User talk:JBW/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

Falcor Netflix deletion

Hello James, I want to contest your deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcor_Netflix_(JavaScript_library) ... That library is an actual hardwork made by open-source team of Netflix. Can you undo the deletion or eventually give me more clarification why you have deleted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Przeor1989 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Przeor1989: As you know, the article was nominated for speedy deletion by an editor who thought it was promotional. Looking at the article, I agreed: it appears to be written for the purpose of publicising its subject, and persuading people that Falcor Netflix is a good thing, worth using. However, looking back at it now, I do not see it as such blatant advertising as many articles we get, so I will therefore be willing to restore it if you like. However, I think it only fair to warn you that in my opinion doing so will be virtually certain to be a waste of time, because if the article is restored it will be nominated for a deletion discussion, and my searches have failed to provide any shred of evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so that it is practically certain that it will just be deleted again. My advice is that you would be throwing away time and effort that could more usefully be used in trying to publicise your script library in other ways, but if, knowing that, you still want me to restore the article, please let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: in general, this is my first wikipedia entry so I made a mistake to copy/past the citation to the Falcor's entry - this is why it has been nominated to Speedy Deletion (I've tweaked it 30 minutes later I saw that it has been nominated). Basically I am JavaScript developer, and when I found that the Netflix Falcor library has no wikipedia entry then I thought that a good idea will be to create one. When I was creating the FalcorJS wiki I was following the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library) which is the Facebook library. In general, the title has the Netflix name in it, because it's better known as Falcor Netflix than Falcor.js etc. I can take a place in "deletion discussion" because in my eyes - the The both libraries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library) & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcor_Netflix_(JavaScript_library) have similar reason, to improvement the efficiency of Front-end development (programming). Can you restore this article, I will take place in that discussion especially that I have provided my point of view for you already. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Przeor1989 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 15 February 2016‎

@Przeor1989: OK, I will restore the article, and take it to a deletion discussion. The fundamental difference between the "React" library and the "Netflix Falcor" library is that the one clearly satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the other, as far as I can see, doesn't. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: OK thank you. I will see how the discussion will go and then I will try to make smaller gradual edits on other wiki entries, than creating a whole new page as Netflix Falcor. I will also study the notability guideline more carefully. This is my first attempt in Wikipedia so you need to understand, thanks :-) —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Przeor1989 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 15 February 2016

@Przeor1989: Yes, I do understand. Unfortunately, there are many Wikipedia editors who are unsympathetic to new editors who come here in perfectly good faith, and do things which are not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not because they have any sort of malicious intentions, but just because being new they don't know about those policies and guidelines. However, I remember when I was new here, and often found that things which I did were opposed or reversed for reasons which I didn't understand, so I have every sympathy with other people in that situation. In my opinion, Wikipedia would be better if we simply deleted about 90% of the contents of the various policy and guideline pages, making it simpler, clearer, and easier for new editors to find out how things work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, when you post to talk pages or other discussion pages (but not articles) you should put four tildes (that is to say ~~~~) at the end of your post. The Wikimedia software will automatically convert that to a signature and date stamp, which as well as telling other editors who posted the message and when, will also contain a link to your talk page, which can be very useful for anyone wishing to contact you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

COI situation

Can you please take a look at User talk:Anantamandal. I just ran across this editor while doing a Welcome blitz and have left him a note about self-promotion and single purpose editing. You did the same back in 2013 but it seems he has continued his self-promotion. As time goes on, I am more than happy to assist a fellow artist to comply with our rules. I think this will give me a guide on what needs to be done. Not quite sure how to proceed. Any advice is appreciated. Buster Seven Talk 15:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he gets it. I'm not even sure he is reading the warnings I have placed at his talk, the article talk and even his User page. Currently we are edit-warring but I'm not even sure he knows it. I have placed a 3RR banner on his talk page but I am reluctant to report him. He has put together a nice page. its just that its not NPOV. And the lists need to be inverted. Buster Seven Talk 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I have done some editing at Ananta Mandal (inverting the lists). The references are a mess. many come from His own Web page. Buster Seven Talk 03:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Overnight he did 9 edits, fixing a ref and adding/changing some images. I used "rollbacker" to undo all 9 since, at this point, his ignoring of his COI status amounts to vandalism. Buster Seven Talk 13:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: First of all, sorry it's taken me a couple of days to get round to responding to this. I've had rather a lot of other things to deal with. However, I have now posted a message at User talk:Anantamandal, stating that he is likely to be blocked without further notice if the problematic editing continues. If you see any more of the same from him, please contact me again, and if I agree that it is a continuation of the problems he has been warned about then I will block him. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Watson,

My name is Ananta Mandal I saw that you edited the "Ananta Mandal" page many times and objection about the editing process.

Actual many time different user edit the page and delete some important information and did red marks or sometimes they found some error, and every time (I get an email) I tried to solved that part. I thought I make mistake and that is not the right way to edit and did more efforts. and I am not comfortable to edit Wikipedia page, also I don't know so many things about editing process. even I am not sure is that this texts now I send to you is correct way or not. if this is not the right way then I apologize for that.

But now I realized that my way of edit was not the right. But Dear Mr. Watson just believe me - I did many mistake but my intention was always peaceful and good. I didn't ever try to break the Wikipedia rules or hurt someone's efforts.

Dear Mr. Watson could you please guide me how can I solve that problems? I really want to make the page transparent and correct. still there are some errors and mistakes. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantamandal (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 February 2016

Also I don't try to self-promotion, just I try to edit some mistakes and errors on that page. I have my official website for my artwork promotion - http://anantamandal.in/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantamandal (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anantamandal: I have no doubt that you had good intentions. However, I find it difficult to believe that you have not been using Wikipedia for self-promotion: your very first edit, when you created the article about yourself, told us that you were a "noted" artist, and "one of the most successful painter (sic) in India"; that is not neutral language, it is promotional language. Since then, you have proceeded to add numerous links to your web site and other web sites related to you, to post endless lists of your exhibitions, "awards" you say you have received, and so on. It is really difficult to see your editing as anything other than an attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise yourself and your work. If you sincerely did not intend it that way, and do not see what you have written as promotional, then you certainly should not be editing the article, as you lack the ability to see your own writing objectively. Difficulty in standing back and seeing one's own writing about oneself objectively is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourage us from writing about ourselves. I see no reason to doubt that you came to Wikipedia in good faith, believing that creating a page to publicise yourself and your work was a legitimate activity here: people who do not have experience of editing Wikipedia usually have no reason to know that we have policies and guidelines discouraging such actions. However, you were told in February 2013 that this was not so: since then, all the editing you have done has been done in the knowledge that it was contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, or at least, if it wasn't then that is because you chose to ignore what you were told. I should have checked back to see whether you were still editing your self-promotional article: if I had done so, I would have contacted you again long ago about your editing. As it is, however, it was only when Buster7 contacted me to express concern about your editing and ask me for help that I became aware that you were still doing the same thing you were warned about three years ago.

You say that I have edited the article "many times". In fact, I have made just two very small edits to it, one in February 2013 and one in February 2016. In both those edits, I added a tag to say that the article was an autobiography. You removed the first tag, without explaining why, despite the fact that it is clearly true that it is an autobiography. Is there some reason why you did not wish it to be known that you had created the article?

You say that there are "errors and mistakes". If so, please say precisely what those errors are and what changes you think should be made to put them right, and provide sources which confirm the corrected version which you propose. Then I or some other editor can look at them, and if appropriate make the corrections. However, note that "errors and mistakes" does not mean "aspects of the article which don't present you in the way you would like to be presented", it means things which are objectively wrong. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarifications

Thank you Mr. "JamesBWatson", for your kind reply,

I start with this question's answer - you asked that why I didn't wish it to be known that I had created the article?

Actual the fact is - this page first created one of my known person using my name. so he wrote like that. after that he told me he create that page but he don't know much more about this process. and last some years we both are try to maintain the page. The page created by my name but I don't create that page. but everyone see my name from the 'View History' option, so we didn't hide anything from Wikipedia and public.

And about very first edit that page, because he did lots of mistakes, even he didn't know anything about html editing and the code language, he did it only an experimental way and follow others profiles and codes, also right now we both are not comfortable with this. But trying to learn. Sometimes we maintain and edit together this page, and the profile created by my name so we giving reply together for all the clarifications.

Yes, he wrote that - one of the most successful painter (sic) in India, and he submitted the source link about this line. Also I writing you this line from my self - I am a visual artist and I completed my Graduation in Bachelor of Visual Arts from Government College of Art & Craft, Kolkata, Calcutta University in 2007, India. And I did my first solo exhibition in kolkata at Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata in 2004, and last eleven years I have been working as a professional artist and had done my 13 Solo exhibition in India's different cities and did so many group exhibition in India as well as internationally (you can see my full resume in my official website - http://anantamandal.in/artist ). and off course I am not very big artist but I am doing my job successfully and sincerely in Indian art field and get very good response in Indian also International art audience. Maybe that was not a neutral language but it's true that I am a successful painter.

Yes we had proceeded to add numerous links with my web site and other sites related also - because of the all links are source link and reference links. Some months before another user came to that page and did red marks almost all lines and tag that there are no reference and source link so that time we thought should added all reference line on every line! before that time he submit minimum source link and reference links. And my official website is also part of reference link and an information about the artist.

He put the major Exhibitions and Awards list those I had achieved and did. but it was not endless lists. those thirteen solo exhibitions I did last eleven years time, as an artist life it's very important information and achievement also. Maybe it's not to fit on Wikipedia's page rules.

I didn't have any intention to use Wikipedia to publicise myself and my artwork. All are mistakes was done unknowingly. even we also didn't know that why some user edit the page! Some time we also hopeless about that why some user edit like that, but now we understand that is the way to editing the page and create the page and some user like you contributing their effort on Wikipedia page.

This article created by someone else (after crated the page sometimes I assist him). And here submitted all lines are publish some news paper, magazine or some reputed art related website, and this all are writing written by some other person. just he use those line with the source links, so he thought it was not an autobiography page. that was the reason he edited your added autobiography tags, but he didn't know how to inform and explaining to Wikipedia admin.

And today we have seen the page there are many things were deleted by other user.

Mr. Watson, the all mistakes was done unknowingly, not intention for a self promotion. I don't give you any excuses it's all are fact.

In fact when we understood that, as early as possible we contact both of you "JamesBWatson" "Buster7" and did explain everything.

If you need further any clarifications please let me know I will provide all the clarifications.

I will follow your guideline, thank you so much for all your help, guidance and support.

Anantamandal 03:06, 16 February 2016

@Anantamandal: The "autobiography" template in the article says "This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject." That is clearly true: in fact, in the light of what you now tell me, it has been extensively edited by the subject and by someone connected to the subject. Also, the use of your user account that you describe is contrary to at least two Wikipedia policies. (1) The account named "Anantamandal" was used to create and edit an article about Ananta Mandal, but the person using it to do so was not, in fact, Ananta Mandal, which means that the username was misleading. It is unacceptable for an account to have a username which gives the impression that the account is being used by a real person other than the person who is actually using it. (2) Wikipedia policy is that a user account is to be used only by one person. If it comes to light that an account has been shared by two or more people, an administrator may block it. You therefore should not continue to edit using this account. If you wish to continue editing, you may create another account. You should, however, make it clear that the new account is operated by you, to avoid misleading other editors. (Please understand that I am not suggesting that you intend to mislead anyone, but unintentionally misleading can be just as undesirable as intentionally doing so.) I suggest that "Ananta Mandal" might be a suitable username, but it's up to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank you Mr. Watson, for your kind reply and help me for knowing more about the Wikipedia policies. Me or my known person ever don't edit that page by use this account. or may be I will create another account but don't edit ever that page by my self. If need update further anything will always provide the matter with reference and source link to Mr. Buster7 or you or some other authentic users. please let me know what should I do with this account now? or it could be deleted? And now this profile edited by some others users to maintain all the Wikipedia rules, I hope this page are now neutral. therefore in future the autobiography tag could be removed? If you let me ensure this then I will very thankful to you. Again thanks for all your guidance and support. Anantamandal 10:05, 21 February 2016

Re: Sockpuppetry

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my message. I have read your message thoroughly, albeit with tears. I will think about reverting his edits, as you said that it isn't an good idea. However, I know 86.6.203.180, and the edits I reverted had absolutely nothing to do with the other person's edits. Lanc Vanc (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lanc Vanc: To be perfectly clear, I did not say that reverting the edits wasn't a good idea: I just suggested that you might like to consider whether to do so, as it might give people a bad impression. It is really up to you whether to carry on doing it or not, but I just thought it only fair to make sure you were aware there was a possibility of it being seen in negative light. As I indicated above, it doesn't look to me as though there was sockpuppetry involved, and since alleged sockpuppetry was the reason given for the edits being reverted, if that allegation was unfounded then restoring the edits is perfectly legitimate. One more thing: if, as you say, you are moved to tears by such experiences, then you may find it helps to stand back, and think to yourself "After all, it's only Wikipedia, and not worth getting upset about." When I started editing Wikipedia, I sometimes used to get quite stressed when I felt other editors were being unfair, but eventually I realised it isn't worth it. If someone I've never met is unfair about some editing I've done on a web site where amateurs can contribute to pages of information, does it really matter? I learnt not to get emotionally involved, and not to take anything anyone does here personally. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Harry singer socks

