User talk:JBW/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Block Question

Hi JamesBWatson,

I was looking at talk page User talk:63.254.139.26 when I found something a bit weird. The IP was blocked and it seems like they did something that created an accepted unblock request with the reason for being unblocked is "your stupid." It said an admin accepted that which would ridiculous. After I rolled back their edits, the "blocked" notice was back. Could you take a look to see what is going on? Thanks.

—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 19:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Yes, as you say, it would be ridiculous for an admin to accept that unblock request. The IP editor has "accepted" it him/her-self, but of course not being an admin he/she couldn't really unblock: all they had done was post a message saying that the unblock request has been accepted. This may have been trolling, or they may have thought that posting an accepted unblock notice really would unblock the IP, but either way it was unacceptable use of talk page access while blocked, so I have removed talk page access for the duration of the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 21:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

ON THE EDITION OF MARIAM UZ-ZAMANI

it is controversies matter in this page .it not relates to any history of rajasthan . It is claimed by some historians that Jodha was not Akbar's wife.Lokendra Singh Kalvi, who heads a Rajput outfit called Sri Rajput Karni Sena, says, "None of Akbar's 34 wives were named Jodhabai".please refer this page and take strict action to delete or edit page overall{http://www.rediff.com/movies/2008/feb/06jodha.htm}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun singh 77 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that reliable historians have differing views on a subject is not a reason for deleting an article: it is a reason for including mention of all the differing views in the article. If it is true, as you suggest, that reliable historians have differing views on a subject, then the thing to do is to add mention of those differing views, with references to reliable sources, not to simply remove all content. If you believe that an article is so thoroughly unacceptable that it should be deleted, then there are ways of requesting deletion. However, I don't think that there is any chance this article will be deleted, for the reason I have already mentioned, and a much better plan is to try to improve the article, if it has the sorts of faults that you suggest it has. However, I will list the methods of requesting deletion, and you are free to make your own decision.

1. There is speedy deletion, but I really don't think that this article qualifies under any of the criteria for speedy deletion, so I don't suggest spending time on this one.
2. There is proposed deletion, but that is only for uncontroversial deletions, and this one is definitely not uncontroversial, and I can promise you that any such proposed deletion will be contested, so there is certainly no point in bothering with that.
3. There is nomination as an article for deletion. If you nominate the article under this procedure, there will be a chance for the issue to be discussed, and at the end of the discussion (normally after a week) an administrator will assess the reasons put forward in the discussion, and decide whether it should be deleted. This is the only one of the three methods where I think you would have any chance at all of achieving deletion, and even then I think it is unlikely. As I said above, a better approach is to include mentions of all reliably sourced opinions to give a balanced coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

You surprised me there. I've been watching the page out of the corner of my eye because of the image thrashing, and I blocked one of the major participants. The image hasn't been changed for nine days now, and you put it at full protection. What prompted that?—Kww(talk) 14:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am curious as well. The person who made the AN3 report (which James acted on) is actually the block evading IP, who caused all the mess in that and several other articles. Nymf _{talk to me} 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely: Jskylinegtr just found a new subrange, and I've now softblocked that one (as well as semi-protecting Dance Dance Revolution (2013 video game) for a few months to dissuade him further.—Kww(talk) 15:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(Egg on face.) I somehow managed to misread the dates on the edits. I have now unprotected the article. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning An IP You Blocked

Hi! Forgive me for being the bearer of bad news, but I wish to let you know that an IP you blocked a few days ago has hopped to a new IP to try and evade its block to continue peddling its anti-science POV. An old thread it tried to start, and the new IP trying to resurrect the exact same thread--Mr Fink (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, as I had the feeling this was the sort of editor who wouldn't give up without a fight. I see the new IP address has been blocked, and it will just be a matter of playing whack-a-mole with any new IP addresses that may come up. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your input requested

Hi James. I noticed that you are the admin who handled this denied unblock request a few minutes ago. I was wondering if you could please provide your input on a different matter, relating to that editor's removal of comments from their talk page. The discussion is here. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to say about the issue that has not already been said. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that what's being said are two totally different things. ;) That is why your input would be helpful. Do you agree that editors may clear their own talk pages per WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED? Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The original research of Lute88 in the article "Jewish Cossacks"

You protected the original research of proved Hitlerophil vandal Lute88 (Lute Hail Hitler), supporting the needs of "Cossack mujahids" to claim themselves "terrorists number 1" and to hide computer notebooks of Tzarnayevs. Hitlerophils denying historiography, genetics and archeological studies claim that "terrorists number 1" have never had any Jewish Cossack descent. The data deleted by vandals were from the most recognized sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.148.196 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You may well be right. However, I have no intention of getting involved in the editing disputes. I suggest that you make an edit request on the article's talk page, putting {{Edit semi-protected}} above your request. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Committed Identity

Hi JamesBWatson,

I was wondering if you could help me with committed identity. I made a hash string but I am trying to put it in a userbox so that it is not just out in the open. However, I could not make it work. Could you help me make a working committed identity userbox? I don't care which one as long as I have one.

—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

I have tried adding User:Anomie/Userbox committed identity. I'm not sure whether what I've done is exactly what you want, but I hope it will be near enough so that you can make any tweaks that you need. If not, I suggest asking at Wikipedia:Help desk, where you may find someone who knows more about this than I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As always, thanks for the help! —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 22:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

(talk page stalker) You can look at the top of my user page for another possible model. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

J.O. Patterson, Sr.

you deleted this a few months ago as created by a blocked/banned user . He's a very important figure, and I'd like to work on it; I've been working on a few related articles. Since there were contributions from other editors, perhaps you will restore it as you did J.O. Patterson, Jr.. I'd rather not do it myself, since yo were the deleting admin. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

("A few months ago" was actually over a year ago.) I don't see this as similar to J.O. Patterson, Jr., because in the "Sr" article, although there were numerous edits from other edits, scarcely any of them were substantial. In fact, if we ignore a few edits by another block-evading and WP:BLP-violating sockpuppet, all but one of the edits not by the creator of the article were minor things such changing formatting, the only exception being this edit, which did add significant content, although unsourced and small in quantity. Also, I regard the article as unsuitable for other reasons, as it was largely promotional in tone, and contained significant amounts of opinion, rather than verifiable fact, such as "The godly principles instilled in this young man led him to commit his life to Christ". All in all, in my opinion, it would be better for a better article to be written from scratch. I am aware that you have a fairly low opinion of deletions purely because of CSD G5, but in this case, considering that (1) the effect of restoration would be overwhelmingly to restore edits made by a block-evading user, which, whether you agree or not, policy says can be removed, and (2) there are other problems with the article, I am reluctant to restore the article. If you choose to take the one significant edit not made by a block-evading editor as invalidating the G5 deletion, then go ahead and restore the article: I will not wheel war over it. However, I am unwilling to restore such a poor article myself on the basis of one small edit, a very small proportion of the whole of a very unsatisfactory article. The blocking policy says "Editors who reinstate edits made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content". As I have already said, I think writing a brand new article on the subject would be a better option, and I am certain that if you did so it would be far better in many ways than the old one. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It'll come to the same thing, really, because if I restored it I would hardly leave it in the same condition. My own discomfort is in using to some extent someone else's work without credit--even if it was a troll. I would not have come to the article except for the gap left when it was deleted, and I would have to induce amnesia to forget what was there previously. I know this is not a simple problem: there is no solution. fortunately our examples are trivial. There are RW examples that are not the least trivial, besides the syphilis studies we all know about: The best atlas of human anatomy in the late 40s was prepared by a Nazi physician using drawings of what he knew were slides made from brain tissue of people killed in a concentration camp, and he is even recorded as having explained to the commandant the sort of specimen and method of preservation he wanted, so people were killed on purpose to make it. There was since been consensus to remove the atlas from libraries. (The slides themselves have been recovered, and buried properly, tho some of them are probably still in existence, because one brain can give thousands of thin sections.) In the USA in the 1950s, the question of what amino acids in proteins were essential for human growth was investigated by feeding human infants diets chemically prepared to be lacking in the amino acids, and see which ones stunted their growth unless they were added back. (The stunting of such starvation is permanent.) The compiler of the standard reference work in the late 50s decided to not cite these studies, even thought there was no equivalent source of information, and no real prospect of another way to get it, and I don't think they have been cited since, As I said, our problems are not so consequential. they're self-protective, rather than immoral. I don't know that important as it is to protect WP, they rise to the same status. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I never imagined that this deletion would bring up such heavy issues. I have my opinions on the Nazi medical stuff (of which there are many other examples as well as the one you mention), but I will not go into them here. As for the Wikipedia article, I know from comments of yours that I have seen elsewhere that you have a much less favourable opinion of CSD G5 than I have, but, in this case, although I am reluctant to restore the article, I will not object if you do so. I really don't feel it's that big a deal. Apart from anything else, the article was deleted over a year ago, and its creator has not come back to remake it, so it is unlikely that he/she would not be encouraged to sock by the restoration of the article, especially if you substantially rewrote it anyway. (Which I am sure you would: I have enough experience of your editing to know that your standards are well above those of this article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything every issue we discuss has its counterparts. What we do here is a sort of laboratory, where we can explore the implications of issues which are not limited to here. BLP is the obvious example, along with questions of the nature of truth and the reliability of evidence. The degree to which we can trust our judgment and our senses. The extent our biases are perpetuated by the way we teach, the nature of social control. The liberty we allow to other people to do what we think wrong, the relative weights of individual freedom to be bizarre and responsibility to a social projects, the role of personal feelings and trust as compared to abstract rules. Whether to obey social rules we thing evil, whether to reflect social taboos, whether to judge motive or result. And the foundations and purposes of civil and criminal law, & the purposes of punishment. The various WP issues related to all these will occur to you--I have specific things in mind for every one. Many advocates of extreme free speech in the outside world are in favor of a restrivtive POV here. Many who are libertarians of various sorts in the outside world are much less so here. Many who are proponents of radical change are much less so here. We justify our witch hunts by the need to appear squeaky-clean to a potentially unfriendly world. (Don't read my own views into this--I've deliberately given examples where I have different degrees of agreement with the consensus here.)

And I deliberately did not give just the Nazi example. We personify evil on scapegoats so we can think we are free from it ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I know you didn't ask for this, but it was a convenient place to write it down. I'll transfer it to my user p. ` DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Parent cats of Category:Possible AfC copy-and-paste moves

I noticed you removed the category Category:Possible AfC copy-and-paste moves from two categories.

The purpose of this category is to catch when an editor copy-and-pastes a WP:AFC submission into the main encyclopedia so a history merge can at least be considered, which is why it needs to be in Category:Candidates for history merging. As part of the WP:WPAFC project, it needs to be in Category:WikiProject Articles for creation.

Can you point me to where this was discussed, or, if it was not discussed, consider reverting your change? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted my edit. Thanks for explaining the reason for the categories. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thank you for the revert. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A polite request

You will remember I asked you to delete a category regarding my sockpuppets. I need something else done; the deletion of the pages User:Mike Sales, User talk:Mike Sales and User:The Duchy of Effenhauer. They are not mine, they are my father's and we use the same internet protocol so of course CheckUser would confirm them to be the same. There is no need to unblock the latter account for obvious reasons or, indeed, delete its talk page, but it's causing unnecessary duress to him. Thank you.--Launchballer 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it your request seems reasonable, but I am very reluctant to undo the actions of a checkuser, because I do not have access to the information on which he or she acted, so there may be considerations which I don't know about. Also, this edit does make it looks as though you have indeed used the Mike Sales account. Also, some of the editing history of the various accounts does look rather likemeatpuppetry, in which case the sockpuppet notices are not entirely unjustified. Usually in such a case I would suggest contacting the checkuser who placed the block on that account *(Tiptoety, but I see that has not edited in the last month. There is no pint in suggesting trying another checkuser, as the case is too old for the relevant information to be still available. I think the best thing is to try to contact Tiptoety. If he or she takes a month or so to respond, that will be minor in proportion to the period of several years for which the sockpuppet notices have already been in place. You can also try emailing Tiptoety JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I used it once to state that it wasn't mine, but the others are done by him. However, I'll ask Tiptoety.--Launchballer 11:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I sent you an email recently; have you had a chance to read it? My76Strat (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have now, and I agree with what you said, and have done what you suggested. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a kind manner of reasoned conduct that identifies you as a benefactor of this great project. I hope one day to be able to emulate your fine example. Until then, gratitude is all I can offer and I place it here with sincere esteem! Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Block reason

Hi James, could you please change the block reason for your block of 85.12.79.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to {{anonblock}} so the people using that IP have a better idea of what they can do and why the block is there. To explain your reasoning, one thing you can do is to include your reason as a html comment so that it appears in the log not as it's rendered for the blocked IP. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Nowadays I do tend to do what you suggest when I block, but at the time of this block I wasn't aware that the logged block reason affected what users saw when trying to edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought that might have been the case. It's just that working with ACC you pretty good idea of how many different 'innocent' people use a blocked IP address. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Interstellar

Hello. I understand your reasoning for declining the speedy deletion request on the 2006 redirect for Interstellar, but could you suggest a manner in which it could be deleted? It was created erroneously by an editor, and is factually incorrect, so it'd be good if we could clear up the loose ends from reverting the changes made. Thanks.  drewmunn  talk  14:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for. I have moved Interstellar (2006 film) back to Interstellar (film). If that deals with your point, then good. If you mean that you want the editing history of the page deleted, then I can only suggest nominating it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, that resolves the issue perfectly. The 2006 redirect was factually incorrect, and the result of an editor moving the redirect, so it was just a case of getting rid of it to avoid confusion.  drewmunn  talk  14:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

80.90.161.226

80.90.161.226 (talk · contribs · block log) Are you sure this is open and needs hardblocking? It looks closed to me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was, but looking at the evidence again it seems I was wrong, so I have restored the previous block. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting, it seems a typical middle eastern IP to me, probably used by a school. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

CurtMcArdle

Hey there,

Just to clear things up, although I suspected it was an autoblock, I wasn't FULLY sure, as the blocker had mentioned an indefinite block on the CurtMcArdle account. I wasn't sure if he'd just carried out an autoblock out of convenience, to avoid having to block both CurtMcArdle and Betacross. I assumed it would be better safe than sorry.

