User talk:JBW/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

User:Msluka - Therion software article speedied

Please see User talk:Msluka where the user is asking some questions about why you deleted their article. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Seen this Guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blinkybillfan95

Take a look at what he did. Please do not block me, I'm only telling you something. If I do get blocked it must be less than a week. So please all I want you to do is look at this guy's edits. Nothing else. And happy 2012. Shall we make a deal afterwards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.248.189 (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He has already been blocked indefinitely. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Efanrees

I'm minded to give this guy another chance - I'd keep an eye on his edits and will reblock if there's any problem. What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would support another chance. The person seems to me to be genuinely willing to do better (and we can always reblock if necessary). JamesBWatson (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Billim123

Thanks for the quick action on reversions on this sock; I would have done it myself but I was literally about to step out the door before going to work when I got a talk page question from him/red flag went up and had to file the AIV report before leaving. Nate • (chatter) 10:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show

User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebineibgheniobg (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 January 2012‎

My old talk pages

All right, I'm not going to remove the block notices anymore, as I fully understand now that it's not supposed to be done and that just showing it through the notice on the contributions page is insufficient. But could they please be unprotected? Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I allowed to redirect them to my new user and talk pages, or does this count as removing the block notices? I have added back the old block notice on my userpage. Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can the userpages also be redirected, given that I now have added the old notice back to my userpage (only "Double sharp" is in use, all alternates are blocked)? Double sharp (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected them back so that my userpage notice makes sense as it refers to accounts that redirect to my new userpage. I hope it's OK. Double sharp (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at DoriSmith's talk page.
Message added 02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My Perfect Mistake

Can you tell me why my page for My perfect Mistake has been deleted?

RichardGPailing (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what to add to what you have already been told. You were told that the article "does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia", and you have been given a link to the notability guideline. I am not sure what in the article you think indicates enough significance or notability to justify an encyclopaedia having an article about the band. We don't have articles on every group of friends who get together and form a band, and hope to start recording sometime soon. You may like to read Wikipedia:Yet another MySpace band. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr Curious has escaped again

That twat has escaped his ban again as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/192.148.117.99 Please block him.--Brainiac Adam (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Aron "Deuce" Erlichman, Aron Erlichman (aka Deuce)

In October you protected these pages to prevent them from being repeatedly recreated; that followed an AfD in April which closed as redirect (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron "Deuce" Erlichman).

In fact, there's rather more about this subject that just those two articles and one AfD; what I have been able to find includes an earlier AfD which closed with the same result (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deuce (singer)), an AfD for a forthcoming solo album which closed as userfy/redirect a couple of weeks ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine Lives (Deuce album) (2nd nomination))), other related articles which are currently also currently nominated for deletion (by me, on the basis the subject has no article): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron (album), Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_2#Template:Deuce, and a bunch of other articles which have all been created as, or since been turned into, redirects to Hollywood Undead, including Deuce (Artist), Deuce (Hollywood Undead)), Deuce (Hollywood Undead Member), Deuce (Tha Producer), Deuce (Vocalist), Deuce (producer), Deuce (singer), Deuce discography and Tha Producer.

Overlooked in all of this has been Deuce (musician) (formerly Deuce (singer)), which has existed alongside all the deleted / redirected articles since mid-2009. It should really have been turned into a redirect when the other articles you since protected were, but was overlooked at the time. Unsurprisingly, my attempts to do that now have been reverted.

Two days after you protected those two pages, the article which was the subject of the first AfD - now named Deuce (musician) - was recreated instead, as it remained unprotected. Unsurprisingly, my attempts to re-redirect it have been reverted.

Would you care to review Deuce (musician), and if you think the article should be redirected then consider doing it and protecting it also?

Many thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Update: another editor has since reverted Deuce (musician) to a redirect, and the editor who had most recently reverted from a redirect has taken this to WP:RPP (with the aim of preventing it being turned back into a redirect). RichardOSmith (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Update2: and, of course, it's been undone again. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Update3 (sorry about this): I realise my summary above about Deuce (musician) was slightly incorrect; I have updated it. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• My initial response was to restore the redirect and protect both Deuce (musician) and Deuce (singer). However, I see that discussion at RFPP resulted in the request being declined, and I don't think I should unilaterally overturn that decision. You may like to take it to yet another AfD and see what comes out of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking, and sorry you had to do/undo everything. It's ridiculous that an AfD closing as "redirect" is almost completely meaningless. Per the multiply-established consensus, the article should be a redirect and it should not have come back without a new consensus being formed; editors/fans have "gamed the system" and been successful. As for the subject himself, I have no interest - I didn't participate in any of the previous discussions and I'm not even sure right now why one of the pages was on my watchlist. My only motivation for renominating it now would be to force the new discussion to take place and, frankly, it's probably not worth the effort given the past history. I've tagged the article for notability concerns and will leave it at that. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete?

With all due respect, James, I think your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Setareh Diba as a speedy delete (A7) was erroneous, since I had already declined a speedy deletion on the same ground. You have every right to disagree with me, but I think the general practice is that an article cannot be speedied after a previous speedy request has been declined. On the merits, also, I think this was not a speediable article. WP:CSD#A7 says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Here, there was a claim, even though it was not supported by a reliable source and probably did not satisfy the notability guidelines. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you have questioned the deletion I have restored the article and reopened the AfD. However, I see no claim of significance: can you say what the claim of significance is? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The claim is that she is a published poet in Persian (alliteration unintended). As I said, it's probably not enough to meet WP:GNG without any published sources, but it's enough to give the author a chance to improve the article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see having a few poems published in magazines as being much of a claim of significance, but what constitutes a "claim of significance" is always ratehr subjective. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

True, it is subjective. I'd rather err on the side of a generous interpretation of "significance", within reason ("Terrence is the coolest kid in seventh grade" would not make the cut), given Wikipedia's ongoing difficulties in attracting and retaining new editors. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deuce article redirects/protecting then unprotecting

Hello, I'm just a little bit confused as to why you redirected "Deuce" to "Hollywood Undead". Last year the decision was made that Deuce be removed and redicrected to HU until Deuce had gained notable recognition and have more works as a solo artist. He is now signed, with an album coming out in March (two singles of which have been released [one leaked illegally]) , sponsored by a clothing line, released an official mixtape and signed with Ten Street Entertainment (under eleven seven music [motley crue,papa roach, blondie, etc]) and performed at 2010 Epicenter, opening for Eminem, performing between KISS, Blink-182, Rise Against etc as well as reaching over 100,000 likes on Facebook; The decision was made a few months ago that Deuce did qualify for his own article.

I respect the fact that you know more about wikipedia editing and rules/regs than I do, so please message back!

Thank you, happy new year.