As requested, here are new socks of banned user User:Harry (singer). Special:Contributions/86.6.203.180 picked up where the last IP left off, so I reverted those edits. Then User:Lanc Vanc stepped in and reverted my reversions. I think they are both Harry. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Do you have any evidence that it's the same person? From the edits I have seen, apart from editing a few of the same articles (but not many) and geolocating to the same country (but not the same part of the same country) the editing from this IP address and the recently blocked one don't look at all similar. If there is evidence of similarity that I have missed, please give some diffs. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm really upset. I know 86.6.203.180, and he's not a sockpuppet at all. It looks like someone used his IP as well, and he didn't do anything wrong. He told me to type this up, as he is very upset and annoyed over being accused as a "sockpuppet". I hope someone reads this, his edits had nothing to do with the other person's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanc Vanc (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lanc Vanc: See my message above. However, I suggest thinking carefully about whether restoring all the IP editor's edits is a good idea, as it is likely to give the impression of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems pretty ducky to me...The mass reversion of Binksternet's edits seem telling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Lanc Vanc reverted Binksternet's reverting of 86.6.203.180's edits, indicating that Lanc Vanc and 86.6.203.180 are either the same person or (as Lanc Vanc claims) two people who know one another, but that is not in dispute: the disputed issue is whether 86.6.203.180 and Lanc Vanc are evading blocks on accounts and IP addresses used by "Harry (singer)". I haven't seen any examples of either Lanc Vanc or 86.6.203.180 reverting any of Binksternet's edits other than where Binksternet had first reverted Lanc Vanc's/86.6.203.180's edits first. If you have seen examples of that happening, please give me diffs, and I'll reconsider the matter; however, at present I have seen nothing at all inconsistent with the view that (a) 86.6.203.180 is a perfectly innocent editor, (b) Binksternet mistakenly thought 86.6.203.180 was a blocked editor evading a block, without firm evidence, and therefore reverted 86.6.203.180's edits, (c) Lanc Vanc, knowing that Binksternet was mistaken, restored 86.6.203.180's edits. Obviously, that may not be so, but I really, really haven't seen any evidence at all which contradicts that view: as I said above, I don't see any connection whatever to the editing of the blocked editor Binksternet refers to apart from a very small minority of the articles edited by the two being the same, and both geolocating to the United Kingdom. The edits I have seen from 86.6.203.180 and Lanc Vanc are not at all similar to edits I have seen from either Harry (singer) or the recently blocked IP editor that both Binksternet and I are convinced was Harry (singer). If anyone can show me diffs to indicate a connection which I haven't seen, I shall be very grateful, but without firm evidence we have to assume good faith. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hounding

In rejecting my appeal you said that you have examined my edit history. Would you please show me the edits that I made that justify the Drmies block and your assertion that it was "glaringly obvious" that they showed "personal attacks, harassment, and a battleground approach". Please give the diffs of these glaringly obvious edits and explain to me what was wrong with the edits. You also wrote "I do get the impression that you genuinely cannot see the nature of what you are doing" - so show me what is wrong because it is certainly not glaringly obvious to me. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Since other editors have painstakingly pointed out the various problems, and you simply deny it all, I am doubtful that pointing out the same things again will suddenly change anything. However, I will give a few diffs of edits of yours where you quite unmistakably exhibited a battleground approach to other editors, sometimes unambiguously amounting to personal attacks. And no, I will not spend time explaining to you in what way these edits constitute a battleground approach and personal attacks, because if you can't see that grass is green then someone explaining to you that grass is green won't enable you to see it.

Please note that the following are not selected as being in any sense the best examples; they are just a few examples that I found very quickly and easily from a quick look at a few sample edits from each of a few sample sections of your editing history.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9],, [10], [11], [12], [13] The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As an administrator you are required to explain your actions. You appear to be refusing to do this. I want you to tell me what was wrong with any of the edits I made that resulted in the block that Drmies imposed, and which you agreed with in the rejection of my appeal. I want you to give a diff and then explain what was wrong with the edit that the diff shows, and go through each of the edits this way. It should not take you long since you claimed the defects were blatantly obvious and there are only 5 or 6 diffs (and they are all cited either by Drmies or by me in the appeal). I have said during the appeal that I see nothing in any way wrong with those diffs. You accepted that this was the case (that I genuinely see nothing wrong with them) So tell me what was wrong with them. Is that really too much to ask? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are all the edits Drmies cited as justification for the block and for his assertion that I was "hounding" Dr.K: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Please give me your opinion on each, what was wrong with them in relation to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are, of course, very welcome to post here a polite request for me to clarify the reasons for declining your unblock request. if you do so, I shall carefully consider your request, and give you what seems to me to be an appropriate answer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are required to explain your reasons when asked to, and required to show that your actions do not disagree with Wikipedia policies. That is part of the duties of being an administrator. You appear to have explained your reasons by indicating that you entirely ignored all the evidence presented. You cited above a lot of diffs that had no connection to any of the diffs presented by Drmies to support his assertion that I was "hounding" Dr.K, and no connection to any of the appeal evidence I presented. I have given you here the diffs that Drmies stated was evidence of hounding. So I strongly urge you to clarify your reasons. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability and reference issue

Hello James, I don't understand why the references don't satisfy notability.

Further more I'm not related and just a fellow who is a resident of India where the said person is notable. I found the page of nalco and found the key person doesn't have a page of his own and wanted to contribute.

Please elaborate.

Editninja16 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Editninja16 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not shown by mere news announcements of appointments, or of speeches given by the subject, or the information that when a Prime Minister was making a visit, the person in question greeted him and gave him a book. We need sources which give more substantial coverage to the subject whose notability is to be demonstrated. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello James,

Could you please tell what substantial coverage means when I can see the main stream media covering most of his events live?

Along with this Reuters, Hindu, the telegraph, business standard seem to be covering any developments regarding aluminum industry with this person.

Please explain.

Editninja16 (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There are various guidelines which give information about what is required to establish notability. The principal one is Wikipedia:Notability, and that has links to other guidelines, of which Wikipedia:Notability (people) is the one most likely to be relevant in this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I had gone through this article when the article was first tagged with notability issue. I find the basics to be single independent sources or multiple independent sources covering the person.

Well in this case dozens of independent sources cover. Along with this the cited references about appointment are for the designations and not for notability.

Would you want me to add more sources? Please guide.

Editninja16 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Editninja16 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking, consensus is that a source does not do much to establish notability unless it is substantially about the subject (not about something else, but mentioning the subject), and also about substantial aspects of the subject (not, for example, just about one particular incident, such as an announcement that a person has been appointed to a job, or that he once met the prime minister). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again,

I'm not sure why you stress on meeting the prime minister once (which isn't once by any chance). The person is the chairman of a Navratna status PSU, the largest integrated aluminum complex. He meets just more than prime ministers alone. I'm not sure how he's not notable as you state.

Nevertheless I'm going to add more sources and not appointments or ministers and get back to you on this issue.

Is this fair enough?

Editninja16 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Editninja16:

1. I did not stress "once": I just indicated that a news report that was cited merely told us of one occasion when he met a prime minister, and that is not evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Whether he has in fact met the prime minister on occasions other than the one in that report is irrelevant, as that is not what the news report was about.
2. Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not accept as evidence of notability meeting notable people, nor being chairman of a large company. If you have read the guidelines and not grasped that, then it is difficult to know how I can make it any clearer; if you haven't read them then I suggest doing so. Also, please note that what I am referring to is the standards of notability which are generally accepted among Wikipedia editors in discussions, not my own views as to what standards should be accepted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:

Hello ,

I have added a few external links for the notability issue. Would these external links be enough? Please advise how to improve. Editninja16 (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The first link you give contains a one sentence quote from T.K. Chand. The second is the text of a speech by him, not about him. The third briefly mentions him , and gives a two sentence quote from him. The fourth actually has a four sentence mention of him, but it is essentially about planned renovation of a hospital, and Chand is mentioned as he made the announcement: it is not substantially about him. The fifth briefly mentions him in one sentence. Are these five typical? Have you read my messages above, including the one where I used the expression "substantially about the subject"? Are any of the links you give substantially about the subject? Have you read Wikipedia's notability guidelines? If not, I suggest you do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:

Hello,

I'm sorry for wasting your time and clearly mine too. I've made a recent revision does that establish notability since non notable people can't receive honorary degrees.

I want you to verify this else delete the page since I'm clearly out of efforts as of now. Editninja16 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Editninja16: I understand what you mean about honorary degrees, and perhaps that should be enough to indicate notability. The notability guidelines include "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"; the question is how "well-known and significant" the honour is, which no doubt depends on how significant the awarding institution is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: :@JamesBWatson:

Thank you for the response. Utkal University is very credible, you can read the wiki page for few references. Please suggest if notability tag can be removed.

Editninja16 (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:

Please advise if notability tag can be removed and the article can be reviewed?

Editninja16 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have looked at some of the links you have recently added, and I still don't see them as showing that the subject satisfies the general notability guidelines, for the same reasons that I have explained before. As for how far the honorary degree can be regarded as indicating notability, I really don't have any opinion. To me, the most striking thing about the article is that it is unmistakably promotional. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:

I'm not sure why the person would require promotion since he is at the peak of his career. I guess they all retire after this point or may be write books but hey that's it. All the companies with the same stature have articles to their CEO albeit very badly written. However these articles have been accepted by wiki without fuss. Despite the fact that their reference link has appointments as verification? Why were all those not tagged with notability or deleted. Because they were badly written?

Now when I take the pains to contribute, and please emphasize on this - removing any seemingly promotional content - it has been termed by you as promotional? Why? Which part seems promotional? All content mentioned have exact verification links. I don't see anything promotional in mentioning what has been published.

The person is very well broadcasted on TV every day so wiki can't promote him even in slightest manner. However what Wikipedia is - an information gaining platform - so here is an article collectively summarizing stuff that people find hard to search and gain.

I think you should reconsider.

Editninja16 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that he "would require promotion"; I said that the way the article is written is promotional. As for "which part seems promotional", it's not a question of one part, it's an overall impression based on the general tone and manner of presentation throughout the article. However, I will give you an example of one of the more blatantly promotional passages: "The Utkal University, recognizing his contributions towards 'nation bulding', awarded him the prestigious Honoris Causa D.Litt." "Recognizing his contributions" is not neutral reporting: it is endorsing the view that his "achievements" were valuable, and that the honorary degree "recognised" that fact. Nor can including the word "prestigious" be seen as anything other than an attempt to promote the view that the award reflects honourably on the recipient. The whole article reads from start to finish as though it is written by someone who wishes to impress us with how great and impressive a person Chand is: that is to say, to promote his reputation, not as though it is written by someone who has no personal opinion on Chand's nobility or lack of nobility, and is merely reporting facts from a neutral point of view. Likewise "Mr. Chand has more than three decades of experience in mining and metal sector" is the sort of wording one finds in a CV/résumé: it is phrased so as to impress us with his extensive experience, not merely to record a fact about his career, which might be expressed by something like "he has been working in the mining industry since 1982".

The existence of other appallingly bad articles, written to promote their subjects, does not mean that such articles are acceptable. There are over five million articles in the English language version of Wikipedia, and large numbers of new articles are created every day. Unfortunately, among that vast number of articles many unsuitable articles go unnoticed for a long time before being cleaned up or deleted. I have even occasionally known articles which are complete hoaxes survive for years before anyone finds them and has them deleted. Fortunately, that extreme sort of problem applies only to a tiny minority of the millions of articles, but it illustrates the fact that the existence of articles with particular characteristics is no guarantee that they are acceptable articles, nor that those characteristics will be acceptable in another article.

Of all the thousands of poorly written articles with promotional tone on Wikipedia, this one does not have any particular interest for me, and I don't really wish to spend any more time on it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:

To be very clear I am myself tried of this fuss and as mentioned by me in an earlier response , the article can be deleted if it really has a reason to be.

In addition , the phrases quoted by you have not been made seemingly promotional by me but are quotes from all the media wires reporting about Chand.

So clearly you seem confused with your own opinions. The reason why I'm still communicating is I am a person who abides by rules and can't just accept any silly opinion of your to be the final judgement. I've read all rules and checked each sentence with the verifiable link. I've proved the notability and here you are trying to keep your point without evidence. Please re check links if you really want to make your point. Don't blatantly say things which don't make sense.

I re iterate that the notability tag be removed else point me in direction of a neutral admin and I'll pursue this further.

Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean the rest are. I've given enough of my time here. Editninja16 (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Editninja16:

1. "Quotes from all the media wires" very often are promotional in tone: the fact that someone else has used promotional language about a subject does not justify doing so in Wikipedia: Wikipedia has a policy that it must be written from a neutral pint of view: many news media do not have such a policy.
2. I see that you have informed me that my assessment of the matter is "silly", and that I am "ignorant", though you don't say what it is that I am ignorant of. What I have said to you was a good faith attempt to clarify issues according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (not according to my personal opinions) and I have put a considerable amount of time and effort into doing so. If your response is to call me "silly" and "ignorant" then it is very unlikely that there is any point whatever in my putting any more time or effort into trying to help you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:

With all due respect, if you have forgotten about what we were discussing about - it was the notability issue which after lots of input time I have shown and you have said 'I don't have an opinion' while you were supposed to say 'Oh that's right, it satisfies the wikipedia policy'. Your 'good faith' would have been better if you would have told me what changes to make so that I could proudly say I contributed an article to wiki but none of your responses made that attempt.

