User talk:JBW/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

FCPS No Contact Rule

The other editor insists on the article the way it is. It is not NPOV. I added a section, as it was suggested I do, that presents the other side, with cites. He still removes it. I don't understand how this is allowed to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.18.218 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is still no consensus although the addition is neutral. An admin put an edit block on the page. It seems to me your involvement before was NPOV. Can you please have a look again? 71.91.18.218 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Fairfax_County_Public_Schools#Response_to_a_request_for_help. I hope my response has been helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback January 18

{{Talkback|Mlaffs|Proposed deletion of WCSD-LP}}

Query from Sreenikethaathreya1998

Sreenikethaathreya1998 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)where do u live?Sreenikethaathreya1998 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Why do you ask?
2. Have you edited under any other user name, or anonymously? I see the above message is the only edit from this account, and it seems a surprising query with no context in relation to other editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous post apparently about User:David Steele Searacer

Thanks james, So the $1000.00 I donated to Wikipedia will be refunded .Yes? Or do stop payment on it ? you must make lots of money in donates if this is how you treat people that try to help. MaryAnn Smith(Steele) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.84.227 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not have the remotest idea what you were talking about were it not for the fact that your edit history shows that you have made several edits to David Steele Searacer. I am not sure what you mean by "how [I] treat people": I have tried to explain as courteously as I can to an inexperienced editor why his editing is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. It is also far from clear to me how he has "tried to help": all I see is repeated attempts to use Wikipedia to publish promotional material about himself. However, perhaps I am missing something: if so please explain what. I have known new Wikipedia editors before who have started out falling foul of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but whom I have been able to help, and I am certainly willing to do the same again for anyone who is willing to learn, so please let me know if there is any more help I can give. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Alliance for Animals page

Hello I am trying to put up a page for Alliance for Animals, a non profit organization, that is a no kill animal shelter. I know that many are interested in its content, and I was planning on building the site to have history of the organization, its mission, etc. Please put the tag down. Thank you.

Sunshfp (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the start made so far consists only of providing contact information. I will delete that, and also for the moment I will remove the speedy deletion tag to give you a chance to write an article. I wish you every success in improving the article, but you should realise that the article will still be eventually deleted if it continues to look as though its main purpose is to promote the organisation. I shall also put a welcome message on your user talk page, which will include links to various pages which may be of help. You cannot be expected to read them all before starting, but you should at least be aware of "What Wikipedia is not" and of the guidelines on notability. Also you should check the copyright FAQ. If you have any questions please feel welcome to ask me here. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello thank you for the time. Can you let me know how much time I have, since I am working on a few major projects at the moment? Thank you. Sunshfp (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned I am willing to leave the article for quite a while, say a month or so. However, there is no way I can promise that another editor may not find the article and decide it needs deletion at any time. I will put a note on the article's talk page asking for sympathy. I think there is a Wikipedia template to put at the top of an article for this sort of situation, but I have never used it and don't remember what it is called. If I can find it I'll put that there too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're thinking of {{Underconstruction}}? I've added one to the article. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That will do the job. I vaguely thought there was a different template which fitted the circumstances more precisely, but probably I had just misremembered what {{Underconstruction}} said. Thanks anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

2006-07 Victoria Salmon Kings season

• Hi is it possible that this page be reinstated. If the the actual written article is copyright infringement that is fine to erase, but the entire page is not acceptable, since the majority of the information are done in the same manner as the other professional team season pages. I worked hard to set up everything including season schedule game log and transactions, which is not easy to locate on the web concerning ECHL teams. I will take blame for the copyright of written material since, because I was still working on the page and forgot to show proper references and it is really dumb on my part since Wikipedia follows certain rules concerning that. But I don't feel that deleting the entire page is acceptable, since this information will not be available after this season on the internet considering the ECHL will remove any important information from its website after this season.

Thanks--Waseemg (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have also posted this message to the user talk page of Deb, who deleted the article. I expect Deb will userfy the article so that you can work on it. If this has not been done within a couple of days contact me again here and I will follow it up. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi James, Deb sent me the following message that "The rules are complicated but I hope you will understand that I don't have the option to restore the page for you." on 12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC). I would like that page to be restored with the exception of the season summary text or to gain permission to input the information all over again. Thanks Waseemg (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment on Deb's page regarding this - if she doesn't mind then I'm happy to restore the non-prose parts of the article for you. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Olaf, that's exactly what I hoped some admin would do. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

David Lichtenstein

why is it important to have david lichtenstein's residence location posted on his wikpedia page. i think that would come under the category of invading his privacy. just because one of his addresses is listed on the loan documents doesn't mean that anyone looking on wikpedia has to know where he lives! can't you just leave it alone? Thetrueword88 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I find this message quite disingenuous. You repeatedly posted a statement as to where Lichtenstein lived, and did not regard it as invasion of privacy. You asked for sources confirming that the location other editors had substituted was correct, and so I provided them. Only after that has been done, in response to your request, have you changed your line to "publishing where he lives is an invasion of privacy". This is exactly similar to the way you changed your mind on the existence of an article about Lichtenstein. You will recall that you said that he "is a private person", and did not want information about him to be made public, despite the fact that you have been a major contributor to the article, and the fact that Lichtenstein's company's web site publishes a very large amount of personal information about him.