No hard feelings, cheers for your time CurtMcArdle (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Did he post that same photo with caption again?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Figures.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

New Article

Hi JamesBWatson,

I was just curious if to become an administrator I would have to make new articles.... Thanks!

—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 00:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

That depends on who turns up at the WP:RFA discussion, and what opinions they express. There are some Wikipedia editors who hold the view that creating new articles is the only thing that really counts on Wikipedia, and sometimes a number of people with that outlook turn up and insist that an admin candidate is unacceptable because he or she has not created lots of articles. However, I became an administrator at a time when I had created only four short articles (Polygonum caespitosum, Franco Enna, Salvator Gotta, and Jenn Ashworth). West.andrew.g became an administrator in February without having created any articles, but that is a very exceptional case, and he has done quite exceptional work in such areas as creating security tools for Wikipedia. The vast majority of administrators had created a number of articles at least in double figures before becoming admins. My own view is that people who spend most of their time creating articles are often not the best people to be administrators, because their experience is not in the areas where the admin tools are relevant. However, not everybody thinks that way, and even I think it is a good thing for an admin to have at least some experience of creating new articles, even if only a couple of them. However, I do suggest creating at least a few articles before applying for adminship, as it will certainly increase your chances of success. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JamesBWatson. I noticed that it was a couple of years before you became an admin. Assuming I make some articles, do you think I stand a chance to become an admin? —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 18:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

I think that you stand an excellent chance of becoming an admin eventually: it's a question of when. You have a constructive approach to editing, you are willing to collaborate, and to ask for help when you need it, you are willing to learn, you treat other editors civilly, there have been very few problems with your editing, and, as far as I know, no major ones, you have never been blocked, and you have been doing good anti-vandalism work. You mention the time it took before I became an admin. Between my creating this account and my becoming an admin was a couple of months short of four years, but not everybody waits that long. At one time it was common for editors to become admins after just a few months of editing, but it seems that the time lag has tended to increase. I have just checked the latest 25 new admins, and only one of them had been editing for under two years when they got the tools. However, the biggest change in recent years related to new admins is the dramatic drop in the number of people applying, and it is hard to know how much of the increase in the time lag before adminship is simply due to the fact that newish editors no longer tend to apply to be admins. I see that the age of your account is four months and a bit. I would wait at least until it is six months old, perhaps more. Apart from that, my main advice would be to get experience a wider range of aspects of Wikipedia. Certainly that would include getting experience of article creation, but also get some experience of areas where administrators are involved, in addition to vandalism-fighting, where you are already active. I would strongly encourage you to take part in some deletion discussions, particularly those at WP:AFD. There are many other areas, and nobody can realistically have experience of all of them: for example, I have no experience whatever of the featured article process, but admin candidates whose experience is seen as restricted to one area tend to get a lot of opposition, especially if they haven't touched on at least a few of the areas where admin tools come in, such as deletion discussions. Also, do look at a few recent requests for adminship, both those at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship and those at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological), to get an idea of what sort of things are taken into account. (And don't ask me why the titles of those two pages are so different.) Finally, I would certainly encourage you to apply eventually, as my impression of you does make me believe that you would be a good administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JamesBWatson! I'm very encouraged! :) —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 20:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Guardianofthemoon

I have never posted that I am aware of under any other name or under this name, that was my first edit. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardianofthemoon (talk • contribs) 02:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Farid Khan

Somebody deleted my content from Farid Khan. He has an interview with Tennis No 1 Pakistan player tomorrow. Don't do it. Care for Pakistan. He is our hero.

You have been advised on your talk page, learn and edit within our policies on WP:BLPN, WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. Also, you are about to breach WP:3RR Heiro 17:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to write for Farid Khan, a sports journalist and tennis player. He has an interview tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamLukeDocker (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Somebody deleted my content from Farid Khan. He has an interview with Tennis No 1 Pakistan player tomorrow. Don't do it. Care for Pakistan. He is our hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamLukeDocker (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Posts by a sockpuppet, confirmed by CU. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Smoking ban

Hi JamesBWatson,

I was reverting some vandalism on Smoking Ban when I found 3 IPs that seem to be doing similar edits. I'm not too sure how there are 3 IPs doing the similar things but I think it might be sockpuppetry? The 3 IPs start with "162.78.70." Thanks.

—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 18:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Two of the IP addresses kept alternating, in a way that typically happens when two people vandalise together, usually two schoolkids. Sure enough, this and this both indicate that the IP addresses are allocated to Bellevue School District #405. I had a look at recent editing history for the whole range of IP addresses allocated to that school district: [1], and I found that there is quite a lot of constructive editing going on, so blocking the whole range is out of the question, and the same applies even to a smaller range covering the relevant IP addresses. If I had seen this while the vandalism was going on I would have blocked the individual IP addresses for a short while, but, since it stopped about 15 hours ago, there is no point in blocking now. However, I do notice that, while most of the vandalism took place in a short period between 17:58 and 18:23 on 23 May, there was one isolated edit at 18:42 on the previous day, so it may be worth looking out round about 18:00 to 19:00 time today. If the same kind of stuff recurs day after day, there will be a case for a block for a short while. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Brightify

Hey JBW. I am aware that you've had some experience with this vandal, who is back as Fanforclark12 (and as the recently-blocked user FanforClark13. I've reported the latest sock to WP:SPI, but figured I'd mention it to you as well, in case a quicker response is warranted. There are a lot of curious edits in the FanforClark12 edit history and I wonder if the user isn't gearing up for a vandalism campaign. I also don't know if the articles being created in that user space violate any rules and should be deleted. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

At one time I used to fairly frequently check for signs of this user returning, but after not seeing any for some months I had stopped. thanks for calling my attention to it again. Do you know, it amazes me how many sockpuppeteers are so blatant: I'm sure that if I wanted to run sockpuppets I could easily do so without anyone suspecting me. See the Sockpuppet investigation for my further thoughts. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

JBW, if you get a second, could you please take a look at this "Otoya" vandal? I just opened a new case on him, though he has quite a full archive. He's been a persistent time-suck, and after seeing this edit from his IP range (injecting "Seattle" into an image name), I started to wonder if there was a relationship to Brightify/FanforClarl (an interest in Seattle). It could just be a coincidence, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempted edit warring by User Viriditas

[2] - The user believes that Russia Beyond the Headlines is not a reliable source.

[3] - The user believes that a third-party reliable source description about a Russian politician is not allowed on Wikipedia.

As the administrator who blocked that user on grounds of edit warring, it's telling how that user is reverting to the same kind of editing pattern that got him/her blocked in the first place. I was thinking of bringing this to ANI right away as the user has a lengthy history of edit warring/disruptive editing, but am running this by you first to make sure there's nothing wrong on my part lest I get hit with a Wikipedia boomberang.Gobbleygook (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Do you believe there is nothing wrong on your part?--My76Strat (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As per this and the fact that you think this complaint is being issued out of a bad faith assumption, there's a reasonable basis to believe that you aren't an objective third-party commentator...but you're innocent until proven guilty so only time will tell. To answer your question, yes actually; I don't see how Russia Beyond the Headlines (even though it is state-run) is not a reliable source...nor a student run publication from Stanford University (although I could make the neo-fascist attribution to the S.U source more explicit). I have thus far also restrained from reverting the changes to viriditas's most recent edits, but the same can't be said about that user which is quite telling given the length of time (one week) for which that user was recently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gobbleygook (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me be brief: your account was created for the sole purpose of adding negative information about BLPs and organizations. You accomplish your goals by misrepresenting and cherry picking poor sources. When confronted with this problem, you deny it. There are several speculative theories to explain this behavior: English may not be your first language, you may not be competent enough to edit Wikipedia, and you may be purposefully POV pushing, moving from one throwaway account to the next. CU failed to connect you to User:Festermunk on technical evidence, even though your behavior is identical to that now blocked user. I don't know what the answer is, but you need to be banned from making any edits to all BLP articles and any edits involving the addition of negative or critical material about organizations. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making my job easier; you are aware that when this case goes to ANI, your comments like, "how I need to be banned from making any edits to all BLP articles" manage to violate almost all Wikipedia guideline's on civility, good faith, etc. That and how you're still making the unproven allegations that my "behavior is identitical to that now blocked user." But back to your edits: why is Russia Beyond the Headlines is not a reliable source? And why "is a third-party reliable source description about a Russian politician is not allowed on Wikipedia?"Gobbleygook (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a great illustration of the ongoing problem. Your questions have already been answered, yet you keep asking them, and your edits are identical to the now blocked Festermunk, which can be proven with diffs. So, either you don't understand what is being said, or you are purposefully disrupting the encyclopedia. Neither of the sources you cited are reliable sources about the subjects. One is a press release that mentions the subject in passing. Another editor already reverted you on this matter, so you should have brought it to the talk page. Instead, you added it back again, at which point I stepped it and removed it. Press releases that make negative claims about a BLP in passing are not considered high quality sources. If you wish to add the material, it should be very easy for you to find a single RS about the BLP that calls him a "neofascist". As for the RBTH source, we have the same problem, except you keep misrepresenting it as "Russia Today", just like Festermunk. Further, it had already been shown that you've been making the same other edits as Festermunk, labeling BLPs as progressives and liberals, even when Festermunk was told repeatedly to stop doing this. Blocked means blocked. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Press releases that make negative claims about a BLP in passing are not considered high quality sources." That's just another way of admitting that you can't legally remove that sourced description of Vladimir Zhirinovsky as a neo-fascist. (Interestingly enough, the labeling of Zhirinovsky as a neo-fascist isn't just limited to a press release from a prestigious university as other mainstream sources like the Economist, NATO and NYT have also described him as such.)

"As for the RBTH source, we have the same problem..." Again, you never answered the question which is why Russia Beyond the Headlines is not a reliable source. If all you are hung up on is the source misrepresentation, then that could be easily fixed through proper attribution by the change of a few words. Gobbleygook (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I answered both of your questions many times, and your obsession with the "some commentators call X a Y" editorial pattern is identical to Festermunk, who was told to stop doing this many, many times on Russia-related articles. To further elaborate, we don't do name calling, PR, propaganda, or any other kind of rhetorical game you have in mind, and we don't use op/ed's or poor sources to support such verbiage. Per our encyclopedia article on Vladimir Zhirinovsky he's referred to as a member of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Furthermore, the article on Michael McFaul isn't about neofascism, and using a press release from his employer (at the time of the release he was an Associate Professor at Stanford) to attack his attacker isn't neutral and presents a COI. As for RBTH, you failed to cite it accurately, as the person making the claim isn't RT or even RBTH but Nikolaus von Twickel of The Moscow Times. Until you start using sources correctly, there is nothing to discuss. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But Vladimir Zhirinovsky has also been described as a neo-fascist by mainstream sources. So what's your point. You also never answered why Russia Beyond the Headlines is not a reliable source aside from your straw-man argument that it isn't RT or RBTH. So is Russia Beyond the Headlines a reliable source or not?Gobbleygook (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the same IDHT behavior that got Festermunk permanently blocked. Zhirinovsky is a member of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Whether he is a neofascist or not is the opinion of other writers, and we generally don't use pejoratives to label our subjects. And, once again, Russia Beyond the Headlines is not the source you are citing. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Whether he is a neofascist or not is the opinion of other writers, and we generally don't use pejoratives to label our subjects." Except in the context of the article, he's cited as making political denunciations which would render his beliefs (and opinions of those beliefs) entirely fair game.

