User talk:JBW/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

Another sockpuppet of Phantasus Magician

It appears ETC!ETC! VIP (talk · contribs) is yet another sockpuppet of Phantasus Magician, now removing and restoring parts of EDM artists' discographies that have not been protected (also here and here), with misleading edit summaries yet again. Is there any way an editor with CheckUser can find the IP they're using to block them from creating accounts? Otherwise it appears they'll just keep creating them. I've reverted most of their edits so far. Ss112 19:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: I have blocked the account you mention. You could ask a CheckUser to do what you suggest, but I have no idea how likely they would be to do it. Also, even if they do it, they may not tell you that they do, because of the policy of confidentiality, which means that they won't say anything which may reveal a connection of an IP address to an account. There are lots of "CheckUser blocks" made without any further explanation, and for all I know many of them may be for the kind of reason you mention, but I have no more way of knowing than you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet has appeared, this time called Cuddly-Wuddly (talk · contribs). Their contributions page is full of misleading edit summaries such as "Updated" and they're editing all the same EDM artist topics. I'm hesitant to ask a CheckUser or do anything SPI-related because in my experience they never go anywhere, or if they do, they take quite a while, and then it's weeks of reverting of IP edits until they do. Ss112 13:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Household Stone tools of Karnataka

Household Stone tools in Karnataka

@ James B Watson, Hello!

I post below the note that I made on my talk page in response to PROD,

" @ JamesBWatson, Hello!

I have removed the Proposed article deletion notice. I will try and attempt to explain the difficulties and peculiarities involved,

• Hitherto till now the first option on search engines for Oralu Kallu was an article on Wikipedia which seems to be removed today. That article was 3 or 4 line and factually incorrect. The implication, I am sure you would realize that an incorrect article was itself the prime source of information to the world. The underlying significant aspect appears to be the paucity of other sources of information available online.
• The best source of information available for the world for 7 years, was a factually incorrect article, unreferenced but yet managed to survive on Wikipedia signifies the importance/relevance of the topic.
• These stone tools are vanishing and will become part of History. A mention of them on this World Encyclopedia would, to some extent serve to inform future generations about the living of passed times.
• However, I will continue my endeavor to find sources/references/back up for this article to improve upon.

Also, for further clarity, I post below my note in reply to PROD on talk page of the article,

"@ James B Watson, Hello!

I shall try to address the concerns raised,

1) No evidence that any of these are peculiar to Karnataka

As I have noted on the talk page, there are almost NIL evidence any which way available online. But the stone tools were/are a daily reality. I have tried hard researching online for referencing even before the articles creation, but without success. Documenting these articles preserves a piece of the vanishing history. The articles were part of every household(some still are) without which, as you can imagine cooking would have been impossible! As regards to Karnataka in the Title page, I did consider India/Southern India earlier. But, that would be unbacked and far too generalized claim . By adding Karnataka, at the least I was certain of the daily reality of the region.

Would changing 'of' to 'in' the title from 'Household Stone tools of Karnataka' to 'Household Stone tools in Karnataka' be of any help for better clarity? Please advise.

2) Concerns that the topic as a whole satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

A page 'Oralu Kallu' had existed since 2009 for 7 years, which now seems to have been removed? That page was the number one link from any search engine on the topic. For better understanding the reason for creation, I add below my initial comments at the time of creating the article,

"I have created a new web page without any references. Heres why,
I happened to come across a page titled Oralu Kallu. It was created in 2009. Last modified was in 2015. Till now it didn't have any references. I looked for references. There are none reliable and accurate till now. But it has managed to survived till now. I corrected and enlarged that page. I grouped similar tools on that page and tried to rename it with a broader name. I was unable to do so. Later I deleted the expanded information that I had contributed myself and created this new page with it. As before, no reliable references for this are available online now too!!

Could you please create a redirect from Oralu Kallu page to this article's page?"

Hope I have addressed the concerns raised by you. I look forward to improve the article, will try even more researching to better it. Regards"

Sincerely --Kireadsalot (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)"

Kireadsalot (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I still don't think that this topic is in any way notable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have your page on my watchlist, James, and the title was too intriguing! So to help the new user I have joined in the discussion. @Kireadsalot: This is a noble attempt to introduce a new article but the subject is very unusual. The first thing I did was to put a link into this discussion, so we can find it easily . I went to the page to see what it was about. As you know (or will soon) a wikipedia edit has three parts. 1. An interesting fact. 2. a reference to say where we can check the fact. 3. A line in the edit summary that will inform your readers of what you have done. Without #2 the edit can/should be deleted.

The next thing I did was to look at the tool 'What links here'. If there are no links the article is an orphan and is unlikely to survive. so I thought where could you find a link- or add one Cuisine of Karnataka seemed a good place to start. That would need a whole new section #Preparation# so a lot of work. There is a category Kanataka cuisine there too and there may be articles in that which could provide a natural home for a link. I am not an expert- which I assume you are. I added the category to the article

I looked again at Household Stone tools in Karnataka to examine its structure. Ok there is a lot of work needed to make this look like other Wikipedia articles. I write booklets for edit a thons- and some of the material may be helpful see User:ClemRutter/training#Booklets (.odt format) for some links. please give me feedback on how useful you find the material

I think that is as much as I should say at the moment- we can continue the conversation on your or my talk page. ClemRutter (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@ James B Watson, Hello!

Thank you for your reply. I acknowledge your view.

Regards
--Kireadsalot (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@ ClemRutter, Hello!

Thanks for hand holding. Thanks for adding category. Much appreciated.

I specifically need help on uploading photos on another page. I shall post on your talk page for help.

Regards
--Kireadsalot (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_28#Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE

I invite you to an ongoing RfD discussion about those redirect to WP:AADD#Just a vote. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Unprotection request of Justin Gaethje

• Justin Gaethje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request for unprotection: Hello JamesBWatson! I just stumbled upon Justin Gaethje (fighter) and then naively tried to move it to Justin Gaethje, only to find out the target page is salted. Page seems to have been salted because of several re-creations and re-deletions throughout 2014 and 2015. In regards to whether the subject has become notable: By now, I'd argue the subject simply meets the general notability guideline (significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject), irrespective of whether he additionally meets the MMA-specific notability guidline, which he still doesn't. Also, the fact that someone simply recreated the article on a slightly different page and no one had an issue with that seems to point to sufficient notability. Best regards, --D-M (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Ziad K Abdelnour Wiki Profile

Hi Admin,

Ziad K Abdelnour Wiki profile has been deleted by some one else. And also we are not able to see the history of profile after April 8th 2011. We would like to request you to review Ziad K Abdelnour Wiki profile and Live it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasad0052 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Black history project being deleted?

There appear to be several black history stubs being proposed for deleted recently, one by you. They all seem to have been created by new users, and all about Spartanburg, South Carolina. See, e.g., [1] and [2] Should these be rescued? Bearian (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Tanuku

The user User_talk:Kapil_shanmukh started again adding errors on Tanuku page. I've reported earlier but it was turned down as stale. Could you watch list the page?--Vin09 (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vin09: Unfortunately, I find that watchlisting is not very effective for me, because I am unable to stop myself from gradually building up a list of thousands of pages, so that I get far too many hits for me to actually check every time I look at my watchlist. Consequently, I have virtually given up using my watchlist at all. However, you are welcome to let me know if you see more from the same editor, and I will look at it. I will also say that at present I would be reluctant to take administrative action against the editor, as there has n attempt to explain what the problems are: simply calling the edits "vandalism" without explaining what is wrong with them is unlikely to help. It does not look to me like vandalism: it looks like good-faith editing, even if it is misguided. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

[3] First time I encountered this LTA case, so I was a bit careful with my tagging. Deserves an award for tenacity probably. Fram (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Thanks for your help at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/94.207.182.106. I'm sorry for not giving diffs for relevant edits by their past accounts (I thought it was evident in the archived investigation), and will make sure I do this in the future. However I fear that this editor may return and I am not sure if we should keep on using the IP address as the "master account" or we should name one of the earlier accounts as the master? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Update It appears as if User:Vanjagenije has moved it to the oldest (local?) account. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: This time the lack of diffs wasn't important, as there was enough evidence to block anyway, but very often it makes a huge difference. It may seem from your point of view that it was evident in the archived investigation, but for someone new to the case, as I was, that means reading through the previous cases, going from there to the history of the accounts mentioned, looking through their editing history to find what is relevant... It often can take a really huge amount of time and effort. To your question about changing the SPI to a master account, yes, that should be done, and I was intending to ask Vanjagenije if he would look into it, but, as you know, he has already done it. Thanks, Vanjagenije. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for both the blocking of the concerned users and the advice to provide more diffs in future investigations. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

Hi there. A certain IP vandal that you've helped combat in the past has resurfaced – targets cricket articles in general and international squad templates in particular; IP address generally starts with 180.234; apparently based in Bangladesh. The IPs 180.234.70.31, …84.251, …38.86 (and perhaps others) have all been recently blocked. I noticed here that at one point you were able to implement some sort of rangeblock. If it's possible to do something like that again, it would certainly save a lot of frustration, even if it only works for a few months. Thanks, IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@IgnorantArmies: I'm short of time now, but for the moment I have blocked the 180.234... range for three days. I hope to get back onto it before those 3 days are up, and see whether a longer block is justifiable or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

@IgnorantArmies: An update, in case you are interested. I have now found time to look into this more fully. I blocked the range 180.234.224.0 to 180.234.255.255 in June, and then the editor in question moved to the range 180.234.0.0 to 180.234.127.255. The substantial majority of edits from that range are clearly from this editor, and most of those edits that may not be the same person are vandalism. (Many of them were creations of nonsense pages that I have now deleted). There is therefore very little risk of collateral damage in blocking that range, so I have blocked it for a fairly long time. Obviously, the editor may just move to another range, but if we keep blocking every range that he or she uses, we may possibly eventually exhaust his or her patience, and if not then at least the blocks may slow down the disruptive editing a bit. At present, it doesn't seem necessary to keep the whole of the 180.234... range blocked, so I shall lift that block, though that will of course be open to reconsideration if he/she now starts using a different part of the range. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The editor has lately been focusing on navboxes (which are low-traffic and often don't need to be updated), so page protection might come into play if blocks don't make an impact. I'll probably create a report at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse if the edits do continue. Thanks again, IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandal on AIV

Just wanted you to know I ended up blocked the vandal you had tagged as not warned appropriately due to a number of edits in the filter log. There was enough in there to show they were a VoA, surprised the bot didn't catch it first to be honest. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: OK. I am surprised that I didn't check the edit filter log myself, as I had been doing that for other AIV reports I had been checking. Evidently I forgot to, but you didn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: MErge4wear and Thebenm

James

  I will respond line by line in bold type, which is often how I respond to emails.

  Hopefully it's not annoying.

I hope the following will help to clarify the situation for you.

Much of your editing, from both accounts, has been promotional in tone, some of it very much so.

  Well tone is everything. I have written a lot of books and magazine articles, so I know that.

   Finding the right tone is key, and I guess that is what I am learning here: the line between informational and promotional.

   All I am trying to do is make a Wikipedia article similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stance_(brand)

At least some of the content you have posted has been copied from elsewhere; for example, I found a large part of the content that you posted at User:Merge4wear also appears at timbrauchfoundation.org/board-of-directors.html.

   True, but the Tim Brauch website and Merge4wear are owned by the same person, so I had permission and it didn't feel like stealing. 
   But there is no way Wikipedia would know that, so I will keep everything original.

    Also, that Wikipedia article was intended as a first draft, and then others would come in and fix it.

   Usually I have that leeway with stories and such, but not in this case.

It is almost never acceptable to copy content from other web sites to Wikipedia, for two reasons. Firstly, that is usually a copyright infringement. Secondly, even on the rare occasions when a copyright owner is willing to license the contents of their web site for free reuse in accordance with Wikipedia's licensing terms, a business or other organisation's own web site is usually designed to give readers a favourable impression of the organisation, not to give a neutral account, as required by Wikipedia. In fact, that may be at least part of the reason why the content you posted seemed so promotional.

    Well copyright wasn't a problem here. But I understand the other concern.

    I tried to be just informational, but I guess that veered into promotional.

     It's a fine line: Wikipedia can be a sticky wicket.

The user name "Merge4wear" suggests that the account represents a business, which is not permitted, as an account must be for an individual person. I don't know of any reason to object to the user name "Thebenm", however.

    You mean I should write the article as "thebenm" but the page could be called "merge4wear" ?

The fact that your editing has essentially consisted of writing about two organisations or businesses, and that in both cases your editing has looked promotional, encourages the impression that you are editing for those companies, perhaps being paid to do so. There is no rule against that, but if it is so then the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state that you are doing so.

    Well I am starting the article for others, for others to chime in.

Technically, by editing from the account "Thebenm" while another of your accounts is blocked means that you are evading the block, and theoretically Thebenm could be blocked for that reason. It is clear the editing in question was done in good faith, with no attempt to commit any abuse, and all you have done is post messages relating to your unblock request, so I don't think there is any need to block the account. However, I ask you not to edit except on your talk page until the matter is settled, as otherwise you are likely to be blocked for block-evasion. As long as you have an account blocked, you should not edit (except your own talk page) until either that account is unblocked or an administrator tells you that it's OK to go back to editing with your other account.