Your own editing of the article has consisted almost entirely of two elements: removing information about him which shows him in a negative light, frequently well-sourced, and inserting material which is highly promotional of him. Much of the material you have added looks far more like the sort of thing one reads in an advertising brochure than in an encyclopedia article. A good deal of it is completely unsourced, and much of it, although given sources, is no more than the personal opinion of a not particularly notable individual. It is perfectly clear that your aim in editing this article is promotion of its subject. At least one other editor has suggested that you are in fact Lichtenstein, and it is quite clear that if you are not then you are someone with close connection to him. It is very difficult indeed to avoid the conclusion that when you protest about "a private person", and about "invading his privacy" what you are really objecting to is publishing information which you (and Lichtenstein, if that is not you) do not want to be prominent.

I strongly recommend that you read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, reliable sources, and notability, and the policy on what Wikipedia is not, particularly the section relating to using Wikipedia for promotional purposes.

Wikipedia is not for promotion. People who are subjects of Wikipedia articles cannot control what the articles contain: they do not own the articles, and cannot ensure that the articles contain only information which they want promulgated. You clearly have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing this article.

You will recall that what prompted me to write this was your claim that including information about where Lichtenstein lives was "invading his privacy". Since the information is publicly available I do not see that as the case, quite apart from the fact that this view, as I have indicated, sits ill with the fact that you have repeatedly placed a statement about where he lives into the article. Furthermore, your question "why is it important to have david lichtenstein's [sic] residence location posted on his wikpedia page?" could just as well be addressed to you, since, as I have already reminded you, you have more than once posted a statement about where he lives in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I realise now that in the above message I didn't actually answer your question. Sorry about that, and now here is an answer: it is not important to have Lichtenstein's residence location in the article, but if it is to be there it must be accurate. Putting misinformation in Wikipedia articles is not acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More Go players

Since you seem to know a fair bit about this area, please look at User talk:CanbekEsen where DASHbot listed some 80 biographies, many of which appear to be Go players. Thanks, Pcap ping 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Subex

I was updating the information from www.subexworld.com to subex wikipedia. As I work Subex, Bangalore I was updating the information on wikipedia. So I was not violating the guidelines. So it is an OBJECTIVE PROSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhay.kolhar (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you were acting against several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Firstly, the material you added was quite unambiguously of a promotional nature, and Wikipedia does not accept promotion or advertising. Secondly, the fact that you work for Subex means that you have a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia strongly discourages any editing of an article in which you have a conflict of interest. Thirdly, if the material was copied from www.subexworld.com then it is a breach of copyright, unless you have evidence that the owner of the copyright has given permission for free use of the material under the terms of Wikipedia's licensing arrangements. Since www.subexworld.com displays the notice "© 2009 Subex Limited. All Rights Reserved" on every page I think it unlikely that they are willing to give permission for its free use, but in any case the onus is on you to show that this has been done. I shall post on your talk page a welcome notice, containing links to various Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc: you may find some of them useful in understanding how Wikipedia works. Please feel welcome to ask me if there is any other help I can give. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Abhay.kolhar (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I was not violating the guidelines, I was pasting the contents from subex website(www.subexworld.com) to wikipedia.

I work for subex so I was updating the content.

Abhay.kolhar (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)So can I continue with editing of Subex Wikipedia from my company website www.subexworld.com.

As Subex is my company, We have to update information about Subex on wikipedia. So it is an OBJECTIVE PROSE.

Rgds Abhay

Abhay.kolhar (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to see how I can make this any clearer than I have done above. However, I shall try to clarify a few points.