"Russia Beyond the Headlines is not the source you are citing." From the article: "Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, an pro-Kremlin think tank that focuses on relations between Europe and Russia." It helps if you took the time to actually read the article. Gobbleygook (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Which mainstream biographical source about Zhirinovsky calls him a "neo-fascist"? None. You're cherry picking press releases that aren't about the topic, op/ed pieces, and passing references to construct a narrative about a BLP in order to attack him. Wikipedia isn't a propaganda mill. And, you were told many times now that RBTH isn't the source for your claims. I'm sorry, but this is classic IDHT behavior, the same behavior that got Festermunk indefinitely blocked. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[4] - The user reverts material for which there has already been consensus via a third opinion. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't received a consensus for your edits anywhere, and you added back in sources that don't support your claims, and this was explained to you on the talk page. This is clear IDHT behavior. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[5] - The user removes legitimate third party citations that are written in the relevant part of the article.Gobbleygook (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't received a consensus for your edits anywhere, and you are continuing to misuse sources to push a POV on BLP articles. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it is mildly amusing to see my talk page being used for an argument of over 1400 words, without any involvement from me. However, since I have been asked to look at the case, I have done so. By far the most striking aspect of the case is that two editors have been edit-warring over a period of some weeks, on several different articles. I see that both editors have previously been blocked in connection with the same dispute, and one of them has previous blocks for edit-warring. I also see a number of other issues, but I am not going to even begin to get involved over the disputes over sources etc. On 20 May I unblocked Viriditas, saying that there was "No reason to believe that the problems will continue". Evidently I was mistaken, and, naturally, I will now block both editors again, for a longer period. When the blocks expire, I hope that both editors will either find more constructive ways of settling their disputes, or else leave the whole issue and move on to other editing.I will also remind both editors that Believing that you are in the right does not justify edit-warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Denis Ventura

Hi JamesBWatson

Can you undelete please article about Slovak footballer Denis Ventura, who currently plays for FK Senica. He made his professional debut for FK Senica on 26.5.2013 against FC Nitra [6]. Thank you. IQual (talk • 12:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Restored article

The article does appears to meet WP:NSPORT now. Thanks for letting me know. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Felino dolloso back again...., am thinking however that a radical prune and leaving a stub may be an alternative to delete/salt . In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right. I substantially pruned the previous version to remove promotional content, but the author insisted on restoring it, so I nominated it for speedy deletion as a last resort: I would have happily accepted the article if the author hadn't refused to settle for a non-promotional version. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 12:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Surinam Airways

Hi JamesBWatson. This time I'm contacting you regarding an issue that has been around at Surinam Airways for some time, where an IP editor keeps modifying the fleet table disregarding the supporting reference, and not providing edit summaries. S(he) hasn't replied to my comments as well. The matter is bordering warring the way I see it. I've recently requested protection for the page and did not revert their last edit until the outcome at WP:RPP. As you might guess, it was denied. The admin that denied the request suggested to report the IP editor at WP:AIV, but that won't work since their edits come from a dynamic IP, and s(he) will rapidly switch from one IP to another. This ongoing situation is much the same we had at Aeroflot last year, and you protected that article. Is there anything you can do here? Thanks in advance.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me add that all the edits in question made by IP editors were likely on behalf of Nardisoero (talk · contribs). I've tagged one of these IPs as a possible sockpuppetry case.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

deleting abhishek iyengar

It is so ridiculous that you deleted a page of Abhishek iyengar, first of all you dont even have the slightest knowledge on theatre and the field ad you claim to be a administrator. Now how the heck will you know what he has contributed to theatre in rural and urban areas? Just because the content was written in a way which seemed promoting a person you took the cal of deleting the page. I think wiki should have people with specific domain knowledge as admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi.iyengar (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You say that I deleted the article "just because the content was written in a way which seemed promoting a person". Wikipedia policy is indeed that an article can be speedily deleted if it seems to do nothing but promotion, so what you say I did was perfectly correct. You are, of course, perfectly free to try to get Wikipedia policy, to allow Wikipedia to be used for promotion, but unless and until that change in policy takes place, articles which exist purely for promotion will be deleted. The answer to "how the heck will [I] know what he has contributed to theatre in rural and urban areas" is that we rely on what is reported in reliable sources independent of the subject. However, that is irrelevant in this case, since with or without suitable sources, promotional articles go. Finally, I wonder how you think I "don't even have the slightest knowledge on theatre". To the best of my memory, I have never said so anywhere on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

talkback

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeyanwiki (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ConsuelaZirkon (talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about what belongs and what does not belong on Wikipedia

Dear James, You have removed today a BIG part of an article about OpenSIPS. It was a list with it's Features. You have motivated with "This does not belong in an encyclopaedia article." I don't say it does or it does not, but if it doesn't why can this guys have something similar and we can't : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk_PBX  ?? After you read their "Features" section and their Configuration and Development section please explain what is wrong with the article related to OpenSIPS. Everything there is just description of the pure reality. No advertising, no nothing. Just the pure truth. So, please can you NOT remove the content again ? Or at least explain first why you intend to remove it and give the editors a chance to change it ? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.nicolae.ionescu (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out Asterisk (PBX). You are absolutely right: that article too contains unencyclopaedic content. As for explaining the reason for removal of the inappropriate content from the article OpenSIPS, I did so on the talk page of the editor who put it there. You may also find it helpful to read the section of the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not headed Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. If, having read both of those, you are still unsure why the content is inappropriate, please let me know, and I will try to help clarify the issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Asterisk (PBX)

Hi, I am just wondering what gave you the push to withdraw the AFD on Asterisk (PBX) please? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I nominated it because of a lack of independent sources, and Mark viking has provided plenty of excellent sources, which are more than enough to answer my doubts. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please look

I'm not getting into an edit war, so could you please take a look at the half dozen or so edits following this one. Moriori (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have given the IP editor warnings about edit-warring and conflict of interest, and if the problem continues then I will be willing to consider further action. I see that the article was originally a spam article, and that content critical of the business has been removed in the past. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

AN notification

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. GiantSnowman 12:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Unban

This is a school computer that has been banned for vandalism. Now many innocent people are blocked from editing. Can you lift the ban so people from this school can once again edit on wikipedia? Ninjazrb (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless you tell me what IP address is involved, I have no way of knowing which IP address you want me to unblock. Please feel very welcome to post the IP address, and I will look into the case, and see whether there is a case for unblocking. However, I will let you know that almost all school IPs produce far more vandalism than anything else, and many of them produce nothing but vandalism, so it is very likely that it will stay blocked. Really, the best way for innocent victims of IP blocks to avoid being blocked is to create an account. That is what I did nearly 7 years ago when I found a library IP address that I was trying to edit from was blocked, and I have never suffered from blocks again. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Jssyedmadar attempting to copy a user page

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

I did copied the content, but it has been modified to be filled in with relevant data to my user-id. It was not re-use of material, but re-use of template/blue-print. But if for some reason Wiki-community has rules of re-using content, I would like to be directed to the source please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jssyedmadar (talk • contribs) 09:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The page you tried to create consisted of a substantial copy of another user's user page, with large quantities of text verbatim, and just a few minor changes such as replacing one user name with another. At the very least you must attribute your source (i.e. state clearly where you are copying from), as otherwise you are infringing the copyright of the author, which is a matter of law, not just "Wiki-community [having] rules". Also, isn't it a matter of common courtesy to ask permission to use a copy of someone else's work? I wouldn't have thought that any "rules" were needed for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Brooklands New Media

Hi JamesBWatson,

You recently did a speedy delete on a page I created for Brooklands New Media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklands_New_Media

Having looked more closely at the guidelines, I can completely see why this was done! Clearly my article was not in depth enough. I have since decided that no article is actually needed for Brooklands New Media on Wikipedia, and would like to delete the page and it's link entirely, as currently it still shows up on a Google search.

Is this something you can help me with, seeing as you are the one who has deleted it?

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMason86 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only thing that can be done is to wait for Google to get round to re-checking the page. After a little while Google will drop the page, but to the best of my knowledge there is no way of hastening the process. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMason86 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Jssyedmadar's talk page.
Message added 19:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @

Deletion of Dog Care Clinic article

Could you confirm what criteria you have used when choosing to delete the above page please? The subject matter is important because of its social outreach projects in Sri Lanka, which is referenced in the sources added to the article. Given that an obvious attempt has been made to describe the organisation's activities in a neutral way, and the page itself adds value to a wider discussion of animal welfare issues in Sri Lanka, I would be grateful if you could confirm me what changes you feel might need to be made in order for this article to be reinstated before I contest the deletion, and why no attempt was made to tell me to rectify any perceived issues prior to deletion. N Withnall (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) From my reading, notability as per WP:NOBLECAUSE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Having a good understanding of the political and cultural background to the foundation of this organisation, it is my (impartial) belief that the unique situation of animal welfare issues in Sri Lanka is important and notable, and not adequately addressed elsewhere, and that this article provides an opportunity to discuss these issues in a meaningful context. Having read through the guidance you've linked to, I accept that "raw mission statements" are not appropriate but statistics had been given to indicate the past achievements of the organisation. I have read through the "Writing about a non-profit organization" section and do not feel that I have fallen foul of any particular aspect of that guidance (with the possible exception of the "raw mission statements") and the intention behind the article is (yes) to highlight the organisation's activities, but to put this in the context of a wider discussion of issues that are not adequately addressed elsewhere on Wikipedia in sufficient detail. N Withnall (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

But there's nothing remotely different about this organization than say ... the SPCA, is there? That's more of the primary topic (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironically enough, your messages here themselves contain several explanations of why the article is incompatible with Wikipedia's requirements. Contrary to your evident impression, the facts that this is "not adequately addressed elsewhere", and that "this article provides an opportunity to discuss these issues in a meaningful context" are not reasons for keeping the article, but on the contrary, reasons for deleting it. Wikipedia policy is that we do not have articles on subjects that have not been substantially covered in existing reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing issues. Wikipedia is, in fact, merely a place for convenient access to information on subjects which have already received substantial attention, and Wikipedia content must reflect what is already published, and not be original opinions or discussion. You also state that "the intention behind the article is ... to highlight the organisation's activities", that is to say that you wish to use Wikipedia to call attention to the organisation, i.e. to promote its activities, which is contrary to the policy that Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion. Furthermore, contrary to the opinion you expressed above, the article was certainly not written from a neutral pint of view, but from start to finish clearly conveyed the impression that its author supports the organisation, and thinks it is a thoroughly good thing. The article even stated as facts, not opinions, such things as that the organisation's programmes "offer wider societal benefits", and that its projects are "socially inclusive". Those may be your sincere beliefs, but they remain beliefs, and are not neutral reporting. It is clear that you are campaigning to get support for what you believe is a good cause, and I wish you every success in doing so, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Wikipedia is not a medium for promoting any cause, no matter how noble. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything particularly "ironic" about my comments, except to say that Wikipedia clearly does not conform to my expectations of what a peer-reviewed encyclopaedia should (or could) be. As I have no intention or desire to participate any further in the Wikipedia project, I'll refrain from making any further comment in this respect. N Withnall (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Message

Message for you at User talk:Kuru.118.175.184.102 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Dru yoga

Hello JamesBWatson. This morning I edited Dru yoga because it was so poor I couldn't resist, although the NL-wiki is my home base. The organisation behind it is also linked to the deleted World peace flame, which you nominated I believe. Before me someone edited the article (poorly) perhaps with the intent to discredit this "Life Foundation", which may or may not be a cult. I tried to enlist one of your NPP's but he wasn't bothered. I don't want to be a nuisance, I just want to let you someone know. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Kümmel (disambiguation)

I disagree with your argument. There is no point mentioning that it's German for Caraway since this isn't the German Wikipedia. Our article for Caraway isn't at Kümmel, so there is no ambiguity between it and Kümmel. Therefore, the only other ambiguity is between Kümmel and the surname, hence why I moved the disambiguation page and converted it to a set index instead. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention, Kümmel already mentions in the lede that it's German for Caraway. So now the disambiguation page is pointlessly duplicating this information —Xezbeth (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Kddesai110's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You've got a message on my talk page! Thanks! Kddesai110 (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Digitalvel

I see that you've just posted a message there. I think you'll find an earlier incarnation of his talk page at Portal talk:Natarajan Sankaran, which has just been deleted. Do you feel up to a history merge? -- John of Reading (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done This user has moved his/her user talk page around to a succession of locations, and it is the devil's own job to trace all the moves to see if there is any more content lost in the history of any more deleted or undeleted pages. Thanks for your help with finding at least one of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocking an IP

Hi JamesBWatson,

How are you doing? I wanted to ask you about an IP address that has been blocked multiple times but only continues to vandalize. The page is: User talk:170.200.144.19. This IP has recently vandalized again and I'm wondering if it should be blocked. Thanks.

—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 18:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

There has been a considerable amount of disruptive editing from that IP address. If I could be confident that the latest vandalism came from the same person that was using the IP address before, I would have no hesitation in blocking. However, that latest edit does not look similar to any other edits from the IP address in recent months, so, even though it is a static IP address, it is probably a different person. Also, it is nearly three weeks since the previous edit. That being so, I think we have to leave it at a warning for now. However, if any more similar editing happens soon, I will be willing to reconsider that opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks! —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 19:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Hi again.