I am sure both of us have wasted a lot of time but the point is Notability has been proved yet you have not removed the tag. Now coming to your promotional content remark. I would be happy to re phrase it in "non promotional" (unlike media) and discuss further. Have you even gone through the links ? No, just for namesake you did. If you would have then you wouldn't have made that remark about me writing promotionally instead you would know media wires did. Till now all you told me was about rules and guidelines which I fairly followed instead of rebuking in an irritable fashion. So here I am again, re phrasing, remove the notability tag and mark it with appropriate tags as suitable for promotion and help me to make the article better. This is how things should work in open source. As you put in your last sentence - "to help you" which you have not 'yet'; I would love to get help from an experienced writer such as you - in perfecting my first article.

Editninja16 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of what you say is an example of I didn't hear that, and experience shows that in such cases repeatedly trying to explain the same point over and over again to someone who just doesn't hear what one is saying is a waste of time, as he or she still fails to hear. Nevertheless, I will make just one more attempt to convey to you something which I have already said, but which you have failed to grasp. If after this attempt you still don't get it, then I give up. I said "To me, the most striking thing about the article is that it is unmistakably promotional." I did not say "To me, the most striking thing about the article is that it is unmistakably promotional and the promotional tone is entirely due to original promotional writing of yours." The fact that content of the article has been copied from somewhere else does not in any way make any difference to the issue of whether the content of the article is promotional. If the promotional content was copied from somewhere else it is still promotional. Whether it was you who originated the promotional tone or someone else is completely irrelevant: either way, the promotional tone is there in the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what you are doing -

Did you read this para or did you again ignore it?

With all due respect, if you have forgotten about what we were discussing about - it was the notability issue which after lots of input time I have shown and you have said 'I don't have an opinion' while you were supposed to say 'Oh that's right, it satisfies the wikipedia policy'. Your 'good faith' would have been better if you would have told me what changes to make so that I could proudly say I contributed an article to wiki but none of your responses made that attempt.

I have already accepted that I will try to rephrase the seemingly promotional content in a NPoV. The point was notability. Are you again and again doing this to just get out of the discussion? I request you to just read this again. Remove notability and mark as promotional then we can begin fixing issues. When the notability has been proved - why is the tag still there?

Editninja16 (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have answered your questions about notability. I have responded to your comments about promotional editing. I have commented on your characterisation of my comments as "silly" and "ignorant". I have not responded, nor will I respond, to your attempts to demand, rather than request, that I do certain things which you want me to do. I have nothing more to add on any of those matters. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mean

Just a little surprised by protection of Mean only 5/6 minor vandalism edits this year and no sign that its a concerted campaign. --Salix alba (talk): 17:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Salix alba: Virtually all editing of the article over a significant period has been IP vandalism followed by reversion of that vandalism, and I thought that semiprotection would therefore be helpful. However, having thought again I agree that under the circumstances it isn't necessary, so I've lifted the protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A "thank you" and an inquiry

Hello

First, I am here to say "Thank you" for rev706438754 and especially its edit summary "Removing section created by troll"! Thanks for being such an angel. I never thought anyone would take any action.

Now, the inquiry: How did you discover him?

Fleet Command (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fleet Command: I took action against this editor on 16 February, as recorded at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codename MeatCommand/Archive, but I don't remember whether I discovered it because I was checking Sock Puppet reports, or whether I first discovered the troll by other means and then followed up a link to the SPI. I think more likely the second of those, as I don't often check through SPIs. I was alerted to the troll again today because he or she pinged me in a talk page edit. That was an example of the fact that trolls, unlike other kinds of vandals, positively like to call attention to their vandalism, which is of great help in finding that they are active again, so that blocks can be extended, and other actions taken. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

So, to sum it up, CL reported him, and he trolled you! Okay. That was a bit anticlimactic but thanks for attending to the report. To be honest, he harassed CL more than I. Fleet Command (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Babe (film)

Hi! It looks like a bunch of IPs are ganging up to disrupt the article above, particularly the plot section. Could you take a look and partially protect it by giving access only to named accounts, please? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mzilikazi1939: I've semi-protected the article for a month. I see that the same editor(s) has/have also been edit-warring on other articles, but the IP addresses are scattered far too widely for range blocks to be possible, unfortunately. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, every little helps! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request

hello, I found the page, Arjun Prabhakaran and its sources as reliable and relevent, since the situation on the time of its deletion has changed and saw some reliable information about this person on web. Kindly verify the cited web address for the further clarification. [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]

Apart from the fact that the linked sources don't come anywhere near to establishing notability according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I think it's likely that the IP editor is evading blocks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fairview Alpha sock

here John from Idegon (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Thanks for telling me. As you may know, Materialscientist blocked that IP address before I got here, but that doesn't mean that telling me about it achieved nothing. I checked the edits in the IP range 104.243.160.0 - 104.243.170.255 over the last 6 months. There were several hundred edits which were clearly from this person, using numerous IP addresses in the range, a few edits which did not look like the same person, but which were vandalism or other unconstructive editing anyway, one edit which looked doubtful to me, and a total of three edits which were probably not from this editor and which appeared to be constructive. I decided to go ahead and place a range block, since a likely risk of less than 1% collateral damage, while undesirable, is tolerable. Of course, the editor may come back on IP addresses outside that range, as he/she may have done here, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of his/her editing has been from the blocked range, so it stands a good chance of hindering his/her editing significantly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks James. John from Idegon (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Nsmutte sock IP

Another sock of User:Nsmutte has appeared here: 117.250.119.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Same as an IP who you recently blocked, which was 117.246.75.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

172.56.38.140 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: User:Edgar181 blocked the user for 31 hours, but it may be a good idea to extend it to one week in matching the same block as the previous IP. Thanks! 172.56.38.140 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

If I had seen the previous block was 1 week, I might have done the same, but if he's changing IPs quickly, it won't make a difference. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If the troll comes back on the same IP address when the block expires, then a longer block will be in order, but otherwise there's probably no point. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Elderly Care

Hi. I was just trying to show a little respect and compassion in that caption on Elderly Care. I guess it's because I'm rapidly becoming one. lol. Take care.   Aloha27  talk  15:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aloha27: Well, evidently different people see things differently: if someone refers to me as an "old man" it seems to me like just an objective statement of fact, but if someone calls me an "elderly gentleman", it makes me cringe. I don't see the latter as showing me more "respect": if anything, on the contrary, I perceive it as showing me less respect. Personal preferences aside, I think that plain English is more in keeping with Wikipedia's accepted style: see, for example WP:EUPHEMISM, which doesn't mention this particular example, but it seems to me that it's in much the same spirit as "died"/"passed away", which is mentioned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. But when I see "old man" I immediately think of the guy on Pawn Stars. Cheers!   Aloha27  talk  15:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ducos

Hi Mr. Watson, I wanted to let you know that there is an IP address making edits to the page Ducos which I am not sure belong there, so I wanted to bring this to your attention. CLCStudent (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

content

Can you just remove the particular line, instead of reverting all edits? Adding citations and pictures is not copyright violation. --Captain Spark (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Spark: Well, for one thing, when I saw this message from you, I checked your edits further, and found that other content too was copied from one or more of the sources you cited, so picking through your edits to check for anything that should be kept would be rather troublesome, and considering that there would only be a very small amount of editing to save anyway, repeating it would not take a lot of work. For another thing, doing what you suggest would leave the copyright infringing content in the editing history, unless it were to be revision-deleted, which would remove the attribution history of the other editing. Sometimes, doing what you say is the least evil, but on this occasion the disadvantages would far outweigh the tiny advantage of saving you the trouble of repeating a tiny amount of editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey you have even mentioned promotional links in your edit summary, those links are from Indian newspaper websites.--Captain Spark (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I was mistaken about the links being promotional. If so, feel free to restore them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If a source says "Billoo was created by Pran in 1973", then I have to write "Billoo was created by cartoonist Pran in the year 1973", or it would be copyright violation? Captain Spark (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Spark: I doubt whether anyone would object to such a trivial repetition of words as that, but my advice is to avoid any doubt by always re-writing things in your own words, just to be safe. Certainly if it were a longer quote, such as "Billoo, the well-known cartoon character, was created by the eminent cartoonist Pran in 1973" then you really need to reword it rather than copying the quote directly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Next time, I will change my words, Thanks. Captain Spark (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Very speedy delete

I am tutoring a course on editing for new editors for Disability Arts organisations. Thank you for taking an interest in the work of my student who has spent some time penning the article on Disability Arts Online. In the period while I was speaking to the group, a speedy delete message was sent then you did a delete. The issues you state are copyvios- which had passed us by- but is more likely caused by use of common sources. Our student who has the text saved in her sandbox, is working to sort out the problem but would appreciate a personal message advising her further how to improve the text- and advise her when it is suitable for resubmission. Clem Rutter (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Clem Rutter: Hello, Clem. Sorry to have disrupted your lesson. Although there were small elements of copyright infringement, the main reason for deletion was the promotional nature of the article. I have restored it, to allow your student a chance to improve it, though I suppose I didn't really need to, if there's a sandbox copy of it. Have you checked how notable the topic is? A (admittedly very brief) check for sources didn't make it clear to me whether it satisfies the notability guidelines or not, and if it doesn't then there is a risk your student may see his or her work deleted again, so it may be worth being careful about that. It may not be doing a student much of a favour to encourage him or her to put time and work into something which is likely to be deleted anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

International Cinephile Society pages

Hello - As you can see I'm new here and still learning the ropes. My impression was that the deletion of the old International Cinephile Society pages was because at that time the organization was perhaps too small to be considered notable, or maybe whoever created the pages hadn't provided adequate references. I've cited (or will be citing, lol, since I'm still learning Wikipedia's styles and markup) quite a few solid references for this type of film awards group, including Variety, Indiewire, Micropsia, La Nacion, Le Monde, Alt Film Guide, Altyazi, Ioncinema, etc. This seems consistent with references provided by the Online Film Critics Society, San Francisco Film Critics, and Broadcast Film Critics, except that the ICS article is more international in flavor. Sorry to be taking so long with my sandbox pages, but I'm trying to put together a complete set of pages with proper links before submitting them for consideration by you and other editors. Is this the right procedure? Do you feel that the group's notability is still in question? They've grown to about 100 members, including well-known critics and scholars from both the US/Canada and Europe, and the website they created in 2010 now has extensive film festival coverage, plus over 450 film reviews and essays. Shadotall (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Shadotall: When I posted the message to your talk page I was under the impression that you were just creating draft articles about specific awards from an organisation which had been found not to be notable enough for an article. I thought that if the organisation was not notable, the awards wouldn't be. However, after posting that message, I saw the new draft article you have created about the organisation, and it looks s though it may now have become notable enough for an article. However, I am still very doubtful whether each of the awards is individually notable enough to sustain separate articles about each of them, rather than just being included in the overall article about the organisation. Even the notability of the organisation as a whole does not go without saying: I checked most of the references you have given, and apart from a couple which didn't mention the "International Cinephile Society", as far as I could see, they were mostly just news reports of particular awards. My advice would be to concentrate on the main article first, and see whether you can establish notability for that. If and when you have done that, you can think about whether articles for the individual awards are justified. That way, you will reduce the risk of putting a very large amount of work into a large number of articles, only to see all that work come to nothing.

If you have any personal connection to the International Cinephile Society then you should be aware that Wikipedia's guidleines on conflict of interest discourage you from creating articles about it, and if you are paid by the society in any capacity then the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state what your connection to it is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation for Pokemon315066

Just wanted to let you know that the case has been re-opened due to another suspected sockpuppet, in case you wanted to comment again. Linguist 111^talk 23:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your block of Ganesh591

Hi "James" - I had this user's talk page watchlisted following a warning which I issued recently to him. I noticed that you had changed their block settings, this time specifying that they had abused multiple accounts. Should I tag the user page of the account with the indefinite block as having done so? Regards, --Ches (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: I've done so myself, as some editors object to non-admins tagging sockpuppets. I had actually intended to do this, but forgot, so thanks for prompting me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem sir. --Ches (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hindi->English implausible redirect?