1. It is emphatically not true that because you work for Subex you have to edit the article about Subex. In fact the exact opposite is true: Wikipedia policy strongly discourages you from editing an article about a company you work for, as you will have a conflict of interest.
2. There is no way that your editing could reasonably be described as "updating" information. You have added substantial amounts of new text, far longer than the entire length of the article before you edited it, and including material on topics not mentioned before.
3. I do not know what you mean by "objective prose", but the material you have added is entirely promotional in nature. Since you wrote it yourself I find it hard to understand how you can be unaware of that fact, but here are a few quotations to illustrate the promotional nature of your editing:

• Learn about our suite of breakthrough service fulfillment products.
• Learn how our suite of revenue maximization products offer you the ability to manage and reduce risks to the revenue chain and maximize operational efficiency.
• Moneta is highly effective in both traditional circuit-switched and Next Generation packet-switched service environment.
• Vector is a complete catalog-driven service fulfillment solution that enables service providers to ... better serve customers with on-demand offerings and support; drive costs out of their business through greater automation.
• By ensuring quick, reliable service fulfillment, NetProvision accelerates time-to-market for new offerings and facilitates mass-market efficiencies, while supporting crucial network transformation projects.

And so it goes on. If you really cannot see that this is the sort of writing that appears in advertising copy, not in encyclopedia articles, then you may possibly not be suited to the task of writing encyclopedia articles on ahything, whether you have a conflict of interest or not. JamesBWatson (talk)

Abhay.kolhar (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)So we understand the Wikipedia guidelines, so we will abide by that.

Regards AbhayHi,

I think I have made necessary changes what you wanted and you also edited the document, then why the message is appearing at the top of the subex encyclopedia page.

Regards Abhay Abhay.kolhar (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean the "multiple issues" template at the top of the article Subex. I should have thought that the question would have been better addressed to the editor who placed that template there. I should also have thought that most of it was self-explanatory. For example "It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications" means just what it says: there are no sources given apart from the company's own press releases etc. Likewise "It may contain improper references to self-published sources". Then we have "It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view": although some of the most blatantly promotional language in early versions of the article has gone, it still does not read as an objective view. If you cannot see that, then it seems to me that this is strong confirmation of a well-established fact: someone closely involved in a topic is likely to be unable to see things on that topic from an impartial perspective, and is likely to be blind to the fact that coverage is from a limited point of view. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia's strongly discourages editing by anyone with a conflict of interest, as I have pointed out before, but which you have decided to ignore.

This thread was started by a post from you on my talk page. However, it has now grown considerably, and, since it is really more to do with your editing than mine, I am copying it to your talk page. I suggest that any further discussion on this should be on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Comments Regarding Chales A. Williams III PhD

Your comments about Charles A. Williams, III PhD are often nitpicky and short sighted. Given that he has been quoted, three times, within the past month, on a single subject, by newspapers in one of America's largest media markets, makes it notable; this does not happen for most of the 300 million people residing within the United States. Specifically, this creates a pattern, which justifies much of the content related to his interest and working with abused and neglected children cited on his wiki page. Did you also miss an entire news segment committed to his work,on the highest rated news network in Philadelphia - ABC 6, which is cited on his page? Also, not everybody has the opportunity to testify before legislative committees. Typically, staffs of these committees identify people who are considered, "notable" to participate. Lastly, most “notable” comments, found in articles, are merely a few lines. If you’d like, I could provide millions of examples. So, your comments to that end are also a bit off the mark.

By the way, we will be adding more press citations, which will only contain a few lines. JamesBeeWatson (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Although my usual practice, as described above, is to answer talk page comments on the same page, this time I have thought it more appropriate to respond at User_talk:Drchuckwilliams#Your message on my user talk page, on the talk page of the puppet master for the above account. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have created a sockpuppet investigation for this user. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Question from Natalia Sosnina

Hello James,

Hope all is well,

My name is Natalia Sosnina and you have revised my page on Wikipedia.

You put the note that the article doesn't have enough notability. I have to say that this is very difficult for me to find on-line articles and proofs of my article more than i already have at least for now. I have however the pictures of my awards, diplomas, competitions etc.. I have the break down from my classification Book of Dance sport, but unfortunately those are not on-line links.

Please advise what is your suggestion to make my article valid? Should i e-mail you photocopy of all the proof maybe? or should i shorten it and change the wording?

By the way, i am not a very strong user of wikipedia, so i am not sure how to go back and read the answer, so if you could kindly send me response at nsosnina@yahoo.com i would greatly appreciate it!

I am looking forward your feed back.

Best. Natalia Nsosnina (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi James.

This is Natalia Sosnina. As you have sugested to send you a reminder-i am doing so. Looking forward to your answer.

Best.

Natalia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsosnina (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid I had forgotten about it, Natalia. Thanks for reminding me. I will make a note to deal with it within the next 24 hours: I hope much sooner than that. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here at last is a proper attempt at a reply: sorry it has taken so long. I don't know whether you have read any of the Wikipedia notability guidelines, but if you do so you will find that the general notability guideline essentially says that to qualify for an article a subject has to have received significant coverage in independent sources. There is no requirement for this coverage to be online: printed sources are perfectly acceptable, but obviously on-line coverage is usually easier to check. You offer to send copies of pictures of your awards, diplomas, competitions etc. Certainly this would serve as verification that you have received the awards, and if anyone questions the fact then that may be a useful thing to do. However, verification of facts is a quite different matter from establishing notability. No matter how much proof you can offer that the statements in the article are true, if you have not received substantial attention in independent published sources then you do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria.