TrueBlue9LIVES (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The redirect was to follow a decision made at AfD. I then reverted it when I realised that the matter had been discussed and a decision had been made not to prevent recreation of the article by protecting the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirection of Climate of Northern Ireland article without consensus

I will now pursue the WP:DR policy. I am also very concerned about sock puppets being used to avoid detection. As this is my second day as a Wikipedia editor I am trying to learn how to deal with this problem. According to WP:DR, one is advised to try first of all to resolve disputes by using the discussion page - but how can this work when the page you are disputing skips to a different page when you try to view it? If you see the discussion of the original page, there was no 'consensus' to delete the page. There were clear objections by several users that they did not want the page to be redirected or merged with the Ireland page. The other users set out their reasoning for the page not to be merged very clearly. Please advise on how to deal with this problem, especially regarding the redirection aspect. I am afraid to revert any changes in case I will be blocked again. Seamus48 (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In declining your unblock request I did mention a factual inaccuracy in that unblock request, but apart from that I restricted myself to assessing the reason you gave for unblocking and the reason for the block. I did not get involved in the dispute that you were involved in, nor do I intend to do so. Disputes about Ireland are one of the topics that I avoid getting involved in, just as little way behind Israel/Palestine (which I avoid like the plague), and on a par with various other forms of nationalism in various parts of the world. It is true that your request is purely for procedural advice, but nevertheless in this case my involvement starts and ends with administrative tasks, such as assessing the unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

downy (band)

"Unsourced article about a non-notable band that fails." Well, if article is unsourced and/or not well written then it maybe deserves to be deleted, but "non-notable band that fails" is certainly not a valid argument, and not true at all if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.70.11 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason given for the deletion proposal was "Unsourced article about a non-notable band that fails WP:BAND." Being unsourced, being non-notable, and failing WP:BAND are all good reasons for deletion in line with Wikipedia polices and guidelines. The article was unsourced, and nothing in it suggested that the band is notable. Personally I wouldn't have cited WP:BAND, but it was not I that wrote the deletion proposal. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ikswodasb1

I think this guy just needs to be blocked. See his contribs. Calabe1992 20:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Indefinite IP block

I believe my actions are well grounded in the (other parts of) the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Myself and others have assumed good faith from them time and time again - and they've done nothing but completely ignore us all. I find it indicative that the said user has continued to ignore us - they haven't made a modicum of effort to appeal the block.

We know little about the IP addresses - they're both in the same huge 58.160.0.0/12 netblock owned by Telstra Internet. I don't see any particular indication from WHOIS that it could be a shared IP address. No other user seems to have come forward to complain. Obviously they may well exist, yet might simply be uninformed or confused about the matter enough to not to have told us.

I saw no hint of evidence that unblocking the addresses would produce a result that would not be harmful, so I left it as is for the time being.

In any case, if you feel this caution is now outweighed by the possibility that another legitimate user is being prevented from editing, feel free to unblock the IP addresses.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Article of Comext

Hello, my previous article on "Comext" was accepted by another moderator. You have deleted all my page. Could you please update my article without my modifications of yesterday ? Thanks in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.9.14 (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume that you mean you would like the article restored to the state it was in before yesterday. However, the article contained unambiguous copyright infringing material ever since December last year. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Question on User talk:Hafeezanwar/Editnotice

As you were indeffing and deleting, I was asking a procedural question on essays in Editnotices at WP:ANI#Question_on_user_posting_Essay.2FOR_in_User_Talk.2FEditnotice. I guess you have answered the question already by action but would you care to comment there? I was inclined to G11 immediately w/o CSD nomination, but wanted to avoid WP:BITE. Maybe we should include a mention of User Editnotice pages in Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I had to think a bit about this. The fact that it was some sort of essay, totally inappropriate in an edit notice, did not qualify it for speedy deletion, but it seemed to me that it was promotion, which did. I think this particular editor was beyond Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, having been around for over five years. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. I was not thinking of promotion at the time but trying to see where OR falls in this respect. I'm seriously considering adding mention of User Talk Editnotices (as an extension) in WP:TALK. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Alexf^(talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Whippany River Watershed Action Committee Deletion

Dear James, I just read your Delete on the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee article. I thought this was an organization that was notable. I just came across this live link on the United States Environmental Protection Agency website http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7144dd430c47561885257018004c77a3/d6165ffef5f792e18525716a005bccfb!OpenDocument on the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee, middle of page. To help me in future articles I may create, isn't something like this notable? The Whippany River Watershed Management project was New Jersey’s pilot watershed management project. The Watershed Action Committee is a coalition of citizens and municipalities dedicated to preserving and protecting the land and water resources within the watershed and achieving the goals of the watershed management plan. Among their accomplishments is the creation of model ordinances that have been adopted by watershed municipalities to address nonpoint source pollution. They have also undertaken a project to achieve a 58% reduction in fecal coliform to meet the Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, established by the plan. Through education and outreach they are engaging the entire watershed community in the effort to restore and protect its valuable water resources.

Thanks in advance for your comments. (LeonardC (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

The page you link to has one brief paragraph on the subject. Generally speaking, to establish notability we require substantial coverage in multiple sources. Wikipedia's concept of "notability" is essentially to do with such substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, not to do with what you or I or anyone else thinks is the value of the work the organisation does. It is natural for someone involved in a subject to see it as notable, but the question at issue is how notable it looks to the world at large. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear JamesB, I do appreciate all your time to date. I think you spend WAY too much time editing Wikipedia! But you obviously love what you do. I read your page. I found an article that appeared in the Star-Ledger, New Jerseys's largest newspaper, that is not listed/referenced on the page http://wrwac.org/news/SL_study_part1.jpg I found it on the committee's website. And another article that appeared in the Star Ledger earlier this year. I googled this one. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/storm-drain_filters_to_protect.html WOuldn't these two articles, coupled with the US EPA's brief paragraph as well as many mentions on the New Jersey Department of Envioronmental Protection website show notability? These coupled together must be notable sources? Thanks again for your time and reply (LeonardC (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

You are 100% right about one thing: I do spend WAY too much time editing Wikipedia. In fact, I'm glad you pointed that out, because I need to stop now and do other stuff. However, I'll try to answer your message tomorrow, if I get time, and within the next couple of days if not. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That loser has escaped his ban again

Mr Curious now as this IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.109.249.103 has escaped his ban again. Please block him and remove the message he put on my talk page please.--Brainiac Adam (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Jayeshjain88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayeshjain88 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

He's escaped his ban again

Mr Curious has escaped his ban AGAIN! As THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/192.148.117.95 Please ban him please

Oh and now he's escaped as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.163.175.178 Please block him--Brainiac Adam (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Talk Page Access

Dear, Mr. JamesBWatson

Read on the following texts.

to quote you:

"Since you have used an unblock request to commit yet more infantile vandalism, your talk page access will be removed to stop you wasting still more of our time. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)"

the above was your respond to this:

"Request reason: your reason here where is the reason!???????Weekeepeediaisthetruth (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: A very good point... Peridon (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)"

I'd like to ask this question: Where in the "Request reason" section did username Weekeepeediaisthetruth asserted that the use on unblock request was to "commit yet more infantile vandalism"? Clearly, the section only revolved around the inquiry of a location and lack any intention towards your assessment. How did you arrive with your conclusion that the said username has committed to add more infantile vandalism?