    I dont think I am able to edit right now, am I? "thebenm" is blocked, I believe.

I will contact the blocking administrator, Materialscientist, to discuss whether it's OK to let you edit again. In order to give yourself the best chance, I suggest that you do the following: (a) indicate that you have an understanding of why your editing was considered promotional, and that you won't make the same mistakes again,

   I understand that my editing was promotional - as opposed to informational - and I will not make those mistakes again.

(b) indicate that you understand the copyright issue, and that in future you will write content in your own words, rather than copying other places, and

    Yes, that won't be a problem.

(c) state clearly whether or not you have been editing on behalf of any person, business, or other organisation that you have written about, and if so whether this has been all or part of work you were paid for.

     Yes I will acknowledge when I am being paid.

If you can do those things, I will be willing to consider whether giving you the go ahead will be suitable. If I do, it will be the account Thebenm that you should use, not Merge4wear because of the user name policy issue.

      Understood. If I do an article for merge4wear, it will be under the username "thebenm" 

      And then others will chime in with their information.

      If I can detour here: Wikipedia seems to always be on a money drive. 

      Why don't they do another facet of their site called WikiBusiness - charge people to promote their businesses, and thereby eliminate a lot of hassle on both sides?

       Kind of like how Craigslist charges for some postings, but not others?

       Wikipedia's money troubles would end every quickly I think, with thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of businesses paying $50 to $100 to post.

       Just a thought.

       As we say in Hawaii: Mahalo for your kokua.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebenm (talk • contribs)

Hi, James

Just came to wish you merry Christmas. Whatever you want I hope you get! :) Foxnpichu (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello JamesBWatson: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^{grotto presents} 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

FYI

[4] --JustBerry (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

User: JayPe

Hi,

Are you aware that this user has been pinging you on his talk page regarding his unblock request?--5 albert square (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Shared IP 1

Template:Shared IP 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian television series

You had a prod declined there - I've taken it to AfD. Peridon (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername

Hi James, saw your revocation of their talk page access - with the latest bout of their failure to `get the point` it's pretty clear my offer of unblock based on the conditions I outlined is null and void. My original idea behind possibly unblocking them was solely to see what they'd do with the rope. It's pretty clear now, but thanks for trying to get through to them -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: I did hesitate before declining the unblock request and removing talk page access, because your offer still stood, but I thought about it and decided that the editor really had shown that he or she was never going to become a constructive editor. Perhaps it would have been better to have consulted you first, but thanks for letting me know that you don't object. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JamesBWatson!

Happy New Year!

JamesBWatson,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

advice noted

sincere apology - very good point on your part - important, and quite thoughtless on my part - thanks for your tolerance JarrahTree 23:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: That's OK. It's the sort of thing that is easy to do if nobody points out that it can be confusing, and I am sure I have thoughtlessly done things much worse myself. My comment was meant to be advice to avoid the same problem in future, rather than criticism, but the section heading you used above suggests you realised that, so probably all is fine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Kudos

BTW, I thought your explanation of the copyright situation on User_talk:Drewmonda in his unblock was exemplary. It's not that he's violating copyrights, he's violating copyright policy - a nuance that is lost on 90% of admins IMHO including myself when I had the mop. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Yes. It's a very important distinction, and it took me a long time to realise that. On another point, I had no idea that you no longer had the mop. Any chance you may ask for it back? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

I doubt it but I appreciate the vote of confidence. I tended to take a harder line on disruption than the community feels appropriate and I just don't have the stomach any longer for the drama.

What's been fascinating to me since I relinquished the mop is running across several admins who have no idea of my background and have been remarkably condescending in random interactions. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: By the way, I feel I was also applying a significant dose of AGF. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Page: Papua and New Guinea Development Bank

Hi,

It appears you have deleted this page: Papua and New Guinea Development Bank. Perhaps in error?

The article was originally created in early 2016. This morning I changed the name of the page from "National Development Bank of Papua New Guinea" to "Papua and New Guinea Development Bank".

This change was at the request of the authors who worked with the bank during the time it was called "Papua and New Guinea Development Bank".

Please restore the page.

Thank you

Wikitups (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitups: No. it wasn't "in error" at all. The artcle was unambiguously promotional, being full of text telling us how the bank "employed experienced staff", that it was "led by experienced bankers", that it was "promoting social and economic progress", that it worked "to the greatest advantage of the people", and so on. By no stretch of the imagination could it be thought to be written from a neutral point of view: the whole page read as though it was written by the bank's marketing department, not by neutral impartial observers. Also, looking at the earliest versions of the article, I saw that the article had been created and edited by single purpose accounts which had all the appearance of working for the bank, which meant that at the least the editors in question had a conflict of interest, and almost certainly were editing in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use as undisclosed paid editors. You refer to "the request of the authors". How did they communicate with you? I see no sign anywhere of on-wiki communication, and I also see that your editing is exclusivley concerned with Papua and New Guinea Development Bank: are you working for the bank? If so, you should be aware that Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest discourage you from editing an article about it, and also that the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to disclose the nature of your connection to the bank. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson Further to your comments above, I was the person who originally created this page and I can assure you that I do not work for the bank (and never have). Actually I've never even been to PNG. Likewise, I don't work in marketing and I most certainly wasn't paid to create or edit this page. I created the page based on a suggestion of someone I know who did work for the bank several decades ago - they thought it was a shame that there was no Wiki page for the PNG Development Bank, when many other country's development banks have Wiki pages (and there was an 'empty' link to the PNG Development Bank on the general National Development Bank page on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_development_bank). That person was able to point me towards the information and sources to prepare the article. I certainly acknowledge your feedback that some of the language in there does read as promotional and that should be changed - but could that language not just be amended, rather than deleting the entire page? Thanks for your assistance, much appreciated. --SusDym (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson, If the article cannot be restored in place for improvements, please make sure a copy is with SusDym and/or Wikitups before any possible scheduled permanent deletion.

Thank you

Wikitups (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Who were "the authors who worked with the bank", since the person who created the article denies having worked for the bank? And how did those authors who worked with the bank communicate their request to you, since there is no trace of their having ever communicated with you on Wikipedia? What is your connection to the bank, or to people working for it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

On the issue of restoring the content so that it can be rewritten to make it non-promotional, I will happily do that if I can be sure it does not infringe copyright. Large parts of the text are word-for word identical to text which appears at http://myjacksonheights.com/onlinestock/59-Role+Of+Stock+Exchange+In+Papua+New+Guinea-75.html and at http://dzineblog360.com/wp-optionen/12528-stock-exchange-rate-of-papua-new-guinea-cf.html so that clearly there is copyright infringement involved, but at present I cannot tell what the original source of the text was. Was the text of the Wikipedia article in whole or in part made by copying text from somewhere else? If so, where? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

JamesBWatson,

This is a list of points addressing your concerns about the Article: Papua and New Guinea Development Bank (hereafter the “Article”).

People Involved With the Article

The originators of the idea to create the Article, five in all, all worked for the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank between 1967 (when the Bank was established) and 1980, shortly before the Bank was renamed in 1984, becoming the Agricultural Bank of Papua New Guinea with a changed charter and aims. This group included Mr Rodney Cole, the Deputy Managing Director of the Bank from January 1971 until January 1973 and then Managing Director from January 1973 until July 1975. Mr Rodney Cole took responsibility as editor of a book written about the Bank, titled “Meeting the Challenge – The Papua and New Guinea Development Bank 1967-1980” which was published in 2015.

These ex-staff of the Bank thought it was a shame that there was no record of the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank available through a search on the Internet when the current successor of the PNGDB (the National Development Bank of Papua New Guinea) and many other country's development banks have Wiki pages.

We identified information sources to prepare the Article including Annual reports of the Bank for the period from 1967 to 1981 – these reports were presented to the Papua New Guinea Parliament under the guidelines originally established when the Bank was set up by the Australian Government on behalf of its then administration for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

The main resource for other information is the work: Cole, Rodney (edited by) (2015). Meeting the Challenge - The Papua and New Guinea Development Bank 1967 - 1980. Rodney Cole. ISBN9780646938202.

None of the contributors to this article including ex-staff have any financial or other interest in the submission of this Article nor do they have any pecuniary interest in the Article. We reiterate that the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank was closed in 1984 and has not operated since that time. There is no Conflict of Interest by any of those who have contributed to this article or who have been involved in recording it in the Wikipedia’s records.

Wikipedia account SusDym created the Article (no association with the subject of the Article past or present, no COI).
Wikipedia account Wikitups helped tweak the Article (no association with the subject of the Article past or present, no COI).

Copyright Assertion

JamesBWatson states: "Large parts of the text are word-for word identical to text which appears at http://myjacksonheights.com/onlinestock/59-Role+Of+Stock+Exchange+In+Papua+New+Guinea-75.html and at http://dzineblog360.com/wp-optionen/12528-stock-exchange-rate-of-papua-new-guinea-cf.html so that clearly there is copyright infringement involved, but at present I cannot tell what the original source of the text was. Was the text of the Wikipedia article in whole or in part made by copying text from somewhere else? If so, where?”

We certify that the wording in the submitted Article on the PNGDB was solely written by the five ex-staff referred to as “originators of the Article” (above). The other articles referred to by JamesBWatson appear to be a promotion of “binary options” which not only were probably never heard of during the period 1967-1984, but have nothing to do with anything that the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank and its successors have ever been involved with. The articles quoted are rambling articles that the creators have embellished with short references to the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank and the Stock Exchange of Papua New Guinea evidently as a means of giving credibility to their article; the references do not appear to fit into the quoted articles with any logic.

The information contained in the PNGDB Article can be confirmed by reference to the book quoted above or by reference to the Bank’s Annual Reports held by the National Library of Australia in Canberra.

Article Deletion Event

On 2016-03-28 SusDym posted the Article to the Main/Article Namespace as "National Development Bank of Papua New Guinea".

On 2016-12-06 Wikitups at the request of the Authors (to better reflect the content of the Article) changed the Article's title from "National Development Bank of Papua New Guinea" to "Papua and New Guinea Development Bank" - the Bank's original name.

On 2016-12-06 JamesBWatson Speedy Deleted the Article with a reason of: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW).

Neither SusDym or Wikitups were consulted before the page was deleted, and no explanation was given except the code G11 as above.

On the 2016-12-06 Wikitups questioned the Article's deletion on User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, expecting it to be in error.

On the 2016-12-07 JamesBWatson responded with: "The article was unambiguously promotional, being full of text telling us how the bank "employed experienced staff", that it was "led by experienced bankers", that it was "promoting social and economic progress", that it worked "to the greatest advantage of the people", and so on. By no stretch of the imagination could it be thought to be written from a neutral point of view: the whole page read as though it was written by the bank's marketing department, not by neutral impartial observers."

G11 states that: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. 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. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc."

Addressing JamesBWatson Reasons for Article Deletion

We strongly question the judgment of JamesBWatson that the Article is G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW).
We strongly question the judgment of JamesBWatson that the Article "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION."

Firstly, please note the Article is historical in nature describing the role of the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank (its successor now the National Development Bank of Papua New Guinea Limited). There is no Papua and New Guinea Development Bank in existence to promote.

JamesBWatson Issue 1: "led by experienced bankers"

From the Article: "The Papua and New Guinea Development Bank was led by experienced bankers from Australia and New Zealand with an emphasis placed on training local Indigenous staff in all facets of the operations so they could take on senior roles as they gained knowledge and experience." – a factual statement and in no way promotional.

JamesBWatson Issue 2: "employed experienced staff"

From the Article: "In addition to normal banking roles, management of the Bank ensured that the organisation employed experienced staff who were able to offer technical assistance and support to would-be entrepreneurs in the country so that they could contribute to the country's economic development." - a factual statement and in no way promotional.

Both Issue 1 and Issue 2 Article statements maintain that experienced personnel were specifically necessary to achieve the Bank's goals - both factual statements and in no way promotional. Information would be lost if the word “experienced” was omitted.

JamesBWatson Issue 3: "promoting social and economic progress"

From the Article: "In pursuit of its prime objective of promoting social and economic progress, the Bank approved loans totalling K72 million to almost 17,000 borrowers in the first ten years of operation." - again a factual statement, the Bank's objective as set out by the Australian Government when it was originally established and its measure of success in achieving that objective.

JamesBWatson Issue 4: worked "to the greatest advantage of the people"

From the Article: ‘The Bank's enabling legislation charged the Board's duty as, “within the limits of its powers, to ensure that the policy of the Bank is directed to the greatest advantage of the people of the Territory and have due regard to the stability and balanced development of the Territory economy and the advancement of the indigenous people."’ - again a factual statement, in this case a quote from the legislation itself!

Conclusion and Recommendation

The Authors of the Article have reviewed the Article and have found no glaringly promotional material.
We submit that the Article in no way meets the G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW) requirements and that the Article be restored.