The question, therefore, is whether you have received substantial coverage in independent sources. I understand what you say about difficulty in finding on-line sources, but even so I have spent quite a while searching, to see if I could find anything suitable. I found a good many web pages mentioning you, but most of them did not really fit the needs, for one reason or another. Many of them just about mentioned you, rather than giving significant coverage. Others appeared to be written by you, or on your behalf, or by or for some person or organisation that had an interest in promoting you. While page of this sort may be fine for verifying facts, they are not independent coverage, and so are no use for establishing notability. Of the pages I looked at the most promising was this metropolitan report page. Assuming this is an independent review service (which is what it looks like) and not an advertising service then it is a perfectly good source. However, even if it is a perfectly good source one brief online review may possibly not be regarded as "substantial" coverage.

The result of the above is that there does not seem to be enough online coverage to establish notability, but there still remains the question of whether there is sufficient coverage in print. You mentionthe "break down from [your] classification Book of Dance sport". What exactly is that? Is this an independent published book? Or is it a personal, unpublished, record of yours? If it is a published source then it may be good enough for the purpose, but of course I cannot say so definitely without having seen it.

If you can offer sources confirming notability then that will be really good. If you would like to let me look at anything which you think may be suitable and let you know what I think then I will be happy to help. If we can give sufficient evidence of notability to justify keeping the article I shall be very pleased, and you will no doubt be even more pleased. However, I think it is only fair to make it clear to you that when you asked "what is your suggestion to make my article valid" it is possible that you were asking the wrong question: if you have really not received substantial independent coverage then the article can never satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, no matter how much it is rewritten.

Please feel welcome to contact me again with any more questions. I hope in future I shall be able to reply more quickly. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi James, thank you for your reply. I have deleted all my titles since they are hardly "Provable", I have a lot of press on print materials as New York time Out, Go and Artist magazine, Dance Beat newspaper, American Dancer Magazine and others. Can I use it as a proof?

I will be happy to send you the print out from my classification dance book-those are public records but those are Russian date base and I do not know where I can have an access to this. I also have O1 visa in United States which means alien of extraordinary abilities because of my dancing. I can send it to you as well; this is of course a public record in the immigration

I would rather delete everything which is not provable and have a very short article than having works on the top that this is not true. Please see my changed article and let me know if you want me delete 2 last paragraphs as well and will it be valid enough in this matter.

Looking forward your advise,

Best,

Natalia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.7.254 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for taking so long to reply to your latest message. Unfortunately Wikipedia's general notability guidelines base notability essentially on coverage in published sources. No matter what private materials you can produce, unless there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources the conclusion will be that you are not notable enough for an article. Adding or deleting particular sections will not really make any difference: if there is no notability in Wikipedia's sense for a subject then the article is likely to be deleted anyway. Recently there were numerous "references" added, but unfortunately most of them were not references at all in the sense which is relevant to establishing notability. For example, several of them were links to web pages about people or organisations mentioned in the article, but those web pages did not even mention you, so they were not directly relevant. I have tried, as I hope you appreciate, to help by explaining what sort of thing required, and also giving a link to the general notability guidelines. However, since suitable sources have still not been found despite considerable efforts, it looks rather as though there may simply not be notability in Wikipedia's sense. As well as the general notability guidelines there are additional guidelines for notability of people. None of these guidelines refers specifically to dancers, the nearest being those for creative professionals and for entertainers; both of these place quite high standards, as you will see if you read them. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you. please give me some time i will see what i can do. Best,

Natalial 38.112.7.254 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippine administrators