Sincerely yours, Weekeepeediaisthetruth1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weekeepeediaisthetruth1 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

To make an unblock request, giving "where is the reason!???????" in the place where there should be a reason for the request, is vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks much for blocking User Hubrast. I was put off and disappointed by another admin's initial response to my request for this action: The reasoning was incorrect. I had Obergriesbach on my watch list because I knew the person came back after time passed to misuse the article. I'll keep watching it because, if I remember correctly, other vandalism to the page was his without having signed in. SeoMac (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pjnkkt

You blocked this user for abuse of email. Couyld you please also oversight/revdel their talkpage comment at [1]. Thanks. RolandR (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Revdel done. Oversight is probably not necessary, but if you do want it you will have sot ask a bureaucrat. Sorry about missing that edit. I did check for edits by the account, but the edit was made between that check and the block (edit and block within 1 minute). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; he continued sending me abusive messages, even after the logged time of block. I hope its sorted now. RolandR (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the Wikipedia software takes a while to respond to a block: I don't know. Did you ever reply to any of his emails? If so he will have your email address. I always use a single-purpose email address for replying to Wikipedia emails, not the same one I receive emails on, to avoid such problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, of course I didn't, I wasn't born yesterday. The real problem here, which I am taking to AN/I, is the continuing use of Mailinator addresses (in this case, one racially abusing another editor) for sending such messages. We should be able to find a way to prevent this. RolandR (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

About the Professional disclosure Statement

I was wondering if I can edit more info on the subject.

Sincerely,

Aaron Rogers/Goatpunk4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatpunk4 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from May El-Khalil, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your review. Please see a response to your post.

CosmicRibbits

Hi ya and ribbits to you

can you give me a bit more feed back on why you pulled my article on Fitzitus, I realise that it wasn`t fully formed and need work doing to it but I am reasonably sure I can find the right ppl to expand on the topic which in turn will fill it out into the definition it deservers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicfrog911 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest starting by making it clear what the article is about. Then make it clear that the subject (whatever that is) is notable, and not something you have just dreamed up yourself, which is the way it looked. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: [January 2012]

link=User talk:<Gsaxena1809>#[January 2012]

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at [[User talk:<Gsaxena1809>#[January 2012]|User talk:<Gsaxena1809>]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As you have mentioned in your section january 2012, "Please do not keep creating articles about works with no notability, just because they are connected with your family"

I would like to inform that I am not creating articles just because Bharat Bhushan ji was my maternal Grandfather. He was a noted poet here in India only for that reason I am creating articles about him. His works are notable. His books are very much in demand, of course by scholars as only they can understand standard poetry. Many students did Ph.D. on him, wrote thesis on him. The page which I had created naming it as Ram ki JalSamadhi is one of his most popular and most famous poetry. But still the page was deleted. I don't know why. So many times he has been awarded by different Governments and different Hindi Organisations for his notable work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 21:08, 9 January 2012‎ Gsaxena1809

If the subjects you write about are notable, and have received significant attention, then you need to provide reliable sources to show that that is the case. Otherwise there is a danger that it will look to others as though there is no notability. Evidently you know how notable the subjects are, but you need to make it clear to others too. Another thing you need to do is to make it clear what the articles are about. For example, in the article Sagar ke Seep you began "This was his first book published in 1958". I actually don't know whether the subject of the article is a person or a book. My guess is that you mean that Sagar ke Seep was a writer, and you are talking about Sagar ke Seep's first book, taking it for granted that we all know he is a writer, so that you don't have to tell us. However, I am by no means sure: for all I know you may mean that Sagar ke Seep is a book, and it is some unspecified person's first book. Even if I am right in guessing that Sagar ke Seep is a person, I have no idea who he was, where he was from, what his significance was, etc etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted your most recent edit on Jimbo's talk page

Hi,

I reverted your removal of the blocked editor's stuff. My reasoning being they started that thread and that others were participating in it; as there is no REQUIREMENT to remove their edits it seems to me that either the thread ought to be removed or they ought to be allowed to contribute towards it. Feel free to revert if you feel I am in error, or of course to remove the thread entirely - I am not in love with their edits Egg Centric 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Katia Tiutiunnik

Could you please take a moment to read Katia Tiutiunnik.If you do, you'll see that it does not even mention Lambert Academic Publishing, which User:Playmobilonhishorse claims it's promoting and is backed up by many more credible citations/references than numerous other Wiki pages. Coἁuld you please help me improve the article, if that's your intention? It's been up for over 3 years and quite a few editors have contributed to it. I'm sorry, but I've acted in good faith.LivingMuseLivingMuse (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether Lambert Academic Publishing is relevant or not, but without a doubt the tone of much of the article is promotional. If you sincerely can't see that, then I can only assume that you are so closely involved with the subject that you are unable to stand back from it and see how the article looks to a neutral observer, in which case you should not be editing the article. However, that is not the point: whether you or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with the characterisation as promotional, you should not be repeatedly removing the template. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your advice and feedback. However, I humbly request that you look at the list of references backing up Katia Tiutiunnik and compare it with other Wikipedia articles. If you do, you'll see that Katia Tiutiunnik has many more references than numerous other Wikipedia articles. Anyway, if you have time to improve the article, I'd be grateful.LivingMuse (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Discussion on this topic transferred to User talk:LivingMuse. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Tachash article

James, Thank you for your assistance regarding the article Tachash and the sockpuppetry/own crap that has been going on. As you may have seen from the article history this has played out over the course of a year or more, with multiple SP accounts and has pissed off a good number of editors. Right now I'm a bit too burnt out regarding the article to wade though the revisions and sort the wheat from the chaff but maybe I'll get back on the horse in the future. For now, thank you again for your help. Joe407 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Allied Barton

Remove Sales Brochure??????

This is FACTUAL information to anyone wanting to know what the company is about!!

This is information that was DIRECT from AlliedBarton.com in the "About Us" section!

IT IS NOT A SALES BROCHURE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Security50023 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. I have never edited AlliedBarton, nor, as far as I remember, seen the article before. Can you clarify your point please? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

James, apparently an editor is not happy with my editing, as he did on User talk: Abhijay. It appears to be that he is upset that I tagged a page of submission for deletion and the deleting admin agreed with the criteria, but no offence to him really but he's saying that I drive people away from the project, even though I spend 10 bloody minutes reviewing a newly created article before decided to place it for deletion or not. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

deletion of Zanran entry

Hiya

I'd appreciate reasons for the deletion as (a) the service has been reviewed by many people in the industry - check on Google, or look at the references (b) the service is much used by information professionals (c) the content is neutral and verifiable

I'd also be happy to make minor changes if appropriate

thanks

Jon JonZanran (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what information you want beyond what is already available to you. If you have any specific question then let me know, and I will try to answer it. You were given a link on your talk page to the deletion discussion page, and, as you can see there, the problem was a lack of indication of notability. If you are not already acquainted with Wikipedia's notability guidleines the you may like to look at them. Blogs, forums, etc are usually not reliable sources. Neutrality and verifiability were not the issues, and how much it is used is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability requirements (surprising though that may possibly seem). JamesBWatson (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add that the article submitted today is completely different from the one submitted last April

Jon JonZanran (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks - but I didn't see any mention of notability in the comments made today. That was the comment made in April - before we had media coverage and large numbers of users.