Hi. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one, but I was curious why you felt that २०१५–१६ ईरानी कप was an implausible redirect. Its destination is on an India-related topic, and this redirect was in Hindi. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: I will restore the redirect, since you have questioned the deletion, but it seems to me unlikely that anyone will search for "२०१५–१६ ईरानी कप" on English Wikipedia. Anyone wishing to find information on it in English will surely search for it under an English name. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree as to the unlikeliness of its use. But it's admissible under WP:R3 ("However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are sometimes redirects in other languages."), there's a template for it at {{r from alt lang}}, and it seemed to me to fall under the rubric of "Redirects are cheap". —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

For this. It's one of the most comprehensive rationales I've ever seen. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: It's far easier to just give one of the standard templated reasons, and most often that is good enough. However, there are times when I think it's worth giving a more detailed explanation, either because of a feeling that the blocked editor quite possibly really doesn't fully understand what the problems are, or because in the event of an unblock request it may not be immediately obvious to a reviewing administrator where to look to see the reasons for the block. Obviously, such detailed explanations take up time and effort, and it is encouraging to occasionally be told that the effort is appreciated, so thanks for your message. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's a good clear reason why they were blocked. Their editing went from some accidental but repeated errors to vandalism very quickly, hopefully they'll come back and communicate with other users. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Reading your comments prompted me to have another look at what I wrote, and I decided that I had been more discouraging to the editor than necessary, since it does look as though he/she started out with good intentions, and quite likely only resorted to vandalism as a result of frustration. I have changed my block message, as you can see here. I really do believe in trying to avoid being too discouraging to new editors who mean well but go a bit wrong, but I spend so much of my time on administrative work dealing with outright vandals and trolls that I find it very easy to slip into being more unfriendly to new editors than I intend to. I'm glad you posted to me, which encouraged me to think again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem - that does look better. I too thought they were doing lots of decent edits (certainly for a new editor), but was disappointed by their lack of comms on their talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please could you block IP User:180.149.211.7- this suggests they're the same editor, just annoyed. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 March 2016‎

@Joseph2302: It looks as though it may be the same person, but whether it is or not, I've blocked the IP address because of vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Pulse GP Jobs

The Pulse GP Jobs page got deleted for promotional content? Can you elaborate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biancapettifor (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Biancapettifor: If you really sincerely did not think that you were writing promotional text, then it is difficult to know how to begin to "elaborate". The whole page, from start to finish, was written as though it was intended to persuade us that "Pulse GP Jobs" is really good. It even contained such unadulterated marketing puffery as "Pulse GP Jobs is the ideal recruitment partner for general practice surgeries, offering a highly engaged GP community, an industry leading job platform and competitive and flexible advertising packages", to give just one example. In fact, it looked exactly as though it was written by a professional marketing person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Biancapettifor: Please don't remove content from this talk page. Apart from cases of vandalism, trolling, personal attacks, and other inappropriate content, I prefer content to stay here and eventually be moved to my talk page archives for future reference. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

YGM

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.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Unprotection of UFC 109

Hi, many years ago (about 5.5) you semi-protected the UFC 109 article indefinitely. It made perfect sense at the time, but I think that the chances of vandalism on that article are now low. Would you mind unprotecting it? Chuy1530 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chuy1530:  Done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Chuy1530 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanking

• Hello bro, thanks for ur suggestions :) I need ur same help in Ajay Devgan's page which is to be renamed to Ajay Devgn, if u do not know him!! let me say he is a wonderful actor from Hindi/Bollywood films :) can u say how I can move that page ? Fygu (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fygu: Wikipedia's policy on article titles is that normally the title should be the form of the name most commonly used. A Google search for "Ajay Devgan" gave 410,000 hits, and "Ajay Devgn" gave 397,000, which suggests that there's not a lot of difference, if anything with "Ajay Devgan" being slightly more common. I also checked a sample of about 20% of the references in the article, and again I found "Ajay Devgan" was used in slightly more of them than "Ajay Devgn". Without clear evidence that "Devgn" is more commonly used, the article should be left where it is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Ya I agree with ur views bro, Thank u again :) Fygu (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

UK Wikimeet survey results

Hello. This is a quick note to let you know that the results of the UK wikimeet survey have now been posted on Meta at m:UK Wikimeet survey 2015. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting page Bhagavad Gita

I recently made a user account and edited the page Bhagavad Gita, after finding that the external links to ISKCON's edition (Bhagavad-gita As It Is) didn't work. After only a few minutes on Wikipedia, my user account had been marked for 'speedy deletion', and soon thereafter I found my user account 'blocked from editing indefinitely', as well as my first edit reverted (by you). The fault on my part was that I had made my account with the same name as the website from which I was replacing links. Bummer! Anyways, after a few backs-and-forths on my user talk page, it was resolved, and I'm free to edit again. Although I was a little set back at first, I quickly realised that Wikipedia has a great community of contributors and moderators, without which there would be room for a lot of vandalism and promotional content. So you deserve my thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia free of such!

I didn't want to just revert your revert of my edit without asking your permission first. Maybe you could verify that the 'old' links are in fact broken, and the new links I added actually point to the same quote/content in an authorised edition of ISKCON's Bhagavad-gita (As It Is)? If you have no further objection, I would like to go ahead and replace all broken links to the website in question with new, working ones, as there is no point in keeping outdated source links on Wikipedia. What do you say... Friends? :) —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Das108 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 12 March 2016

@Das108: OK, since you say you are not working for the company concerned, I have restored your edit. I am sorry you have had such a discouraging start to the experience of editing Wikipedia, and I hope it goes better from now on.

When you post a message on a talk page, put four tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end of the message. That will be automatically converted to a signature, which will not only show other editors who posted the message, but will also provide a link to your talk page, which makes it easy for other editors to contact you. . The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! No hard feelings here, I should've read up on user name policies first. Das108 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Das108: In my opinion, there are far too many policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and it's completely unrealistic to expect new editors to read up on them all before they get started. I think Wikipedia would be much better if we deleted about 75% of the policies and guidelines, and cut the remaining 25% down to about 10% of their current length. However, as long as we have such an excessive quantity of policies and guidelines, new editors will, without meaning any harm, find themselves in violation of policies, and I don't blame them for doing so. Unfortunately, some new editors get personally offended by being told that they are in breach of a policy they didn't know about, and some of them just refuse to accept the policies, and carry on acting against policy even when they have been told, but you seem willing to accept it and move on, which is fine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Protect Mongolia again

Hi JamesBWatson,

The article Mongolia on my watchlist has been continually vandalized by what seems to be sockpuppets. Your protection seems to have expired and another user User:JamesBWatson Genghis Khan has done the same things other sockpuppets have done. Would you mind protecting the page again? And also, maybe should you start an SPI as I think we really need a CheckUser to see what is going on. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 12:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@TheCoffeeAddict: I've protected the article again. An SPI to ask for a CheckUser may be a good idea. I'm a bit short of time now, but I may come back and do that when I have time, if you don't want to do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:, case opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Genghis Khan for the record and for CU purposes TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 13:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ayra Mariano

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ayra Mariano. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MBdemigod (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Ayra Mariano - deletion

Hi! May I ask why the page "Ayra Mariano" was deleted aside from the reason: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" that was discussed five months ago?

The reasons why the page was deleted the previous year were:
1. Participation in a reality show is not grounds for notability. - User:PRehse

• She's now seen in other local shows aside from the said reality show.

2. Can't find more than 2-3 passing mentions in local press. - User:FoCuSandLeArN

• Try searching her again. There are already more than "3" mentions of her in local press, no doubt about that.

3. I'm not seeing much for improvement here. - User:SwisterTwister

• After five months, there are so much improvements. Or have you tried reading the article first before deleting it?

4. all fail for notability criteria. - User:Onel5969

Notability for entertainers:

• 'Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.'

-She has starred in different drama anthologies, she will be starring in a local tv series and she has a web series. She's still new in the entertainment business so you wouldn't expect her to have that much of a production in just five months right?

• 'Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.'

-Like I said, she's still newbie but she has a fan base, not that large yet but she already have one.

I have cited the proper sources, so why is my page deleted again? I wasn't even given a notification in order to at least reason out why I created the said page the second time around. Does this mean a page that was once deleted cannot be recreated anymore? Because I really don't think so. MBdemigod (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBdemigod: I have looked at the references you posted in the article. Many of them do not support the statements about Ayra Mariano to which you attached them, and indeed several of them don't even mention her. (For example, the statements "Mariano was born in Northern Marianas Islands. Although born in a US territory island, she grew up in Paombong, Bulacan" are cited to a source which does not mention Ayra Mariano at all, let alone tell us where she was born or where she grew up.) Other sources only briefly mention her, or are not independent sources. All in all, I do not see evidence that she satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You say "She's still new in the entertainment business so you wouldn't expect her to have that much of a production in just five months right"; that comes close to saying that you think she doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines: she needs significant roles, not roles which are about as significant as you could reasonably expect for someone with such a limited career as hers; if we applied that criterion, my next door neighbour's dog would qualify for a Wikipedia article, as he has about as much coverage in significant published sources as you could reasonably expect for an unknown person's pet dog (namely none).

Having said that, I accept that the article you created is somewhat different from the one deleted at AfD, and since there is no point getting into endless fruitless quarrels about how different an article must be to not count as sufficiently similar to a deleted one to qualify for speedy deletion, I shall restore the article. However, whether it will stand up to another AfD is open to question. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: About your example, I may have put the wrong source. Here's the correct one: http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/ayra-mariano.html I may have corrected it if you told me so and not deleted it on the spot. Aside from the above sample, which several statements have sources that don't even mention her?

And that neighbor's dog of yours, has he/she won a reality contest? Or starred in a webs series? Or has he/she been on a Primetime drama? If yes, then maybe they really have the same criteria. Anyway, thank you for restoring the page. I believe the sources I attached are properly cited. MBdemigod (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBdemigod: That's a strawman argument, since my comment related only to the comment which I quoted, and was not intended to indicate anything at all about the validity or lack of validity of other claims of significance. As for what other references don't mention her, unfortunately I did not make a list when I checked them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Then maybe try making a list next time especially when you use it as a reason to delete a page. MBdemigod (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBdemigod: Whenever I check an article in a situation like this, if I think there are any reasons why it's likely that I may need to refer to what I found again, I make a note of it. However, if you are suggesting that every time I check anything I should keep a detailed list of everything I see, on the off chance it may turn out to be one of the tiny minority of occasions when the information may be useful, then I think you probably seriously underestimate how much time that would take, and how much more useful work I could do in that much time. However, I really don't understand why you attach so much importance to it, as it really wouldn't take you a lot of effort to click on each link and search for the words "Ayra Mariano" in each page that comes up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I emailed you

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

IP you blocked for racist trolling

See my talk page, might be Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Prompted by this message I have looked at the Mikemikev's editing history, and I would say "might be" is being very cautious indeed. Not much doubt about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to influence you, but I agree. UK geolocation is pretty useless. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes, beyond the mere fact that it is in the UK: any more precision than that is impossible. The IP address that I'm editing from now geolocates to a city hundreds of miles away from where I actually am. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

And another: 86.178.75.96 (talk · contribs) Doug Weller talk 17:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Indeed. I am wondering why you haven't blocked the IP address, or at the least given a warning. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Real life, sorry. I have blocked now. 31 hours as I think it's dynamic. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

hi, I swear I don't know what happened while I was editing the page of the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research (Italy). I only meant to correct the plural of the name of the ministry. Please consider the description of the changes I made (it's "Ministry of Education and University,..." and not Universities, to be changed also in the title. This is a wrong translation). That was the only change I intended to make. And please consider analysing what went wrong during my editing, because I really really didn't do that, (or ... better... I didn't mean to do that)! thank you Wikipat~itwiki (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikipat~itwiki: OK, it's difficult to imagine how adding a link to "Auschwitz concentration camp" can have happened by accident, but I will accept your word that somehow it did. Concerning the other change you made in the same edit, while of course "dell'Università" literally means "of the university", the singular really doesn't make any sense in English, unless there is only one university in Italy. You no doubt have a far better understanding of Italian than I have, but it looks to me as though the Italian singular is being used as a sort of collective term for universities in general, rather than referring to one particular university. In English we use singulars in that sort of collective meaning with abstract nouns but not with concrete nouns. Thus it is perfectly right that "Istruzione" and "Ricerca" are translated as "Education" and "Research" in the singular, but natural English idiom requires a plural to translate "Università", unless I have completely misunderstood the Italian. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Request a lock?

I have made Citations and i shown evidence to my edits at Beyonders and fixed my own errors like grammar and such but 2 anons which i believe are the same keeps arguing and undoing the info which they believe is wrong even when i shown the direct absolute truth from the comics themselves and i know the rule of edit wars and such so before a ban or anything comes to be i would like the page locked to avoid more useless conflict. Beyonder (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod

@BeyonderGod: By asking for the article to be "locked" do you mean semi-protected, so that you will still be able to edit the article, but IP editors won't? If so, you are asking me to use administrative action to help you in your edit-war, and there is no question of that. I see that over a long period of time you have shown signs of regarding yourself as a kind of owner or guardian of the article, repeatedly indicating that you think for some reason that you have superior knowledge or authority of the subject, and other editors should step aside and let you take control of the article. You appear to think that you are some kind of expert, so that your opinions should carry more weight than those of other editors, so that your view takes precedence over consensus. That, quite simply, is not how Wikipedia works, and continuing like that is likely to lead to being blocked, very probably for much longer than either of the two short blocks you have received in the past, since short blocks have failed to persuade you to change your approach. I shall also check your recent editing history more thoroughly, to decide whether there is enough edit-warring there to justify blocking you already.

I must also tell you that posting to the talk pages of new editors claiming to be an "Official Wikipedia Greeter" is unacceptable, as new editors are likely to take it literally, and believe that you are acting in some official capacity, which is, of course untrue. Therefore, do not post such messages again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: You made a bunch of assumptions about Me for no reason.......

1. Semi-Lock why not a total lock of the page for a long time? because it seems people are going to get personal.
2. I never stated nor did i mention i was Superior in knowledge or authority over the page it's the fact i showed what i spoke that's what a citation is correct? a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work. they haven'to once refuted my citations at all here are the Links again and you may compare the edits.

• Beyonders Small Bio in Secret Wars Guide to the Marvel multiverse Page 9 of the book.
• About Beyonder and the Powers they possessed. New Avengers Vol.3 Issue 30 Pages 7,16-14
• The Beyonders stating to be Omnipotent/All-Powerful Secret Wars Issue 5 Pages 12-13
• The Beyonders affected the Omniverse All New All Different Avengers Vol 1. Page 2-3

1. Opinion? uh no James.....because a Opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge that here is directly opposite because again i showed Citations and citations are to facts/knowledge and gave direct issue numbers and a handbook so i don't see how something like that is an "Opinion" because an opinion isn't based on facts but which the whole premise of my links proves other so no sir sorry to say there is no opinion from me just straight word to word from and by the writers of marvel themselves.
2. precedence over consensus? Not in anyway am i using a rank above them not even once did i use such an immature manner against them.
3. Wikipedia main function is working on gathering the factual information and giving out to the public i haven't once gave false information on wikipedia pages i have gave the main sources for comics and as such.
4. The 2 short blocks were simply because of a certain user who has a personal grudge against me and can't handle a simple edit as shown across his wikia account and he had later conceded as proven on the talk page as i showed my sources as he goes mostly on "Theories" and placing real life logic into a fictional series full of magic and other such things. edit warring? Only 3 pages which is Beyonder and List of Tenchi Muyo! characters had serious page warring and all over the Omnipotence subject the subject the person i argued with couldn't refute my sources and i had refuted his more times than anything else.
5. So i can't be a kind person and greet others? i am just trying to be a nice person because that's what the internet needs right now i am a person who wants and seeks peace James not the other way around.