I have so far been able to all I have tried pretty trivially in GBooks. Please try the others you have nominated for deletion. Yes, the original author should have done it, and I left him a note to that effect, but if he does not, it's everyone;s responsibility. Per WP:BEFORE, it is in particular your responsibility before proposing deletion. I wouldn;t ask you if I weren't doing my share also, but I can;'t do it all. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, at least up to a point. I did do some checking. Evidently I didn't look in the right places, but in my defense I will say that I don't spend the time to look everywhere I could: I genuinely think that on balance my time on Wikipedia is spent more usefully by looking in a sample of places and then moving on to other work. As for WP:BEFORE, I tend to regard it as somewhat of a counsel of perfection: it would be wrong to ignore its advice completely, but I am not convinced that it is realistic to expect everyone to always put a huge amount of time into checking. I prodded two such articles; Mariano Garchitorena and Jose Manuel Estela Stilianopoulos (unless there are some others somewhere I have forgotten: if so please give me links). The first of these you have deprodded and referenced. For the second, because of your post above, I have made further searches of several kinds, including GBooks as you suggested, and after a fair amount of time I found evidence of existence (http://www.philembassy-uk.org/philemb_previousAmbassadors.html), but still no evidence of coming anywhere near to satisfying the notability guidelines. This has, on the whole, confirmed my belief that my time would have been more constructively employed elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, and I'm glad you did not take it in a negative way, for it was not meant as such. Frankly, I too regard BEFORE as to some extent overambitious, and use my judgement in deciding how hard to look. If the material appears on its face exceedingly improbable, I tend not to try. If the necessary sources will include material I have no access to, I leave the job for others. I know I have made mistakes in deleting articles that actually did have some sources--a few have been pointed out to me from time to time, but I am sure there are others. The way we decrease error is by having people check each others' work--If you make 10% errors, and I make 10% errors, checking results in only 1%, which is probably about as good as we can get in a system like ours. Since people sometimes get careless without realizing it, I like to let people know if it's more than sporadic, or they seem to be making a systematic error, & I am glad that people do just the same to me. And there have even been times when someone has told me I ought to stop for the day, and they;'ve been perfectly right.

Additionally, a good number of article on Philippines subjects have in the past been shown to be totally fallacious, after in some cases being in Wikipedia for long periods--I recall particularly an extensive and elaborate hoax involving a fictitious broadcast network. I was aware that these were people who ought to have left obvious records, and I would not have been totally surprised if I had found nothing--but if I did find nothing, a good deal would need to be double checked for similar problems. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully accept every word of that, and, as for taking it in a negative way, there was no question of that. There are more than enough obstructive editors on Wikipedia: I certainly don't want to start feeling negative towards constructive editors, even when I sometimes disagree with them, as I have in the past with you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon Johanson, references

Hi,

Thank you for your message regarding the references. I will get the exact links and add them, and more.

Thanks again,

Abby —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abiwelch (talk • contribs) 22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ramakrishna Mission Sri Koneswara Hindu College

Hi, I removed most of the article that violated copyright rules. Please let me know if it is still problematic. Thanks, --PinkBull 17:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way James, the page you tagged it as a copyvio of (here) is in fact a mirror of a previously deleted version which was copied from here. Just letting you know in case you realise your mistake and are tempted to replace the material in the impression that it's not a copyvio. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. That could happen, though it's not likely, as I thought it was not suitable as a Wikipedia article anyway, for other reasons. Thanks for telling me, even so. Incidentally I make no apology for not noticing that the page I linked to was a Wikipedia mirror: there is a limited amount of time that's worth spending on searching. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hi James. Are you interested in the rollback tool? I'm confident from your anti-vandal contributions that you'd use it sensibly, so let me know if youd like me to grant it. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough I had been wondering about asking for rollback rights. Yes, I think it might be useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, clearly you're fated to have them then. Enjoy. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

Hi, JamesBWatson. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

prod: Robert Nebřenský

Hello James. I've removed the prod template and I added reliable citations. Robert Nebřenský is a notable musician and actor, well known in the Czech Republic, as well as his former band Vltava. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. I am glad that there is evidence to justify keeping the article, which was not clear before. Thanks for clearing this up. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the article of Chak hong Lui

He really helps for fertility patient in UK. Because of him, I am a mum now. (Chank Hong Lui) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fertilitylondon (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Snowboard27 may be offensive or unwelcome. In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. DaL33T (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While I am aware that it is usual to avoid editing another user's user page, there are situations in which it is reasonable to make an exception. I judged that this was such a situation. If you disagree then you are welcome to explain why. However, to suggest that my edit "may be considered vandalism" seems to me absurd, and to describe it as "offensive" seems to be to use unnecessarily aggressive language under the circumstances. If you really do consider that my edit falls under the provisions of WP:Vandalism then I should be grateful if you could explain why. If, on the other hand, you do not think so, then perhaps you may like to consider whether use of this template message was appropriate in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was quite busy at the time, so I apoligize. I didn't know what was on that warning because I was going a little too quickly, and I realize that that warning was not appropriate. Sorry. DaL33T (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, no harm done. It seems that you used Twinkle to "rollback (vandal)", but I think it's better to use just "rollback" except in cases of really unambiguous vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page Format

Hi there,

I note that you tidied up Fantasy Island (disambiguation). However, it was written that way to conform to the standard format for entries which have a "primary" meaning (in this case Fantasy Island).