I'm confused by this system! Don't feel I know what's going on.

cheers

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonZanran (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the new version of Zanran is significantly different from the one discussed and deleted, so I think it did not qualify for speedy deletion. I would have declined the speedy deletion, but by the I got round to dealing with it, the article had already been deleted. I have contacted Fastily, the administrator who deleted the article the second time, suggesting that it be restored. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for you last message.

I still can't claim to understand what's going on here!

Jon

JonZanran (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen your comments now from yesterday. However I would like to challenge the notability arguments. The most meaningful comments and opinions on a new search engine are going to be made by specialists in the field. In this case we have reviews from both SearchEngineLand and Search Engine Journal (both referenced in the article).

These reviews are more valuable than, say, an article in a generalist newspaper - they know what they're talking about.

If you mean 'populist' rather than 'notable' - then you're right - Zanran doesn't fit the bill.

cheers

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonZanran (talk • contribs) 10:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this message when I posted my comment above. This is a good illustration of why it tends to be more helpful to keep talk page posts on one topic in one section, rather than starting a new section for each message. I actually agree with you, to a large extent. There is too much weight given to popular coverage, and too little to specialist coverage, by many Wikipedia editors. However, the issue is more complex than that, in several ways. For example, if someone posts something about some software on some obscure specialist web site, it can be difficult to be sure of the status of the post: is it a reliable source? Is it just a site set up by the writer of the software to promote it? Is it a site set up by a Wikipedia editor in order to create fake references to support their edits? (I am not for a moment suggesting that is what you have done, but that does happen, unfortunately.) Very often "specialist" publications means publications made by a small group of people with an interest in a very narrow topic area, who naturally tend to exaggerate the importance of their pet subject. It is not always easy for an outsider to distinguish that sort of thing from more reliable specialist sources. At least with an article in a well known article we know what we are dealing with. I am not dismissing your argument, in fact, as I have said, to a large extent I agree, but it is important to realise that there are other concerns too. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I saw your comments about making the article less 'promotional' - and I've re-drafted a couple of sections. However I can't find the article to edit it. Has it been deleted again?

thanks

Jon

JonZanran (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "again". It was deleted a second time, as I mentioned above in my comment at 10:23, 11 January, but not again since then. Since you posted here after I wrote that message I assumed you knew it had been deleted. However, after consulting the admin who made that second deletion, I have restored the article. I hope everything is OK now. (If it is, then maybe you won't need to post here again. However, if you do, then please post in this section of my talk page: starting a whole sting of new sections on one topic really does cause significant confusion sometimes, and at the very least makes following a discussion a bit more difficult.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers - it's back again now. JonZanran (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

moulton college

Dont just delete things for a conflict on interest for the sake of it; that seems a very easy solution. Why not check if the facts I put on were correct? All images were fine and in no way could the information be remotely interpreted with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superruss (talk • contribs) 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You have now reverted the Moulton College page to one where it has both inaccurate and incomplete information. Well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superruss (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered at User talk:Superruss. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

See revision to my comments. Perhaps you could re-add the pics back in as these are not baised, and the permission of the copyright holder has been sort? If the gallery is reinstated then other people who walk past the college or alumni could add their own info later. thanks. The information on the principal is currently incorrect, and the information as of 18th December forward is correct. Therefor could you please add this and the following which was deleted and which is not biased, but can be said to be fact from a quick search of the college's and other websites:

Moulton College runs a number of commercial ventures from its campus in Moulton. This includes a working farm, a sports centre, an equestrian centre, garden centre, two veternary surgeries, a florists, pet shop and a number of coffee shops. The sports facilties at the College are available for use by the general public and are used by many local sports team, with Northampton Town FC and England women's national field hockey team both regularly training on the campus. The College campus also includes an arboretum, which was planted at the turn of the millennium.

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superruss (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 January 2012‎

I'm short of time now, but I will try to get onto this tomorrow. If I haven't got back to you within 24 hours please feel welcome to remind me. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Stella Duffy

Hi JamesBWatson. This article seems objective to me (no praise, etc.). Duffy (or someone claiming they are Duffy) only corrected two wrong facts, so don't you think the "autobiography" warning should be taken away? Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri Hudson (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, i forgot to sign the previous message. --Henri Hudson (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was created by Stelladuffy, who subsequently made 13 more edits to the article from that account. A quick glance through the editing history of the article revealed about a dozen more edits from various IP addresses claiming in edit summaries to be Stella Duffy: there may or may not be more that I didn't spot. Many more edits come from IPs from the same ISP, which is not one of the major ISPs. Consequently I think your statement that someone claiming to be her "only corrected two wrong facts" is mistaken. However, I do agree that there is nothing promotional about the article, so if you remove the autobio tag I won't replace it. Thanks for consulting me about it, I do appreciate that. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

LikeALittle Delete, why?

Hi I was just requesting that you put back up the wiki page for "LikeALittle". It's a unique site that has gained enough attention for it to warrant an article. On my campus LikeALittle is actively used and quite popular--like Foursquare it's a unique concept that's part. I can point you to numerous articles that it's enough of a social phenomenom that it should be a webpage, for example, here's some articles on it: http://studymagazine.com/2010/12/17/canadian-students-fall-flirting-website/ http://ubyssey.ca/culture/like-a-little-the-twitter-of-unrequited-love/ Spudst3r (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I did find some sources that establish notability, but did you cite them with the claim of notability?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice, would like to add a pdf article

Hi, I have article produced by Gartner group and would like to post it to the Managed Print Services WIki page. It is completely independent and gives a good insight why MPS are chosen and how they save companies money. Is this ok to post? User:Esolone 11:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as the source is reliable and third-party, there shouldn't be any problem with doing so. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

....er, as long as you're linking to it, and perhaps taking excerpts as copyrighted information shouldn't be directly posted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll put it under reference. As it explains the core topic. Have a look and see what you think. Cheers

User:Esolone 12.44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding under reference was wrong so i moved to external. There were no other external links so felt it was ok to add.

User:Esolone 14.25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Jagjit Singh COI

I've overhauled the Jagjit Singh article subsequent to you reinstating the COI tag. Is it still required, given the cruft removal + sourcing that I have done? - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the article looks significantly better, so it's probably OK to remove the tag. Good work. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Panga (Mustjala)

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

Dealt with. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I Wish to Complain about Wikipeditist

My first point is that he could not be a sock. He doesn't even have Curious in his name.

Second Point That Tinga Tinga episodes article already had content I'm afraid and it was worked on so hard. Another IP worked hard on it who was not the same person. Episodes already got merged. It was merged because episodes needed their own article. Now you restore that or I'll have to do it all over again.

Third Point that Emily the Stirling Engine has been the official name by many youtube videos. That's what it is meant to be called.