Based on our above experience: We submit that a review of the actions of JamesBWatson be undertaken.

Wikitups (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitups: Thank you for expressing your concerns. I shall try to clarify some of the issues involved, in the hope that doing so may be helpful to you.

1. In my opinion, "conflict of interest" is an unfortunate choice of words for the Wikipedia guideline on editing by someone with a connection to the subject on which he or she is editing, because that guideline covers a much wider range of situations than those generally considered to be conflict of interest. However, whatever words are used, the essential point is that it is discouraged for anyone to edit where he or she has a connection to a subject which is likely to give him or her a different perspective from that of a neutral, uninvolved, third party editor. From what you say it is clear that you are working in collaboration with people who have worked for the bank, and indeed that they are to a large extent responsible for writing the content in question, even if they did not themselves post it to Wikipedia. That means that you will be in contact with, and probably influenced by, the point of view of people with a direct involvement, and that is likely to give you the kind of non-independent viewpoint that Wikipedia's so-called "conflict of interest" guideline is concerned with, even if you personally have never been directly connected to the bank. One of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest discourage editing on a subject to which one has such a personal connection is that the closeness of one's involvement is likely to make it very difficult to stand back and see one's writing from the detached perspective of an independent outside observer, even if one sincerely believes one is doing so. Time and again over the years I have seen people in that situation who appear to be genuinely bewildered as to why their writing is seen as promotional, even though in some cases it is full of what looks to others as clearly promotional, and it seems to me as though that may be so in your case. Also, the "conflict of interest" guideline certainly applies to content written by anyone with a personal connection to the subject in question, even if it was someone else who posted that content to Wikipedia.
2. A statement may indeed be a statement of objective fact, but nevertheless be promotional by virtue of the way it is expressed, or in some situations by the fact that it is expressed at all in its particular context. To be promotional a statement does not have to somehow be non-factual. Also, a promotional tone can be created by the overall impression of a passage, rather than by specific statements being individually promotional: for example, the section of the article headed "Staffing" was entirely written in a way that clearly gave the impression that the writer believed that the staffing was good and to be admired; likewise, the section "Innovative practices" was written in a way which made it perfectly clear that the writer thought that the "innovative practices" in question were worthy of praise or admiration.
3. Having said that, there certainly were also pieces of writing in the article which individually were non-neutral in tone. For example, we were told that "the bank took up minority shareholdings in worthwhile business developments": whether they were "worthwhile" or not is a value judgement, not an objective statement of fact. There were also other statements which, as I mentioned above, while perhaps objectively true, gave a promotional impression by the way they were included, or the fact that they were included at all in their context. For example, consider the statement "management of the Bank ensured that the organisation employed experienced staff". I have not the slightest doubt that that is true. Indeed, it would be truly remarkable if such a bank were set up and staffed only by people without relevant experience, and for that reason it is unlikely that any uninvolved observer would mention the fact, any more than they would make a point of specifying that the bank handled money. It is, however, precisely the sort of thing that is frequently included in promotional writing, such as text produced by a company's PR department. I am perfectly willing to believe that it may have been included without promotional intent, perhaps by someone who had been involved in the management process in question, and had a memory of the importance that he or she and other colleagues attached to the importance of relevant staff experience, but whatever the intention, the effect of including numerous examples of that sort of statement is promotional.
4. I emphasise again that while I have given examples to try to illustrate the promotional tone, individual short quotes do not really show the true nature of the issue, which is more a matter of overall impression of the text as a whole.
5. You have gone to some trouble to indicate that you think the pages I linked to in connection with the copyright issue are of little relevance or value, telling us that they deal with matters which "were probably never heard of during the period 1967-1984", that they "have nothing to do with anything that the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank and its successors have ever been involved with, that they are "rambling articles", and so on. However, I mentioned them not because I think those pages have any merit at all, but merely to illustrate that substantial quantities of text in the Wikipedia article are also to be seen elsewhere, which indicated that there was copyright infringement involved. Unfortunately, it is very common indeed for other web sites to copy content from Wikipedia without attribution, so that if a Wikipedia article has existed for some time, it is sometimes very difficult to establish whether it is a matter of the Wikipedia article infringing the copyright of another source, or other sources infringing copyright from Wikipedia; in my comment above I wrote "at present I cannot tell what the original source of the text was." I have now made further searches, and I have established that every copy of the text that I have been able to find in places other than the archive of the Wikipedia article contains text which differs from the text of the earliest versions of the article, but is the same as that of later versions; I am therefore confident that the copyright infringement is from Wikipedia to the other copies, not vice versa. I said above that I would be happy to restore the content of the article if I could be sure it does not infringe copyright, and since I am now confident that it doesn't, I have indeed been perfectly happy to restore the content. It is now at Draft:Papua and New Guinea Development Bank, where you can work on it to make it suitable to become an article, if you like. When you have done so, you can click on the "Submit your draft for review" link, to ask for an independent, uninvolved, editor to review it and decide whether he or she thinks it is suitable to be returned to article space.
6. Finally, a few words of advice on dealing with other Wikipedia editors. We are all volunteers, and the overwhelming majority of us are trying in good faith to work constructively, within the framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Naturally, any one of us is likely at times to disagree with the judgements that some other editor has made. When that is so, the best way to try to get agreement with that other editor is to politely explain to him or her why one disagrees, and suggest what one thinks should be done. One is much less likely to be successful in approaching an editor with whom one disagrees if one comes across as angrily condemning his or her view, or if one appears to be demanding, rather than suggesting or requesting, a change. Also, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are attempts to describe in general terms the sort of principles that we try to follow: they are not like legal documents which define precisely what is permitted. Giving extensive lists of selected quotations taken out of context from policies and guidelines, arguing that some reading of the exact wording of the particular quote proves that a particular incident must be dealt with in a particular way is not generally considered to be helpful. (That issue is discussed in more detail in the page Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, but I should say that I don't personally agree with everything in that page.)

It has taken me some time to draft, proof-read and edit this message. I hope it may be of some help to you in getting a clearer understanding of some of the ways that Wikipedia works. If I have not succeeded in my attempt to be helpful, I can only offer my apologies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Response on my talk page

Hello JamesBWatson!

I was just wondering why you decided to post something so toxic on my talk page? Me asking a simple question in a very calm and polite way and you decided to tell me that I was vandalising and trolling your talk page... I am merely asking for a discussion and a proper explanation about why you decided to delete my wikipedia page. If you cannot give me a proper response that contains a smidge of explanation, then you obviously have no trust in your moderating skills and just delete pages without thinking for a second. I believe wikipedia should be a place for healthy discussion, but obviously it has a severe agenda of silencing the people and as philip defranco has pointed out, is definitely not as neutral as the mods say it is

--Soviet Doggo (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soviet Doggo: Anyone who has seen your editing will know that it was vandalism, and pretending to not know that is trolling. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Blockage of Merge4wear

JamesBWatson

This is in response to the blocking of Merge4wear.

You asked: "Before I consider your unblock request, there is something I would like you to clarify. This account has never edited the article Wave Loch, so you must have been using another account when you "made this same mistake" there and then "fixed it and got unblocked". What was the name of that other account? Also, have you used any more accounts, apart from that one and this one? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

My answer: The writing I did for Wave Loch was under "thebenm" - I started the article under "thebenm" and then others filled it in. That was my intention with Merge4wear. I believe the only two accounts I have used are "thebenm" and "merge4wear".

So the mistake I made was logging in under merge4wear and creating a page about merge4wear?

If I log in under "thebenm" and write the article for Merge4wear that will be allowable? The closest thing to this is the Wikipedia page for Stance (brand). Pretty much want to emulate that page. Thanks. Ben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebenm (talk • contribs) 02:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Nomination for images

Hi,

It seems you have nominated three image files I had uploaded on Wikipedia for speedy deletion, and they have since been removed. Any chance you could explain why, so I can reupload the image in the right manner? Was it the files itself that were a problem, or the category they were uploaded under? Please guide so I can do it correctly this time.

08:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisfinal (talk • contribs)

Actually, the images were nominated for deletion by Coderzombie, not me, but I reviewed the nominations and deleted the files.

There were several respects in which the images failed to satisfy one or more of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Two of the images were stated to have not previously have been published, contrary to the requirement of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria that "Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia". Wikipedia:Non-free content includes among categories of non-free images which may be acceptable "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" (my emphasis), but there is no such provision for living persons, and images of living persons normally do not satisfy the requirement of the policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (my emphasis), since clearly a free image could be made of a living person. The files did not appear to be covered by any of the situations which satisfy the requirement of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"; for example, they did not fall under either of the situations described in Wikipedia:Non-free content "where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article" and "where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article". Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how a picture of a person in an article about that person could ever satisfy that criterion. Furthermore, the file File:Ansh Bagri Profile Picture.jpg qualified for speedy deletion as an orphaned non-free use image, as the corresponding article had been deleted. Also, although it was not given as one of the reasons for the deletion nominations, Wikipedia:Image use policy states that "the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place". Such permission may or may not have been given, but no indication that it had been given was provided. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Request user copies of articles deleted under G5.

Would it be possible for you to make a copy in my personal area of Eta Phi Beta, Draft:Eta Phi Beta (if different) and Walter M. Kimborough. (All created by User:CrazyAces489). I'd like to review them and see if articles can be salvaged out of them. Thank you.Naraht (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Naraht: I always find this sort of situation difficult. On the one hand, there is no reason at all why another editor should not create new articles on the subjects, and obviously starting with the article which has already been created is likely to be the easiest way to do that. On the other hand, though, the point of deleting articles in this situation is that with persistent sockpuppeteers, pretty well the only thing that stands any chance at all of persuading them to stop is to make sure that they find that everything they do is reverted, so that they find that nothing is achieved by sockpuppetry. If I were to restore the articles and you were to use them as a basis for new versions, we would have to keep the history of the original articles that you worked from, to comply with Wikipedia's copyright licensing terms, so the blocked editor would still see the initial creation as being made by him or her, which would defeat the purpose of deletion. I do understand your point of view, and I see perfectly well that making you start from scratch on articles for which there is already a start can seem wasteful, but in view of what I have said before I am unwilling to restore the articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Team GrisGris

Would a redirect to Corpse Party be an acceptable alternative to deleting the article entirely? The circle's name is a possible search term and they're best known for CP so I guess for me at least that would work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but is there nothing we can do about the emboldening of a serial sock-puppeteer? This is mind-boggling. The evidence is all right there.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gibson Flying V: I found this case very frustrating. There is no doubt in my mind about the sockpuppetry, but the amount of time and effort it would take to accumulate enough evidence to have a chance of persuading another administrator would be very large, and even then there is no guarantee that it would work, and for that reason I am unwilling to spend even more time on it than I have already done. If you can provide clear evidence, that would stand up to scrutiny by others, who might tend to be sceptical, then I will be willing to consider whether it is worth pursuing, but I'm afraid I am not going to take it up without such support. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's astonishing. He's done a terrible job of trying to hide his sock-puppetry, yet he's managed to fool everyone except you and I into thinking it's three separate people! Is it inappropriate to get the closers of the previous sock-puppetry cases to take a look? Civility and collaboration are integral to editing Wikipedia, and I've been staying away because I simply cannot pretend to have civil discussions with known sock-puppets. So Wikipedia loses me in favour of this character and his (at least) two user IDs. This isn't how it's meant to work, I'm sure.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gibson Flying V: I really wish that I could think that getting the closers of the previous sock-puppetry cases to take a look is likely to be helpful, but I'm afraid I can't. Obviously, you can try if you like, and I shall be delighted if you prove me wrong. I still think that the only chance of getting anywhere with this is to assemble a dossier of evidence making the case clear, and I really think that will be difficult, but again, if you can do so that will be great. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

REVDEL email incoming

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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

apology

you have emails from me (again) and the issue has gone and been dusted - apology and please ignore my email - thanks JarrahTree 12:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

San Francisco Giants

Hello. I wanted to bring to your attention that an IP address on San Francisco Giants is making some questionable changes in my opinion, but I am having difficulty in determining if it is vandalism. Thabk you. CLCStudent (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: I know very little about baseball, and nothing at all about the San Francisco Giants. However, a Google search for "San Francisco Giants" Espinoza made it clear that Espinoza is a player for the Giants, not the owner, so we can safely regard it as vandalism. My approach in a case like this is try to find evidence (as I did this time) and if I am unable to tell for sure, revert the edit, and give the editor a message about making unsourced changes, rather than vandalism. That way if it is vandalism I have corrected it, and if it isn't I have given the editor a chance to show that it isn't. Sometimes I use a hand written message, but usually it is good enough to post {{uw-unsourced2}} in this kind of situation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Karaat

Article is back, user apparently needs a block. Thanks for your efforts here. Υπογράφω (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Qwertyhhhhhh

You might need to revoke talk page access, according to this edit. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@LuK3:  Done. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Request to Release a page

hi James, i created a page a called Eugene Nyavor but it was deleted. i will like you to please release it for me to redo it.. Andy1848 (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

How very kind of you to come along and tell me that you are the blocked editor who created that article, using yet another one of your sockpuppets. Naturally, this sockpuppet will be blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User: Blablablaihatewikepdia

Good afternoon -- I came across this new account name suggesting that he is not here to improve the encyclopedia. (Nothing gets by me, yo?) Granted, he's only contributed one edit so far, but it's a disruptive one, and again ... with that account name ... Thought it deserved administrative attention. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Email

JBW, I got a notification that you'd sent me an email, but nothing showed up in my email box. Not sure if this was a false alarm or not. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Smith - again

Our old friend, the IP who insists on repeatedly adding unsourced trivia to Jeff Smith (chef) - and other articles - and ignores all attempts at discussion, is back yet again, this time as user:24.166.237.166. Would you care to do the honors? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the IP address, reverted various edits from that IP address, protected the Jeff Smith article for longer than before, and protected some of the other articles affected for shorter times. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for info

Thank you for giving me good info on how to be a better editor. Patrick69046 (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is RevDel request.
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.

Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIV, WP:WAR

Please, impose sanctions on comrade HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User doesn't try to reach consensus and violate WP:WAR:

[5] edit by user

[6] revert by me

[7] user's revert of revert

Although I warned him, he rudely refused to revert his edit warring. Thus he violated WP:CIV. [8]

Also, I want to ask you. Is there any special mediator on Safavids? John Francis Templeson (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes - Apparently I've violated the WP:CIV for removing a unsourced piece of information. Btw, the OP is most likely a sockpuppet of a banned user, his name and area of edits are very suspicious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you know that blaming without any arguments is also WP:CIV violation? You don't like my nickname, what else? John Francis Templeson (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for Reply

user:Inangpintor is subsidiary of 2nd account (User:Amangpaintor) which was blocked already by User_talk:Jim1138 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilHist15 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@PhilHist15: OK, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense now. However, it's not a good idea to put a notice saying that an account is blocked if it's actually only another account of the same person which is blocked, and it would really be better to contact an administrator and ask for a block instead. Anyway, I have now blocked the account, and I'll put a notice on the user page saying that it's a blocked sockpuppet account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you so much for a good faith chance. I promise to not let you down, ;) Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Immediate IP block needed

You protected a number of pages from this type of editing in the past (please don't protect them again for now, though): 172.56.31.31 Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr: For now, I have blocked the IP address. However, that is unlikely to be effective, as experience shows that the same person will just come back on a different IP address. Article protection is the only thing which has any chance of working in this situation, so why do you ask me not to do that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Because article protection is a very blunt instrument, and this is especially true for the pages in question, which receive far more (constructive) IP edits than registered ones. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr: Well, you may be right about that overall, but I have just checked the last 50 edits to four of the affected articles, and for three of those there were significantly more registered edits than constructive IP edits, and for the other one there were similar numbers of both. However, on all of them the proportion of constructive IP edits was quite high, whether more than registered edits or not, so I agree that protection is undesirable unless really necessary. How about pending changes as a compromise solution? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If the user in question comes back with a different IP, I agree that pending changes should be applied to any affected articles. They may decide to give up and go away, though. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ISP 1

Template:ISP 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding an article you deleted recently

Hello James, I hope you are doing well. On the 6th of February, you deleted an article I created, Johnny Orlando, under CSD A7. However, there were sources within the article that meant the article would have passed WP:NOTABILITY. In particular, these sources were both reliable and secondary sources. You also cited G4; however, the previous versions of this article were poorly written by someone with a conflict of interest - presumably a relative of the article's subject. If this is OK with you, I would like to discuss with you your reasons behind deleting the article. I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience. Have a good day, Patient Zero^talk 13:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

G4 is often debatable, with with a wide range of opinions. There are people who think that the new page has to be virtually identical to the old one, and others who think it's enough for it to be broadly similar and not to address the issues which led to deletion. In this case, the new article had a tiny fraction of the content that the old one had, with no information that the old one didn't contain, so that it really didn't give more evidence of suitability than the one discussed and deleted. As for the references, there were three, of which two gave only brief passing mentions of him, while the third merely included his name in a list of 114 people and acts. I don't see how anyone could regard that as coming near to showing that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline. As for A7, all that the article told us was that he was born in Canada, that he makes covers of songs and music of his own, and that he has released one EP. I see no claim of significance there. I am not willing to get into arguments as to exactly what is covered by G4 and whether this article was, but A7 seems totally unambiguous. Perhaps it would have been more clear cut if I had removed the G4 from the deletion nomination, and just kept the A7. Either way, though, the end result would have been the same.

If you really like, I can restore the article and we can take it to a second AfD, but unless someone comes up with some brand new evidence of notability it is a pretty safe bet that it will be a total waste of time for everyone involved, as the end result will virtually certainly be the same as in the previous AfD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Want to create an Article - Sanjay Ghodawat

Hi I want to create an article on Sanjay Ghodawat, which you had deleted some months ago. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Ghodawat

Its been blocked because of promotional content; Can you possibly unlock it and help me create the article. I have the relevant references and content to build it to start level.

Mananshah15 (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mananshah15: If you can create a decent article on the subject, that will be fine. However, I suggest that you create a draft first, either in draft space or in your user space, and then if it's OK we can move it to the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

JacksonViking

You indeff'd this guy back on 24 July, 2015 and it sure looks to me like he's back as an IP at Jackson High School (Michigan). Same content, similar edit summaries. Appreciate it if you'd take a look and advise. Thanks. Can't imagine SPI would be much use at this late date. John from Idegon (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

On digging further, another contribution from one of the IP addresses to Elwood Reid seems strong enough DUCK to me for a block, but it would need to be a range as he has used at least two IP addresses in the 35.2..... range. John from Idegon (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I looked into this when I saw your message, and did a range block. I would have posted here to tell you what I had done, but I was very short of time, so I left it. Unfortunately, the editor just moved to IP addresses just outside the range that I blocked, so that he was able to get away with what he had been doing for another two days (as you know, since you reverted some of the edits). I have now extended the block to a bigger range, covering more IP addresses that he has used. We'll have to see how how that goes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, James. Unfortunately, the range is the University of Michigan wireless network. I'm afraid an effective range block would have far too much collateral damage. I asked Kudpung to protect the page for the school and he did so for a month. I have very little hope that is long enough and your continued diligence is appreciated. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the WDDV - WFLG radio pages

You recently created a redirect page for WDDV -> WFLG. This needs to be reverted back. There is no WFLG licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. The call sign was temporarily placed on the WDDV radio station, but has since been reverted. I was going to move back, but saw you were in dispute with another editor on it, so I decided to send you a message here directly instead, to have you manage it. NECRAT^{Plates On} 17:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Necrat: If what you say is true, then changing the title of the article to WDDV is the right thing to do, but it must be done by moving the page, not by removing the content from one page and pasting it into the other. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't have the rights to move the page. Do you?

Also relevant proof. WDDV at FCC Info WFLG at FCC Info NECRAT^{Plates On} 00:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you so much for a good faith chance. I promise to not let you down, ;) Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Immediate IP block needed

You protected a number of pages from this type of editing in the past (please don't protect them again for now, though): 172.56.31.31 Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr: For now, I have blocked the IP address. However, that is unlikely to be effective, as experience shows that the same person will just come back on a different IP address. Article protection is the only thing which has any chance of working in this situation, so why do you ask me not to do that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Because article protection is a very blunt instrument, and this is especially true for the pages in question, which receive far more (constructive) IP edits than registered ones. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr: Well, you may be right about that overall, but I have just checked the last 50 edits to four of the affected articles, and for three of those there were significantly more registered edits than constructive IP edits, and for the other one there were similar numbers of both. However, on all of them the proportion of constructive IP edits was quite high, whether more than registered edits or not, so I agree that protection is undesirable unless really necessary. How about pending changes as a compromise solution? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If the user in question comes back with a different IP, I agree that pending changes should be applied to any affected articles. They may decide to give up and go away, though. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

JacksonViking

You indeff'd this guy back on 24 July, 2015 and it sure looks to me like he's back as an IP at Jackson High School (Michigan). Same content, similar edit summaries. Appreciate it if you'd take a look and advise. Thanks. Can't imagine SPI would be much use at this late date. John from Idegon (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

On digging further, another contribution from one of the IP addresses to Elwood Reid seems strong enough DUCK to me for a block, but it would need to be a range as he has used at least two IP addresses in the 35.2..... range. John from Idegon (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ISP 1

Template:ISP 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

it may be time to protect Endoplasmic reticulum again

Hi! I don't know why that page gets so much vandalism, but I just corrected something and I noticed another user and a bot also reverting apparent vandalism. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A confession

I have a confession to make. I owned the (now blocked) account MaranoFan. I confess this on my own to withdraw from all wrongdoing. I will accept any punishment you give me but hopefully its not indefinite. I am a constructive editor and would like to be so.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) @Jaguar:

A cookie for you!

Just because... you administrators listen to us and help patrol the community! UpsandDowns1234 00:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell *Treker to leave me alone

• I made a simple edit on the Born wiki page[9], correcting a link, "The Platoon" goes to Garth Ennis page, but user *Treker reverted it and because I put it back, user *Treker feels the need to keep leaving messages on my talk page, but I have nothing to talk about with this user. I made that clear in the Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes). If he/she wants the links to be incorrect, because he/she can't admit there wrong about something as simple as this, then fine, but he/she can so without harassing myself or anyone else.TheHeronGuard (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Habrdaky page

I see that you deleted a page on the card game Habrdaky on 25 October 2010. I am not suggesting that it should be reinstated but I am curious to see what was on the deleted page, since I have just been asked a question about this game. Is there a place where I can see what was deleted? Pagat1703 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pagat1703: The article has been created twice, both times by the same person. The first version was created in September 2007 and deleted by NawlinWiki. The complete contents of the article were "Habrdaky : the best card game in the world" and a promotional link to a web site. (That web site is now defunct.) The second version, created in October 2010 and deleted by me, originally had the same "Habrdaky : the best card game in the world", followed by a list of "reasons why you should play Habrdaky", including such things as "If you want to get divorced and you don't have the courage - the best way is to play a few passionate games of Habrdaky and your partner will be pleased to get divorced". The creator of the article then added instructions on how to play the game. Amongst other things, those instructions included a list of necessary equipment, which as well as such items as cards and a table to play on, listed a "carving fork ... the sharper the better ... to pacify too aggressive, expanded, all accumulative and frequently rising people". Even if we ignore facetious content such as that, the article was inconsistent with a number of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, most importantly WP:NOTHOWTO and Wikipedia:NOTPROMOTION. I gave promotion as the deletion log reason because that is the one of the various problems with the article which is a speedy deletion criterion. If you are still sufficiently interested after reading that summary to want to see the full text of the article, let me know and I will email it to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Yes please do email it to me. I am sure it is some sort of fake or hoax, but I edit a reference site on card game rules (pagat.com) and I am now being approached about this 'card game', possibly by the same people. I would like to see what they posted before so that I can deal appropriately with this new promotion attempt. Pagat1703 (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A collective partial answer to various pings and messages

Over the past month I have been very busy with things other than Wikipedia, so my rate of editing Wikipedia has dropped almost to nothing. During that time I have received more than two dozen notifications of pings, talk page messages, etc. Sorry that I have not been able to deal with them. I shall try to check them all over the next few days, and reply to any that seem to need a reply. However, it is clear that some of them are now stale and don't need any response. If you wish to let me know either that you do or that you do not still want an answer, please feel welcome to do so: it will help me to avoid the risk of misjudging which need replies and which don't.

• @Winkelvi: @Zzuuzz: @Blackmane: @Mishae: @Softlavender: @Coffee: @CitSee: @TheHeronGuard: @UpsandDowns1234: @Greenconcrete: @JzG: @DennisPietras: @Bluerasberry: @Tassedethe: @GeneralizationsAreBad: @Necrat: @Shane Cyrus: @Pagat1703: @UnitedPhilippines: @Guyrmartorana: ... and apologies to anyone I have missed, apart from bots, a troll, and an unregistered editor on a dynamic IP address whom I can't contact. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I would still value your answer if you can find the time. Pagat1703 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You can entirely ignore my ping as the issue was resolved, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what I pinged you about, so you're off the hook. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know; it was probably some SPI issue that's since been resolved. GAB^gab 21:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I vaugely remember that I pinged you on ANI for one reason or another, but it's so vague as to be irrelevant now. Thanks for your ping though. Blackmane (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would still appreciate your comments about User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_69#A_cup_of_coffee_for_you.21. You could reply there in your archive and ping me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ellaqmentry

A user contacted me. Can you confirm the appropriateness of the block you issued on user:Ellaqmentry? Here is where I am in looking at this user - Seems to have been blocked twice for being a sock, but I do not see an SPI Their supposed sock is not a blocked account this user never edited an article they were on a contentious talk page, but I do not see an accusation of inappropriate discussion except that of course talk about acupuncture never ends I do not want to start a discussion but I would like to confirm whether blocking process was followed. I asked JzG the same thing at User_talk:JzG#A_cup_of_coffee_for_you.21. Briefly, can you confirm the rationale for your block? This user requests a review of their block and a second opinion. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a user who came here in response to offsite solicitation to proxy for a topic-banned user and "fix" our "bias" by removing the judgment of reliable independent sources and replacing it with the views of True Believers. This is a perennial problem with articles on SCAM topics. The user is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopaedia, they are basically here to engage in industry PR. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Rasberry: I have restored your archived message here to reply to it, as editing an archived page, as you suggested, is generally unhelpful, as it can be confusing and misleading.