There's more information on the subject here, hope it's useful.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Diamond Way Buddhism

I undid your revision on this page. The statement you restored is based on 3 really poor sources: An unsourced oppinion in a campus newspaper, a linkpage and a page that have a copyright-violation problem. Pink Python (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right: I should have checked more carefully. Thanks for putting me right. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome Pink Python (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ministry comic proposed deletion

I have tried to add additional independent sources to my Ministry comic article in the external links. I have also removed elements that I can't back-up (i.e. my own interpretation of the comic.) Unfortunately I cannot give an ISBN for the comics as Indyplanet only applies those to their graphic novels, not individual comics. I hope the changes will let Ministry comic stay on the site. If not, could you please tell me what additional changes need to be made and I will redo the article in my sandbox and submit it through the correct channels for approval and editing to bring it up to standard. Your help is much appreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Bleud (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA CORRECTION

Abhay.kolhar (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Finally you have edited the subex wikipedia, so have not added anything to that.

Regards Abhay

Speedy deletion criteria G5 - A discussion

Hi there. I've started a discussion at WT:CSD - G5 that I'd value your input on. Thanks. GedUK  10:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How long to wait for Requested Edit?

Hello JamesBWatson. Two days ago, I posted a Request Edit template to the talk page for a product line of the company I work for. I have not been able to find a guideline about how long to wait for someone else to make the edit or for feedback re: consensus/dissent before going ahead with the edit myself (working toward consensus before editing if there is dissent). Is there any kind of generally accepted timeframe? My requested edit is verifiable, and I believe it is neutral and well cited. Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated. Nwiesen (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Norene. You followed perfectly correct procedure in requesting the edit, and I can imagine there is a certain degree of frustration in seeing no response. I will be perfectly happy to look at it myself, but at the moment I don't think I have the time to do the job properly, and I do not wish to do a rushed job. If you can bear to wait one more day I will try to make sure I look at it tomorrow. Unfortunately posting a request on an article's talk page depends on someone happening to see it there, and can be very much a hit and miss business. If you post such a request again you may find it helps to also post a note at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, in the hope that that will accelerate the process. If you like you can do so now, if you don't want to wait for me to deal with it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I did not know about Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, but now I've gone ahead and posted my request there. Nwiesen (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

PS--Thanks for your generous offer to take a look. I was advised by two editors at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests to make the edit myself and I've done so. Nwiesen (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine. From my quick look over your suggestion I thought it would probably be OK for you to do it too, but I didn't want to commit myself without checking more carefully. Thanks for letting me know it's dealt with now. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

GFDL and Wikipedia

Hi JamesBWatson. I saw your post at User_talk:Pencubitt#Problems_with_copyright_permission.2C_conflict_of_interest.2C_etc, and I just want to let you know that GFDL-only text can no longer be used on Wikipedia since the switch to dual licensing on June 16, 2009 (see Wikipedia:Licensing update). The content has to be released under the CC-By-SA license to be used here. Cheers, Theleftorium 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I knew that really, but didn't think. Do you have a suggestion for better wording for similar advice I may give in the future? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could probably just reuse the text at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online or User:Moonriddengirl/vp (this one is good if you've blanked the article and listed it at WP:CP). Theleftorium 15:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable people of Zug

Hello, I recently added the "notable people" paragraph in the Zug article. You removed this stating there is/was no evidence of notability of Annelies Štrba, the photographer I added. There is lots of proof of her notability. Her name is mentioned in the articles Galerie Rudolfinum, Rudolfinum and Metronome (artists' and writers' organ) and she has her own article on the German Wikipedia (see de:Annelies Štrba). Her work is also mentioned on Artnet and Artfacts.net. See the websites http://www.artnet.com/artist/16201/annelies-strba.html and http://www.artfacts.net/en/artist/annelies-strba-1515/profile.html I would like to add her again as being a notable person born in Zug, this time with references. Is that ok by you? Thanks for your time. ILuvLilG (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and reliable sources. The notability guideline on "Creative professionals" is relevant, as well as the general notability guideline. Mention in Wikipedia articles is no evidence of notability, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you think about it, accepting Wikipedia articles as reliable sources would make no sense: I could put a mention of myself in article A, use that as a source to justify putting myself in article B, and use that as a source to justify the inclusion in article A. Of the other two sources you mention, one is a sales page for a business selling Annelies Strba's work, and the other is a promotional site. (Its own web site says "The Institutional Membership enables you to actively support your artists' careers and market your sales".) Sites which sell a subject's work, or promote a subjects career and market their sales are not independent sources, and are no indication at all of notability. Any artist wishing to sell their work is likely to seek to get publicity on the internet, whether they are notable or not. I have searched myself, as well as checking the links you have provided, and seen no evidence at all that she comes anywhere remotely approaching either the general notability guidelines or the guidelines on creative professionals. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:ARTIST. I will do my best to put together an article about Annelies Štrba according to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Only after the Štrba article is accepted by the Wikipedia community I will put her into the Zug article again. Thanks again. ILuvLilG (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Skullptura