Fourth Point is I will not rest till the Zoo articles are unprotected. Time you though bout others mate. I would go to request for adminship and demote your admin rights if have to. You're a meanie. Why can't you let people edit in peace and stop protecting stuff we don't want protected. You only protect if someone asks you to. Just because you block someone it does not mean you can remove all their logs.

I'll not sign so you don't know who it is and you better not block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.232.145 (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Assistance Required

JamesBWatson, I have a problem. User:Begoon has inappropriately used rollback to revert a good faith edit. I tried to explain to him about the disputed edit made on Yale University, and claims that he isn't doing anything. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 06:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that Begoon could perhaps have responded to your talk page messages about this in a better way. However, Begoon is actually right about the two central points here: (1) Begoon did not use rollback for the edit in question; (2) the restriction on using rollback is essentially because of the lack of relevant edit summary, but in this case Begoon did provide an explanatory edit summary. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Aviot/Frames and User:Aviot/Frames-2

Just a heads-up that I saw your reversion of the transclusion of these pages on User:BlueFen. I tagged both for deletion at WP:MFD as I can't see a legitimate use for these pages. –Grondemar 21:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I was considering taking them to MfD, but thought I would wait a while and see if the user would make any response to my messages. However, it very probably would have made no difference, so taking them to MfD now is fine. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Buckyputty

Buckyputty is a real material. The company is now in the next round of FSU's 2011 Innolevation contest. This is verifiable with the Jim Moran Center at FSU, the results are posted here: http://innolevationchallenge.com/ If this needs to be mentioned in the wiki article, then we will add it.

You marked it as a hoax and we do not know why. Please help. Thanks, (please don't post e-mail addresses on Wikipedia, sorry) 68.84.28.90 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.28.90 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I found no sources online, whatsoever. That website does not exist, apparently. This is not notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Extreme Adventure Travel

Could you take a look at the article Extreme Adventure Travel- trust me, it won't take long. It has recently been created by Andy Lee Graham. I was wondering if it should be proposed for deletion or put up for AfD. I'm not that familiar with doing either of these, although I do get involved in the AfD discussions. There are actually quite a few articles in this topic area that look very iffy. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Already PROD-ed Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

COI Template in my talk page

Hi!

Recently you left a copy of the COI template in my talk page. Since I haven't edited in a while, I was wondering if you did this because of an edit you saw or if you're just leaving these in other users' pages to build conscience about the issue?

Just wanted to make sure that nobody has "hijacked" my account or posted under my name...

PS: Would you be so kind to reply in my talk page, as I am not as active as I used to be? Thanks!!!

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks for taking the time to answer! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi Protected

Hi! how can i get a semi protected my own created Wikipedia Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddaadda (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Pages are not semi-protected pre-emptively. It's only done to prevent vandalism or other disruption.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you created the article is of no relevance at all: you have given the article to Wikipedia, and you now have no more rights over it than any other editor. If there is a history of persistent vandalism or other disruption to the article by unregistered users, then it is possible to request semiprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, at present there has been no such disruption, so there is no reason for semiprotection. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussions - other Wikis

Hi James. Do you happen to know if it is permitted to invite users of other Wikipedias to comment on our RfCs? Such as the wording of the {{Please see}} invite template that we put on project talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I have never come across this question at all, nor had any reason to think about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, never mind. It's just that I was considering suggesting that Germans come an comment on a Germany issue we have raging here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate Interaction and Ban of PhysicsDude21

I am disappointed that an administrator could interact with a new and confused user such as PhysicsDude21 the way that you did. He created an inappropriate article, yes, and clearly doesn't know the rules of Wikipedia, but rather than welcoming a new user and giving him guidance, you treated him brusquely and saw to it that he was quickly banned. All that is seems to me that he did was make an erroneous argument based on not understanding Wikipedia. I just don't get it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately PhysicsDude21 was not a good faith editor who unfortunately was not aware of Wikipedia's standards. He/she was a troll/vandal who told blatant lies. For example, he/she claimed to have received an email from the Oxford University Press stating that the word he had made up was now officially a part of the English language, and would soon be incorporated into the Oxford English Dictionary. Alas, there are several reasons why that story is totally implausible. For one thing, English, unlike many other languages, does not have a body that declares what is and what is not "officially" part of the language. The Oxford English Dictionary, like other English dictionaries, records what has become accepted usage: it does not decree what shall be accepted. The Oxford English Dictionary also records only usages which have already become widely accepted: it does not incorporate words on the day they have been made up. (PhysicsDude21 claimed on 12 January 2012 to have already received the email from the Oxford English Dictionary. He/she also stated that the word was "created" on 12 January 2012.) There is no way that anyone could possibly have received such an email from the Oxford University Press. Then we have the claim that the Scottish Qualifications Authority had also officially declared the word to be an accepted part of the English language. That is even more absurd than the claims about the Oxford University Press. The Scottish Qualifications Authority is a body that sets exams for school children. It does not even publish a dictionary, let alone decree that particular words are or are not part of the English language. That email, like the Oxford one, is totally implausible. Then there is PhysicsDude21's claim that the Scottish Qualifications Authority's "nuclear task force" was going to be called in to deal with Wikipedia editors that had done things that PhysicsDude21 didn't like. Is that claim the sort of thing we would expect from a good faith editor? Then there is the claim that the word was created by a team led by Sir H-Dawg. Then there is PhysicsDude21's modifying talk page warning messages to misrepresent what other editors had said. Need I go on? There is, in PhysicsDude21's editing history, abundant evidence that we were dealing not with a well-meaning editor who unfortunately did not know how Wikipedia works, but rather with a troll/vandal.

I am human, and sometimes I make mistakes. However, I assure you that my part in this case was not undertaken lightly. I spent a considerable amount of time checking every single edit from this person (including ones which are now deleted) to be sure that I knew what the situation was. Having done so I was, and still am, confident that I had a correct understanding of the situation. I trust that you, likewise, checked the relevant editing history carefully before you accused me of "inappropriate" treatment of this user. If, having done so, you really do think that my reading of the situation is mistaken, then please tell me where you think I have gone wrong. Explain to me how a good-faith editor can have the editing history that this editor has. I shall then be very willing to join with you in asking the blocking administrator to unblock this user. However, at present I find it difficult to see how your interpretation is consistent with the observed facts. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may, let me second JamesBWatson's comments. I read PhysicsDude21's article. It was a blatant hoax whose only purpose was to disrupt Wikipedia. There is no reasonable reading of the article that leads you to believe PhysicsDude21 was doing anything but trolling. While assuming good faith is essential, at some point the abuse and lies become blatant enough that one can see a user's true intent. It was clearly not the case that PhysicsDude21 just didn't understand Wikipedia's purpose, he was deliberately trolling . A good block that is a service to Wikipedia. Well done, JamesBWatson. Sparthorse (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I can't take credit for the block, as I didn't do it. The account was blocked by the person with the username 7. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As another who spent time with PhysicsDude21, I agree with JBW. He may have started off as an innocent newbie who doesn't understand WP:NFT and wants to post a joke article about a made-up word, but he rapidly progressed to undoubted trolling, making absurd claims and placing level 4 vandalism warnings. After I took the trouble to point him to NOR, NEO and NFT to explain why his article was inappropriate, he simply posted it again with a link to a Youtube page of a lot of lads dancing about in a classroom, claiming that this was "3rd Party Proof" that the word was not a neologism. I note that he was also blocked on Wiktionary after giving vandalism warnings to two admins there. On Wiktionary he signs himself "Sir Peter A. Bert", under which name he has previous form here - see User talk:Smyth/Archive 1#Mildly amusing message from child or lunatic and Special:Contributions/SirPABert. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize and retract any claims here if I didn't look at the record deeply enough to see the truth of this. A brief look at Physics' edits looked to me like naive argumentation, but I'll take your word for it that it went on into trolling. Thanks for listening. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hacker T. Dog