You ask me to "confirm the appropriateness of the block [I] issued", but in fact I have never blocked the account in question: the blocks were placed by User:Bishonen and JzG, aka Guy. I see that you asked Guy about this, but it would really be more appropriate to ask Bishonen than me, as she placed the current block. However, since you have asked me I shall give you some of my thoughts on the matter, which I hope you may find helpful.

The comment above from Guy, and the answer he posted to you on his talk page cover a large part of the situation clearly, in my opinion. There are also extensive comments about the problems with this editor in other places, such as his or her talk page and an archived administrators' noticeboard incident case which you are certainly aware of, as you posted a link to it. I am not sure what other information you want, but I'll make a few comments which may help you.

The editor has been highly disruptive in several ways, including persistently editing to promote a point of view, opposing sourced information because he or she personally disagrees with it, refusing to accept consensus, and so on... He or she also can't or won't recognise the concerns with his or her editing, and far from indicating that if unblocked he or she would desist from the same kinds of unhelpful editing, the unblock request made it abundantly clear that the unblock was requested precisely in order to continue in the same way. In that situation, unblocking would be unhelpful, and contrary to policy too. (The blocking policy says "A user who agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or where the situation was temporary and has now ended, may be unblocked early. Equally, a user who has previously returned to inappropriate conduct after other unblocks may find their unblock request declined for deterrence reasons, to underline the importance of change and unacceptability of the conduct.")

In addition to all that, there was a widespread belief that the account was a sockpuppet. I put a considerable amount of time and effort into checking the histories of LesVegas and Ellaqmentry, and came to the conclusion that they were the same person. I cannot give you every detail of the reasons which led me to that conclusion, because (1) rather more than two months later I can't recall every detail, (2) I do not have the time to repeat the same exhaustive check again now, (3) in any case, as often with sockpuppets, some of the evidence is better not publicly disclosed, as it would act as a helper to sockpuppeteers to know what give away signs to avoid for future sockpuppets. However, even a very short check of the editing history reveals not only very similar opinion-pushing editing on the same topic, but also at times strikingly similar phrasing, a similar approach to editors with whom one disagrees, and so on and so on. Another reason that I am reluctant to spend yet more time re-checking the evidence of sockpuppetry is that I actually don't regard the sockpuppetry as important, since the disruptive and uncooperative nature of the editing would justify the block anyway, with or without sockpuppetry. Nor am I the only administrator who does not regard the sockpuppetry as the central issue: Bishonen's block log rationale (as I read it) and Bbb23's user talk page comment both give primacy to the WP:NOTHERE nature of the editor, with sockpuppetry as a secondary supporting reason, as did my message declining the unblock request.

I don't know why you mention the fact that the account never edited an article. The only possible relevance I can think of is that extremely rarely if ever does a new editor become so very heavily involved in discussions on a talk page without ever editing an article, which could be taken as circumstantial evidence supporting the other evidence of sockpuppetry, though I would regard that as very weak evidence, insignificant in relation to everything else about this editor.

I don't know why you regard the fact that the other account is not currently blocked as relevant. From Bishonen's block log comment it is clear that at the time of the block she was unsure what other account or accounts was or were involved, and that may or may not be why she didn't extend the block on the other account, but the way to find out is to ask her, if you think it is important.

You say that you "would like to confirm whether blocking process was followed". Basically, the blocking process is that an administrator considers the available evidence and decides whether to block. On this occasion, there was far more in the way of review than that: there was discussion of the problems at WP:ANI, with more than one editor thinking the account should be blocked; there was the original blocking administrator (Guy) deciding to remove the block to give the editor a chance to have the case reviewed by another, independent, administrator; there was that independent administrator, (Bishonen) agreeing with the block and reinstating it; there was an unblock request which was reviewed by another independent and uninvolved administrator (me); there was extensive discussion relating to the block on the editor's talk page, with more than one editor being critical of the editor, and at least one more independent administrator (Bbb23) expressing support for the block. I don't think anyone could reasonably expect more. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this one.

12.29.138.58. I just removed some bad language that they posted in response to one of those warnings. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sheena Bajaj (actor)

Not sure if this is G4 eligible, but discovered that you had deleted Sheena Bajaj (actress) back in 2013 when I went to move the page to that title. If it's G4 eligible, would you mind doing the honours, if it is isn't, would you mind moving it to the correct gendered version of a disambiguator? TonyBallioni (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Rajput Barsars socks or meats

Badal Singh Barsar and Christopher janjan are the same person rather than meats. I see evidence for that.

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Yes, I see evidence for that too. I think it's far more likely than not that they are the same person. In fact, looking back at the editing histories of the accounts now, I think all four of them look so much like the same person that I think an immediate block on all of them would be justifiable, so if you want to go ahead and block them I shan't object, but I feel like giving them just one more chance.

(And yes, I do know that it's your practice to watch user talk pages you have posted to, so that I didn't need to ping you, but I just feel more secure knowing that I have done it. Don't ask me to justify that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi James. I was watching, but thanks for the ping anyhow. Yes, one more chance is fine with me. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:EDIT WARRING

1) Mazandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted consensus information [10] 2) Revert by me [11] 3) Revert of revert by Mazandar [12]

Also, I have a question. Sorry, what the hell is going on in this article? Three users delete and add what they want, erasing last gleams of neutrality and there is nothing to do with that, because there is a crazy consensus reaching system consisting of so many steps that it is impossible to complete that. You can just create special mediation team on this topic (like in Russian Wikipedia, where we already reached neutrality on the Safavids) that will decide who is wrong and who is right. Circassian and Armenian language still in the article, though it is original research, and nothing can be done, because we need third party, we need this, we need that and etc. John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

any explanation...

...for edits like this? Hi James - some of your reversions in stub articles relating to badminton seem a bit odd. You've uncorrected quite a few legit corrections. Grutness...wha? 10:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Grutness: I reverted edits by an account which was apparently a sockpuppet of a blocked editor with a long history of using sockpuppets. It is very unfortunate that in these cases good edits may be reverted, but with long-term persistent sockpuppeteers knowing that anything they do with new sockpuppets is likely to be reverted is the only thing that has any chance at all of dissuading them from continuing. I am at present reconsidering the case, and depending on what conclusion I come to I may restore some or all of the edits I reverted. In the meanwhile, you are perfectly welcome to restore any of the edits I reverted that you think should be restored. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers (from another James :) Grutness...wha? 04:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Onlinebusiness313

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:Onlinebusiness313 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://thenationonlineng.net/ile-ife-calm-storm/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Revdelled copyvios. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Before using Twinkle to nominate a page for deletion, one should always check the editing history. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that a page should not be deleted if there is one or more valid version in its history, and the fact that you may need to uncheck "Notify page creator if possible" in Twinkle, to avoid inadvertently sending a message to the wrong editor, as you did in this case. I have enough experience of Wikipedia to not attach much importance to such a mistaken message, but new editors can often feel bewildered and intimidated by receiving warning messages about things they are not responsible for. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Right. Sorry about that- I wasn't expecting to be accusing you of such violations! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Mail

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

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Ok this is like nothing important but I just want to say after reading your user page I felt so connected to you. I don't know why but I do. I felt like I was reading a story even though I wasn't. I've never bothered to read other people's user page but for some reason I read yours. --Plum3600 ^"talk" 22:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Plum3600: I had recently been thinking of removing most of the content from my user page, or even deleting it altogether, but since you found some interest in it maybe it's worth keeping it. I rarely read user pages, but every now and then something or other attracts me to the use page of an editor I have had contact with quite frequently, and fairly often there is a feeling of suddenly knowing the editor. However, the only way to really get to know other editors is to meet them in real life, which is where Wikipedia meetups come in. It can be very interesting to actually meet someone you have interacted with on Wikipedia, and see them as a real living person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Trevor schwartz

Hey JamesBWatson, someone popped in to #wikipedia-en on IRC and asked those of us that idle there to see if these accounts needed to go to ANI or SPI. To us it looked like perhaps a class project. I'm not sure, but do you think it would be a good idea to drop a note to the folks at the Education Noticeboard-Incidents? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: That may well be a good idea, and perhaps you would like to do it. I am not doing it myself, because I'm out of time and have to go offline now. I too had thought that it looked as though it might be a class project, but if so then it's a badly designed one, conceived by someone who doesn't know much about how Wikipedia works. I don't feel there's justification for SPI myself, and at this stage I'm not sure there would be anything to be done at ANI. If the current pattern continues then further admin action might be considered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks JamesBWatson! I'll drop the folks at Wikipedia Education a note. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Problems with a non-free file

Picture is for lazy editor: :Codename_Lisa They delete my change two time because they can't find reference about Apple give money help develop PowerPoint software: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_PowerPoint&oldid=prev&diff=772278510 They never READ article in reference even after tell page number too. Picture for show they wrong. After they fix their error can delete picture. If Wikipedia more efficient, I can send picture direct to Codename_Lisa and show their mistake. Trinhhoa (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Trinhhoa: Yes, I understood why you posted the picture, and I agree with you: I have looked at the full text of August 1987 MacWord is available on archive.org, and it does mention the $7,000,000 investment. I don't know how User:Codename Lisa missed that. However, that does not make it acceptable to violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

TerryDelRey

Hello JamesBWatson, I'm here to voice over my concern over the deletion of a page you did today. I am one of the co-writers of the article Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California and I wanted to know your actions towards terminate the page. The page might have been published but we are still working around the clock to better cite the evidences being used for the page. I'm just disappointed that you did not drop any remarks to justify your actions on out Talk page so then we could have fixed the problem. We will continue to working on this page until the page is justifiable for publish. Thank You. TerryDelRey (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@TerryDelRey: I normally post a message to the talk page of the creator of a page which I delete unless they have already been notified of the likely deletion. On this occasion the creator of the article had been informed of a deletion discussion for the article, and when I closed that discussion I added a note explaining my reason, expecting that she would look at that page. I Could have also posted a further note to her talk page telling her about the deletion, but I tend to think (rightly or wrongly) that for a new editor to receive a string of messages telling them about the deletion of their work is likely to be even more discouraging than receiving one, so I usually don't add a second message unless there is new information to add which is not already available for them, either on their talk page or on another page that they know about (in this case the deletion discussion page).

The article was unambiguously written to publicise or promote a point of view, which is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia. If the problem had been one of detail, such as a few remarks in a few parts of the article, I would have removed or edited those details, but it was the whole nature of the article, from start to finish, which was the problem, and nothing short of rewriting from scratch would deal with it.

It is clear that this article was part of an educational assignment in which students have unfortunately been seriously misled as to what is acceptable for Wikipedia, and not only permitted but actively encouraged to post content which is incompatible with Wikipedia's policy on promotional editing. I have every sympathy with students who in good faith do what they have been encouraged to do, only to find their work deleted, but the fact that someone has misinformed someone else about how to edit Wikipedia is not justification for allowing Wikipedia policies to be violated. I Wish you well in contributing to Wikipedia, but that must be done in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and writing from a neutral point of view is a fundamental requirement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Phase shift torquemeters

I cannot understand why you have deleted my page not given me any guidelines before i even tried to submit it.

The words are written by me taken from a description i have used previously and the only reference externally was for a wiki entry. I intended to edit this with one of my friends before publishing but now you have deleted it without any due cause. Please explain exactly where i have gone wrong in trying to share the technical capabilities of a torquemeter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripletedge (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tripletedge: My apologies if the deletion was a mistake. A number of features of the page suggested that it was copied from somewhere else, such as references to "Fig 1A" and "Fig 2" although there are no figures, which virtually always means that the text is copied from another source which did include figures. I have restored the page for you to continue working on it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Notable Clans in the Video gaming clan page

So I read your message about why you deleted the information I added to the Video gaming clan page. You feel like I am promoting our Clan when all I was doing was adding our clan to the notable clans section and I also added other clans as well. I felt it was only fair to include some clans including ours so that people could see what an organized clan can offer gamers. I am really sorry you feel this way and again it was only meant to give more insight to people who are interested in video game clans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAG CheechDogg (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Your comments about my Sandbox Page

Hello JamesBWatson!

It is great that you guys keep tracking what is being posted on Wikipedia by users. The content I've copied was from Turkish Wikipedia as you said and It a was temporary content In order to understand how to edit or add new information to a Wikipedia page.

I've deleted everything from my sandbox and thanks for your comment. Vahit.lafci (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirection of Edelweiss Broking Limited

Hi James,

Thanks for informing that the article edited by me does not give sufficient differentiation from parent company i.e. Edelweiss Group. To make sure Edelweiss Broking Limited, which is a registered company with Indian Government, look completed unique compared to parent compaany, I have added registration details references, articles from news websites, website with complete details, removed exchange trading symbols. Kindly suggest if it still does not look differentiated from parent company. Edelweiss Broking Limited Thanking you in anticipation.