And if you think i am being a smartass i am not trying to be i am just speaking honestly toward you as an adult to another adult and with this i will show you respect because that's a major line between to people being civil. Beyonder (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod

@BeyonderGod: Well, there's quite a lot of I didn't hear that and missing the point of what I said there, and experience suggests that in such cases trying to give explanations is futile, as the person who didn't hear the first time will not hear again. Nevertheless, I shall try to answer some of the points you mention.

1. You say that I made a "bunch" of assumptions about you, but you don't actually mention any assumptions about you that I made, so I can't answer that.
2. If by "a total lock of the page" you mean full protection so that nobody except administrators can edit the article, then the reason for not doing that is that Wikipedia aims to be editable by anyone, and such a drastic measure is used only as a last resort in cases of severe disruption, by many editors, so that the problem can't be dealt with by lesser measures such as blocking one or two persistently disruptive editors.
3. You appear to think that you have contradicted my suggestion that you think your opinions should carry more weight than those of other editors by telling me it is not opinion, but objective fact. You do not seem to see that, far from contradicting what I said, that confirms what I said: the belief that "what other people think is their opinion, but what I think is not mere opinion: it is objective truth" is precisely the kind of belief that your view is superior and should carry more weight that I was referring to.
4. No, the blocks were not "because of a certain user who has a personal grudge against me": they were because you were edit-warring. To illustrate that fact, here are just a few of your edits from just one of your edit-wars:[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Part of your comment about that seems to be an attempt to say that the repeated reverting (which is what "edit-warring" means) somehow doesn't count as edit-warring, since you are convinced that your edits were right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right.
5. There is no point wasting time answering your strawman argument about saying that you "can't be a kind person and greet others". I never suggested that, and it is difficult to believe you are so incapable of understanding plain English that you think I did.
6. I have recently discovered this edit, in which you said "A admin gave me a title of official wikipedia greeter". If some administrator really did say such a bizarre thing as that, please tell me which administrator it was, and where and when he or she said it. Otherwise, please don't make such claims. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright i was just trying to end a edit war that was all...... Beyonder (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod

Nisabdham page recreatin with references

HAI SIR,

My page Nisabdham was deleted coz of not having references claimed by wikipedia... But now we had references sources and we linking it... Then why should once again proposing for deletion...

Thanking you Majkr (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Majkr: The re-created article did not contain a single reference. I shall restore the article as a draft, at Draft:Nisabdham, to allow you a chance to improve it, but you should bear in mind the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest, and you should make sure that the subject really does satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as otherwise any work you put into it is likely to be wasted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson thank you so much and i feed references and check it and if its satisfy allow me to go on to improve with my film Nisabdham page... Majkr (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamesBwatson

Hey JamesBWatson, how come you can block people from editing but I can't seem to. Please write back either on my talk page or right here ASAP please. Thank you! B-dog12.0 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@B-dog12.0: because he's an admin, and you aren't. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @B-dog12.0: I am an administrator, and you aren't. You can read more about Wikipedia administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators, if you are interested. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record...

I reported one of Supreme Genghis Khan's sockpuppets on the Meta-Wiki, as they had a very obscene username (F***C*** Supreme) (now globally locked) Also, the steward has globally locked most of Supreme Genghis Khan's other sockpuppets. Just giving you a heads up on the current situation. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 13:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks James, for handling with and deleting INFE Network. The organisation is not notable, and was created by a user who is strongly connected with and works for the organisation. The user Infeby was recently blocked and advised not to recreate the article. However, they have evaded their block by creating a new account under the name Artyomsergeev. The new account then removed a comment I posted on an admin's talk page, and did so twice. It is clear that the user will continue to ignore COI and other policies and will continue to recreate the article over and over again. I'm not sure if creation protection is a best way forward here, but the situation that the user is causing is becoming highly problematic and disruptive. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: I find in cases like this article creation protection is often not a good idea, because the editor just creates it under a different title, making it harder to find, as it won't be on anyone's watchlist. Better to just leave it and see whether it comes back or not. If the editor continues to be disruptive I will be willing to block the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Hmm that's a good point to raise. Although the only other article name they could and probably would use would be the full name of the acronym "INFE". Anyhow, I already have INFE Network on my watchlist as well as both users just air on the side of caution. The new user name has just recently stated they do not know who Infeby is, although it is clear that that is a lie, as the previous name "Infeby" shows the network name INFE and the country code BY (Belarus), which ironically is where the new user name is from (as stated on the now deleted article). Cases like this don't half give me a headache, and no doubt the user may be a credited editor if he would only follow advice and procedures. Thank you for your reply though, much appreciated. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: I have known editors who have been determined to re-create an article which has been protected to come up with whole strings of new versions of the title. It may be something as simple as changing capitalisation, such as INFE network instead of INFE Network, or perhaps The INFE Network, or Infe Network, or just INFE, or INFE fanclub network, or INFE worldwide network and so on and so on. It is impossible to anticipate every possible new name that they could think of. However, in practice it's only a small minority of promotional editors who persist: most give up after at the most seeing the article deleted a couple of times or so and and a couple of accounts blocked, so it's reasonably likely we won't have to bother about it much more. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sharoq Malki Page

Dear James,

Would you kindly help me. apology for any mistake in editing I did not know that I was breaking a rule by creating the page again.

The issue happened that. I wanted to change the page name but I did not know how . so i thought of creating a new page with same contents then deleting the old page.

will you kindly allow me to create the page again or guide me of the best way to fix that issue

appreciate your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSolution (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrSolution: This is how to rename a page. At the top of the page there is a link labelled "Move". If you can't see it, hold your mouse button over the link labelled "More", and it should show up. Click on it. A page will show up with a box containing the name of the page: write the new page name in that box, in place of the old one. Write a few words explaining why you are renaming the page in the box labelled "Reason:" and then click on "Move page". The page should then be moved to the new title. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank you James for your advice.. as both pages were deleted by you last time due to duplication. Can I create the page again ? .. I understand my mistake and will be more careful next time .. appreciate your help —  Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSolution (talk • contribs) 07:34, 13 March 2016‎

@MrSolution: First of all, I apologise for the fact that the answer I gave to you probably wasn't very helpful. When I wrote it, I thought that only the duplicate article had been deleted, so you just needed to know how to move the old one to the new title. I forgot that I had deleted both articles.

The second article was deleted because it duplicated the first one, but the first article was deleted for a completely different reason, namely that it was totally promotional in character. A Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and there is no place for such language as "distinguished", "she has promoted policies conducive to the best interests of employees and the organization", "a perfect fit in HR", "Rich with advice for personal and professional success, they both entertain and guide the reader toward developing strength, kindness, sincerity, honesty, integrity, and many other characteristics of the wise", and so on.

The article you created had been nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that there was no plausible evidence that Sharoq Al-Malki is significant enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. I did not give that as a reason for deletion, because I thought there was just about enough suggestion of significance to make that unacceptable as a reason for deletion. However, I am not sure that she satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if she doesn't, then any work put into creating an article about her is likely to be wasted, as the article is likely to be deleted again. You ask whether you can create the page again. My answer to that is yes you can, but I would advise you not to do so unless you can first determine that she does satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Unfortunately, there are in my opinion far too many policies and guidelines for Wikipedia, and many of them are far too long and complicated, making it difficult for new editors to know what is acceptable. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. However, if you do wish to consider recreating this article, the most relevant guidelines are probably the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people, and the guide to reliable sources.

A couple of points about something completely different. There is no need to use {{ping}} when you are posting to the talk page of the editor you are writing to, as he or she will be alerted to posts on that talk page anyway, and "ping" is useful only for alerting an editor to messages on some page other than his or her own talk page. More important, though, is the fact that "ping" does not produce an alert for the editor unless in the same edit as you use {{ping}} you also include ~~~~ in your message. It is always a good idea to put ~~~~ at the end of any talk page message, as it is automatically converted into a signature, which both tells other editors who wrote the message, and also provides a link to your talk page, which may be helpful for other editors who wish to contact you. However, if you are using {{ping}}, then using ~~~~ is not just a good idea, it is essential, as without it the ping doesn't work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear James ,, Thank you for your clarification and good reply, I will take your advice, review the text and post essential facts fist then updating gradually .. Appreciate your help MrSolution (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC) .

Dear James , I have recreate the article and edited the contents as recomended , would you kindly help me to get it approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharoq_Ibrahim_A_Al-Malki . Thanks MrSolution (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for your excellent comments here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

New message

Hey, I left a reply for you on my talk page just to let you know. Regards. Bdrgreen78 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have answered there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Angel Hotel

Hi James. You recently deleted the Wikipedia page 'The Angel Hotel, Bury St Edmunds' due to ‘Unambiguous advertising or promotion’. It wasn't a promotion at all, it was just an attempt to give some gravitas to an iconic building in a small market town. Working for Gough Hotels, I had no intention of it becoming an advert for the hotel, more a reference point for visitors of the area to look at and people interested in Bury St Edmunds.

If this is the case, surely many of the Wiki pages I saw for other hotels should be deleted?! It appears to be one rule for one, and one rule for another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ritz_Hotel,_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Hotel,_Cardiff

This was one of my first Wikipedia pages and I spent a while tweaking it. If you're unhappy with going live, can you at least send me the source code back over? It seems like a lot of hours work wasted.

Thanks,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom goughhotels (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tom goughhotels: One of the reasons that Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest discourage us from writing on subjects in which we have a personal involvement is that in such cases it can be very difficult to stand back from our own writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outside independent observer. A result of this difficulty is that very often even an editor who honestly thinks that he or she is writing in a neutral way may produce content which reads to others as promotional. If you sincerely did not think that you were writing to promote the hotel, then it appears that problem must have occurred in your case, as much of what you wrote reads very much like straight marketing copy. Here are just a few examples of language you used which really does not come across as neutral: "maintaining the illustrious past with deft touches of chic design to create sumptuous surroundings with a relaxed mood and atmosphere", "a long established and well-respected family business", "Robert Gough and his wife Claire’s love of art and passion for contemporary design have transformed the fabric of each historic building", "comfy contemporary design with touches of exotic grandeur".

It is natural for an editor new to editing Wikipedia to assume that existing articles must be acceptable under Wikipedia standards, but it is not necessarily so. In a project which anyone can edit, with several million articles, there are often substantial quantities of content in articles which should not be there, and sometimes it persists for quite a long time until someone notices it and takes action. However, I have looked briefly at the two articles you mention. I don't see the article Angel Hotel, Cardiff as promotional. Some parts of The Ritz Hotel, London, however, do seem to me to be more laudatory than is desirable, and editing those parts of the article for an improved tone might be a good idea. However, those problems affect a small part of the whole article, and since the hotel genuinely is known for its high level of luxury, it is by no means inappropriate to mention the fact. In any case, I did not notice anything there which was as blatantly promotional as some of the quotes I have given from the article which you wrote.

It seems to me that the The Angel Hotel at Bury St Edmunds is probably suitable for a Wikipedia article, and so I have been happy to restore its contents to allow you, and/or anyone else, to work on improving it. I have moved it to Draft:The Angel Hotel, Bury St Edmunds. When you think it is ready to be submitted as an article again, click on the "submit your draft..." link, and it will be reviewed. One of two things will then happen: either it will be accepted as an article, or the reviewer will post a message saying why it is currently not acceptable, and what improvements still need to be made before it is submitted again. Unfortunately, there is always a backlog of submission waiting to be reviewed, so I'm afraid you may have to wait a while for a review to take place, but I wish you success in eventually getting the article accepted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks James. I appreciate your feedback and I'll look to amend the page so it doesn't read in a promotional way. Thanks also for moving the page to a draft state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.42.46 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wilshire Park