Hi JamesBWatson. Sorry for being rude, it's nothing against you obviously. You don't know what happened in the past +-2 years, I spent lots of time correcting information here on Wikipedia. I was blocked because I was "rude" to an obsessive editor who is worried about his number of edits... he self proclaimed as "The Greatest Wikipedian". I have no right to insult anyone, and honestly, it's not a pleasure, but that editor was/is just... It's not my business if a, b or c, are "obsessed", as long as they don't add fake/false/inacurate/nonsense info, but that user is really something... he simply edit about stuff he doesn't know about, etc, long story. Anyway... how can I "request an unblock"? which "arguments" should I use? Can you help? I just want to contribute peacefully... About that article you deleted, I will not create here on Wikipedia, since I did it here. Once again, sorry for being rude, but I have feelings, and I'm still, let's say, not conformed. --46.50.21.163 (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To say that you were blocked for being rude is a serious understatement: you made gross personal attacks on another editor. However much or little truth there is in the view that he/she is obsessive, the sort of things you wrote are unacceptable. When talk page access was removed from your account, you were given a link to a page with instructions how to request a block. However, I have now restored your talk page access, so that you can make an unblock request more easily. I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before doing so. You will need to convince the administrator who assesses your unblock request that you understand why you were blocked, and will not do the same sort of thing again. You are not likely to be unblocked if you take the line that it's all right to attack other editors as long as you think you have a justifiable objection to their editing. I have also said more about this on the talk page of your original account. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, which I have posted on the talk page of the IP address you used for the above message, but I am repeating it here in case you don't see it there. Although by posting the message above you were technically evading your block, you were clearly trying to be constructive, so I am not removing your comment, and have replied to it. However, please do not edit again except via your original account, or I will go back to the policy of revert, block, ignore. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Zylongaming0

Every edit seems to be out of context except for the Acclaim Games which was Zylon gaming spam. Trying to get history before spamming? I was considering vand4im. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A little slow, I see! Jim1138 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It took me a while to realise what was going on. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to my saving the first comment after you did the block. Best Jim1138 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that's what you meant, but I just added a comment of my own. What really gets me about editors who do things like that is how stupid they are. If you were doing something underhanded, don't you think you would avoid calling attention to yourself by making obviously ridiculous edits? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that if they were any smarter, they wouldn't be assigned that task in the first place. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My Medical Reports

I was requested to move My Medical Reports to 123MyMD by user talk:Joelcoast who is the originator and apparent COI editor. I see you have added a proposed deletion. The old My Medical Reports.com url redirects to 123MyMD.com, so it is a legitamate change. Should I move it for Joelcoast, or would you rather I didn't? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You may as well move it. If it is eventually deleted then it won't make much difference whether it's moved or not, and if it isn't deleted then the new title is probably better. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I was BOLD and moved the page from My Medical Reports to 123MyMD for Jim1138. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Mark H. Moore

Hello, I challenged your PROD on Mark H. Moore - this person may have some notability and would be better discussed at AfD.

Uberaccount (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotional editing by Vamsiborra

Your Message:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at VEC, Inc., you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My Message:

Hello Mr. JamesBWatson,

VECohio is one of the fast growing company in this valley its sister companies have a history of more than 60 years and it is providing many jobs to the people around here. I created that page in order to share the history of this company to the people not only around here but also around the world.

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: This article is Neutral Opinion pieces: This article didn't Scandal mongering: I am sure this even doesn't apply. Self-promotion / Advertising : You may think this is what I am doing... which is not right!.... I am sure VECohio doesn't get favored or get contracts(business ) from the Wikipedia... This company is indeed helping the local communities around here by doing some blood-donation campaigns and also some social services.... (http://www.vecohio.com/corporate/2013/05/24/vec-to-host-1st-annual-blood-drive-on-may-28th-1-6pm/)

Sorry for the delayed response as I was busy with some stuff. Please let me know if you have any question.

Thank you, Regards, Vamsiborra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsiborra (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's look at a few of the edits you have made. This edit is unambiguous promotion, full of stuff such as "It's [sic] simple interface,makes it intuitive and quick to learn for all kinds of users, from advanced professionals to Internet beginners". That is the sort of language used by someone who wishes to persuade us that the software is good. In another edit you wrote a page of such stuff as "VEC had expanded into new markets, adding diverse capabilities and gaining experience, cultivating expertise and respect as it grew". That is the sort of language used in PR, not neutral, dispassionate reporting. The we have two different talk page posts (one on this page) in which you wrote "VECohio is one of the fast growing company in this valley its sister companies have a history of more than 60 years and it is providing many jobs to the people around here". That again is promotional language, and, what is more you even posted that text in the course of trying to persuade people that your editing is not promotional. If you really cannot see that that sort of stuff is promotional, and not neutral reporting, then I doubt that you will be able to edit in the neutral, detached way that is required for Wikipedia. You may also find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Making edits to Wikipedia because you believe that a business is doing a good service, and you want to tell the world about what a good job it is doing, promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Whether that leads to business contracts is irrelevant: "promotion" does not mean only "commercial promotion leading to monetary profit". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hippeastrum cybister

I'm curious about your deletion of Hippeastrum cybister. I believe I found most of the relevant discussion, and Hesperian said "I I do not support the deletion of Paul's contributions on these grounds anyhow"[7]. The loss of the article seems to me to be a loss to Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that you oppose the policy that pages created by blocked users can be deleted, or that you think in this particular case there are reasons for making an exception to the policy? JamesBWatson (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to oppose any policy, but I'm not sure exactly which policy is being cited in this case. G5 of WP:GCSD? The discussions I saw suggested that policy being applied said that pages created by blocked users MAY/CAN be deleted, not that the pages MUST be deleted. If any of the articles Androstachys created are to be deleted under policy, why not all of them? Was there something specific about the users behavior that merits deleting pages created between 8 and 13 July 2011, but not pages created immediately before or after?

All I'm really interested in is that a useful page (from what I see of it in Google's cache) was deleted, and it wasn't clear to me why some of the pages the blocked user created were deleted while others were allowed to stand. Plantdrew (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems that James is busy with some sort of crusade - I believe to the detriment of WP - and has also deleted Thomas Pearson Stokoe, Johannes Schumacher and Getaway (magazine). Deletions of this sort have come up before here and here. In my opinion the G5 policy is not so much punitive to the erring editor, but rather shoots WP in both feet. The G5 policy should be reviewed to align with WP's oft-stated goal of doing that which is in the best interest of the Encyclopaedia. Paul venter (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Crusade? What utter nonsense. Have you considered the possibility of assuming good faith? As for the policy, it has been discussed many times. There are people who passionately believe that the policy is mistaken, on the perfectly reasonable grounds that an article should be judged on its merits, irrespective of how it came into existence. However, there is also the argument that if we let persistently disruptive people who have been blocked know that, if they just ignore the block and use sock puppets to create new articles, they will get away with it, then that encourages them to keep on doing so, and that the small amount of loss to the project by losing a handful of articles is more than offset by the benefit of discouraging such disruptive editors from sockpuppetry. Every time the issue has been discussed, there has emerged a consensus in favour of that view. In reply to Plantdrew's point about "why some of the pages the blocked user created were deleted while others were allowed to stand", I started deleting articles that the sockpuppeteer had created while evading a block, in line with policy, but then I had doubts about whether, the policy notwithstanding, there was a case for thinking "well, this editor has now settled down, and is no longer being disruptive, so maybe there is nothing to be gained by deleting the articles", so I stopped, intending to think about the issue and decide one way or the other. For what it is worth, a couple of considerations have since then shifted my opinion a little further away from the view "this editor has now settled down, and is no longer being disruptive". Firstly, there is the administrators' noticeboard discussion, in which the sockpuppeteer allowed others to make posts showing that they mistakenly thought he was not blocked at the time of creation of an article via a sockpuppet, and made no attempt to correct that misunderstanding, despite the fact that he must have been fully aware that it was a mistake. Also, in starting the discussion, he refers to his sockpuppet account in the third person, in a way which would give anyone reading there without background knowledge the impression that it was an independent editor commenting about another one, not a sockpuppeteer referring to his own block-evading editing. Secondly, there is the above post, with its assumption of bad faith, and nonsense about a "crusade". All this does not encourage the view that the editor has given up all disruptive tendencies. This does not encourage me to undelete the articles which I deleted, which I was considering doing, but at present I have no plans to delete any more of his articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. You've clearly put some thought into the matter. I think it's unfortunate that the content was lost, but understand the need to have consequences for evading a block. Plantdrew (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The argument that an article should be deleted simply because it was created by an editor who had been blocked, I find really lame. At the same time you write that there are editors who believe the policy to be mistaken 'on the perfectly reasonable grounds that an article should be judged on its merits'. If you find their opinion perfectly reasonable, then why do you insist on applying G5 in a more destructive manner? You then go on to say that the slight loss Wikipedia suffers losing good articles is offset by discouraging disruptive editors from sockpuppetry. Here it seems to me that the boundaries between an editor's personality and his contributions are becoming blurred. In the administrators' noticeboard discussion it was clearly pointed out (by Hesperian, I think) that I was the puppetmaster, and my own talk page clearly admits as much since November 2011. There was no hidden agenda here. On the other hand, during this same discussion, you did not state that you intended to carry on with deletions in terms of G5. As stated here I feel that the rationale behind G5 should be rethought and rephrased. Paul venter (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The fact that I acknowledge that a view is perfectly reasonable does not necessarily imply that, taking all things into consideration, I think that view should prevail. Where there are perfectly reasonable arguments on both sides of an issue, one has to balance the pros against the cons.
2. My view is that the job of an administrator is to administer policy as it is, not as he or she would prefer it to be. I am aware that at least one very active administrator takes the line "I don't agree with the policy that pages created by blocked or banned users can be deleted, so I will act against that policy by always declining speedy deletion nominations based only on that policy". However, my view is that is an abuse of administrative power. I am not obliged to take action in support of a policy if I choose not to, but taking action against it is a very different matter.
3. I have never had much respect for the line "I admit I didn't explicitly admitted such and such a pertinent fact about my editing when I could see full well that others were making decisions based on ignorance of that fact. However, anyone who spent some time searching through my editing history/my user page/everywhere else that might be relevant would have found it for themselves, so no one can accuse me of dishonest intent". That line doesn't seem more persuasive to me the 250th time I read it than it did the first time.
4. I don't think I have any more to say on this subject now. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Image files

I noticed that you had reverted all the edits by 188.140.123.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). While I fully understand blocking given the users pattern of other disruptive edits and socking ... I undid your reverts where you restored the image links the IP had removed. The images don't exist, so were just red-links to allow uploading of images. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they were only red links because that disruptive editor had removed them from the articles, so they had been deleted as orphaned non-free files. i have now restored them. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Penguinsruleman

Hi James, I have reverted this user's edits, because I realised that he is actually a troll and vandal. I have given him a final warning, and if he persists, please block him. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 08:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on your explanation, I think that was very wise of you. As such, I have removed the L4 wsrning. Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 09:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

John Antoine Labadie

Hi, re John Antoine Labadie I am not defending saving the article. I had attempted a clean up and hid a very long list of unformatted links as I did not have time to go through them then. I unhid them only to flag that they were there. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought you were doing. I just thought I would mention the problems for the benefit of anyone who wondered whether the PROD was justified, to make it easier for them to see what the situation is, without having to check all the links. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Change Page Virginie Visconti

Hi James,

I changed the biography of Virginie Visconti to be less "autobiographic". Could you tell me if it's all right for you.

If that's okay, could you tell me how to change the name of the page.

Have a nice day.

Caroline (Virginie's assistant). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginie59 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Retired IP?

Hi JamesBWatson,

Can an IP address "retire?" I found an IP talk page that was being blanked by another IP address and leaving a retired tag. Can you take a look? I removed the tag once and the other IP put it right back. I'm not sure what to do here. The talk page is: User talk:98.254.83.35.

Thanks, —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

My first thought was that a "retired" notice on an IP talk page doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose, but it does no harm, so I wouldn't have bothered about it if I had come across it myself. Looking further into the history of the talk page, though, I saw that there was a substantial history of edit-warring, and also a number of edits that were borderline vandalism. I removed the notice and semi-protected the page to stop any more of the same. However, I still feel that, on the scale of disruptive editing that happens on Wikipedia, this was pretty trivial, and I'm not sure whether it was worth bothering about. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 17:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

RE: Hydao rangeblocks

I am inexperienced with rangeblocks and would not dare dive in for fear of unintentionally blocking people I didn't mean to; thanks for stepping up and helping in whatever way you can. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do you think it might be possible to apply something in the other two ranges he's been using? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Trying to make range blocks for an editor of this kind is a real pain. He has hopped across a very wide range of IP addresses, making just one or two range blocks rather ineffective. To achieve anything worthwhile it is necessary to search among his edits to find IP addresses that are reasonably close together, find a suitable IP range that covers them, check the editing history of the whole range to make sure there any block won't block more good editors than bad, then do the same for another group of IP addresses, then another, and so on. Eventually you have a set of range blocks that cover many of his edits, but not all. Usually some of the IP addresses are in ranges that are heavily used by other editors, so it is not acceptable to block them. Also, often a group of IP addresses fits in a fairly small range, which you block, not knowing that this is only part of a bigger range that he is using, and you just don't happen to have seen any of the edits in the other part of the range. The best that you may be able to achieve, if you are lucky, is to keep doing this, so that he has to keep moving around and finding new IP addresses, until eventually he gets tired of it and gives up. For some editors that takes months, and for some really obsessive editors they keep on for years. Having said all that, though, I have placed a couple of range blocks, one on 46.50.96.0/19 and one on 89.214.128.0/17. Maybe that will help. Maybe I will have another look at this tomorrow and see if I can find more ranges to block, but I make no promise. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I assumed you were busy (and he was being relentless) so I asked on AN and got pretty much the same reply... *shrugs* We'll survive. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Plus 88.214.164.0/24, but I am about to go off line, so that is all until tomorrow. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Odin (Android)

Hi JamesBWatson,

I apologize about that as I didn't see it when I clicked on TW. I just viewed the log as G2 denied and just opened TW and didn't pay attention obviously. I did not mean to remove anything, however, since the creator has previously removed a speedy tag, I prefer AfD as they can't be removed. But you can close this and re-open the PROD. It's up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 14 June 2013

When I thought about it, I decided that it's virtually certain that the creator will contest the PROD, so actually taking it to AfD makes more sense. The fact that the creator has repeatedly removed speedy deletion tags makes in clear that the deletion is not uncontroversial, so I was wrong to use a PROD, which is only for uncontroversial deletions. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree and you were probably not aware of this at the time. The only thing I also dislike about AfD is time it takes for something rather obvious, but at least in the end it can be salted. Thanks again for your understanding and help. Tyros1972 Talk 11:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Review

You think I could get reviewer rights? Or does that require a user history with GA-rated work and such?  Yintan  13:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Being a reviewer is to do with stopping vandalism, copyright infringements, and other unacceptable editing, and it doesn't have anything to do with "GA-rated work and such". On the basis of your editing history, I see no reason at all why you shouldn't have reviewer rights, so I have given them to you. Make sure you have a reasonable knowledge of Wikipedia:Reviewer, including the section Becoming a reviewer. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick . Thanks. I'll read the articles before diving in.  Yintan  13:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

86.174.137.34

I think this (86.174.137.34) is another IP address of a user you blocked for disruptive editing, specifically cartoon articles. - tucoxn\^talk 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what previous IP or IPs have been blocked? (Or, if it comes to that, do you know of any other IP addresses the same user has used that have not been blocked?) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Salvidrim!'s talk page.
Message added 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Virginie Visconti page

Hi James,

I am Caroline. Virginie Viscon'ti 'assistant. From what I have understood, being notable and having a significant coverage are very important when it comes to create an article on Wikipedia.