A keen leaner Piyushpanc (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Page: Sussex Innovation Centre

Hi JamesBWatson,

You recently deleted my page due to promotional material, and copyright reasons. As this is my first time editing/creating something on Wikipedia, I did not fully read the guidelines. I was mostly copy pasting the information from the Sussex Innovation Centre pages, and trying to take out some of the promotional wording. You are correct to point those mistakes out. I then saved it as I do not know how to save a page without posting it, and I wanted to take a break from it!

I am an ex-Sussex student, and saw the red-hyperlink to the Sussex Innovation Centre page, and wanted to create a page for it.

Can you tell me how to write something more objective, as I am getting my information from the Sussex Innovation Centre website?

Can I also request that I get the page back, though without posting it online somehow, so that I can take the structure I had already created, and alter it/amend what I had written? I did not save the work anywhere else!

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callum McG (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Callum McG: I have emailed you with a copy of the contents of the deleted article. Please feel welcome to contact me again for more help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Callum McG: By the way, it is normal practice on Wikipedia to post new talk page messages at the bottom of the page. Since that is where experienced editors expect to see them, putting a message at the top runs a slight risk that it may not be seen, especially if the editor the message is for has several new messages to deal with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank you for your help and advice! I'll have a read of the wiki guide on how to write posts first this time.

2602:304:68AD:3220::/64

• 2602:304:68AD:3220::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Hello JamesBWatson,

I had came upon this IP: 2602:304:68AD:3220:412E:6010:18BD:5C7A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their recent edits, as they were making subtly odd changes to several templates. After doing a bit more investigating, I saw that the /64 IPv6 range (which I have provided above) has had a very long history of CU/disruptive editing blocks; and the previous block expiry for this particular range was set for January 7, 2017, and thus the user behind this /64 range has resumed editing. I cannot tell whether or not their edits warrant a new block now (unless if they are block evading of someone or another...) but since you were the last one to initiate a block (although several other admins have also messed with the block during your block), I thought that I'd let you know of this. Cheers. 172.58.40.203 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like another admin took care of it. But funny enough, because I just came across another IP that you have blocked in the past, back to disruptive editing again: 195.195.244.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Looking at their block log, a fairly long block is probably in order here. Cheers. 172.58.40.69 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Another administrator got onto that one before I got here, too. However, that admin blocked for only 31 hours, whereas I agree with you: in light of the history and the circumstances of the IP address, a much longer block is needed, so I have extended the block length. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

2602:306:BCAF:8AA0::/64

Hi again, JamesBWatson.

It appears as though you addressed the AIV report regarding this IP range, but it looks like you have only blocked the single IP: 2602:306:BCAF:8AA0:949A:C263:42EA:4DEA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and not the entire range itself. Could you please look into this? Thanks. 73.96.113.73 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You are right. I'm not at all sure how I made that mistake,but I've blocked the range now, as you can see here. Thanks for pointing it out to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Dayanidhi Paramahansa dev

Dear respected sir .

As I am new to Wikipedia I'm not well knowledge to make a article. With my little known I made a article for one of odisha India spiritual guru Dayanidhi Paramahansa dev .

Please sir make it undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexfaster (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rexfaster: If you wish to have a deleted article restored, the first step you should try is consulting one of the administrators who deleted it, in this case RHaworth and Explicit. However, I think it only fair to warn you that I don't think that there is any chance at all of the article you created being accepted, as it was unsuitable in several ways, including the following. It showed no evidence that the subject you wrote about satisfied Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it was written in a promotional tone, and it was not written in coherent English.

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 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) 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Damiyahn Smith

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 15:15, 4 February 2017 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Damiyahn Smith (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject (TW))

I am very new to this code but I spent a few hours trying to figure out how to make a page for a MMA fighter Damiyahn Smith and I got the page looking decent and boom its gets delete just google the name brings up his records he just won by knock out yesterday and is not allowed to make a wiki page come on. Kimbo Slice has a wiki Anderson_Silva has a wiki explain to me why can't Damiyahn Smith have a wiki page? —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephatcrew (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 February 2017‎

@Thephatcrew: I shall try to answer the points you have raised, in the hope that it may help you to better understand how Wikipedia works. However, before I do so I will say that I do sympathise with you over the negative experience of seeing your first effort at contributing to Wikipedia deleted, and I understand that it must be distinctly frustrating. 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 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.

You were notified that the article was nominated for deletion at 13:57 GMT, and I saw it shortly after that. Because I wanted to give you every chance to avoid deletion, I did two things: I waited for rather more than an hour before deleting it, to give you time to provide evidence of notability, and I searched on the internet to see whether I could find evidence that Damiyahn Smith satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. I found no such evidence, and although you made ten edits to the article after being informed of the deletion nomination, none of them did anything to address the concerns. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything and everything, but requires subjects of articles to satisfy certain notability guidelines. You have already been given a link to the main notability guideline on your talk page, but to help you find what is relevant, here are links to the particular parts of the guidelines which are most relevant in this case: the general notability guideline the guideline on notability of people, and the guideline of notability in relation to sports. Unfortunately, these guidelines are, in my opinion, far too long and complicated, making it confusing and difficult for new editors to grasp the essential points. However, you should at least have a glance through them, to see what sort of thing is needed, before you consider creating any more articles.

Merely being a participant in a sport does not establish notability, and neither the article, the web pages it linked to, or the information I found by searching gave any indication that he has the kind of coverage that Wikipedia's notability guidelines require. Apart from the single sentence "Damiyahn Smith is a MMA fighter", the only content of the article was trivial information such as his date of birth, his height, and the number of fights he has been in, together with links to two web sites giving similar information. The page you linked to in your message above merely gives a list of his fights and whether he won them or lost them. Such information is available for pretty well any sports person in any sport, from the most notable of them to the least notable, so it does not establish notability.

Kimbo Slice and Anderson Silva both have very substantial coverage in numerous sources, in a way that Damiyahn Smith does not, as far as everything I have seen indicates.

The best advice I can give you at present is what I have already said above about starting slowly, rather than jumping straight into creating new articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:REFUND

Hello, JamesBWatson! Re: Luther McDonald, which was created by a sock, I would like to request undeletion because the player is notable. I have a dynamic IP and and responded to the sock on the talk page Talk:Luther McDonald (I think, but can't check since it's deleted) and also accused the sock of being a sock here; their rather lame WP:BROTHER response is here. Anyway, seeing as the Negro league player's article is notable, can I take responsibility for it and have it restored? FWIW, this is also my dynamic IP. Rgrds. --64.85.216.122 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I always find this sort of situation difficult. On the one hand, there is no reason at all why another editor should not create new articles on the subjects, and obviously starting with the article which has already been created is likely to be the easiest way to do that. On the other hand, though, the point of deleting articles in this situation is that with persistent sockpuppeteers, pretty well the only thing that stands any chance at all of persuading them to stop is to make sure that they find that everything they do is reverted, so that they find that nothing is achieved by sockpuppetry. If I were to restore the articles and you were to use them as a basis for new versions, we would have to keep the history of the original articles that you worked from, to comply with Wikipedia's copyright licensing terms, so the blocked editor would still see the initial creation as being made by him or her, which would defeat the purpose of deletion. I do understand your point of view, and I see perfectly well that making you start from scratch on articles for which there is already a start can seem wasteful, but in view of what I have said I am unwilling to restore the articles. I suggest that you either create an account and use it to create a new article on the subject, or if for some reason you are set on not using an account then create a draft and submit it for review. I see that you have created drafts before, so you know how to do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply! Well, pissers. I know the article was a poorly written stub anyway, and the subject of the article was only notable just by the skin of their teeth, so I guess it's no big loss. Rgrds. --64.85.216.138 (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ravi Kant Sharma

JamesBWatson its all true what you said but all information over that source ( website ) is reliable and true. Also wikipedia have no information about Rtd.Air Marshal Ravikant Sharma . So, I rquest you to please think about it and renew the information.

   For further discussion kindly contact me over my email address-gks0193@outlool.com as I not very famalier with wikipedia.
Regards,
Gaurav Sharma

Username-Gurvshrm (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)gurvshrm.

Since you have posted a duplicate message on your talk page, I have answered it there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about Sockpuppets

Hi JamesBWatson, I am a college student who is new to Wikipedia as an editor, but has been following some pages for a few months now with a class of mine. Our particular interest is in Nazi Germany and through one of those related pages, I came across an editor in which you were involved in their unblock request. This editor appeared to have a sockpuppet account and I was wanting to ask you how these accounts are discovered and connected to the main user. Also, this user is blocked indefinitely but I can still see everything on their user page which struck me as odd because most pages only notify you that there is a block and no information of the editor is viewable. Do you know why this may be? Thanks so much for any insight you can give. Taylor6644 (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Taylor6644

@Taylor6644: First of all, apologies for the amount of time it has taken me to get round to answering. Over the past month or so I have been very busy with things other than Wikipedia, and have had very little time to edit here. I see that since you posted this question Jpgordon has answered some of your points, but I will add a comment in answer to your question about the user page. When an account is blocked because of sockpuppetry, whether to replace the contents of the user page with a blocked sockpuppet notice is at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Different administrators have different views on this: some always or almost do so, some never do, some vary depending on the circumstances. I usually do so, because they can be very helpful at times. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thanks so much for that information and no worries about the response time. I appreciate your time and the response! Taylor6644 (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Taylor6644

WTITransport, Inc

Thank you for your suggestions. GuyGuy R. Martorana 19:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyrmartorana (talk • contribs)

UnitedPhilippines

Hi JamesBWatson, I want to create the page about Paragon Plaza. I want to have a permission from you before I made the page. Thank you. UnitedPhilippines (talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (PST)

RIP my perfect block log

             __.....__
           .'         ':,
          /  __  _  __  \\
          | |_)) || |_))||
          | | \\ || |   ||
          |             ||   _,
          |             ||.-(_{}
          |             |/    `
          |        ,_ (\;|/)
        \\|       {}_)-,||`
        \\;/,,;;;;;;;,\\|//,
       .;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,
      \,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,//
     \\;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,//
    ,\';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;'
     jgs;;;;;;;;;;;`

(; Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You've got mail!

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Emailed you just in case you didn't see my pings. Cheers. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Meh

Mantrakoma (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for unblocking me! Gladysco ball (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Stumbled across a long-term edit war.

These IPs have been involved in an edit war for nearly a year; the last one claims to hate Wikipedia. Perhaps they can be accommodated with a range block? 81.158.172.133, 81.158.170.133, 81.158.172.195, 81.158.172.201, 81.158.170.32, 81.158.170.106, 81.158.172.231, 81.158.170.61, 81.158.172.234, 81.158.172.139, 81.158.172.135, 81.158.172.114, and 81.158.172.67. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: When I looked into this I found that the problem is even more extensive than you suggest, in several ways. (1) There has been not just one edit war, but substantial disruptive editing on numerous articles, including edit warring, vandalism, explicit refusal to accept policy, etc. Some articles, such as David Holt (voice actor) and Jimmy Hibbert, have been repeatedly attacked, others only once or a few times. (2) There have been many more IP addresses used too, both inside and outside the range covered by the ones you give. For example, 81.158.169.144, 81.158.169.152, 81.158.169.238. (3) The problem has actually been going on for rather more than a year.