I am grateful for your input, but I have a question about how it is okay for the editor of Koreatown Los Angeles to redirect our page and suppress our legitimate use of Wikipedia? I don't understand how he can have such control over other people's content. If he had just edited it, I could understand, but he is really violating our rights to a presence on Wikipedia. We never touched his page until he redirected for political - yes, political - reasons, suppressing a simple informational page used in several Wikipedia pages (specifically Districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles. We are a legitimate entity, have no profit motive - why are we the bad guy? He is a bully, whether that is helpful or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WayBackHomes (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@WayBackHomes: You don't have any "rights to a presence on Wikipedia". Wikipedia does not exist as a medium for organisations, groups, or individuals to host pages about themselves or matters related to themselves. On the contrary: Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest positively discourage you from trying to create an article about a subject in which you have a personal involvement. You are perfectly welcome to explain your reasons why you think that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines and is therefore suitable to be the topic of an article, and to try to persuade others to agree with you, but demanding a "right" to have a page on a subject of your choosing is not the right approach. I also strongly recommend that you don't continue to make accusations of bad faith against editors with whom you disagree, or to use words such as "bullying" to describe their actions (as you have continued to do after the last time I advised you not to). Expressing yourself in those terms is likely to give the impression that you are here with a battleground approach to disagreements, rather than with a will to collaborate and discuss disagreements with a view to trying to reach agreement. I notice that you have said on another talk page "we need to protect our page from this kind of suppression", but thinking of it as "our" page is a mistake: anything you contribute to Wikipedia becomes Wikipedia's property, not yours, and other editors have as much right as you to edit it; indeed, in the case of an article on a subject where you have a conflict of interest, other editors have more right than you to decide on it content. Finally, I note that you have stated that your purpose in writing the article is "to make our historic district function well for the benefit of current and future residents". That is fundamentally contrary to Wikipedia's policies: Wikipedia absolutely doesn't not exist for people or organisations to use to further their own aims, or to serve for the benefit of those people or organisations outside of the encyclopaedia. If that is your purpose here then it would be more appropriate to post the content in question on your organisation's own web site if it has one, and to create one if it hasn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am beginning to understand the need for encyclopedic tone that is absolutely lacking on our first page, and I am working on that. But again, the standards are randomly enforced. I am looking at the work of BeenAroundAWhile for an appropriate model. As I said, the goal is to get useful - and now encyclopedic - information to people who are seeking it. It is not self-promotion, and is not going to be any different than any of the others in the list of List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles. I am trying to fix this, but I am new, as I said, and I am trying to understand exactly how to do this right. To me as a neophyte, the rules still appear random - and randomly enforced. I am just trying to understand. Every time I move I get slapped. Getting very discouraged. Please relax the tone of the criticism until I can get my feet under me. I am trying to cooperate. WayBackHomes (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@WayBackHomes: Sorry if the tone of my remarks was too harsh. I genuinely try to avoid seeming unfriendly to good-faith new editors who are, as you say, "trying to cooperate" but sometimes I don't do as well as I would like to. I totally agree that "the rules still appear random" to a new editor, as I remember feeling that way myself when I first started editing Wikipedia. As I got more used to Wikipedia, I gradually came to realise that they are not totally random, and there are reasons for them. That is not to say that I personally agree with all of them: I don't, but even in cases where I don't agree with policies, I can see that the people who created them had their reasons. As for policies being "randomly enforced", I'm afraid there is a good deal of truth in that, because in a project with millions of articles and thousands of editors, many of whom just come and make a few edits and then disappear, it is impossible to always be aware of editing which does not conform to Wikipedia's standards, and deal with it. Having said that, the process is not always as random as it looks to a newcomer, as sometimes there are significant differences between two cases which an inexperienced editor sees as being similar. My personal opinion is that the single worst change that has happened to Wikipedia over the years is a huge increase in the body of policies, guidelines, and so on, making the whole thing seem bewilderingly complex to a new editor. In the early days, there were just a few very simple and flexible policies, but over the years they have gradually become more complex and more prescriptive, which I regard as totally unhelpful. I am sorry that your first experiences of editing Wikipedia have in some ways been discouraging, and I hope you have a better time from now on. However, really, really, you should look back at some of the things you have written, and try to imagine how they looked to other editors. The message you have posted to me immediately above this is written in a perfectly civil and constructive tone, but some of your earlier messages came over as angry and belligerent. Remember that most of the people you come across here will be good-faith editors trying to do what they see as best, and even if you disagree with them about what is best, it is more helpful to express your disagreements in a way that comes across as respecting their opinions. Unfortunately there are also deliberate vandals, but they are a very small minority, and most of them don't last long, and it is far better to assume that editors are acting in good faith unless it is absolutely clear that they aren't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, and please forgive my frustration. I must have sounded like a "professional victim." Being Irish, I tend to "put up my dukes" rather than wallow in self pity! I appreciate all the time you are spending teaching me - that is the ultimate sign of respect, and I feel a lot better because of it. As you noticed in your comments about my previous posts, my understanding is evolving because of your input and the input of BeenAroundAWhile. Again, thank you. You don't have to agree with me or "give me my own way" to be "on my side."

One thing that has become clear is that, as BeenAroundAWhile mentioned, I think we need to find an outsider, one educated in this type of page, who understands why such a page is useful, and one who has a lot of experience and a clearer understanding of the Wikipedia definition of "neutral" to create this page. And who is good at expressing themselves to Wikipedia standards. I have all the research, the history, the photos, the articles from the early 1900s, census material from the 1920s, 30s and 40s that are of interest - I just need a specialist in Wikipedia. As a resident and as one of the people who had a hand in establishing the WP historic district and a National Register designation for a section of it, it may not be possible for me to wash away my fondness for the area, its buildings and the people who love it, many of whom have also posted their dismay at our disappearance only to have their comments rebuffed and deleted. I am going to cast about for such a person. Who knew, for example that plural pronouns are off limits? It is not intuitively obvious. I just don't have the chops.

Your take on how policies are evolving certainly rings true. A lot of "us" - humans that is - are spending more time defending ourselves than producing. Car alarms, security cameras, identity protection, etc. Think what else we could be doing with all that time, energy and money. I am afraid that zeitgeist has permeated even Wikipedia, making your job a lot harder than it needs to be. And it has closed down Wikipedia for a lot of would-be contributors whose exasperating experiences are similar to my own. Wikipedia loses a lot of valuable content because of that. While Wikipedia is dedicated to providing an encyclopedia written by its users, its success and reputation suffers because of those who come in and spoil things for everyone. I don't want to be one of those.

Again, thank you for all your help. Now I feel like getting somewhere. Now to find that illusive writer with the requisite skill set! BobOfAllTrades (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Photo discussion

They're a bit overlong, so I hate to ask, but I was wondering if you might want to weigh in on the two discussions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 14. I note that you opined on the two identical photos at Commons just a day or so ago.[32][33] Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: No I didn't: check the links you have given. You must have made some sort of mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Senior moment. That was Jameswoodward Coretheapple (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts

Per [34], if you want to post at WT:WikiProject Horse racing or WT:EQUINE before AfD-ing a horse article, we can probably save you a lot of time, energy and bandwidth with a preliminary assessment of notability on these topics; I have spotted a lot of low-hanging fruit of promotional articles that are pretty clear "deletes" but we also can help parse the poorly-written from the non-notable and would be glad to help with a bit of pre-screening. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I don't agree. The article is on a subject which does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, and should have been deleted. It was kept because the discussion was flooded with editors who have substantial interests in editing related to horses, and were biased towards keeping articles relating to horses. The idea that before nominating an article for deletion I should first go along to a so-called "WikiProject", thereby actually increasing the likelihood that the discussion will be biased towards editors with an interest in keeping articles on the subject in question, is absurd. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's called "providing evidence of notability." See WP:NSPORTS for the guidelines. Perhaps you could at least peruse the guidelines. Montanabw^(talk) 23:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That seems like a decent AfD nomination to me - looks like they just about pass WP:NSPORT, but it's marginal. Also, @Montanabw: why are you assuming he hasn't read WP:NSPORT- you should assume good faith as an admin probably does know what he's doing. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I made a simple suggestion that if he has a question, he could ask those of us familiar with the topic. Admins aren't gods. I am getting sick and tired of all these AfD's on notable topics that get labeled because the writers are not particularly skilled. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI

FYI, I pinged you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Metalworker14_continues_to_add_unsourced_content asking for your input/review. Sometimes pings don't go through, so leaving this message as well as a courtesy. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Protection reasons

Hi James, your edit summary for these two edits refers to blocking however you were changing the page protection reasons. Was that intentional? My opinion on the reasons is that blocking should be attempted first so if blocking accounts doesn't work protections can be used (in which case it is persistent rather than a one off). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Silly me. You are, of course, perfectly right. I must have thought I was editing the block reasons. I have reverted my edit. Thanks a lot for telling me about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha, no worries. I've combined the block evasion and sock puppetry reasons since they are pretty much the same thing. In fact we could likely just remove sock puppetry given (for protection to be considered) it's a subset of block/ban evasion. Ping MSGJ. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc and MSGJ: That is nearly always true, but not absolutely always. In practice when a page is protected because of sockpuppetry there is virtually always block evasion too, but occasionally there is a situation where there has been no recent block evasion.

1. I have known cases where an article has been subject to persistent disruptive editing by an editor who keeps using IP sockpuppetry, jumping about too widely for range blocks to be effective, so page protection is introduced, even though at the time of the latest editing none of the blocks that had been tried was still in force. In that situation, the block is for IP sockpuppetry, but not for block evasion.
2. Another situation is where there has clearly been extensive long-term sockpuppetry, but it seems there may be more than one sockpuppeteer involved. One may then protect a page for sockpuppetry, without being sure whether there has been block evasion or not, as the latest sockpuppetry edits may or may not be from a new sockpuppeteer who is not blocked. Unlike the situation above, this can involve sockpuppet accounts, not just IP sockpuppetry.
3. I can even conceive of a situation where the same happens with sockpuppet accounts which are clearly from one editor. However, I don't remember whether I have ever known it to happen in practice, so it's just hypothetical, and I won't bother describing it. The above two cases, however, are not hypothetical, as I have actually known them both to occur in practice.

I agree that block-evasion and sockpuppetry may as well be combined together, as they are so closely linked, but I think they should both be mentioned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc and MSGJ: Actually, I have changed my mind about "I agree that block-evasion and sockpuppetry may as well be combined together". I have just protected an article because of editing by a persistent IP-block-evading editor, and it seems to me that "block evasion" is a suitable concise and precise explanation of the reason for protection. "Or sockpuppetry" really adds nothing of value, and insofar as "sockpuppetry" suggests abuse of multiple accounts, it is irrelevant, and possibly even misleading. I would therefore prefer to return to the earlier situation, where block-evasion and sockpuppetry were listed as two separate items. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

But having both doesn't really make it inappropriate to use and the two are similar so combining them doesn't do any harm. Plus there is the section at WP:SOCK about abuse of IP addresses as well as accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

George Crompton article - well spotted

Great catch. This seems to be part of systematic addition of false information to Wikipedia by two accounts on similar topics which I've been looking at. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation after seeing more such nonsense. Blythwood (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Was it necessarily a great idea to close immediately? I ask since with another SPI I opened last year we found seven other accounts nobody had realised were linked. Though a text search for keywords they used hasn't found anything suspicious. Blythwood (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: Both the accounts named in the SPI had been blocked, and nobody had asked for a CheckUser. Neither anything written in the SPI nor anything I saw in the editing histories of the accounts provided any evidence that there was likely to be any other account. I really don't see anything that would have been achieved by leaving it open; if anyone finds any other evidence then they can present it, either by re-opening the SPI or by some other means, such as ANI or contacting an individual administrator, while if nobody finds any other evidence then there is nothing that is going to happen just because an SPI is left unclosed with no outstanding evidence to be dealt with. The other case you mention is very different, in that the extensive history of the sockpuppeteer gave reason to think that more accounts would be likely, so that a request for CheckUser was both requested and accepted. In the recent case, I have no doubt whatever that unless further evidence can be provided, any request for CU would be declined by a clerk as pure fishing. However, if you disagree with that assessment then there is, of course, nothing to stop you from reopening the SPI and this time requesting a CheckUser. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I have limited experience with SPIs and I actually didn't realise you had to specifically request CheckUser with SPIs, sorry. Thanks for the quick action, anyway. Let's hope Mr. Blackwood gives up on this nonsense. Blythwood (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Persistent harassment towards you

I've noticed some accounts operated by User:Supreme Genghis Khan are now harassing you as well as me. Just giving you the heads up the latest account User:Genghis Khan JamesBWatson has been globally locked by a steward. And, there is still an ongoing SPI (note: in the latest SPI the username is obscene). TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 08:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My user and talk pages also got hit with some mild vandalism as a consequence of getting involved. Their most recent sock puppet was User:GenghisBWatson_JamesBWatson_JamesBKhan, which recreated the attack page JamesBWatson_is_a_peasant. They went for me after I flagged it for speedy deletion. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Eisenia andrei

Back in January, 2014, you semi-protected the Eisenia andrei page for 2 years because of a persistent spammer. Now that the protection has expired, the spammer is back again. Care to take another look at the article history and considering re-protecting the article? Thanks. Neil916 (Talk) 16:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Neil916:  Done This is a remarkably persistent spammer, who has been active since April 2013. Why he or she doesn't get the message that he or she is just wasting time, as the spam just keeps getting reverted, I can't imagine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Neil916: I have now also added the link that the spammer has been repeatedly adding to the spam blacklist. Several articles have been repeatedly attacked by to this spammer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I just want to say that I'm sorry that this "Genghis Khan" person keeps harassing and attacking you. Please don't let it get to you. Linguist 111^talk 17:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: Thanks for the good wishes, I appreciate that. However, I have had far too much experience on Wikipedia to take things personally, and I don't think there is any risk of my letting it get to me. One more silly child messing around, out of hundreds or even thousands that I have seen over the years isn't anything to worry about. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that :D Linguist 111^talk 20:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Austin Wade Petersen

Hamez0 has asked for a deletion review of Austin Wade Petersen. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 23:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Impersonation:User:JamesBVatson

Just to let you know this user's been blocked and tagged. It's username is impersonating you. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 07:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Limitations of username softblock

I see you changed the block settings I imposed on User:Berniesanders2016. I agree it is a vandalism account, and most would likely agree that it is very unlikely to be an account operated by Bernie Sanders. But the template invites him to create a new account, and you have blocked account creation. The templated message should be replaced by a more accurate blocking message. Maybe I should have used a vandalism only template, but there were fewer edits(only two) than are typically the basis when I do a voa block. Sometimes the templates just do not fit. Regards. Edison (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Edison: I agree that I wouldn't normally do a vandalism block on the basis of two rather mild vandalism edits. In fact, I don't think I would have blocked at all: I would have just given a warning that the username needed to be changed, and also that vandalism wasn't acceptable. I virtually never use username blocks, on the basis that if the username really is the only issue then a block is unnecessarily bitey, since a friendly message explaining the need for a username change is better, while if the username is not the only issue then a block which in effect says "you can carry on just as you have been doing, provided you use a different username" is misleading and unhelpful. However, I have no criticism of you for making a different decision. With hindsight, I think the change I made was unnecessary though, and I have restored your original block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