The article Skullptura has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not speedy deletable, but it may not be notable and is poorly sourced.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the template. Here are some possible sources: [1]. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NaturalInformation conference

Thanks; I've salted it, and blocked the user as promotional-only. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of meningitis (dismabiguation) and related disambiguation pages

The dismabiguation pages that I created were nominated for deletion, and there was a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but the articles entry there has not been edited for 2 days, and there has been no decision on weather or not these articles should be kept or deleted. Please explain the current status of these pages. Regards. Immunize (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is usual to let an Articles for deletion discussion remain open for at least 7 days, to allow time for anyone who might wish to take part to do so. Sometimes there is active discussion for all of that time, but quite often all of what is to be said has been said within a much shorter period. If there are special reasons a discussion can be closed sooner, but generally it is considered better to let it run the full time. At the worst this means that an article which will eventually be deleted lasts a few days longer than would otherwise have have been the case, and at best it allows others to join in the discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, do you expect the disambiguation pages to be deleted? Immunize (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have no more information to go on than you. However, glancing over the discussion I should say it looks like a broad consensus to delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup 2010 (video game)

Hi sorry to bother you but i felt it was important to point out my edit to the world cup video game was because of someone had deleted it all and just placed sssssssss repeateldy so i felt the need to delete it thank you x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.50.132 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I took some time to clean up the article and it should be okay now. Things can get messy when multiple users vandalize an article. Reach Out to the Truth 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw an edit that seemed to replace the page with rubbish, and did not check back and see that what was there before was even worse. However, it has been put right now. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy

m sorry sir .... i was just trying to add some new information to that article but accidently it got deleted. thanx 4 regenerating it again.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.111.109.88 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Z_Victor_Alpha_reported_by_User:Tadija_.28Result:_.29

Neutral Solution 100 (talk · contribs) = Z Victor Alpha (talk · contribs) = Warcrimesexpert (talk · contribs)

--Tadija (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help in reverting all of User:Z Victor Alpha's vandalism! Uncle Dick (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your thanks are appreciated. We both wasted a good deal of time and effort that could have been spent on better things, but it was worth doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All WP:DE vandals must be stopped immediately. Good work! --Tadija (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Message from sockpuppet of HorseGirl070605 (aka ChristianGirl2)

Nobody likes you. I didn't do anything wrong. You're not the boss of me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.211.187 (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How sad that nobody likes me. How sad that numerous Wikipedia editors keep persecuting you, despite the fact that you never do anything wrong. I never thought I was your boss, just that I was trying to help stop your disruptive editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, don't be sad James - I like you :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Somebody does! Woo hoo! JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The following page needs to be edited...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Anti-Armor_Team

Hello James, My son is a Corpsman for the marines currently stationed in Afghainstan. He is part of the Weapons Company CATT II. I take offense to the description of corpsman on the following page;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Anti-Armor_Team

Corpsman - The platoon's corpsman take up a seat in the vehicle. (THEY HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME)

He is a Marine, He has trained with the marines, He lives breaths and fights with the marines. Where they go, he goes. Oh and the bonus too he is there to give immediate medical attention in case one of his buddies gets hurt. (A TRAINED MEDIC) He carries medical supplies, and a gun! Someone needs to research the true meaning of a corpsman and change this immediatly.

If you are not that person that can help me with this, could you please direct me to someone that can? I appreciate your help. Thank you, Christie Pagano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpagano291 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look, and you are absolutely right: thanks for drawing my attention to this. The person who put that description there is normally a constructive editor, and I can't think why he wrote that. I don't know much about corpsmen, but I have put what I hope is an accurate description into the article. Please let me know if it is still not OK, or if there is any other help I can give. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

PERFECT! Thank you so much!  :) I appreciate your help. Your the best! Christine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpagano291 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Euro Ice Hockey Challenge

You PRODded this article and it was deleted: undeletion has been requested by Place Clichy (talk · contribs), who says he will expand it, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it. I am notifying you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Money as Debt

THIS was a very gracious thing to do, thank you. I also appreciate your keeping your cool in the face of some rather overlong responses to your original concerns... both at the article talk page and the AFD. Best reagrds, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I saw this edit and was very impressed. Keep up the good work. Reyk YO! 12:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Joel William Gonzales