For the present, I have blocked three ranges, one covering the whole of the 81.158.172.x range, and two covering all the IP addresses in the 81.158.170.x & 81.158.169.x ranges that have been used, as far as I can find. A single range block to cover them all would be rather large, and might cause significant collateral damage, but in the ranges I have blocked all or virtually all edits over a very long time have clearly been from the same person, so the risk is tiny. Unfortunately in cases like this quite often the result is just that the disruptive editor moves to a new IP range, but if you see any more that seems to be the same person please let me know, and I will consider whether more range blocks are in order. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Mr. Watson, you ignore violation of one of the Wikipedia laws. See User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 69#WP:CIV, WP:WAR and User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 69#WP:EDIT WARRING. John Francis Templeson (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@John Francis Templeson: I have read those, and I don't know what the rights and wrongs of the case are, nor am I willing to put in the substantial amount of time and effort it would take to sort it out. Since you have repeatedly referred to edit warring, maybe Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring would be the place to seek help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

186.212.83.210

What do you think about a permanent block for this one? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: The blocking policy says "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely", and in practice that means "never", because I don't know of any circumstance that would generally be accepted as justifying making an exception. The idea is that an IP address may be re-allocated to someone else, and blocking someone because of problematic editing by a completely different person is not a good idea. If an IP address has been the source of nothing but vandalism for years, then blocking for a period of a year or even a few years may be justified, but in this case all the edits ever from this IP address was within a period of one hour, and there is no reason to suppose that the same vandal will come back on the same IP address: if he or she does, then a longer block may then be reasonable. There have been no other edits at all from the range 186.212.83.* since 2014, and recent edits from other IP addresses in the range186.212.*.* do not bear any resemblance to those from 186.212.83.210, so there is no reason to suppose that the vandal is likely to reappear either on the same IP address or on a related one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Mr. Watson, you ignore violation of one of the Wikipedia laws. See User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 69#WP:CIV, WP:WAR and User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 69#WP:EDIT WARRING. John Francis Templeson (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@John Francis Templeson: I have read those, and I don't know what the rights and wrongs of the case are, nor am I willing to put in the substantial amount of time and effort it would take to sort it out. Since you have repeatedly referred to edit warring, maybe Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring would be the place to seek help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

186.212.83.210

What do you think about a permanent block for this one? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: The blocking policy says "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely", and in practice that means "never", because I don't know of any circumstance that would generally be accepted as justifying making an exception. The idea is that an IP address may be re-allocated to someone else, and blocking someone because of problematic editing by a completely different person is not a good idea. If an IP address has been the source of nothing but vandalism for years, then blocking for a period of a year or even a few years may be justified, but in this case all the edits ever from this IP address was within a period of one hour, and there is no reason to suppose that the same vandal will come back on the same IP address: if he or she does, then a longer block may then be reasonable. There have been no other edits at all from the range 186.212.83.* since 2014, and recent edits from other IP addresses in the range186.212.*.* do not bear any resemblance to those from 186.212.83.210, so there is no reason to suppose that the vandal is likely to reappear either on the same IP address or on a related one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

81.158.172.67

Hi, re your block of 81.158.172.67 (talk) - what do you think of the first of their two edits in relation to this edit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: What do I think of it? I think it's as blatant a piece of block evasion as I've seen for a long time, and a quick comparison of the other edits from the account with edits of other related IP addresses makes it even more obvious. I also think that the endless denials that policies exist is infantile trolling. I have indef-blocked the account. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia FYI

Hey, JamesBWatson, just wanted to give you a heads up about a sockpuppetry case at Simple English Wikipedia that slightly concerns you: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser?fromrc=1#ABS-CBN_Out. Seems like they're likely socks of User:Christian2941 who you first blocked in 2011. Two of the users have "borrowed" part of your user talk page and put it at the top of theirs; one of them also tagged you as a blocked sockpuppet. Nothing for you to do or be concerned with there; just thought I'd make you aware. only (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Yes, I agree, nothing that I need to do or be concerned with, and considering how rarely I have edited Simple English Wikipedia, of very little importance to me, but I very much appreciate your letting me know. Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of things

Sir, I believe you just deleted the things I posted on my personal user page. I agree on the rest of it, it's ok to delete the rest (even though I disagree with you deleting the shit on my sandbox). But on my personal user page, I post the shit I want. That was very unpolite of you. Thanks for nothing. Vian brazil —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Vian brazil (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 April 2017‎

@Vian brazil: If you are so concerned about people being what you call "unpolite" then you may like to re-read your message here. However, you are mistaken in thinking that you can post anything you like on your user page, whether you choose to refer to it as "shit" or not. As you have already been told, Wikipedia user space is not a free web host for posting personal web pages unrelated to work for the encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

81.158.172.67

Hi, re your block of 81.158.172.67 (talk) - what do you think of the first of their two edits in relation to this edit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: What do I think of it? I think it's as blatant a piece of block evasion as I've seen for a long time, and a quick comparison of the other edits from the account with edits of other related IP addresses makes it even more obvious. I also think that the endless denials that policies exist is infantile trolling. I have indef-blocked the account. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia FYI

Hey, JamesBWatson, just wanted to give you a heads up about a sockpuppetry case at Simple English Wikipedia that slightly concerns you: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser?fromrc=1#ABS-CBN_Out. Seems like they're likely socks of User:Christian2941 who you first blocked in 2011. Two of the users have "borrowed" part of your user talk page and put it at the top of theirs; one of them also tagged you as a blocked sockpuppet. Nothing for you to do or be concerned with there; just thought I'd make you aware. only (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Yes, I agree, nothing that I need to do or be concerned with, and considering how rarely I have edited Simple English Wikipedia, of very little importance to me, but I very much appreciate your letting me know. Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of things

Sir, I believe you just deleted the things I posted on my personal user page. I agree on the rest of it, it's ok to delete the rest (even though I disagree with you deleting the shit on my sandbox). But on my personal user page, I post the shit I want. That was very unpolite of you. Thanks for nothing. Vian brazil —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Vian brazil (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 April 2017‎

@Vian brazil: If you are so concerned about people being what you call "unpolite" then you may like to re-read your message here. However, you are mistaken in thinking that you can post anything you like on your user page, whether you choose to refer to it as "shit" or not. As you have already been told, Wikipedia user space is not a free web host for posting personal web pages unrelated to work for the encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit war with plagiarism.

Came across 101.222.233.65, 101.222.232.201, 101.222.232.58, 101.222.232.90, 101.222.233.207, 101.222.168.13, and 101.222.232.232 while perusing recent changes. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I have semi-protected the article for a few months. From the editing history it is clear that the range 101.222.232.0 to 101.222.233.255 has recently been used almost exclusively by the same person, so a range block could be considered if the problem continues, but for the present I have decided to prefer article protection, as there have been no other IP edits to the article recently, but there have been constructive edits from the same editor on other articles. I have not checked other IP addresses in the 101.222.168.x range. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Another ongoing edit war

2602:304:b331:1290:c8ef:6490:7985:7442, 2602:304:b331:1290:58c6:c094:a14a:19a2, 2602:304:b331:1290:6d19:79eb:8bda:9ef8, and 2602:304:b331:1290:8065:c4ca:e4d0:6906 have been involved in an edit war since the end of last month. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

When I looked at it, the IP range had been blocked for 36 hours, but since, as you rightly point out, the edit-war has been going on since the end of last month, I can't see such a short block as having any chance of achieving anything, so I have upped it to a month. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD of Robert Mearns - reasoning

I'm a much newer user than you, so when I didn't understand your action I thought I'd ask for your logic so I know for the future. I was going through the new pages and trying to clean some up when I came across Robert Mearns which you nominated for deletion via AfD. (The nomination has now been removed.) Why did you nominate it so quickly? I thought you were supposed to wait for at least 15 minutes, if not longer, before nominating for deletion based on lack of content (in this case lack of sources), and in this particular case, I'm only more confused because it was edited to add a source and then the AfD nomination was removed. So I'm curious what I'm missing. Thank you (both for reading through this and for your many contributions; Wikipedia needs more people like you)! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nerd1a4i: (Actually, I proposed deletion via WP:PROD, not WP:AfD, but I don't think that makes any difference to the points you ask about.) It was 40 minutes after the creation of the article that I posted the deletion proposal, far more than the 15 minutes you mention. Also, I did not propose deletion purely because the article lacked sources: I searched for sources myself, and found none at all to verify the existence of the person in question. A further point is that the whole nature of proposed deletion, unlike speedy deletion, is that it warns of possible deletion, but allows a week for anyone to either address the reason for the deletion nomination or even to just remove the proposal if they disagree with it, and since I posted to the talk page of the creator of the article about the proposal, he or she had every opportunity to do that. Having said all that, I admit that thinking about it I now think it would probably have been better to post to the editor's talk page and ask for sources as a first step, keeping a deletion proposal in reserve in case that didn't work, since the editor is new to Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks =) --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected promotion-only account.

DaPennsta is the nickname of a member of the Ottawa-based band Arms of the Girl, which puts on concerts with the help of Ottawa Special Events. Dapennsta appears to only be here for promotional interest. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I have given the editor a warning about conflict of interest and promotional editing. At present, that is all there is to do, as the editing was not so blatantly promotional as to justify an immediate block, or even a warning about a likely block. Obviously, that will be subject to review if the editor continues in the same way after being warned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. That's why I brought him to your attention. :) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Page Branded SMS

I got notified that you have deleted a Page "Branded SMS" and marked it as Unambiguous advertising or promotion You probably belong to the countries where Branded SMS is probably not legal.But its an SMS service allowed by local authorities and more then 131 countries. Branded SMS is a type of SMS which uses Sender ID instead of Short or Long code. If you are aware of this type of SMS let me know what it is called? Or do not delete the article if you are not aware of It. And let other Administrator decide what actually it is..

"Branded SMS" is also mentioned in Wiki article "SMS". If its Marketing & Promotion delete if from there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smnaqi (talk • contribs) 16:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The Nature Vacations of Fantastic World of the Adventure, a non-existent film

Apparently only one IP editor involved in this so far but worth keeping an eye on. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Calivote talk page access

Perhaps changing the block settings for Calivote to include cannot edit own talk page is due. Calivote made a large addition to User talk:Calivote today, including a template in the wrong namespace which I removed. I do not think anything beneficial will arise from them retaining the ability to edit their talk page, and they can otherwise appeal through UTRS. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Godsy:  Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Smashmouthfan420

User:Smashmouthfan420 is persistently vandalizing and should be blocked immediately. You should also block her other sockpuppets that I reported on WP:AIV. CLCStudent (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@CLCStudent:  Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

RevDel requests, if you please!

I undid an attack at [13]. Largoplazo (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, great. Also [14]. Largoplazo (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And [15]. Different IP each time, in addition to two new articles by a user account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gigilian131, which I just created. Largoplazo (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: I have blocked the IP addresses, and a couple more that I found, and the associated account, and closed the SPI case. I have also protected the main article affected. However, while I agree with you about the nature of the personal attacks, I don't think that they are at a level to justify revision deletion. The policy on revision deletion explicitly states that RevDel is not for "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations, and that is what this is, so just ordinary deletion, combined with article protection, will have to do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

24.63.202.114

Mind changing the block of 24.63.202.114 to prevent editing of their talk page? They've been using that page for harassment and bragging they can't be stopped from doing so. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Another administrator had already done that by the time I got here. However, I have substantially increased the block time, as I can't see a two day block has much chance of being effective against this person, who has been continuing the same disruptive editing for well over two months. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

49.195.189.87 / Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal

Thanks for the block. As for your comments--I'm well aware of TFD's behavior, having played Whac-A-Mole with these IPs for a few months now and filed RFPP requests for the worst-affected pages. Given the sheer number of different articles which TFD regularly visits, the ritual of protecting pages is somewhat akin to squeezing a balloon, and it's a rare page that they haven't returned to after the semi- expires. Blocks of 24 or 31 hours appear to be sufficient for the IPs, as TFD always hops to a new one, but they're not entirely futile, if only in that IPs which stay unblocked have often been used again within 24 hours. I'm patient enough to continue the game, but I've wondered aloud if we have enough here to try and get WMF to contact their ISP, as all measures short of this have failed to stop the vandalism. --Finngall ^talk 13:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Finngall: I do agree that in cases like this blocking is not entirely futile, as it does slow down the vandalism, even though it doesn't completely stop it. You could pursue the idea of contacting the ISP, but I am doubtful whether it will achieve anything, because my impression is that ISPs rarely take action unless there is criminal misuse or something else they see as much more serious than vandalising Wikipedia. However, if you can prove me wrong then that will be great. Unfortunately I think that continuing the game of Whac-A-Mole is likely to be the best we can do.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Belated reply

Hello JBW. I've only just gotten back on WikiP and read your ping. The whole point of the IPs question was to point out that AH created jobs to pull Germany out of the depression. That is one of the ref desk trolls favorite themes. This person does occasionally make a post without the word "joos" in it. I know that you may disagree with my assessment and I understand why you would be reluctant to block. They will have abandoned this IP and will be moving on to the next one soon. I didn't want you to think that I was ignoring you ping. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 15:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I don't disagree with your assessment at all, I simply didn't now that background, and just looking at the edits from the IP address you reported it was not at all obvious what the problem was. Now that you have explained it, it is perfectly clear. In a similar situation in the future I suggest giving a few words explaining the background, as you have done here, and if possible mention of one or more previous IP addresses. I know that the instructions at WP:AIV say "keep it short", but it necessary to include enough for the reviewing administrator to be able to see what the situation is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017 Re: Aylesbury Rugby Club

Hello, and thank you for your comments at [[16]] Re: my edits to [[17]]; specifically, the Sports and Leisure section, with the addition of Aylesbury Rugby Club. I have reviewed Wikipedia's notability standards, and cannot find a reason to not include Aylesbury's facility to access the sport of Rugby in the Sports and Leisure section of Aylesbury's Wikipedia page. Rugby is a sport played professionally at national and international level; subsequently, it is notable that this sport can be accessed in Aylesbury. Furthermore, precedents of Rugby clubs being included in the sports and leisure sections of towns where this sport can be accessed are available elsewhere on Wikipedia, e.g. Tring [[18]], Chinnor [[19]], Amersham [[20]], etc...; subsequently, I request the inclusion of Aylesbury Rugby Club be reinstated to the Sport and Leisure section of Aylesbury's Wikipedia page [[21]].

