such as making attacks on you, or making objectionable edits to your user page, then that is a different matter, and some further action is reasonable. In this case first address a really polite message to the editor on their user page, explaining nicely why you would like them to stop. If they persist then you can take it further. How does one take it further? Well, there are several options. If the editor in question is here only to be disruptive, and is making very few or no constructive edits, then once a few warnings have been posted to their talk page a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism stands a good chance of getting them blocked. (Note that for this to work, except in cases of an extremely offensive nature, it is essential for there to have been a few warnings, including at least one that explicitly mentions the possibility of being blocked. If you are using the standard templates this means at least a level 3, and preferably a level 4 too.) In more complex cases a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents may be a good idea, but note that you will get more sympathy there if you have been totally reasonable and polite, even to someone who clearly doesn't deserve it, so that it is abundantly clear that the fault is all on one side. However, I would like to emphasise again that in my opinion in mild cases it is often better to simply forget about it. I remind myself that I can make a useful contribution to only a few of the millions of pages on Wikipedia, and what little contribution I can make will be more usefully employed somewhere else than in trying to deal with some child (it usually is a school child) who wants to put a few silly lies on their user page. One final thought: in a case where you do think that you need to follow it up and not just walk away, it can often work out much better if someone else can be involved too, so that it is not just a battle between two people.

I hope my remarks have been of some use and/or interest. You are very welcome to make any comments about what I have said, if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

After I wrote the above it has occurred to me that I should have mentioned one more method of dealing with unacceptable user pages, namely submitting them at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I don't think the present case is serious enough to be worth doing that, but it is certainly one method which is sometimes useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

James, I think there is a substantial difference between the dishonest use of userboxes and barnstars in this case: because Ofcourseofcourse copied the signatures he wasn't just making false claims but falsely attributing opinions to others. That's much worse in my opinion, and I'd be much quicker to block someone for it than 'mere' lying. Indeed, misrepresenting others is explicitly forbidden by WP:TALKNO. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't thought of that distinction, but it is a significant one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your advise! Keeping cool is certainly important when dealing with this kind of editor, who, as one of his recent actions demonstrates, is turning downright trollish. Still, I wish I could take credit for this response. Think I'll give him a wide berth for the rest of his career. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Following the edit you mention above, if any more attempts to harass you take place then I think it should be followed up, but I think it may be best if you are not the one doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Roger that. And thanks for informing the editor about the errors of their ways. Favonian (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The plot thickens! Ofcourseofcourse seems to have stopped editing, but a "new" player has appeared. Issuedealt (talk · contribs) started his career with this bit of trolling on my talk page, whereupon he created a user page strikingly similar to User:Wikipeterproject. The original author of this has been involved in editing Mark Webber, and Issuedealt's third contribution was this characteristically belligerent edit to that very article. Articles about Formula One drives are also Ofcourseofcourse's favorite topic. In my opinion, our friend has now taken a decisive step into the realm of vandalism, and I'm inclined to break my vow and report him to WP:SPI, but I would like to hear your opinion first. Favonian (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in love with JetLover

Why must you deny our love by reverting his user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.58.174 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you do not understand how close me and him were. Please let our love be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.58.174 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)