Hello JamesBWatson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Joel William Gonzales, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Doesn't meet G4 as this version has references in reliable sources. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting me know. However, I have checked the "references" and I don't agree. Several of the references are not in reliable sources. Several of the references do not mention the facts stated in the article, and look as though they have been added on the basis that the more references are given the less likely will be deletion. Most of the references do not give significant coverage. Sometime I shall waste my time and everyone else's by taking this spam (which has been deleted 15 times) back to yet another AfD. However, as I said above, thanks for the courtesy of letting me know, and giving your reason: not everyone does that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd agree that not all the references are in reliable sources, but to my mind the relevant thing is that this time some are reliable. Lets hope the fan or whatever who writes this has learned a bit more about editing here. ϢereSpielChequers 10:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lamont Johnson Bassist

Um... I've changed your speedy tag to G12, because it's also a copyvio. Did you take a look at the article you linked to? It's by the same author. Just a heads up. Revert me if I did something wrong, I'm not very familiar with speedies. Thanks. SS✞^(Kay) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see your edit summary says "copyvio's more important, I reckon", which is absolutely true. However, I tend to tag for A10 because that is usually immediately clear and unambiguous, and it avoids various problems such as an inexperienced editor thinking that they can save an article by rewording it, or by saying that they have copyright permission, etc etc. It is also worth mentioning that there is nothing to stop you adding a new speedy deletion tag without removing the old one. It seems to be widely believed that this is forbidden, but it isn't, and sometimes I think there are good reasons for doing so. For example, if an article looks to me like both promotional and a copyvio I usually first tag only for promotion, warn the author, and then come back and tag for copyvio. The reason for this is: (1) I have found from experience that if it is tagged only for copyvio the author often wastes a lot of time and effort rewriting it, only to find that it is deleted anyway, which is frustrating for them, and I think it unfair to mislead them this way; (2) If, on the other hand, it is tagged only for promotion, that is a more subjective judgment than a copyvio, and there is a greater chance it will be declined, whereas if it is a clear copyvio then it should definitely be deleted. One more reason for tagging this one under A10 rather than G12 is that the author already had the other copy of the article tagged under G12, and this way they also get a talk page warning indicating that multiple copies of the same article are not acceptable, so it may help them to learn for the future. However, all this is a matter of judgment, and I am not going to quarrel with what you did. Thanks anyway for having the courtesy to explaini to me what you did: not everyone does that. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I didn't know you could add more than one speedy tag to the same article. Thanks for explaining it, I think I get it now. SS✞^(Kay) 21:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Kirachinmoku's talk page.
Message added 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Kirachinmoku's talk page.
Message added 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

extended reply KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pocos Pero Locos: The Soundtrack

Sounds good to me. The other two entries in the trilogy are now in oblivion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

TIME Ethernet LAN

Hello there,

I've noticed that you have deleted the page that i created called TIME Ethernet LAN due to G11 procedure or something. I apologize if it reads like advertising or promotion but i have no intention on promoting or advertising it is just for everyone to read as a knowledge and gain information on this. However, I will try to change the text of the article as not to look like a promoting or advertising. I would highly appreciate if you can recreate or undelete the page that i have created.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanhenry14 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I have not deleted it: I am not an administrator, and do not delete articles. I do nominate articles for deletion, and sometimes they then get deleted by an administrator. However, I have no memory of nominating this article, and anyway when I nominate an article for deletion I place a note on the user talk page of the person who created the article warning them of the nomination, but I have not placed any such notice on your talk page. I therefore do not understand why you associate me with this deletion. However, now that you have called the matter to my attention, I have looked not only at the history of this article, but also at your other editing history, and I will let you know what I found, in the hope that it may help to clarify things for you.. I see that all of your editing consists of adding information about one company. Much of this has been expressed in unambiguously promotional terms. Some of it has been a direct copy of material on the company's web site. Much of it is the sort of commercial detail which would appear in a company's sales literature, rather than the sort of detached description to be found in an encyclopedia article. It is very difficult indeed to see your editing in any terms other than as trying to promote the company. In addition there are other issue with your editing, including repeated re-creation of deleted material, writing several separate articles to cover material which might at the most warrant one article, lack of any independent sources for the material you have written, etc. Although you are mistaken in thinking that I have deleted the article you refer to, it seems to me that much if not all of the material you have written is likely to be deleted. If you wish to avoid wholesale deletion of your work I strongly suggest reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability, reliable sources, promotion and conflict of interest before writing any more.

If you have any questions about his please feel very welcome to post again on my talk page. I will try to be helpful if I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,oops,i thought that you are the administrator.It seems that the link i've clicked directed me to your page.Must be a miscommunication. Sorry about that.Anyway, i've detected the administrator who deleted my page. Sorry again for the trouble I've caused you.Thanks again.--Alanhenry14 (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)