You deleted Hacker T. Dog and redirected to a page that doesnt exist , please reply to my talk page. Thom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.217.234 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I deleted it because it was already a redirect to a page which no longer existed. That page was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, in which it was decided that the subject did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is possible that Hacker T. Dog does satisfy those guidelines, in which case it would be possible to resurrect a version of that article which was not a redirect. However, the article gave no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines, and did not cite a single source. If you can find sources that do show notability then please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Deleting pages is more likely to get you a torrent of abuse than a thank-you, so to redress the balance - here's a thank-you note. You've hit virtually every speedy deletion I've put up today, and for performing this necessary and generally unappreciated task, I award you this barnstar. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Helga Barkhuizen

Hello James,

I feel it's completely unfair to remove the write-up on me from Wikipedia, as the sole purpose of it is to showcase what I'm busy doing and have done to gain the title of Miss South Africa International 2012.

You could argue that Elvis Blue cannot feature under famous people for George, South Africa, as well then. He just won Idols South Africa and is not making a considerable change in the world - merely singing, whereas I am punting nature conservation and environmental awareness.

Please let me know how I should change the page to reflect this as it does not make any sense why you would've removed me. Furthermore the write-up that you say is copied from Facebook is false. This write-up was done for me as Miss SA International 2012 and features on facebook as well, but is not copied.

Please respond to me as soon as you find the time? Thank you very much.

Kind regards, Helga Barkhuizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelgaB (talk • contribs) 13:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You have, in fact, given good reasons for the deletion. Saying that the article has the sole purpose of "showcasing" what you are doing is another way of saying that the article was written for promotional purposes. You should also not be writing an article about yourself, as you will have a conflict of interest. The content of the article is published elsewhere, on a page which does not assert that it is public domain or released under a free license. We cannot assume that one of those applies because some Wikipedia editor says so, as anyone can create a Wikipedia account, and claim to be the copyright owner. I could give you a link to instructions on how to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with evidence of copyright release, but doing so would be a waste of your time, as the material would be deleted as promotional anyway. (Such language as "Being a passionate, natural leader, Helga has made a noticeable impression on her peers and community" is promotional, with no two ways about it.) What other articles exist is largely irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why. (That links to a section of a page about unsuitable reasons to advance in deletion discussions, but the same applies in this case.)

I have searched for information about you. I found social networking sites such as FaceBook and LinkedIn, an advertising page hosted on blogspot for a model agency, various listing sites and promotional sites, and so on. I found nothing that by the remotest stretch of the imagination could be regarded as substantial coverage in independent sources. That being so, it seems very unlikely that you satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, in which case you are not suitable as the subject of an article. If and when you do satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, probably some impartial third party will write an article about you, so there will be no need for you to do so. That will have the advantage of avoiding any conflict of interest, or the impression that you are using Wikipedia for self promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd send my article for deletion

Hi. You proposed to delete my article Asit Vora because there were no reliable resources. But now I have added Reliable resources to it. So please cancel the deletion request. --Yasht101 (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would happily have done so, but see that you have already done it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

See my response to my talk page. Yosichen (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Help me

I wasent aware of the fact that you cannot copy from websites as I am new to this site. I am really extremly sorry for that. But please give me a chance. Please restore those articles and I promise to make them proper in 3 hours from the time I am online. Please do it and just give me one chance and if I fail you can even ban me from wikipedia, I wouldnt mind it as I was not good. I had worked very hard for that articles and had gathered the resourses but I didnt make it proper. I feel very bad for it. Please just give me one chance inorder to make those articles without the copied texts. If I again created them, it will take up very long time. Please consider my request and do it. I will take care about it next time for sure and this copyright thing will not be done again. Please restore those articles and I will surely improve them. Please just give me one last chance. Thank You. --Yasht101 (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately restoring articles deleted for copyright infringement is not possible. If I did that I would be breaking the law by publishing material infringing copyright. The only way to recreate the articles is to rewrite them from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I will do it. And I will take care of it properly that it is writtten by me only. One last thing I wanted to know that if you cannot restore, can you send me the material via email or anything? --Yasht101 (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

The relatively new User:Wikipeditist (1st edit Dec 19) looks much like User:CuriousWikian590 (1st edit Oct 28th, blocked Nov 26) who is a sock of User:Mr. Curious Man(blocked Dec 1). I accidently ran across this while explaining the problems in List of Tinga Tinga Tales episodes to DGG. Since you blocked CuriousWikian590 before, I wanted to see if you can look at this closer. Both 'created' List of Tinga Tinga Tales episodes separately, plus several of socks have worked on Tinga Tinga Tales, as well as Wikipeditist, right after the other socks were blocked. I haven't tagged as such yet, wanted your opinion, and if appropriate, action. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

JB

Re: this deletion it looks like the 20+ users who had that template on their pages are now all showing as db-attack. Know of any good way to unlink them all?  7  12:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have just finished going through the slightly tedious process of removing the box from user pages one by one. There may well be an easier way, but if so I don't know what it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

AWB? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have never used AWB, and know very little about it, but I must look into it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit foreboding at first but some kids here use it quite happily. I have very little experience with it except on my wife's PC because it won't work on Mac. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

why did you delete my article?

why did you delete the article that i created about the Act of 1819? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi-the-magnificent (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Factory Acts (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Beyond what AndrewWTaylor's message on your talk page tells you, and the deletion log entry confirming that the article was deleted for that reason, what more do you want to know? If you let me know I will try to help, but at the moment I don't know what is unclear to you, so I don't know what to say that would help you. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Sebastian80