Sorry to bother you again but I have one more question for you to answer. We have already created a French page on Wikipedia and because we had enough notable sources, I managed to create Virginie French's page very easily. Can I use those sources, even if French ones, as evidence of notability. She wanted to create at least an English page because she is gonna work with Great Britain (major part but so far, no evidence to prove it) pretty soon and people are looking quick information about her. I think I know the answer for this one, but who knows ^^.

Thank you very much for your time. For my previous questions, I really appreciated your detailed answer.

Caro. (Virginie's assistant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginie59 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Tatler histmerge

Now that the smoke's cleared on the article move, I'll pick this back up just in case it's worth resolving. I proposed a histmerge to clean up a copy-and-paste article move the other week, which you declined. I'm not sure if you misunderstood me, or if there's just no clean way to tidy it up, but I thought I'd check.

(For context: someone had taken the "Tatler" article, moved it wholesale to "Tatler (1709)", then copypasted 13k of the article's 20k into a new article at "Tatler (1901)". Now that "Tatler (1901)" has been moved back to "Tatler", we've got an article that was apparently created from whole cloth (the edit summary blithely claiming to be "Creating a new page") in May 2013. Given that "Tatler" is the primary article and has 2/3rds of the content, it seems like the full nine-year edit history should be attached to that one, for posterity's sake. But I can appreciate it might not be worth the trouble at this point.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. You may well be right, but history merges need care: it is very easy to make a complete mess by merging alternate edits to two different articles, and very difficult to sort out the mess afterwards. I don't have the necessary time right now to make sure I do a proper job, but I will try to come back to it when I have time, possibly tomorrow, more likely, the day after that. If I have not got back onto this within 48 hours of this post, please do feel welcome to remind me. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Elevators again

User:John of Reading/CSD log#June 2013. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

TIMWE wikipedia

Hi JamesBWatson,
Thank you for your message. I'm writing you a quick note just to say I have edited the TIMWE wikipedia page in order to add more reliable information and sources because the page was flagged. Please let me know if you believe I can make it better in any other way. Thanks! (Taniabelosantos (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC))

replied to your message

Hi, I replied to your message on my User Talk page. Thanks. 184.162.110.55 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied again with sincere thanks 184.162.110.55 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ROPE

Greets JBW.

I'm a little confused by this as you're basically agreeing with me but reverting me. Am I missing something here? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I was agreeing with you. There is consensus that an administrative action should not be reverted unless the original admin agrees, or circumstances have changed making the action no longer appropriate, or there are strong reasons for regarding the action as wrong. Your edit reversed that, putting the onus on the original administrator to justify keeping the block, where the reason for unblocking is no more than "let's see if the editor does better if we unblock". In my experience, when a blocking administrator strongly objects to an unblock, the unblock is not normally undone except after an extended discussion, frequently involving several administrators, reaching a consensus to unblock, so the changed wording that you made does not reflect actual practice. In any case, the present wording has been in existence, as far as I am aware completely uncontroversially, for almost three and a half years, on a well-known page that is very often referred to, which suggests that consensus supports it, or at least accepts it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The stupidity of what I've done kicked in when I read the fourth line. So basically I'd made it go against what the rule's outcome was supposed to be! Oh man I am such an idiot sometimes. But fret not, for I am Adopted and learning under the wisdom of an actual (part time) teacher. Feels weird to be adopted at 1,200 Edits yknow. Eh, I'll keep out of policy editing and stick to Pursuit Force, heh heh, have a good one JBW. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 22:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

TIMWE Wikipedia

Hi JamesBWatson,
I replied to your message and still TIMWE's wikipedia page updates were deleted :( now it contains inaccurate and outdated information. I tried to contribute with reliable information and added sources to support all data. Isn't that the way it should be? Could you please explain me how to make it better? Thanks in advance. (Taniabelosantos (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion or advertising, but the content I removed was an unambiguous attempt to turn the article into an advertisement. If that is not obvious to you, then I can only assume that you work in marketing/PR/promotion/advertising/whatever-you-prefer-to-call-it, and, like many people in that line of work, you are so used to marketing-speak that you have become desensitised to it, and can't see it even when it is right in front of you. Many, if not all, of the links you added were to promotional sites of one kind or another. If you wish to improve the article, rather than to use it to advertise, then, since the article currently lacks evidence that its subject is notable, the best you can do is to find reliable sources which are not promotional, and not in any way connected to the business that the article is about, that give substantial coverage of the business. You may find it helpful to look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, and, if you want to go further into the issues of notability, the most relevant guidelines are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of organisations and companies. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For this: [8] - which made me chuckle. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

K I'll move.

Dear Mr. Watson:

K. I'll try to move the thread to the Chinese Wikipedia.

69.42.179.18 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wondering about an edit you made?

Hi JamesBWatson, I'm User:Kevjonesin.

A recent bit of fuss at Commons —where I found myself butting heads with User:Penyulap— led me to get curious and look into her block here on en:Wikipeidia.

I was expecting a cut and dry case of 'edit warring' or some such. However, what I found is puzzling to me.

I see in her page history that you placed a block notice on 17 September 2012.

However, the...

sockpuppet investigations casepage

...link leads to an archived thread which concludes with...

Marking as closed with no action taken. --MuZemike 23:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

...over a month earlier. I don't see anything in the documentation explaining the progression from one point to the other. Please explain/elaborate.

Thanks for your time and attention,

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

After 9 months, I don't remember this case, but I see that at least one sockpuppet of that user had at that time already been given a checkuser block, as you can see at Special:Contributions/ThomasMoore1852. That was no doubt why I tagged the sockmaster. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Declined unblock

See User talk:82.132.213.150 and User_talk:Anomie#10.111.0.0.2F16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.234.244 (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I was going to post a similar message over at User talk:Daniel Case but I can't edit that page for some reason. Never mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.234.244 (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Prime Minister of India

Good to see you again!. I just wanted to ask you for some help. The prime minister of India has an official residence at 7, Race Course Road, but i see that it is not included in the facilities section of the article. So, i dont have any experience in uploading files, so it would be better if you could help me.

Also, while there was a previous vandalism in the article and the admin temporarily semi-protected the article, I cannot not see why the article was and is move protected indef and the history shows no misuse of move tools. So, it would be better if you remove the move protection of the article according to "Wikipedia anyone can edit policy". Thanks:)Suri 100 (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it quite remarkable that the article Prime Minister of India contains no mention of the official residence, apart from a listing of the title "Panchavati" in an infobox. I should certainly think it would be a good idea to add a mention of it. However, the "facilities" section of the article does not seem to be helpful at all: at present all it contains is an image and a link, with no explanation at all what either of them means. Far better would be a sentence briefly saying what "Air India One" is, with a link to the article for anyone wanting further information. The image, which does not seem to explain or illustrate anything, could go. In the same way, it seems to me that the best thing to do with 7, Race Course Road would be to add a sentence or two mentioning it, with a link to the article 7, Race Course Road. If you do want to upload an image, I will try to help if I can, but it's difficult to know what you need to be told, and I don't have a great deal of experience of iamge u[ploads myself. I suggest looking at the section of Wikipedia:Uploading images headed [[Mini how-to. As for the move protection, I agree that there is no obvious reason for it, though I can't see that it does any harm, since it is difficult to imagine a legitimate reason for wanting to move the article, and in any case, if there is a reason for a move it should be discussed first. However, if you want the protection to be removed then I suggest contacting the administrator who protected the article at User talk:Connormah, and ask if there is any good reason for the protection. Almost always, if you want to question an administrative action, or request that it be undone, the first thing to do should be to ask the admin who took the action about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

WT's sock(s)

Hi James, could you just tell me which are the 1 or 2 socks? AeroAddict did not make any edits during the block. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 16:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

ShoeMaker made one talk page test edit during the block, and Technical-13 was created during the block, but has not edited. Both trivial, and in themselves harmless, but it's just that the user keeps stepping on boundary lines too often. Both these accounts are declared as alternative accounts, and neither has been in any way disruptive, so I wouldn't call them sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

These two accounts belong to Technical 13, which is a totally different guy. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 16:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What? Those are alternates of Technical 13, not me. How did I get connected to him? WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 16:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

James, how did I get mixed up with T13? I can understand why, but we seriously have no relation, we don't even edit the same articles. James, I'm sorry about these past 4 weeks, but I'm trying to get back on my feet again. Happy editing WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 17:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at WorldTraveller101's talk page.
Message added 16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I swear no new accounts were made, nor was it possible based on my circumstance (email me if you're still unsure). WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 17:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

{{tl:whale}} For mixing up WT101 with Technical 13. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 17:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Like WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• At the time when I posted the message to WorldTraveller101, there was a userbox on his user page, declaring those as alternative accounts. The user box has now been removed, and various edits have been oversighted, so that the userbox is no longer visible in the page history. My guess is that WorldTraveller101, who seems to have a love of userboxes, simply copied userboxes from other users' user pages without checking them. However, whether that is the explanation or not, I don't think I can be blamed for assuming that WorldTraveller101 was telling the truth when he added those userboxes to his user page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't aware I had done it...apologies. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 10:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale-China_Chinese_Language_Center

Dear Mr. Watson,

We are from the Yale-China Chinese Language Center and years ago we put our information on wiki.

However, we noted that the input had been removed last year. We understand that we did not do the verification properly so this may happen.

Now we intend to add back some more information of our center. Is there any way that the information page can roll back that we can do the modification in a easier way? Also it would be great if we can have more information about the verification? This time we wish to do it right to avoid same problem from happening again.

About the copyright, since it is from our own website and we thought that should not be a problem of violation of copyright... but is it necessary to write it differently in wiki? Or the center can simply submit something to allow the same content to be used on wiki?

Thank you very much for your advice. Please see the history as following for your reference.

Best Regards, S.Y. Lung CLC CUHKCLC CUHK (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 13:11, 27 September 2012‎ JamesBWatson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (380 bytes) (-3,759)‎ . . (Removing unsuitable content. It is all unsourced, much of it infringes copyright, and it is more suitable for a course prospectus than for an encyclopaedia article.) (undo)

Hello,

Hello. Thank you for your message. I appreciate your assistance. I didn't have much experience in referencing as I'm relatively new to Wiki, so that's why I may be put links on some pages. Since I understand that it's advisable to provide source of your information I'll try to make proper references in the future. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blgmgl (talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	That was very gracious of you to redact your comment, where others would have left it. I always appreciate it when people have enough class to step up and change previous statement, and I do feel you deserve this barnstar. WormTT(talk) 13:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello James I am Soham, a 15 year old kid from Kolkata, India who recently faced an IP Block called open proxy block. I requested an unblock and you promptly reviewed my request and gave a reply which was although extremely and utterly confusing gave me a hint regarding the solution. I am a Wi-fi user with IPV4 and IPV6 installed using Google DNS server. I immediately removed it. Thats how I solved it.

Sohambanerjee 1998 talk 14:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It is kind of you to take the trouble of thanking me. I thought very hard about what would be most useful to say to you before posting my message. I did not want to write large quantities of technical stuff about IP addresses and proxies which would be irrelevant to you, but since you said that you didn't know what an "open proxy block" meant I thought it might help to briefly tell you. Also, you obviously needed to know that we could do nothing about the block unless you told us what IP address was involved, so I told you that. I am glad that you have managed to resolve the problem, and sorry that you found my attempt to help you confusing. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what was confusing about it, to help me know how to be more helpful in similar cases in the future.

Incidentally, since you are from India, English is presumably not your first language, and you may not have realised the connotations that "thanks a bunch" have. That expression is commonly used as a contemptuously ironic response by rather ill-mannered loutish people who do not wish to thank the person they are addressing at all, and indeed on the contrary are deliberately trying to express their lack of gratitude, with the intention of seeming rude and uncivil. Assuming that you do not wish to give that impression, you would be better off not using such wording to anyone who has voluntarily given up some of their time to try to help you, even if they were not very successful in doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello James

Thank you for understanding my good intentions at the first place and preventing me from repeating the same mistake in the future.I presume that my lack of experience in the language coupled with the joy and exictement of the fact that I could EDIT wikipedia again at that point of time led to the mistake.Well this time, I thank you sicerely.

I will contact you later as to how I solved it.

Sohambanerjee1998 talk 14:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Your prompt reply to my unblock request saved my day. Here's a barnstar for you. Sohambanerjee 1998 talk 14:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for blocking the bad IP addresses on the wiki! WidgetsUSA (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You received the admin's cheeseburger!