I acknowledge your comment re: use of historical reference information which has been used elsewhere on the internet; I will recreate the page for Aylesbury Rugby Football Club [[22]] in a similar manner to the which has been used and previously accepted for Amersham Rugby Football Club [[23]]; I trust this would be acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGTurner (talk • contribs) 06:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

World Sports Alliance

Greetings, I am the Treasurer of the WSAIGO. http://wsaigo.info/about-us I received your message and am curious, how is it that you have a wikipage that describes our member states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_World_Sports_Alliance but we cannot have our organization itself posted? I will commission a 3rd party to repost our wikipage but you are also telling me that the organization is blocked from being listed on here? Please explain in detail! You mentioned self-promotion, which parts? Everything I said is a verifiable fact. What we do is very positive and maybe you are just reading it without looking at the facts. Also, I did imply that [content redacted in line with Wikipedia policy], whoever that may be, did hack our emails and post the data online. You said that I am making a claim that this is an illegal act. Isn't theft and hacking illegal? Call it whatever, but when someone takes something that does not belong to them that is an illegal act. I am not trying to tell anyone how to run this Wikipedia site, this is definitely your thing vs. mine, but I am just trying to understand the logic behind your rejection while wiki maintains some incomplete and inaccurate fragment of a page regarding my organization and where we had a very similar fact pattern. Truth is, as I read other people's articles on here, they are all doing the same thing. Thanks in advance for your time, Regards, Asa Saint ClairAsasaintclair (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asasaintclair: I spent a considerable amount of time drafting and editing my messages to you, in an attempt to make clear to you what the various considerations were, whereas I could much more easily have spent a few seconds posting a ready-made standard notice. Unfortunately, it seems that I failed to achieve my aim of making the issues clear to you, and for that I apologise. I shall make one more attempt here, and I hope this time I can succeed in being more helpful to you than last time.

1. I did not tell you that "that the organization is blocked from being listed on here" or that there cannot be an article about the World Sports Alliance. I told you that the existing article had been deleted for three specific reasons, and gave an account of what those reasons were. I suggest you may like to re-read the explanation I gave you, and if there are any specific parts which are unclear to you, let me know what parts, and what is unclear about them, so that I can try to clarify my explanation.
2. You draw attention to the article Member states of the World Sports Alliance. That article too, unfortunately, is rather promotional, and early versions of it were even more so, but it as not a strongly promotional as the articles which have been deleted. It could certainly do with cleaning up.
3. You say "we cannot have our organization itself posted", which suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a service for organisations, business, or individual people to have pages about themselves for their own purposes. The preference is for articles to be created by independent editors, with no connection to the people or organisations they are writing about.
4. You ask which parts of the deleted article were promotional. The answer is that the whole article, from start to finish, read as though it had been written by someone working for the organisation who wished to give a favourable impression of the organisation, not by a neutral observer with no opinion for or against the organisation, as required by Wikipedia policy. In addition to the overall tone of the article as a whole, there were also some passages where the promotional nature of the writing became totally unmissable, such as "contributing towards the building of a just, humane and equitable society well-connected with its environment and in full respect at its home, the Earth". There is no way whatever of reading that as neutral reporting: it is clearly telling the reader that the World Sports Alliance is truly noble.
5. You did considerably more than "imply" that an organisation had acted illegally. You explicitly stated that the organisation had "illegally intercepted the WSA’s agreements with one of its member-states" and had "posted the documents online". Wikipedia policy does not permit posting any statement that any living person or persons have acted illegally unless that statement is accompanied by a reference to a reliable source. The fact that an individual Wikipedia editor assures us that an illegal act has been committed is not sufficient, as anyone can create a Wikipedia account and post false accusations, and unfortunately people quite frequently do so. Furthermore, you have repeated the same unsubstantiated allegation on this page. Please don't post it again, anywhere on Wikipedia.

I don't know whether this will help you to better understand the various issues, but I hope so. Once again I have put a significant amount of time into writing a fairly long and detailed message to you. If you have any questions about specific details please let me know, and if I think I can I will make brief attempts to clarify those details. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to your message

James, I have only just seen your response to an earlier message and the point about the health and environment (as the notifications thing doesn't seem to be working for me). I still don't know how to reply to an existing message and hence why I keep doing new sections!!

Anyway, I shall try again to explain this point.

In the pesticides line of work there are two specific categories health and environment and in fact in the EU pesticides legislation these are dealt with in separate points in the main Article 4 of the EU Regulation as health has a stronger protection standard than that for environmental effects even though as you say there are inextricable links and although my campaign does highlight both it has a specific and clear focus on health effects.

There are many others like the big environmental groups and NGOs that ONLY really concern themselves with the environmental side (which in the pesticides line of work means bees, birds, species, water courses, biodiversity etc.) and ignore human health altogether, whereas my campaign has continued to work hard to try and ensure that human health is recognized and not continuously dismissed.

Therefore because of the way this all happens as described then it doesn't help to wrongly describe me as an environmental activist (and the activist word I have already dealt with) as in the pesticides line of work that implies I am specifically focusing on the bees, birds, etc. side of it, when I am clearly focusing on the human health side in order to fight for the protection of rural residents and communities.

Hence why I keep asking that it can just say that I am a campaigner and journalist which I am and which is how the vast majority of media articles refer to me.

If not, then what about cutting the activist and anti pesticides campaigner words and just say "health and environmental campaigner" as then it covers both?

Incidentally not sure what the reluctance is in relation to saying I am a journalist in that bit at the top?! In any event I note that it is in the bit further down.

Thanks, Thefactcorrecter (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: I don't know why notifications aren't working for you. Are you actually sure they aren't? Have a look at the top of the page and see if there's a little number on a red background. If there is, click on it to see your notifications.

Thanks for explaining about the "environmental activist" business. I now understand your concerns, and I have changed the wording in the article to "a British journalist who is a health and anti-pesticide campaigner". I hope that is OK, but if not please let me know. For what it's worth, personally I don't know why anyone felt so strongly about the need to include "environmental activist" that they felt the need to insist on it, but maybe they have their reasons. If anyone still thinks the word "environmental" must be included, I can suggest the compromise wording that you mention above.

If you look at the top of a section on a talk page, you should see a blue link that says [edit]. If you click on that, the section should open for you to edit it, and you should scroll down to the bottom of the editing space to add a new comment at the end. I apologise for not explaining that before, when you said that you didn't know how to add a new comment without starting a new section. I actually meant to, but in the course of thinking about the other issues you had written about I forgot. (Another way is to click the "edit" link right near the top of the page, which opens the whole page to edit, but that is often less convenient, especially on a really long talk page where you may have to scroll a long way down and search for the right section to edit.)

I am sorry that you are having such a frustrating time in trying to deal with this. I hope it can all be finished soon. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi James,

I am not convinced that I am doing this right as trying to do the edit thing as you suggested, but as its not a new section not sure if you are going to see it or not?!

Thank you very much for changing the wording. It is okay. I was never a fan of the words “anti-pesticides” as not sure why that needs to be before the word campaigner, as I am usually referred to in the majority of articles as just a journalist and campaigner, but as long as the other 2 words have gone then that is very much appreciated indeed! Thanks again for doing that.

One remaining and related thing though. As there have been messages on various editors talk pages then not sure you saw the links I suggested earlier on Martin’s talk page to replace the Farming UK one which is now redundant considering the description has been amended.

The suggested replacement reference links were these ones here (although only one is probably needed): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/3458396/Crop-sprays-a-risk-to-health-rules-High-Court.html that refers to my "independent" campaign.

And here https://www.theguardian.com/observer-ethical-awards/2014/apr/22/observer-ethical-awards-vote a Guardian article about the 2014 nomination for the Local Hero Observer Ethical Award (which is separate to the 2015 one that is already referred to in the Wikipedia page) that also supports my point that I run an independent voluntary campaign. Scroll down to find the small Guardian para relating to me.

Hopefully either one of those 2 links would be able to go in as reference 2?

Thanks James, Thefactcorrecter (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Just checking you can see my message in the one above?

James, just checking you got my message in the one above as I added it in but not sure you will have seen it as it does not start in the same way as yours do with the @name. I don't know how to do that. Anyway just wanted to make sure you saw it. Many thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: Hello again, Georgina. First of all, apologies for the fact that it has taken this long to get round to answering you. That has been partly because I have been busy with things other than Wikipedia, partly for other reasons.

Yes, I saw your message above OK. I see you are finding some aspects of editing confusing, such as how to create notifications, how to edit a talk page without starting a new section, and so on. That is not surprising: I remember finding some things hopelessly confusing when I started editing here. Please feel welcome to ask me for help with things like that in future. There are several ways to get one of those notifications with an @ in it, but as good a way as any is the one I am using in this message, namely including {{Ping|Thefactcorrecter}} in your message and making sure that you also sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). (Please note that for a "ping" to work both of those have to be done in the same edit. For example, it is not good enough to put the "ping" in an edit which you forget to sign, and then going back an posting ~~~~ in another edit.)

I hope you got my ping at Talk:Georgina Downs, but if you missed it for some reason then you may like to read what I wrote there now.

I have added the Telegraph reference that you gave above to the article in the place where it seemed to me most relevant, which was probably not where you had in mind. The Guardian one, however, seemed to me to be unsuitable as a reference, because it really consisted of a list of laudatory comments to show why people supported nominations of various people (including you) rather than neutral, factual reporting, and because it only gives a fairly brief comment about you, which didn't really add any information to what was already provided in existing references.

I know what I have done is not exactly what you asked for, but I hope you can accept it as at least a step in what you see as the right direction. I have also edited the opening of the article to get rid of the clumsy wording about being an “anti-pesticides” campaigner.You say you were "never a fan of the words 'anti-pesticides'", and I agree with you on that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi James! Thanks for the messages which I have only just now seen. I very much appreciated yours and Ritchie's comments in the messages at the bottom of the article talk page as having felt a bit like being in a lions den with some of the red hands, warning signs, blocking, and having to argue my case in relation to a few simple corrections then I had not come back on for a few days to have a breather!! Hence why I have only just seen the message here and the ones at the bottom of the talk page. I also see Ritchie sent me a message at the bottom of his talk page and I intend to ask him about a handful of remaining things but am going to leave this til after the Easter weekend now. The wording at the beginning I just saw and that's fine, thanks! Thanks also for the techy advice on how to navigate round here, you will now officially be my techy advisor :o) as I do still find it all rather baffling!!! I am not up with techy stuff me and don't even have a smart phone nor a particularly good working computer (as it crashes all the time!!) Anyway, not sure I have replied to everything you said in your message so will read it again next week and respond to anything I may have missed. Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

revised Pocono Mountains

Responding to your advice on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikalac53/poconos_rewrite

I chose a bad title. I am not revising anything. I am creating a new article, which I plan to name "Poconos on the Plateau". Now that I have your attention, how do I change my title from "poconos rewrite" to "Poconos on the Plateau"?

Mikalac53 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)mikalac53

@Mikalac53: I have looked that the page you have created, and it is clear that it is about the same subject as the existing article Pocono Mountains. You said at User talk:Mikalac53/poconos rewrite that you are creating a new article rather than editing the existing article because you "don't want to participate in lengthy discussions". Evidently you do not wish to take part in discussions and interaction with other editors, and prefer to just create an article of your own, independent of what others have done. I'm afraid I have to tell you that is not how Wikipedia works. Creating a new article on the same subject as an existing article (known as "forking") is not generally considered acceptable. There are various situations where creating a new article which is on a closely related but not identical subject, such as if an article on a complex subject is getting too long and cumbersome, so that splitting it into separate articles on different subtopics can be helpful. However, that does not seem to be the case here: although the two versions cover the subject from different points of view and include different types of detail, they are both designed as general articles about the Pocono Mountains. There are several reasons why duplicate articles on the same topic can be unhelpful, such as the likelihood that updates, corrections, etc may be applied to one article and not the other, and the fact that work put in by an editor to improve coverage of the topic may not be seen by a proportion of the readers of the encyclopaedia; in fact this will apply to the majority of readers if the article edited is the one which is read by the smaller number of readers. As for avoiding lengthy discussions, there is, of course, no way of knowing whether there would be lengthy discussions about any changes you might make to the original article unless you try doing so, but if there would be discussions then there is no reason to suppose that there would be any less discussion about a new article on the same subject, if for some reason it were accepted that there was a good reason for having two separate articles.

A new article on the same subject as an existing article is liable to deletion by any Wikipedia administrator under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you think that the existing article in the subject is inadequate, then you are perfectly free, and indeed welcome, to edit it, including merging content that you have posted in the draft you have written. If you do so then other editors will be equally free to make changes to what you have written. If anyone reverts any of your edits and you don't like agree, then you have the options of accepting it or explaining your reasons for disagreeing and being willing to discuss the matter if necessary. That is how Wikipedia works, and editors can't avoid that collaborative process by creating an alternative article of their own and keeping it the way they want, as though they personally own it.

One more point, which may or may not be helpful to you, but I will offer it to you anyway. 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 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) 08:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Stalled out - checking in

Hi JamesBWatson, the status of the unblock request for Bring back Daz Sampson looks to have stalled out (one of 3 on hold). Would it be possible to check again with the blocking admin? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)