OK, what exactly did this old boy, do? Was he banned, is he a sockpuppet, and are we sure? I was falsely accused of the same not too long ago and never got so much as an apology from the dirty rat bastard who said it.  :) In all seriousness, this kid was coming a long way. He has the potential to be a positive contributor and unless I'm missing something, I can't see what the problem is. I was asked to mentor him a few weeks ago and didn't see him going around on one skate or anything. Let me know. Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This account was used to evade a block on another account (VeronicaPR). Yes, we are sure. I don't need to spend ten minutes trawling back through the editing history to re-find all the evidence that led me to that conclusion in the first case (which is often what I have to waste my time doing in these cases) because the editor has since admitted to being the same person as VeronicaPR. Presumably you know that, as it is clearly visible on the account's talk page. I haven't a clue what you mean by "going around on one skate", except a vague impression that you mean that the editor wasn't doing anything very bad. Is that all you, mean, or does the expression have a more specific meaning? I assume that by "this kid was coming a long way" you mean that the recent edits via the block-evading sockpuppet account were better than some of the old edits that led to the original block. If so, I suggest that your best action, in your capacity as mentor, is to advise the user how to make an unblock request that is likely to succeed, and also to advise him/her to do so via their original account, or else to provide a good reason for switching to the sockpuppet account. You may like to explain to your mentoring client why just ignoring a block and evading it via another account is not a helpful way to go, even if it is done with noble intentions. I hope these remarks have been helpful to you. At the moment I can't think of anything else I can usefully add. Obviously, any concerns you may have about the declines of unblock requests should be addressed to the administrators who declined them. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Going around on one skate" is an idiomatic expression in the English language to denote that a person is acting in a bizzare manner, I forget some people have no humor, suffer from aspergers syndrome, don't speak American English, have too much soy in their diet, walk around with a board up there ass, or just read things too literal, present company excluded of course...it's probably late where you are, too! Pictur in your mind someone careening around while wearing one roller skate, to get the visual. As to the "coming a long way" remark, I meant that with regard to this account's history. I haven't had time to go through any but the last 50 posts on his other account (Veronica something or other), I had been away for a week but have been receiving numerous emails from the user about this. I'll take you at your word then about you being sure, but again as I was falsely accused, I felt I should ask. I do not really know this person beyond "coaching" him through a GA Review and subsequently being asked to mentor him. I just wanted to make sure he wasn't a total shitbird before I stuck my neck out to defend him. Since I've never been blocked/banned from here I guess I'll have to read up on it or suggest him to do the same. Thanks again, you've been helpful.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I spent a little of my time carefully thinking out a response to your original query that I thought might be helpful. I'm not sure I would have done so had I known you were likely to come back with stuff like "have no humor, suffer from aspergers syndrome, don't speak American English, have too much soy in their diet, walk around with a board up there ass". In my case the reason is that I don't speak American English: does that make be worthy of contempt and derision? Most of what you have written seems reasonable, but remarks like that are likely to antagonise people, and put them in a negative frame of mind towards anything else you say or do. I suggest thinking more carefully before using such language again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I did say, "present company excluded". Which is a way of letting the other person know that you are being facetious with a comment or going for humor. You write very well and if you had not told me you were not a native speaker I would never have tguessed it at all. My apologies, I did not mean to offend you. I guess it's like when this Dutch girl I know says something which means "and now the monkey comes out of his sleeve" and it makes no sense to me.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I didn't make myself clear. I understood perfectly what you meant by "present company excluded". What I meant to convey was not that I had been offended on this occasion, but that using that kind of language was probably unwise, as it was likely to prejudice people against you, even though you didn't mean it offensively. I deliberately put in the bit saying "Most of what you have written seems reasonable" to show that it had not prejudiced me against you. Your comment about the Dutch girl is interesting, because I know a young Dutch woman who most of the time speaks English virtually perfectly, and then suddenly she comes up with something that makes you think "What the hell?" :) Anyway, best of luck with the mentoring. You are probably right in thinking that the editor has the potential to move on from past problems and become a useful and accepted member of the community. I hope so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I'm kind of a smart alec in real life and through my non-wiki writing people expect that from me and I forget that I'm probably not as popular on here as on the gun/knife/mma forums(I think 90% of my activity is editing/writing and 10% is community type stuff). I will be serious with you from here on out. I had my doubts about this user when I first met him here (he admitted to plagurizing /close paraphrasing text) but seemed to move on from that and become very productive. When I did not see any similarity with what he had posted as veronica with what he posted as sebastian I was curious where the SPI came from, that's why I asked if you were sure. From my own experience running a knife forum with 40,000+ members I have tools at my disposal that can check for similar patterns, but have had a few false positives over the years. Again, I now can see where he admitted it was him in the past, so this makes me question his integrity. Is he sorry for what he did, or just sorry he was caught? I will read through all of his past transgressions in the morning and see where to go from there; then I'll read up on the blocks and advise him. Thanks again. And sorry if I came off like a bit of a jerk earlier--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Selva chess

Hi. Please see this user's edits even on Madurai Airport. Based on this is a two day block sufficient? — Abhishek  ^Talk 18:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite likely not, but this is the editor's first block, and can be regarded as a warning. Please feel very welcome to contact me if the problem returns after the block, and I will consider the possibility of a significantly longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Sure. — Abhishek  ^Talk 18:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Animation Source Choice Awards

It seems that the deprodder isn't clear on why the article has been prodded in the first place. Basically, that means it's all going to AfD. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

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

SarahStierch (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Free Word and Excel password recovery Wizard

Hello, James! I am begginer on Wikipedia . I write articles about password protection in the popular application. Recently You deleted my article " Free Word and Excel password recovery Wizard". Please, tell me why software in the {{Password_Cracking_Software}} category doesn't include to G11. But my article included. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freepassword (talk • contribs) 09:37, 24 January 2012

Presumably you mean why do the programs listed in that template not qualify for deletion. If so, my answer is that I don't know whether they do or not, except for John the Ripper, which I do know is an extremely well known program, which has received a considerable amount of coverage in many sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 83.28.142.46's talk page.
Message added 12:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ankit Maity ^{Talk | contribs} 12:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've replied to your message at my talk page. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 16:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Abhijay's talk page.
Message added 16:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 16:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bruce A. Langos

Why is there a COI tag on Bruce A. Langos? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Both I and at least one other editor got the impression that the author of the article was editing in ways which suggested a connection to Teradata Corporation. The editor was asked for clarification of this, and has never answered. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Noah Lott Deletion

Dear Sir,

I am the editor for Noah Lott's page and I need to know why it was deleted. I did my best to format, site sources and so forth. I have a feeling that deleting a Wiki page is based on an editor's personal interpretation on the Wiki guidelines. From what I've read, your deletion (G4) was based on feedback about 7-8 months ago. I have since made the corrections based on their comments and had one or two of the people who requested deletion actually help out in formatting.

I'm not slighting you but Noah Lott is a legitimate wrestling worker and based on other pages, I thought it was I was meeting the standards.

Sincerely,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjrude (talk • contribs) 18:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The new version of the article was substantially the same as the one discussed at AfD, much of the wording being identical. The principal change was the addition of innumerable external links, apparently in an attempt to establish notability. Some of these were links to forums, blogs, and other unreliable sources. Many of them were just links to pages listing fight results, and such like material. Scarcely any of them gave substantial coverage, and none, as far as I could see, was substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. At least one of them was a link to a Wikipedia article, which would have done nothing to establish notability even if it gave more mention of him than a mere inclusion in a list of names, but it didn't. The reasons given at AfD for regarding him as non-notable still apply. No amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UT

I redid the links to reflect ACCURATE information. You just reinforced my fears that Wiki editors who are not familiar with a subject will delete. Noah Lott is not a non-notable, he is a highly respected pro wrestler within the industry, including agents in the WWE who see potential in him. There are lesser known wrestlers on Wiki, are they non-notable too? The new version of his page reflects all the changes, including deleting sources you mention so I don't know which Noah Lott page you were looking at.