You recieved the admin's cheeseburger for doing great admin work on this wiki. WidgetsUSA (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Evolution (Magnum album) Page Deleted

I see that you deleted this prematurely written page describing the Magnum (band) album Evolution. It seems you deleted it last on 4 October 2011 and the album was (finally) released on 2 December 2011 in Germany and 5 December 2011 for the rest of the EU according to Magnum's website http://www.magnumonline.co.uk/band_2.html. Please can you restore this page so that it can be edited to reflect the released album? Thank you. Derekjc (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you $oHaM whazzup 17:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Gobbleygook again

Gobbleygook (talk · contribs) has returned from his last block to revert all of my edits and to follow me to two new articles, Tea party movement and Talk:March Against Monsanto. He was specifically asked not to do this. Are you going to handle this? Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And he's now followed me to User talk:Thargor Orlando. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I see a number of problems with Gobbleygook's editing,but at the moment I don't see that he/she is reverting a lot of your edits. Can you give a few diffs, so I can see which edits you are referring to? I see that he/she has edited Tea Party movement, Talk:March Against Monsanto, and User talk:Thargor Orlando, all of which you had previously edited, but their edits their don't at a glance seem to be evidently aimed at you: is there any reason why they should be regarded as harassment of you? Please understand that I do have serious concerns about Gobbleygook's editing, and I am not dismissing your message, but I need more specific evidence. I cannot take action against an editor without much clearer reasons than that they have edited several pages that were previously edited by another person (not even if there is a history of harassment months ago, unless there is reason to regard recent edits as continuation of that harassment). JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

He's now followed me to Sally Field and he's been reverting all of edits in multiple articles. Instead of taking any action James, you left me a strongly worded message on my talk page about edit warring. Is there a good reason I am being threatened and warned for behavior by another user? And why is he being allowed to harass me? Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I had made this clear, but evidently I failed, so I'll try again. Can you give diffs to show that Gobbleygook is reverting all your edits? If you can, then I will consider whether any action is appropriate. It is not obvious to me that that is happening, and better than me spending an even larger amount of time searching for examples than I have already spent would be for you to point out the offending edits, since presumably you already have a good idea where they are, and can find them more easily. I cannot possibly take any action without evidence, just because some editor says I should. And as for "following you" to articles, does that mean editing articles which you had previously edited? If so, what are we to think of the twelve articles on which your first ever edit follows editing by Gobbleygook? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

James, after following this matter from a distance it is my view that as the blocking admin it's on you to take action here, and stop the WP:BATTLE that results from this ongoing Wikihounding of Viriditas. Please put an end to GG's dubious Wikipedia career with an indef asap, thanks. Jusdafax 06:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "it's on you to take action". If you mean that I have some sort of duty to act, then I fundamentally disagree: nobody ever has a duty to do anything on Wikipedia. If, however, you mean that it might be helpful if I were willing to look into it, then I agree, and I am doing so. Since I have existing knowledge of the case, it will be easier for me to see the whole picture than an administrator with no previous knowledge of the case. However, for the reasons I have described above, I don't think an immediate indefinite block on the basis of what I have been told here would be acceptable. I can just about imagine the treatment I would (quite rightly) receive at ANI if I chose to block indefinitely on such tenuous grounds and someone then took the case there. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The user is an obvious sockpuppet, and he's being protected by the community for some reason that I cannot quite figure out. I don't a give a damn that the CU didn't connect the two accounts, CU makes mistakes like this all the time. He's clearly the same user who was previously indef. blocked because all he is doing is restoring that user's past edits and editing in the same manner, including the stalking. Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

James, my apologies. I find I have expressed myself poorly, and my meaning is indeed that it "might be helpful," though I am compelled to use stronger language. If there was ever a time to be bold as an admin, this could well be that moment. To me even a cursory look at Viriditas' complaint lends strong support to his reasoning. Please examine this matter further at your earliest convenience and take what action you see fit, or perhaps recommend a path for Viriditas to take. I consider this to be a high priority issue that requires prompt action. Thanks for your time and attention. Viriditas, could you honor James' request and give specific diffs? I realize it can be galling and time-consuming but it's way to go at the moment. Gents, my best to you both, and here's to a summer of drama-free editing, with the Blessing. Jusdafax 09:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree that Gobbleygook is almost certainly a sockpuppet, and just a little more evidence will be enough to persuade me that a block will be justified. Can you provide that little more evidence? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I have to go off line now, and it will be some time before I can take any action on this - possibly many hours, possibly even a day or two. However, if you do post anything else here then I will look into it as soon as I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • His newest sock can be found at Gretchen Mädelnick (talk · contribs). Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Holy mackerel, everybody who agrees with Gobbleygook is a sockpuppet? TheYoungTurks is a big channel on YouTube, which in turn draws attention. You really think only you, CT Cooper and Gobbleygook is interested? But if it's not you or Cooper, and if the visitor does not agree with the accuracy of the article, then it must be a sockpuppet. I'm sorry for you if you feel you are stalked, but not everybody crossing your path whilst disagreeing is a sock of your alleged nemesis.Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• OK, I just came back from a IRC-based help channel. To cut this thing short - as opposed to making allegations: WP:CheckUser. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as though Gretchen Mädelnick is a sockpuppet of Gobbleygook. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(Uninvolved Party) I'd say an ask around IRC would clear that up. If no-one's seen hide nor heir of him then he's lying about IRC and being a sockpuppet is the only way that he could know policies so quickly. If he is confirmed to have been on IRC though then we leave him alone. The fact that he knew what a Sockpuppet is and to come here also needs some thought is questionable though. How could he have known about this conversation unless he was trailing Viriditas? think about it. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 18:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The tin foil hat is strong with you, my [young/old] Padawan. I was about to fulfill your queries, but then I realized it's quite interesting to observe how some parts of the community operates. Let's observe, for example, who you were addressing. You could and should have been aware that I too am reading this page, and therefore instead of producing the questions the way you did, you could have easily asked me all your questions. That by itself would have been a demonstration of basic decency. Or at least you shouldn't have written this entry as if I'm not there. Am I fair mr. MM? It's exactly this lack of courtesy on your end which made me decide not to answer your queries and start to observe instead. Also, thank your for the big compliment. You do realize you gave me at least one? Take care sir. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This was where the whole conversation was, there was no point in splitting it from the main conversation knowing you'd pitter patter along and take a peek. So you take the idea that you are a sockpuppet as a compliment? Well i'm not going to argue with that keeping an AGF Tone in things. The fact that you clearly admit that you have no intentions of answering these will mean that the previously raised concerns remain, if you want people to leave you alone about it then you shall need to answer the questions. That's how real life and Wikipedia work amigo, answer questions and less get asked.

Also please explain what you mean with regards to the tin foil hat? if you don't then i'm going to regard it as a personal attack referring to it as the Dunce cap. That aside I don't have anything against you but from what i'm hearing here i'm really not sure which side to take. Either way you have a good day off-wiki amigo. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 19:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Now suppose you are finally sure which side to take. And suppose that side isn't me. What would be the consequences? Also, why would anyone actually pick a 'side' to begin with? I think you're expressing yourself a bit too aggressive without realizing it - and without bad intentions by the way. Here's another thing: <snip> then we leave him alone. I wonder, who is we, meaning of what part are you to be eligible to speak in terms of 'we' and 'not leaving a person alone'? I'm having fun right here. Aside from your tone and manners, there's another thing that boggles my mind: you weren't addressing me directly yet you expected I'd answer your questions. What exactly made you think you were entitled to an answer from my end this way?Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I entertain you (to an extent). I've been in touch with IRC and they confirmed you were there however they stated you act like a sock. I've never been big on insulting people with good intentions. You're probably right about the 'without realizing it' part too. I simply mean that if the evidence is clear to the contrary that you've been mistaken for an actual threat then the case is dropped, dunno how better to explain it. And as for taking it your talk sorry but this is where it started. As for deserving an answer it's simple, i'm not the only one calling for answers, Viriditas, Jusdafax and James are asking for answers too. If conversation starts going to other places then parts of the case get scrambled. Gretchen, sock or not you've given me a half decent conversation of logic, so thanks. This does beat trying to talk sense into some of the folk I normally deal with, so thanks for a conversation with sense. it's good to know there's a community I can kind of blend into. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 20:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your reaching out has been noted. I will answer all of your queries:

• I noted 'V' mentioned me because when he used my WP:User name I received an e-mail notification. That's how I found out.
• Because I followed the link where 'V' mentioned me, I ended up on this page
• I was here before, but unregistered, to add minor data to Lana Del Rey, Falun Gong, and TheYoungTurks. Nothing big really.
• I noticed I couldn't modify data on the subject of Lana Del Rey, so I had to make a registered account.
• And whilst having a registered account, why not post under that account right?
• And whilst at it, I felt Gobbleygook was in essence right to add additional data to TheYoungTurks, therefore I support him and still do. His history, that I have no part in.
• Arguing whether somebody is a sockpuppet endlessly, is close to instigating behavior. It certainly doesn't demonstrate decency and in my case, as a brand new user, the lack of courtesy was quite something. Therefore I went to the IRC help channel. User Technical_15 (name as visible in IRC) mentioned that an admin could call in the help of a CheckUser. Therefore, to end all discussion, all JamesBWatson needs to do is to call in the help of such a specialist and then all the arguing and whatnot during this quasi-SPI nonsense could end.
• The tin foil hat wasn't a reference to a dunce cap at all. It referred to conspiratory-ish way of handling this.
• Finally, the compliment you gave me was not about me being a possible sock. It was about you implying that I was a fast learner.

If you have more questions, please do ask. Cheers. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a question. Can you explain why Gobbleygook (talk · contribs) stopped editing Wikipedia with his account at 05:31, 21 June 2013 and you, Gretchen Mädelnick, started editing with your registered account at 18:07, 21 June 2013? So far, the entirety of your contribution here has been to edit solely "for" Gobbleygook.[9] Please explain that "coincidence". Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Having some issues with a site that links to my FA article (and my pet project). They are coming up 404 since the county website updated. I can't find the updated links anywhere. Since this is an FA page, is it OK to leave it for a couple or remove the links outright until the county website is updated? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me as though http://archive.is/lSbN may be an archived copy of the page you wanted. Is that right? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one. I seen that one, but wasn't sure if it was a reliable source or not. Glad that it is, cause I wasn't sure what to do. Do I need to change the reference any since it is not on the county website but on Archive.is? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would change the ref to point to the archived page. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you think this will work? I hope the county website gets updated soon, I don't like having archived sources, but beggers can't be choosers. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I really don't like using archived sources, and if and when the original county website makes the source available again, linking to that will be better. However, the most important thing is to show that the source existed, and contained the relevant content, and what you have done seems under present circumstances to be the best you can do. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. It's my first and only FA, so I wasn't sure how to proceed and was (and still am) kinda worried the page might lose it's FA status. I don't want to go through that process again. Oy! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that would be a problem. However, I am no expert on FAs, and you may like to ask someone with more experience in that area. Anyway, congratulations on getting an FA. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas

I've been trying to avoid interacting with him, but I haven't been able to help noticing that despite repeated blocking, User:Viriditas has persisted with:

• edit warring [10][11] [12];
• personal attacks [13][14] [15];
• assumptions of bad faith [16][17] [18] [19]; and
• incivility [20][21] [22] [23][24] [25] [26][27] [28] [29].

Although my attempt was summarily dismissed, I'm hopeful that you can persuade him to focus on editing collegially. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Except, we've never interacted aside from this thread and your warning on my talk page which led to it, so you aren't "avoiding" anything. The only connection you have with me is your personal interaction with and enabling of Gobbleygook. Funny how you and him can't stop following me around and talking about me every chance you get, even though I've attempted to avoid him and his smelly sock friends. I saw this film when it was called Look Who's Trolling. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks, continued: [30] — Bdb484 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of "stop trolling" isn't making sense? Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence here and here. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and what about these coincidences? Should we take that as evidence of sockpuppetry? Or is merely having edited the same pages not really significant evidence? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mumbai Women's International Film Festival

You deleted Mumbai Women's International Film Festival after the article's creator added a bunch of promotional text. I edited an earlier version of the article to remove the promotional text, and noted on the talk page some references that would be worth adding, but that I couldn't as a result of edit conflicts. Could you please restore the most recent version that I edited of the article and its talk page? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have just restored the version of the article that you wrote, leaving out all the versions with copyright infringement and/or promotional text. Actually, in order to avoid the first version on record starting with an incongruous edit summary, referring to changes to a previous version which no longer exists, I have created the article afresh with your text, rather than restoring the deleted revision, but I have given an edit summary attributing it to you. I have also restored the talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect

Hi James, I would like to upblock racingtheplanet and update the contact. It seems that the information is outdated. I would also like to move the information about the parliamentary to the bottom of the page; that's two years old. The company is 11 years old and has staged 40 races to date with about 7000 competitors competing in the events. I also would like to consider moving the events info to the 4 Deserts site as RacingThePlanet is really just an online store and freeze dried food company. The events company is separate and consists of the 4 Deserts Series and the Roving Race. Please advise on how I correct all the information. I am a keen tennis player and general outdoors person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenniswimbledon (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to consider unprotecting the article, but the problematic editing which led to protection went on over a prolonged period, and I need reassurances on a few points before taking action which may risk re-opening the floodgates, particularly since some of your proposed changes are rather similar to the editing which led to the protection. Why does the fact that something happened two years ago reduce its relevance? At Wikipedia:Requests for page protection you made the remark "Very surprising that someone is allowed to vandalise a page": what did you have in mind? What editing do you regard as vandalism? In the same post you referred to the need to make the article "objective". What did you have in mind, and in what way do you regard the present article as subjective? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 08:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