In another block of vandals who were hitting Passmores Academy, you blocked vandal User:Wankbanter and the template lacked a signature. Should block notices be signed? Granted, the curious blockee can look in the talk page history or block log. Regards. Edison (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I usually sign block notices. Why I didn't sign that one, I don't know. It is just possible I had some reason in mind at the time, but more likely it was just an oversight, and I have now added a signature. (Actually, as soon as a blocked editor tries to edit, the notice telling him or her that the account is blocked says, prominently near the top, "Editing from Edison has been blocked (disabled) by JamesBWatson", so the blocked editor knows full well who placed the block, and the signature on the talk page is more relevant to other editors who want to see who placed the block. I even know of one administrator who never posts block notices to user talk pages, on the grounds that the blocked editor sees the details of the block anyway, and anyone else can easily check the block log. I don't agree with him, for several reasons, and I have told him that I don't, but he sticks to his opinion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You must be doing something right

		The Purple Barnstar
		When somebody creates a slew of new accounts just to call you names it's usually a sign that you're pissing off the right people. Admin work can be a thankless task, but just think: every moment they spend calling you names is a moment that they're kept away from anywhere that they could do any real damage! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Well, if that is a sign that I'm doing the right things, then I must have recently dramatically improved my performance. I've had the odd few accounts of this kind before, such as JamesBWatsonSucks in February 2011 and JamesBWatsonSucksShit in March 2014, but the recent outbreak has vastly exceeded anything I've seen before. I seem to remember that I once told Bishonen that I regard such imitation as the sincerest form of flattery, and what you say amounts to a more amusing way of saying the same thing. Or maybe it wasn't Bishonen. Perhaps the most amusing thing about all this is that the people who do it apparently expect it to upset me. Like, I am supposed to think that the fact that some child (presumably) has nothing better to do with his or her time than keep creating Wikipedia accounts to say rude things to me is an indication not that he or she needs to get a life, but that I am somehow bad. In fact, I actually care far less about this kind of infantile troll than I do about other kinds of vandalism, for exactly the reason you mention: they are doing that irrelevant nonsense instead of doing any real damage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Suppressed edits

James, can you email me copies of the edits to my user talk page from the 31st, the ones from the Verizon Wireless IPs? It's not that this guy is hurting my feelings at all, but it's time to send this guy on a vacation from the internet. Kailey 2001 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Biography

The problem with recreating Category:Biography is that it completely defeats the purpose of ever having had the category renamed in the first place: because a bot automatically captures misfiles in non-empty category redirects, and automatically refiles them in the target category, Category:Biography (genre) is going to now get continually recluttered with exactly the same biographical articles about people that its renaming was designed to prevent. I agree with protecting it, but it should be protected as a non-creatable redlink rather than as a category redirect unless you're officially volunteering to become the guy who has to check that category every single day for the entire rest of your life to remove any misfiled BLPs. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Thanks for explaining about the automatic bot filings. That obviously makes a considerable difference. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for help from Davidgoodheart

Hi, I see you have created a Wikipedia page on Dusty Wolfe. I need help creating Wikipedia pages, can you help me?

Davidgoodheart —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgoodheart (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 April 2016‎

@Davidgoodheart: I didn't create the article, I just deleted it, undeleted it in response to a request from an editor, and temporarily moved it to userspace to give a chance for it to be edited without risk of being deleted again. The article was actually created in January 2012, by an editor who never edited again after that one edit. If you've got any specific request for any particular help, I will be happy to do my best to answer, but I don't regard advice on creating articles as one of the areas I'm best at, so you may find someone else more helpful. You may be able to get help at Wikipedia:Help desk or maybe Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

An old friend is back

Special:Contributions/172.97.230.224 -- John of Reading (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Yes, and Special:Contributions/172.97.161.102 too. I'll ask Gogo Dodo to consider amending the edit filter that he/she wrote, so that it will cover the new IP addresses. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Re your message: I added in 172.97.128.0/17 from distributel.ca. See if that helps. That is not their only netblock, so we may have to add others. The filter's last edit blocked was on March 21 and then January 31 before that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: Thanks. We'll see how that goes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

More Block Evaders?

Hi, hope all is well with you. I've noticed several similar disruptive edits from the following IPs, some of which are currently blocked: 166.137.107.146, 166.173.61.114, 166.177.120.28, 166.137.106.140, 166.137.104.23, 166.173.184.74, 166.177.122.22, 2602:30a:2c95:6b0:8d10:7d69:c35d:3325, 166.177.120.114, 166.177.123.219... –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: You are perfectly right, and many more IP addresses in the same ranges are involved, too. The IP range 2602:30a:2c95:6b0:x:x:x:x has already been blocked, and I have now placed a number of range blocks covering the other IP addresses too. Unfortunately, it is very likely that the vandal will just turn to another range, but at least we can make it a bit more difficult for him or her, and perhaps reduce the amount of vandalism. Protecting articles is unlikely to be a very useful approach, as the number of articles affected is very large, though there may be a case for protecting a few of the most often edited articles. Please feel welcome to let me know if you see more of the same, and if you do then remind me of this occasion, as I may not remember it.

Damavand

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Iranian_four-thousanders&curid=41910114&diff=713356746&oldid=677730485 :) Viewfinder (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: Sorry, I have no idea why you are calling my attention to that edit. It replaces content contradicted by one of the cited sources with different content with a new source which does support it, but that's all I can see. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I was just letting you know that the edit dispute during which I was blocked has been settled. Viewfinder (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: OK, that's good. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI, I just started a thread at AN/I about one of your blocks. Please don't take it personally, it's just I think that was inappropriate without any indication of there being consensus to do something like that. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 19:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For context, the Sept 2014 6-year duration rangeblock of North Carolina's entire educational network IP range (or so it appears)... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your recent CSD G11 deletion

You recently deleted "Easypod Autoinjector" under CSD G11. I reviewed that article for AFC about two months ago, and, although it had a few sentences that I would have worded in a more neutral way, it certainly did not meet G11's standard of "unambiguous promotion". Could you explain why you thought it did meet the criteria or undelete it? KSFT^C 15:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I am kind of curious as to what it looked like when you approved it. When I came across it yesterday it was the purest advertisement i have ever seen in Wikipedia - a brochure for the product, including detailed instructions with screenshots on how to use it. Not an encyclopedia article by a longshot. I really hope that it changed dramatically after you approved it.Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no requirement for articles to be encyclopedic in order to survive CSD. We care about the topic, not generally the present state of an article. While this article had problems with its style (yes, it looked like a company-issued promotional instruction leaflet), there is a credible (i.e. above CSD) claim of notability. The problems here should have been fixed by pruning and editing, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really. If it's 100 % promotion then it should be deleted whether it is notable or not. SmartSE (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) It hadn't changed at all other than the addition of the photographs, which admittedly made it much worse. The langugage wasn't the worst I've seen, but overall the article was most certainly overtly promotional. Just looking over it now, I've noticed that there are also copyvio issues with the lead (not looked further). SmartSE (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Andy you are making a lot of drama that is based solely on you hounding me. Again. Knock it off. I thought it needed a fundamental rewrite to be an encyclopedia article (which is what G11 is all about). JamesBWatson agreed. That's it. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As the poster of this article, I understand that in order to request that an article be reinstated, I need to directly ask the person who removed it, why they did so, so I'm doing that here.

I would also like to request that the article be reinstated so that a healthy and reasonable debate can take place free of hyperbole and name calling.

For my part, I have been clear that I have been working on behalf of a pharma client (producer of Easypod), I have responded to requests for photo licensing and I have added and edited third party content to demonstrate notability. I have attempted to write in an objective fashion that sticks to the facts -- and am happy to respond to any reasonable requests where the content appears overly subjective or promotional.

I have reviewed the criteria for speedy deletion. In particular, G11, which you called on for this deletion. I have provided demonstration of the subject's notability and I have written from a neutral point of view (while disclosing my paid status). It could certainly use more third party support, but my understanding is that Wikipedia articles are a work in progress. G11 states "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." I'm certainly happy to make further changes to the article, and of course others are welcome to edit and submit as required.

As you can all see, I did recently add images to the article, and I understand that from some perspectives that adds to a promotional feel. My intention was to show the device in its various configurations. Each image that was included is intended to support the information in the paragraph that it corresponds with. It's certainly difficult to picture the device without imagery. But I'm certainly willing to delete images as the editorial community deems necessary.

This article was approved by other admins and given C-Class status. If not my work, please honour the work of other admins and editors in the Wikipedia community. Please share your specific criticisms and concerns so that there can be healthy debate before a final decision is made. And please provide specific examples of content that is considered overtly promotional. If you reinstate to draft status, I'm certainly willing to continue to fine tune the article so that it is acceptable.

Respectfully... Medscrib (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That was nicely said. (I don't agree with your characterization of my description, but the request to draftify was nicely said.) In general, for health topics we tend to have articles on generic products, and talk about specific instances under the generic, to the extent there are really notable differences. See for example Continuous positive airway pressure; Stent and Bioresorbable stents; Pacemaker, etc. And relevant to this, Autoinjector. We do the same with drugs, focusing articles on the API rather than any specific branded forumulation. I am not sure (and I mean, that I am not sure) that WP:MED would welcome an article such as you wrote. It really came across like a product brochure to market the specific product, not a like an article covering a subject of enduring encyclopedic interest. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, thank you for your reasonable response. Unlike the examples you gave, the Easypod device is indeed, to use your words, "a really notable difference" from any other Growth Hormone treatment devices that are available on the market. That's quite clearly discussed in the article and it makes it quite different from the examples you've given (and my understanding is that every individual article should be judged on its own merit and not on the merit of other articles that have been posted). The biggest difference with this device from others on the market is that all of the design features help young children and adults past the fear of self-administered injections. If you can name another device this could be lumped in with we could certainly move the content there. If you are not sure whether the WP:MED community would welcome such an article, why not leave the judgement up to that community, rather than nominating this article for deletion? The speedy deletion process as far as I can tell is meant for completely unambiguous cases.

I still haven't seen specific examples from the text of the article from either you or JamesBWatson that demonstrate how exactly the original text is overtly promotional. Yes, it talks about a specific product and explains how it is used. What sentences in particular are overly or overtly promotional? Let's get rid of them. Before deleting the article, let's at least have a discussion about what specifically is unacceptable and what is not. To reinstate the article and open this up for wider discussion and further edits would be an excellent example for the Wikipedia community to learn the difference between ad copy and encyclopedic copy. Would you please withdraw the deletion so that can happen?

By the way, one thing I have noticed from all of your example articles is that each of them would benefit significantly from the inclusion of images. Words are great, but people learn more easily and retain more when they're accompanied with images. Medscrib (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be sufficient disagreement about the appropriateness of this speedy deletion to justify undeleting and a standard nomination for deletion which will allow us to see the disputed article and offer informed opinions. I see no advantage in further delay. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter, there are only three people here who saw the article recently. Two of them thought it was speediable. One is getting paid for it and is new to WP. The others have "theoretical" concerns. But it is of course JamesBWatstons' call for now. Jytdog (talk)

Medscrib -- Well every device is "unique". This review which is PMID 26292454, of devices shows that this device is one among several as does PMID 18452378; this device has strengths and weaknesses like the rest. and this field is really behind insulin delivery, no? even they haven't figured out closed-loop and who knows when that will finally happen. so hm.

on the image thing, yes - one of our struggles in Wikipedia is to get good, appropriately licensed images of medical devices that don't feature some company's brand. Not an easy thing to come by. But still the goal is just to be illustrative of general notions, not go anywhere near providing instructions or advice; WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTMANUAL are policy.