I will add Noah's page again and I WILL make Noah a notable figure. I WILL follow the Wiki guidelines.

Instead if deleted and hiding behind the "G4" reason. I would appreciate any assistance.

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjrude (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 January 2012‎

(talk page stalker) "potential"?? See WP:CRYSTAL. When they become notable, an article will be a great idea. You cannot personally influence notability. Trying to do so can have 2 key results: permanently locking the title from recreation, and a block for continual recreation of a non-notable article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Being "highly respected" does not make satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either. Having substantial coverage in independent reliable sources does, and nothing indicates that that is the case. I don't know what you mean by "hiding behind the G4 reason", but I try to implement Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and CSD G4 is, by Wikipedia's policy, a reason for deletion of a page. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"potential"? That's another way of saying "up-and-coming". You cannot "make Noah a notable figure": that very phrasing betrays a profound misunderstanding of the meaning of the word. As to other obscure figures having articles: that's called the "other crap exists" argument. It is regarded as an argument for the deletion of those other articles, not as a valid argument for the retention of yours. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You've ruined it!

I was hoping for another pithy comment in my talk from 90.199.27.242 (talk), but I supposed that is not going to happen now. Cheers! ;o) Jim1138 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry. Silly me, tryiing to discourage disruptive editing, instead of goading the disruptive editor on to more trolling. I will try to learn to do better. :) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You are now the third person who has intervened on this matter without apparently having appreciated the triviality. And surely Wikipedia was never intended to be taken so seriously and would be much more valuable if it remained a pleasingly friendly source of non-authoritative information.

Incidentally, your user page contains some oddly inconsistent attitudes - inter alia "I think I had probably made a few edits anonymously, but I don't actually remember." - to the values you seem so keen to impose.

90.199.27.242 (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what that last point is supposed to mean. Yes, Wikipedia was ever intended to be taken seriously. If you don't like Wikipedia the way it is, then why not go to one of the countless online forums where the frivolous kind of stuff you like is welcome? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much clearer those comments could have been; it is contributors like yourself who are undermining Wikipedia by refusing to acknowledge that there may be some value in adopting a slightly different approach. Just because information exists does not make it correct or necessarily worthy of being taken seriously but your attitude seems to rather conveniently discount that possibility. What an strangely sad and dangerous person you must be !!

90.199.27.113 (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) After writing all that, WP:NPA might be a good read for you. Calabe1992 19:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I nearly chuckled when first reading your recent inaccurate tirade but then realised it was intended to be taken seriously. You seem to have mistaken my conduct for the very things you are perpetrating. Perhaps professional help is available for your severe case of Wikidiction.

90.199.27.113 (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lay off. Calabe1992 16:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In reference to User:Sachinpandit

I noticed you dealt with our little spammy friend. However, be aware he has a sock puppet at User talk:Sachin69. I was about to report the main account to ARV as promo only, but as you are handling it, I won't do so. Safiel (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I am not sure that I shouldn't have indef-blocked as promo only, but giving him one more chance can't do much harm. I do know about the second account, and if it is used disruptively in any way, or to avoid the block, it will be blocked: probably indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Safiel (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Chief Petty Officer (United States)

Can I ask that you take another look at this G12 speedy? I recently stumbled across it and found it a little odd. Obviously I could not see the version you deleted so I thought I'd take a look at Senior Chief Petty Officer instead. This article also shows remarkable similarity to the page at myarmedforces.com . However having looked into that instance I'm certain it's a backwards copy. Wayback machine only shows copies at myarmedforces.com going back to 2008 whereas we've had essentially the same text since 2005. Looking through the history there is also a lot of evidence of organic change at wikipedia, many of which also occur on myarmedforces.com. As an example this edit changed an example of "BT for Boiler Technician" to "QM for Quartermaster" and we see the later version at myamedforces.com. This is but one of many such examples. Having concluded that they copied from us for that article it seems likely that they also have for Chief Petty Officer (United States) and so I ask that you take a second look. If you'd prefer not to investigate yourself could you restore and list at WP:CP please? Dpmuk (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my attention to this. I had checked, and found that the Wikipedia article dated from about three years after the "copyright" date on the page at http://www.myarmedforces.com that it was supposed to be copied from. However, prompted by your message, I have now searched more extensively, and found that the Wikipedia article was copied and pasted from an old version of Chief petty officer, and that the text there does go back earlier than the page at http://www.myarmedforces.com. I shall restore the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd missed that it may have been split form that page (although of course without the deleted version that would have been less obvious). I was certain you had checked and that it was just an accidental oversight. I know I've tagged an article for G12 and then the reviewing admin managed to spot a tiny CC release - these things happen and no harm done. Dpmuk (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:90.199.27.113

Has no signature. Calabe1992 20:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)  Done Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Crack (password software)

I contested your prod of this article (previously at Crack (software). I posted a note on Talk:Crack (password software). – Pnm (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

New America NYC

Hi JamesBWatson,

I wanted to alert you to the newly created article New America NYC. I had previously made this page, and you deleted it. I am admittedly new to Wikipedia editing and, after reading more materials on how to properly write one, understand how flawed the previous page was. I feel I have put together a fair, unbias, and informative page on New America NYC with external links, no promotional text, and further reasoning as to its importance.

Thank you for your help,

Clara Hogan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarahogan (talk • contribs) 21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Clara. Yes, the new article is much better than the first version, and I have no plan to delete it. However, it may help you to point out one thing which potentially could lead someone to tag it for deletion again. There are two references in the article. References serve two functions: enabling readers to verify information in the article, and showing that the subject of the article is notable enough to justify its being the subject of an encyclopaedia article. The first reference is a link to New America NYC's own web site. It is fine to give that as a reference for verification purposes, but, it does nothing to establish whether the subject is notable, since that requires evidence that it has received independent coverage from other people, not from the people who run the initiative themselves. The second reference is to a blog, which does not actually mention New America NYC. Clearly there is a relevance, as you have made clear in the article, but once again the reference does nothing to establish notability of New America NYC. If the article is tagged for speedy deletion under the same grounds as before I shall have no hesitation in declining the deletion request, as the current version of the article, unlike the earlier one, does give the impression that the subject is significant enough for an article, and does not seem to be promotional. However, there are other deletion processes other than speedy deletion, and the article in its present state could be put up for deletion on the grounds of lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If that happens, you will be given a week in which you can contest the proposal, so there is, in my opinion, no danger of the article suddenly disappearing. However, in order to protect the article against a possible slower deletion, you should try to find at least one or two references to significant coverage (not just one sentence mentions) in reliable sources independent of the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)