FG591

Thank you for blocking that sock of Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs). We hadn't seen that one for some months, unless he's been stealthy. Can his underlying IP(s) be blocked for a while? Or would it affect too broad a range? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be better to ask a checkuser. I did try checking for recent IP edits in a range covering IP addresses that this editor is known to have used, but at present there is some problem with toolserver, so I haven't been able to run the check. Without that check I am not prepared to place an IP block on a range which, for all I know, might not have been used by this editor for a month and a half, and might meanwhile have been used hundreds of times by legitimate editors. In any case, even if I could run that check, it would only tell me about anonymous IP edits, not about the IP addresses that the accounts have edited from, and only a checkuser can see that information. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have now managed to check the IP range in question, namely 110.174.0.0/18. There are many edits that don't look remotely as if they are by this editor, all the recent edits seem to be made in good faith, and some of them are even constructive, so a block on that range is out of the question. However, as I said above, that shows nothing at all about whatever IP addresses the sockpuppet accounts have been editing from, so you may still want to try asking a checkuser. My experience suggests that checkusers tend to be reluctant to investigate in cases like this one, but you can try if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I know the IP area is touchy. Another editor (who had shared my suspicions) re-opened Bowei Huang's SPI. I doubt they'll block an IP range, and the guy's IP seems to bounce around. But he may have thought after a few months that we would forget him. 'Taint necessarily so! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Duncan James

You deleted the above as a creation of a banned user and I have recreated it as a valid category (along with 3 others, but not all the categories you deleted). Therefore the only resultant changes are the name of the creator and history, but then there's the work I have done to recreate. I do wonder who has suffered most here. Is it the user who appears to have no concern for WP or the regular contributor over a number of years? Quite a conundrum. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you really wonder, or is that supposed to be irony? I have thought about these categories, and decided that it probably wasn't worth deleting them. JamesBWatson (talk)

A little ironic. It seems we both have wasted our time. I understand where the quidelines come from about banned users and have no real wish to overturn, but surely the guidelines could encourage commonsense too. If the nomination for speedy and the deletion were just a hour or two longer I would have happily raised an objection on the talk page! --Richhoncho (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a situation I had never been in before, and, seeing a string of pages proposed for speedy deletion, I made the same checks on their histories that I would have done for articles, and, finding that they were indeed created by a blocked user, I went ahead. By the time I came to the end of the deletions, I had thought about it much more, and decided that categories such as these are a very different matter from articles. I shall take a different line if I find something similar again. I agree with you that the result of this is a waste of time for both of us, and I apologise. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I am more than happy that I know you won't automatically delete. That's good result. FWIW My gander was raised yesterday with another category that was deleted even though I contested with the same arguments as above. Cheers. Happy editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Maraschino

Hi JamesBWatson, you have just reverted my edit because it made a nonsense. I am sorry for my poor English, I am not a native speaker. I reverted and added a note in the history to make it clearer. The meaning is: most of the producers moved from Zara to Italy for several reasons, one of them is the persecution of partisan. I hope now the meaning is clear and if it isn't please help me and reword the sentence. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.77.109 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong. I initially looked at your edit rather hastily, and now that I have looked more carefully I see that it did not make nonsense of the sentence at all, and I apologise. (There was one small error, in that in English we say "most of the family", rather than "the most of the family", but that could easily have been corrected without removing what you wrote.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits

Thank you for your attention. The links you removed were updates. One was a new link to the EU directives site, the link now showing no longer exists I was correcting an error. The other links were for educational benefit. One was a link to show where to study at an accredited university and the other directing users to the site to show how to become a Chartered professional. Jjhparks Jjhparks (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what links, where? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Elevators again

User:John of Reading/CSD log#July 2013, if you're still interested. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

...though, reassuringly, not all "elevator" edits at the current events pages are bad: diff. This IP geolocates to New Zealand so it's not related. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that, statistically, out of all the legitimate edits to current events pages, sooner or later there are bound to be occasional ones relating to elevators. As far as the vandalism page you mentioned is concerned, I see that the same page was created over a year ago by an IP address very close to the one that created it this time. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And again, I'm afraid. Portal talk:Current events/2010 July 17. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Brian Sherratt Footballer

Hi James

Thank you for bringing it to my attention about editing. I am new to Wikipedia, and unsure of how it works. I have only signed in as my father, Brian has recently seen the page on his career, and became upset at the comments written about him that were sourced from the newspaper article in the Guardian.

I understood that Wikipedia was a resource of constructive information and facts, and the sentence that we would ask to be deleted, is not constructive, it is destructive, and not a fact as he has never given any interviews to a reporter from the Guardian. It was bad enough to read it in a newspaper, on one day, bur for it also to be published permanently on a website is another.

We would ask that this be reassessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstys1209 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have checked the source more carefully than I did before, and I now see that the Guardian journalists did not even say that your father said what the Wikipedia article claims: they merely said that someone had "written in" and claimed that he had said it. That is not by any means a reliable source, so I have removed the claim from the Wikipedia article. We can't accept statements on the basis of a claim from some unknown member of the public in a letter to a newspaper, any more than we can accept statements on the basis of some unknown member of the public posting it to Wikipedia. Thanks for calling this to my attention, and please feel welcome to contact me again if you need more help, either with this incident or with anything else, if you decide to edit Wikipedia again. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

POS

Hi, Just wanted to let you know i removed the EPOS section from retail industry as it did not seem to be the right place for the section also the term EPOS is not truly what we might want to use for such POS systems. I know you tried to salvage most of the content there but I had to remove it due to lack of context in that section. Please let me know your thoughts if any.  A m i t  ❤  18:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right. I was highly dubious about the whole thing, and although I gave it the benefit of as much doubt as I could, I thought all along that all of it should probably be removed. Knowing that you think so too confirms me in that belief. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Improper behavior/comments

Hi JamesBWatson. I've came here for a different concern this time. I see that Retrolord has got into arguments with editors and admins in the recent past. As far as I'm concerned, I posted a comment at their talk page that was closed just after they were somewhat modified, bolding a portion of it. I did take no action there, nor here, as this last post at my talk page was immediately withdrawn. A case that warrants tracking this user's contributions? If not, sorry for bothering you. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think it's fairly accurate to say that there is already a certain number of experienced editors, including several admins, who are keeping a watchful eye over Retrolord's edits, and who are ready to intervene and offer him any help to avoid contentious issues between the knights in shining armour of Wikipedia. May he be spared a meteor shower on his castle! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite note down the bottom that I did manage to stumble across this discussion, but thank all involved parties retrospectively for notfying me of it. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I did get a good chuckle out of Kudpung's post though. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is zero requirement to advise you of this discussion - this is not a formal noticeboard, and if 2 (or more) editors wish to discuss your edits, they may do so freely. Echo might advise you of it ... or you may stumble on it ... but they're not required to tell you about it. Indeed, one might learn more by watching without commenting (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly a good idea Bwilkins, Thankyou. ★★RetroLord★★ 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

They're back

Maybe an indef and page salt? :) Dusti^*poke* 16:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The account had already been indef-blocked long before I got there. Page salting yes, if it is re-created, but past performance suggests that it will be a brand new page that will be created next, in which case salting the old one will be pointless. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Warning the IP

Thanks for warning 115.147.70.46, I forgot about the policy on indeffing IP's. As I noted, this case is unusual in that it features systematic vandalism of the captions of theatrical release posters of movies, all from 2007-2008. I noticed that the edits stopped as soon as I posted my own Talk page warning. This type of vandalism is mild but fairly insidious, and I reverted all 16 of the movie article edits. There are other edits to a TV news show in the Philippines where the IP edits from, and I will take a look at them tomorrow if no one else does first. You said he has edited elsewhere under another IP number? Mind-numbing. Jusdafax 11:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am still investigating, but so far I have found the following 7 IP addresses that have been used by this editor: 115.147.64.142, 115.147.67.112, 115.147.68.4, 115.147.70.46, 115.147.70.133, 115.147.71.138, 115.147.71.145, with the earliest edits that I have found dating from April of this year, and he/she has removed references to theatrical release posters from a huge number of articles. There may well be many more. Unfortunately, this sort of case is difficult to deal with. Blocking individual IP addresses will have limited effect on an editor who frequently changes IP address. Unfortunately the range covered by the IP addresses used also includes edits which don't seem to be by this editor, and some of which may be considered vaguely constructive, so that a range block for anything but a very short time is unattractive. I can and will block any IP address that I know continues to do this, now that unequivocal warning has been given, and I am willing to consider short-term range blocks too. Sometimes, a few IP blocks, making the editor have to keep finding new IP addresses frequently, will inconvenience a disruptive editor enough to discourage them, and if they find that every edit they make is quickly reverted that can help to discourage them too. However, I'm afraid all too often they just keep on IP-hopping. In any case, if you see any more of the same thing, please revert and also let me know, so that at least I can try. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no attachment to the captions, as they seem an almost gratuitous addition, but possibly helpful to some readers who are unfamiliar with the nature of official promotional film posters. I confess a larger interest in the psychology behind the massive effort that goes into such vandalism. Some years ago I ran across a dedicated effort to slightly change sports stats and album chart positions. It was ongoing, and partly hidden by some useful edits. It was eventually dealt with after a great deal of editor time was sucked up. This appears to be something similar. I will continue to look into this case as well but now have a sinking feeling about it. Thanks for your own time on this. Jusdafax 11:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now found that this goes back at least as far as February: that is as far as I have checked. See Special:Contributions/115.147.64.36. However, more interesting is the fact that I have found edits from the same IP range early in the year that were adding the caption "Theatrical release poster" to articles. See, for example, this edit, this one ,this one and this one. This makes me wonder if it is an editor who added those captions, has now changed his or her mind, and is simply reverting his/her own edits. If so, if only he/she had taken the trouble to say so in a brief edit summary, it would have saved you and me time and trouble. Anyway, for now I have spent enough time on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Me too but I'll take another look tomorrow. Adding the captions, ugh. As you may recall I used to be a lot more active in anti-vandalism. After a while the deeply weird ones, like this case, got to me. Jusdafax 12:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been reported

I don't appreciate your maliciousness in blocking me. I have taken my complaint about you further up the food chain so we can sort this mess out. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you didn't alter my contributions. --GrantMcLMcLachlan (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

1. I have never blocked the account GrantMcLMcLachlan, so it looked on the face of it as though you may be stating that you are evading a block on another account. It took just a minute of checking to confirm that that is indeed the case, so I will now block your account.
2. I have never blocked any account out of malice. Indeed, I even took some time and trouble writing a detailed explanation of the reason for the block, in the hope that it would help you to avoid repeating the problems which led to the block. I would not have spent my time doing that had I been acting out of malice: I would have just spent a few seconds posting a standard ready-made block notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI user is now blocked. ★★RetroLord★★ 16:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had, in fact, just discovered that, and was coming back here to say "One small correction to the above: I will not now block your account, as someone else beat me to it." JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

One more comment before I log off. The answer to "I would appreciate if you didn't alter my contributions" is that every time you edit a Wikipedia article you are confronted by a notice that says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". If you are not willing to accept that condition then you should not edit Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

WorldTraveller101

Hi James. I was wondering if you were aware WorldTraveller's page is currently fully protected? The idea was that people would stop contacting him, so that he would stop editing here. Worm^TT(talk) 12:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't realise, but with hindsight I should have realised, as the editing area was pink when I edited, but I didn't stop to think about it. Thanks for letting me know. Anyway, I will leave my message there, because it is a useful record for the future. JamesBWatson (talk)

On second thoughts, I have reverted my edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

vishwakarma institute of management

james could you please review my page of vishwakarma institute of management and see if that is from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammybackinaction (talk • contribs) 04:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Message from Taoism74

left you a message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoism74 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I posted a message on my talk page. I am done with the charmed page but I do want to address a situation with you concerning 114.77.238.179 who posted this on my talk page "Now stop changing the theme song or I will report you to Wikipedia admins and have you blocked". I take this as a threat. if 114.77.238.179 leaves me alone I will leave this person alone hope this matter can be resovled and no one is blocked

Thanks Taoism74 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoism74 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You say that you are "done with" with article, but in fact you have been continuing your edit war there, without logging in, via a proxy, so you have been blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Emsisoft Anti-Malware page deleted!

Dear, I am not affiliated by Emsisoft and i am not advertising. I am an Emsisoft Employee, i have to update the Emsisoft Anti-Malware and that's what i am doing. You can see that the initial page was too old. I updated and added more info. Nothing more. Please understand. Best Regards, Aldi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldi Duzha - Emsisoft (talk • contribs) 11:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Aldi, in case you do come back, take a look at this page and you'll start to get it hopefully. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed article

What is the problem with Apitron Pdf rasterizer article? what does it mean - very close paraphrase? What should be changed? H4242 (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

H4242 (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

While you were posting this message, I was writing a message on your talk page, which may perhaps go some way towards answering this query. You may also find Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explaing then what is the difference between this article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitro_PDF H4242 (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, let me caution you against assuming that because an article exists on Wikipedia, it must satisfy Wikipedia's standards. Thousands of unsuitable articles are created, and while most of them are deleted pretty quickly, some of them escape unnoticed for a long time. You may find it helpful to read WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Having said that, I have looked at the article you mention. It is very poor, and contains no evidence at all of notability. However, such evidence does exist, although nobody has added it to the article. The article was nominated for deletion a few months ago, but in the course of discussion of that nomination numerous sources were provided, and goodness knows why one or more of the people involved in the discussion didn't take the trouble to add them to the article. Even without looking at that discussion, in a few seconds' worth of Google search I found links to sources that looked at a glance as though they would probably establish notability, whereas a much longer time searching for your product failed to produce anything that looked even remotely likely. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit War Warning

Hi there. I was removing vandalism that the offender kept on adding. This stopped ages ago and I requested banning of the user. DoyleyTalk 10:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Why was it vandalism? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Ruturaj Prajapati

I don't understand why you deleted this userpage under G11. The page had little if any promotional content. Perhaps the page should have been deleted as a fake article, but that is an issue for MFD not speedy deletion.