About getting the article refunded, this is the first stop and only jamesbwatson can do that. if he declines, there is the formal refund process. That's it. Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Jytdog says "the purest advertisement i have ever seen in Wikipedia", while KSFT says "it certainly did not meet G11's standard of 'unambiguous promotion'". Clearly different editors have very different views as to what is and what is not promotional. As far as I am concerned, unlike Jytdog I have certainly seen articles which are far more blatantly advertisements than this one; nevertheless, I am much closer to Jytdog's position than to KSFT's. The whole tone of the article, from start to finish, is like a brochure written for the manufacturers to promote their product. For example, the section headed "easypod Features" looks exactly like a list of "features" that the people selling the product wish to draw to potential customers attention, not like a description by a neutral third party who is merely describing what he or she has seen. Then we have language such as "easypod is designed to offer a safe, precise delivery method and provides an alternative delivery mechanism to the manual syringes and pens that are typically used". And I am not interesting in being told "all that does is state objectively what the design intention is", because what it does is describe what the design intention is in terms which read like an attempt to persuade us that it's a great idea. However, one or two examples are not the point: the point is that those two examples are an just a sample of what the whole tenor and character of the article are like, from start to finish. In fact, it reads exactly as though it was written by a professional marketing person for marketing purposes. Frankly, I can only wonder what KSFT would require an article to look like in order not to see it as unambiguously promotional, if he or she doesn't think this was.
2. The Articles for creation submission had been declined by Wiae, who stated that the references were not substantially about the subject, that it seemed promotional, and that part of it read like how-to guide. There had been no substantial change in any of those respects by the time KSFT decided to accept the draft as an article. I am surprised that an editor who has been editing for ten months and has made over three thousand edits regarded a draft with so many faults as suitable as an article.
3. I am not sure what Andy Dingley is trying to say. When I first read his comment, I read it as saying that no article should ever be speedily deleted because it is promotional, but maybe he merely meant that in this particular case the article should have been edited rather than deleted. If so, my answer is that whether a promotional article can realistically be salvaged by editing depends on two factors: (1) how much of it is promotional, and therefore how major a job it would be to edit it, and (2) what the article is like in other respects, which determines whether it is worth trying to salvage it. In this case, (1) virtually the whole article from start to finish is promotional in tone, so it would require a complete rewrite, not just pruning and adjusting, and (2) as Wiae pointed out, there is no evidence of notability, so that it is highly dubious whether the substantial amount of work required would achieve an article that should be kept anyway. Jytdog nominated this article for speedy deletion as promotional, and when I reviewed the nomination I agreed, so I deleted it under that criterion, but I am every bit as aware as Andy that if promotional content is sufficiently superficial then it is preferable to improve the article, rather than deleting it: saying that the deletion was because the article was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" is really a sort of abbreviation for saying that it was because the article was Unambiguous advertising or promotion and the nature of the article in other respects means that editing it to remove the promotional content is not a realistic prospect.
4. Naturally, in assessing the notability of the subject of the article, I have not relied only on the references in the article, but have also made my own searches for information about the "Easypod Autoinjector". What I have seen does not give me the impression that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
5. I shall restore the page, and return it to draft space, to give a chance for it to be edited, in the hope that eventually it may really be suitable to post as an article. However, I think it is only fair to Medscrib to point out that if the subject doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then it is likely to be deleted again, no matter how good a job is done of rewriting it so that it doesn't look like a piece of marketing copy. (Many problems with articles can be dealt with by editing, but no amount of editing an article can change the notability of the subject of that article.) Also, Medscrib should be aware that the requirement to disclose paid editing is additional to the general requirements of Wikipedia's policies , not a replacement for them, so that, for example, disclosing a paid position does exempt one from the policy that editing for the purpose of promotion, advertising, or marketing is unacceptable.
6. I hope that KSFT checks the references to a draft before deciding to accept it as an article. If so, I don't see how he or she can have thought that these references were adequate. This is particularly striking since he or she must have read the previous decline of the submission, where the suitability of the references was questioned. I suggest that KSFT should get rather more experience of what Wikipedia's accepted standards are, perhaps by taking part in deletion discussions, before assessing any more articles for creation submissions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• One other point, which I intended to include in my post above, and forgot. Medscrib says "This article was approved by other admins". I don't know what other administrators Medscrib has in mind, or where, when or how they indicated their approval, but certainly no administrator had ever edited either the article or its talk page when I deleted it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, thank you for restoring the draft. There's obviously a lot for me to dig into here as I decide on next steps. Just a couple of comments and questions I'm hoping people here will be willing to answer.

Now that the article is back in draft form, it appears that the history of edits has disappeared. I did make many changes (and additions of most of the existing third party source material) in response to Wiae's initial denial based on lack of notability; clearly not enough in your opinion. But there doesn't appear to be any history of those additions, which seem to me to be important to assess the development history of the article. Do you know why they are no longer there?

You mention that the previous decline of the submission questioned the suitability of the references was questioned. I don't recall that and can no longer see that history. I do recall that Wiae asked for more third party references and I did add many additional references in response to that request before resubmitting. Regarding searches for notability, there are far more results to wade through when you search for "Easypod" rather than "Easypod Autoinjector" and there's certainly more that could be added to further edits of the article.

When I wrote other admins, I should have said "another admin" - KSFT. Medscrib (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several things there which I don't understand. You say that you don't recall that when Wiae declined the articles for creation submission he or she questioned the references, and that you "can no longer see that history". However, looking at the page now, I see Wiae's comments about the references, including "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" and "the majority of the references do not seem to discuss it in particular". As for your saying that there "doesn't appear to be any history" of the additions that you made after Wiae's decline, all of the editing that you made to the article between Wiae's decline of the draft and KSFT's acceptance is here. Are you saying that there was something else too? I restored the full history of the page from when you created it to when I deleted it, and it is all visible here, including those edits of yours. Concerning the statement about "other admins" or "another admin", it doesn't make any difference, because I haven't seen anything anywhere indicating that any administrator had ever commented about the draft anywhere before its deletion, apart from the message about promotional editing which I posted to your talk page one minute before I deleted the article. Certainly no administrator had edited, moved, or in any way changed the article, its talk page, or your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Medscrib: In case you think otherwise, I am not an admin.

To reply to JamesBWatson's points, I looked at the draft again, which, of course, I could not have done before my first post here. I'm really not sure what I was thinking when I approved it. It is very promotional, and I would not approve it if I were reviewing it again now. I'm still not entirely convinced it meets G11; there are some parts that could be saved, and that is always preferable to deletion. KSFT^C 13:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, I clearly still have some things to learn about the Wikipedia process. I assumed only admins would have authority to approve an article for posting. It's a shame KSFT wasn't more rigorous in her feedback. I would have certainly rather made substantial additional edits rather than go through this speedy deleition and deliberation process -- although it is very enlightening. Thanks for the links to the article history. You'll see that after Wiae's comments I did add additional third party references to demonstrate notability; I didn't simply resubmit with no changes. I guess I'll need to decide whether it's worth the effort to do anything further to move the draft forward. It seems a shame that there isn't a place on Wikipedia for an entry about a very unique (albeit branded) medical device that has helped thousands of people around the world. Fine with me if you wish to close the discussion at this point. Medscrib (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Medscrib: If it's of any interest to you, I don't personally agree 100% with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but I believe my task as an administrator is to enforce the policies and guidelines as they are, not as I would like them to be. Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia's notability standards are based mainly on how much coverage a subject has in reliable third-party independent sources, not on issues such as how "unique" it is, or how many people it has helped. Something may be truly marvellous, and of great value and benefit to many people, but if it has not been the subject of significant coverage by writers unconnected with people who use it, sell it, market it, etc etc, then it may come nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Of the sources cited which are online, most fall under one or more of the following categories: sources which mention Easypod but are not substantially about it; sources which don't mention it at all; sources which appear to be promotional, or not independent of the manufacturer of Easypod. I haven't seen any of the sources which are not online, but at least some of them were published before Easypod was introduced, so they can't possibly be evidence of its notability. I may have missed something, but as far as I can see, none of the cited sources satisfies all three of the criteria of being significant coverage substantially about Easypod, independent of Easypod's manufacturers or marketers, and a reliable source.

I actually feel a good deal of sympathy for you in the situation you now find yourself in. You came here in good faith, but, like most Wikipedia editors who are first starting to edit (including myself when I started) you had mistaken impressions as to what would be acceptable. I remember being astonished when I first found out about certain Wikipedia policies which seemed to me quite unreasonable, but which I now realise are there for rational reasons (in some cases reasons I agree with, in some cases not, but in all cases reasonable and defensible reasons). I was relatively lucky, because although some of my early edits were reverted because of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I didn't know about, they were only small edits, whereas you have seen substantial amounts of work thrown away, which must be very frustrating. Since you apparently came here for a specific assignment, you may have no interest in other types of editing, but if you are interested in continuing to edit in other areas, my advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the sympathy. On a technical note, I am still having trouble viewing the talk page showing the history of edits. When I go to the draft page you reinstated and click on the associated talk page there is nothing there. Just a note that you've deleted it as a part of routine clean-up. What I do find frustrating about Wikipedia is the huge disparity in terms of how standards are applied from one article to the next. I won't give specific examples because I understand these talk pages aren't meant for that, but I have seen many articles about products (including for a company I used to work for) where the content is almost directly imported from the corporate website with relatively few references. One mistake I made is to use other approved product pages as examples for my own article. I'll need to review my sources, but your characterization and categorization seems a bit harsh. Some references were provided to back up specific points that were being made. Others were meant to underscore notability of the product itself -- such as numerous design awards it's won -- surely that factors into notability? I will take all of the feedback in this string into account should I decide to proceed with further edits to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medscrib (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If you see articles that don't follow policies, you can fix it yourself. If an article is copied directly from another website, it's probably a copyright violation, and you can tag it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12. If you don't think an article subject is notable, nominate it for deletion. Also, remember to sign messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). KSFT^C 17:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Medscrib: I hadn't restored the talk page, because I mistakenly thought it wouldn't be wanted with the page in draft space, but since you have indicated that you would like to have access to the page history I have restored it now. My apologies.

It is perfectly natural for a new editor to assume that what exists in Wikipedia is an indication of what is acceptable, but unfortunately that is not true. There are over 5 million articles, and about 28 million accounts that have been created, of which hundreds of thousands are currently active, not to mention nobody knows how many people who have edited without registering an account, but there are almost certainly more of those than editors with accounts. It is impossible to keep track of everything that goes on, and unfortunately there are huge numbers of articles which are not up to Wikipedia standards, and which are likely to be either drastically edited or deleted if and when they are noticed. I occasionally have even known blatant hoax articles survive for years before being spotted and deleted. Basically, in a web site where anyone can come along and edit, it is impossible to prevent a lot of crap getting in. Luckily, it is a minority, but it's there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Qxukhgiels (blocked)

yes, hello,

I just sawx that you blocked User:Qxukhgiels.

I agree, he was making shitty senseless edits. Not spam (on the pages that I patrol) but completely senseless edits. regards User:Tonton Bernardo I'm so tired (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tonton Bernardo: You may be right or not, I don't know. I just blocked the editor because he asked for his account to be blocked as he intended to leave Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sleep State

Thank you for finishing off my deletion of this article at AfD. The doorbell rang at just the wrong moment, and I failed to get back to it afterwards. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

3RR request

Hi - I notice you might be online right now. Would you mind making a quick ruling on this 3RR complaint against me? Several other editors were pinged into this discussion and I'd like to get it off my plate as quickly as possible, even if it results in a block against me, so as to avoid this turning into another epic drama. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

TVB Jade

Hi! TVB Jade has been moved multiple times (with no justifications) in a short time-span creating a situation where only admins can fix it. Can you help in fixing this mess and protect it again? HkCaGu (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@HkCaGu: I've returned the page to its original title, and deleted the pointless redirects which were created by the page moves. I have also discovered that the same editor made a vandalism page move on another article, so I have reverted that too. If you see any more trouble from the same editor, please let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I misread the info at the top of your page and thought it said your talk page here was disabled so I also have posted this to your other account talk page you have listed. There was a revert done today on the Sting(Wrestler) page to revert the edit of what appears to be a banned user. The revert added back the outlawed/unreliable sources that were used on the edit that the banned user had removed. I removed the edited section again and listed the reason why I removed it due to the outlawed sources. I was not sure if you were aware that the revert that was preformed today added back outlawed/unreliable sources. I just wanted to clarify why I removed the section/edit again.

Revision as of 15:34, 22 April 2016 (edit) JamesBWatson3 (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by B. Mastino (talk) to last version by Ozdarka)

Latest revision as of 17:08, 22 April 2016 (edit) (undo) WarMachineWildThing (talk | contribs) (→‎Legacy and influence: Outlawed sources used IE:wrestlezone (WP:PW/RS)) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)

I was then being accused of being a sock of the banned user on the Sting talk page for doing the above removal I have nothing to do with the banned user and I tried to respond to the accusation but someone had removed it as i was responding to it. I am the webmaster for Del "The Patriot" Wilkes and he is the main reason i even have this account as people were constantly added incorrect info to his wiki page I am more than willing to provide any proof required of me to prove my account is not a sock of a banned user.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: You may well be right about the unsuitable sources. My revert was just one of a mass rollback of edits by the sockpuppet, and it would not surprise me at all if some of the edits I reverted were justifiable. If they are, then it is perfectly OK for another editor (not another account of the banned editor) to revert my reverts. If you do that, then you take responsibility for them, just as though you were the first person to make those edits. It is certainly true that there are similarities between your editing and editing of the sockpuppeteer in question, so that I can see why the suspicion arose, but the similarites don't seem to me to be sufficient evidence to conclude that your account is another sockpuppet, and in the absence of convincing evidence I am willing to believe that it isn't. If I did think there was enough evidence, I would block your account and rollback your edits, or if I thought the evidence was borderline I would ask for a CheckUser. Since I don't think the evidence is enough, as far as I am concerned you are perfectly free to restore any edits which you think were justifiable.

I see that an editor who was not logged in to an account removed the message suggesting your account was a sockpuppet. I have no idea who that was, but if it was you then removing it was not a good idea, and removing it without logging in was a very bad idea, as it suggests an attempt to avoid scrutiny. (Please note that I am not accusing you: I am merely saying if it was you. If it wasn't you, then just ignore this paragraph.) Even though I don't believe your account is a sockpuppet, I do see that there are enough similarities to make it reasonable for an editor to raise the possibility, and I think a better approach is to answer the accusation (as I have done) rather than try to suppress information about the suspicion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I only removed what was added back because it used Outlawed/Unreliable sources according to Wikipedia. I was answering the accusation and when I hit save it came up and said the page had been changed and my edits could not be added and the section was gone. I make no edits if I am not logged in to my account. I agree it shouldve been answered too and not removed. I think i should have reverted it back so as i could answer which i feel is a good idea. Thank you for responding and have a great weekend.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Sorry, Chris, I now see that you already said "I tried to respond to the accusation but someone had removed it as i was responding to it" in your original post above. I read that, but then forgot you said it. Otherwise I wouldn't have thought it might have been you that removed it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, everyone makes mistakes just like i did when i read the top of your talk page here and thought it was disabled. Thank you again and have a great weekend.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)