I also don't understand why you indef blocked the user as an advertizing-only account. The user had made a useful edit to one article and tried to make a useful edit (coding a TOC by hand) to another. Perhaps the user should be given a short block for removing speedy tags. (But considering the bitey treatment he received from Harry the Dirty Dog, even that might be excused.) I think this is a potentially useful editor. —teb728 t c 11:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he received "bitey" treatment. It was clear from the outset that he and the other account in his father's name were here primarily if not solely to promote themselves as non-notable people. I was very patient with User:Ruturaj Prajapati and was content for the user page to remain as long as it had a "User page" tag on it (which I did not add it should be noted). It was made quite clear to him that if he persisted in removing that tag the page would be nominated for deletion, since clearly he was trying to make it look like he had a Wikipedia article. He did persist in removing it and the page was nominated. It's as simple as that. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

1. The user page served no purpose that I can see other than self-promotion.
2. Out of a total 189 edits, it is possible to find a couple that are not attempts at self-promotion. I don't feel that substantially detracts from the "promotion only" nature of the account. Nevertheless, I have thought carefully about what you have said, and I will reduce the block length and change the block message. We will then see whether the user then edits differently or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks James, that sounds like a good compromise. When he is unblocked I will keep a watching brief but I will refrain from intervening on the assumption that others will act if there is any further promotional activity. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal opinion

Isn't this just an opinion [31]? And if so... perhaps you could explain that to user Matze-bepy123 [32].-68.75.18.106 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edijs Joksts

Please restore this article (Edijs Joksts) at my user page. Thanks --Dark Eagle (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a mere stub, with almost no content, but it's now at User:Dark Eagle/Edijs Joksts. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, now you can delete this..) --Dark Eagle (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Completing the square

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Quietbritishjim's talk page.
Message added 15:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You blocked the wrong editor

Please review User:Lugia2453 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Thanks anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that it was my mistake. It seems that it may have been a software bug that caused the block to land on the wrong account. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another elevator

See User:John of Reading/CSD log#July 2013 - do you still want me to tell you about these? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It's up to you. Telling me each time probably has the small advantage of reducing the average time a vandalism page remains in existence, because if I am online I may delete the page quicker than would happen if it has to wait in the speedy deletion list for an admin to find it. Also, since I know the history, I don't need to spend time looking into it, so it saves some other admin a bit of time. Other than that, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference. Whenever you report this to me I always check ranges of IP addresses, and place short-term range blocks if there are no recent constructive edits in the range involved. That may possibly slightly reduce the frequency of the vandalism, but I don't suppose it achieves much, against a vandal who keeps coming back at fairly long intervals. So, feel welcome to keep telling me if you like, and I will do what I can, but if you don't feel like bothering then it wan't be a big deal. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

the page previously known as Masterclock

This page was deleted on the premise it was a shameless attempt at advertisement or shilling.. I would argue, this is a company listing, same as Symmetricom, BEA, IBM, Infravio, etc; see pages referencing masterclock such as SMPTE please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacon76 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

1. It was deleted because it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". There was no suggestion that it was "shameless": that is your choice of word.
2. I honestly have no knowledge at all of the word "shilling" except as an obsolete unit of money once used in various countries, but in the context it is clear that is not what you mean. I looked the word "shill" up in Wiktionary, and found that there are several meanings, the only one that looks relevant being "To promote or endorse in return for payment, especially dishonestly". I have no reason at all to suppose that the promotion was done dishonestly, and I have never made any suggestion one way or the other as to whether it was done for payment, only that it was promotion. It certainly read as promotion to FreeRangeFrog, who nominated the article for deletion, and when I reviewed the nomination I agreed.
3. At a quick glance through the article IBM I failed to notice any of the marketing-speak that was present in Masterclock, but if you have seen any that I have missed please remove it. I have not checked the other articles you mention.
4. Over the years in which I have been involved with Wikipedia, I have found that the only people who refer to Wikipedia articles as "listings", like those who call them "profiles" or "presences", are people who come here with the purpose of using Wikipedia to publicise their company or other organisation. Nobody else ever uses any of those words to refer to an article.
5. Seeing this message from you has prompted me to review the rest of your edits. I have found that twice you have added links to a website associated with the company you have promoted, in both cases in articles where they have only marginal relevance. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello James and thank you for he prompt reply. I did not mean to sound aggressive in my last note, but I see where it may have been interpreted that way and apologize if I did so. Bacon 22:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Bacon76

Blocked proxies

Hi. An IP left this message on my Wikivoyage account (because it is blocked here). I'm not a technical guy and some of these accounts are blocked as proxies while others as socks so could you take a look and see if there is some merit in this? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 20:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have commented about this at WP:ANI#Uninvolved_review_requested. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't we use to have a bot that took care of the proxy IPs? What happened to that? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Parting gift

Please restore into my user space. - Altenmann >t 01:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't think why, since the page contains no significant content, and you didn't touch it in the two and a half years it spent in the article incubator waiting to be improved, but I have done it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Baker & McKenzie

I see you tagged this as advertorial. I agree (it's been almost entirely created by firm members). I copyedited the lede and the History section, but I'm more at a loss as to what to do with the rest of the article. Perhaps you could use a judicious hand and trim, consolidate, or gut/cite/date some of the other sections/items. (I have this article on my Watch list because in the past they have tried to expunge or bury mention of Geoffrey Bowers.) Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

IP Spamming

Thanks, i've added most of the articles to my watch list and see how it goes. Ward20 (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Angels Den

Dear James B Watson,

I recently uploaded a page entitled "Angels Den".

It got deleted for the reason " advertisement'.

I am not related to Angels Den, I am however passionated by the industry. Knowing of the wikipedia rules, I followed to the letter the model of companies of the same industry that happen to have a page on wikipedia.

I may thus ask why makes you that it is for advertisement purposes? I was really cautious to adopt a sober tone as well as backing up every single one of my sources.

Sincerely,

Rhâmusker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhamusker (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

To me, language such as "Angels Den connects business owners looking for funding with Business Angels who are high-net-worth individuals" reads like marketing copy. However, looking back at the article, I don't see it as really blatant spam, so I have restored it, to give you a chance to work on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a chance, I will ameliorate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhamusker (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ecstatic love for Krishna

Can you please explain more detailed why the page Ecstatic love for Krishna was deleted. The reason for deletion was provided as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The article listed the features of Ecstatic love for Krishna which are described in ISKCON holy scriptures. Why this article was ascribed as advertising or promotion? What needs to be fixed in this article? Omnidexterous (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The whole article read as an attempt to promote the view of an organisation called "International Society for Krishna Consciousness". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with ISKCON organization in any way, so I had no intention to promote views of ISKCON. From scientific point of view the features of ecstatic love for Krishna fully match epilepsy criteria, from Christian point of view features of Ecstatic love for Krishna match demonic possession criteria, and ISKCON organization considers them as divine ecstatic love for Krishna. Ecstatic love for Krishna is the highest spiritual state in ISKCON organization, ecstatic love for Krishna is the ultimate goal for ISKCON members which means that ecstatic love for Krishna has encyclopedic importance. What needs to be fixed in the article in order to avoid label "advertising or promotion"? Omnidexterous (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it read to me as written from the point of view of a believer in the religion, rather than from the neutral point of view of an outside observer. For example, I find it hard to read a statement that someone "was experiencing all symptoms of ecstatic love for Krishna in his visions in which he saw Krishna" as anything other than expressing the point of view of a believer in the religion. However, I will restore the article, and give you a chance to rewrite from a more neutral point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Some small changes added to the article. Are these changes enough to avoid label "advertising or promotion"? Another question: who has the right to remove copyright issue label: only admins can remove that label or can I remove that label myself? Omnidexterous (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Northamerica1000. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Dunjeon Station, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

301man

Hello JamesBWatson :

There's no COI between me and Epiphany Eyewear. You have followed my editing and accused me of things in the past. So, please respond on my talk page and the article's talk page with valid, reliable and specific evidence regarding your current assumptions and accusations.

Also, please read Talk page title "May 2013" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:301man#May_2013) as documentation of any history with the subject. There's nothing covert. Everything I've done has been documented openly online.

According to information I found in Help, when a COI tag is placed, the person placing the tag also is obligated to include an explanation for placing the tag. I have not seen any explanation for the tag. The Help section also advises editors to remove tags if they believe they are wrongly placed or after the article is edited. The article was edited, cleaned up, and unnecessary content removed prior to its creation. In its present state, it is written using a NPOV sticking strictly to facts found in notable cites and references.

Looking forward to hearing from you so we can get the tag removed.

Thank you. 301man (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of ever having "accused" you of anything, but if I have please remind me when and where. As for the conflict of interest, apart form your editing predominantly on one person and his business, and sometimes doing so in a rather promotional way, there is the fact that you have stated that you have been given photographs by him, with permission to use them on Wikipedia, which suggests that you have some connection with the person you have been writing about.

You say "There's nothing covert. Everything I've done has been documented openly online." I am not sure why you think it necessary to state that, since to the best of my knowledge nobody has suggested that anything you have done is "covert". However, since you have chosen to raise that issue, let me point out that the accounts you have given have contradicted one another. For example, you claimed that the subject of some photographs gave the photographs to you, but at a different time you claimed to have taken the photographs yourself. You claimed to have come across mention of the person you have been writing about while doing "research" for other contributions to Wikipedia, and found it interesting, so that you checked further and wrote about him. However, at a different time you claimed that your first knowledge of him came from having met him. I don't know who you are, where you are, or what the extent of the connection you have with the subjects you have written about, but I do know that there is enough to give a clear impression that you may well have a close connection with them, and you yourself have stated that you have met the person in question a number of times. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 301man's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I understand your thinking. I believe you've misconstrued what I've said though. I made a lot of mistakes when I first started working with the Wikipedia format. There's still an infinite amount of new information to learn. With help from Administrators like yourself, I'm learning. Thanks for your patience.

I look at my life as a straight line and people zig-zag through it. I don't seek out many people. We intersect by chance. In life, I've learned the right people show up at the right time for no apparent reason, and I've also learned there are no coincidences. I've traveled the world, and I know people everywhere; mega-billionaire-rich throughout California, in Hollywood and the Silicon Valley, and dirt-poor in Guatemala and India. I don't understand why who I am, where I am and what I do has anything to do with Wikipedia. If topics I find interesting are already on Wikipedia, and I have something to add, I do it. Otherwise, I read them, smile and move on. Volunteers put much effort into their work here, and it should be honored, and in most cases appreciated. I can fully understand where you are coming from in your point of view about people promoting for self aggrandizement and using the Wikipedia system for promotional purposes, but in my case, it's not true. I'm a retired Contractor with an interest in many subjects, and of lately, new technology which may help people. The serendipitous coincidence of lives crossing over my many years of travel and work throughout California has nothing to do with what I do on Wikipedia because there's no COI with any of the subjects I choose to edit or create.

When I discovered there was no topic for something I found interesting I did some research and decided to see if I could do it. Being new to Wikipedia editing, I had no idea, I'd be working with Administrators more than working on the subject matter. All of my correspondence with Administrators has furthered my knowledge for becoming a better editor. Had the Epiphany Eyewear topic been on Wikipedia, I probably would not have done anything more than read it, smile, and move on, but there was no article for the topic so I took a stab at it.

I appreciate you taking the time to read "May 2013" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:301man#May_2013) because it's a perfect example of how people intersect in life by chance.

Please help me learn how we can move forward to remove the COI tag on the page. Your assistance with this matter is appreciated. Thank you, 301man (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I have looked back at the article, and decided that, whether there is a conflict of interest or not, there doesn't seem to be any significant problem with the article in its present form, so I have removed the tag. Having thought it through, I now think it was a mistake tagging the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It's been a pleasure working with you and learning. I hope our paths cross again. 301man (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 13:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC).

• (One more) Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC).

Seen, and replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Hannah Montana episodes protection

Hi JamesBWatson, I see that you indefinitely full protected List of Hannah Montana episodes after some heavy vandalism two years ago. Do you think that the full protection is still needed? Would you be willing to switch to semi-protection? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Full protection must have been a mistake. The reason I gave for protection referred to a "persistent IP vandal", and I can't possibly have intended full protection against an IP vandal. It horrifies me to find that this slip has gone uncorrected for so long. Thanks for calling my attention to it, so that I can put it right. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Laurieds

It is the BLP aspect of G10 that I more intended. It is giving out a name plus Internet IDs. I think we should error on the safe side with this one.I am One of Many (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to suggest to her that she refrain from giving out such personal details, that might be a good idea. However, as far as I know there is no basis for deleting a user page of an adult user because the user chooses to tell us their real name and the fact that they have used the same user name on other web sites. You may like to suggest that she request deletion by posting {{db-user}} on the page, but it will be up to her whether she takes up the suggestion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)