This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I've reverted your speedy at Cathy layzell, since the article asserts notability: had a few exhibits at University art show, resident artist at a painting school, etc. I think it fails WP:CREATIVE though. Do you think it should be prodded or AFD'd? Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The reason I only tagged it for speedy, rather than deleting it myself, was that I thought it was borderline, and I wanted a second opinion, which you have now given, so thanks. Since you think it fails WP:CREATIVE I think for a PROD or AfD would make sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've prodded it to give the creator a week to prove us wrong. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Emily Taheny
The article has already been nominated for deletion and we agreed to keep it up. The article has more than enough information by Wikipedia standards. 12:00, 26 May, 2010 GuineaPigWarrior
Hello JBW, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Favonian's talk page. Message added 15:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am going to rewrite an article named "Taxis Combined" that you have recently deleted as my latest contribution. The focus of the article will be unbiased and factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WideEyedBill (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Userpage Vandalism
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I took the liberty of reverting vandalism on your userpage for you. Thought I would let you know. Mrlittleirish 11:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Errm, not as far as I can see... JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I definately did, hmmm, well I remember seeing it, somebody must have beaten me to it, I remember a user beating me to the warning template, maybe it said rollback failed and I never noticed. Anyway, vandalism got reverted on your userpage today. :) Mrlittleirish 13:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
AIV report
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Understood, in the future, I'll leave a warning or just wait for the SPI investigation to conclude. The reason I didn't leave a warning message was because I was reasonably sure that he was a sock of Yattum and as of late I have simply begun to observe WP:DNFT. Vedant (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You deleted my page
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm new to making wikipedia pages. I work for KunhardtMcGee Productions and it says that you just deleted my page, which a long time to put together. I'd like to know why and how to get my page back up. Thanks
If you have read the note on your talk page about Conflict of interest you will realise that for you to write this article is strongly discouraged. In addition, the article appeared to be written purely to promote or advertise the company, which is not acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Finally, even if you rewrite the article in more neutral terms, it will not be acceptable unless the company satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. In addition to the general notability guideline I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Question from People bios
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I am the creator of Kenneth K. Kim's article and I had a question. First of all, thank you for stopping by and leaving your vote. Secondly, I read on your profile page that it was a bad idea to use your real name and I wanted to ask why. I am sorry, but I am new to this and wanted to know what the issues were when it came to using your real name. I was going to change over to a different account with my user name because I thought mine was a little too cheesy (I'm not trying to engage in sockpuppetry, but I am trying to figure this out soon because I realize people question you more when you're new), but I am wondering if I should just get a fictitious one now instead as well. Thanks!℮ՏڂҺℯɼ❤ʗҺɑʈ 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
For most people using their real name is fine. However, there have been a few occasions when someone with a grudge against a Wikipedia editor has taken it out on them in "real life". I get more than my fair share of hate posts on Wikipedia, because much of my work is in vandal-fighting, and so possibly I would be more likely than most to be exposed to such attacks. Even so I think I would probably be alright using my own name. However, I followed advice not to when I first signed up several years ago, and it's easier to stick with the user name I've got, as well as possibly safer. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, if your name is relatively uncommon there's the possibility of people Googling you and finding your account. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but some people would prefer to avoid it - for instance, if you edit pages related to gay rights but have homophobic family members it could be awkward, or if a potential employer worried you would spend all day editing instead of working. All of the risks would be lessened, though, by picking a user name like "Sam S." instead of "Sam Smith".
As the deletion log shows, it was deleted as an "article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". A more detailed explanation is given in the notice about this on your talk page. If you have not already done so, follow the link from there to the notability guideline and the link to the guideline on notability for organizations to see what is required for a Wikipedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
stefan long
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
hi,
why was the article on "stefan long" deleted please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpg7000 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As the deletion log shows, it was deleted as an "article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". A more detailed explanation is given in the notice about this on your talk page. If you have not already done so, follow the link from there to the notability guideline and the link to the notability guideline for biographies to see what is required for a Wikipedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
False positive report
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly. —Soap— 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Opt to suffer one last negative response from wiki, perhaps out of all optimism one last opt for a good response
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
would that work?
then, if you agree, sir,
I could forever refrain from adding content unless I do as Bobby122 said and give administrators the ability to make changes and for each time I want to give an administrator an idea I can contact a sysop before hand?
Originally, I was going to go to bed,
got up for a second because of an itch and noticed it was deleted.
I know we all have done the best,
my last question before I close tonight,
because I'm just really, really, really, curious, and for future reference and because I may someday be eligible and I'd like to know when that is,
it's very possible I can win an award on the 30th of this month for best actor.
what is the difference between Nathan Carter and Nathan Anthony Carter that allows him (Nathan Carter) to have information, even if it is a little bit (as his is on his wiki only stating his birth place and his one TV spot)? Also, are you saying, my creating so many attempts has made it irrevocable for content to be placed on such a site with my name bearing the headline or info??
Nathan Carter, for instance was in radio free roscoe, Decode entertainment and Dick Clark Productions
Nathan Anthony Carter has made a movie that will be placed in major stores around the world (i.e. blockbuster, tower, target, walmart, netflix) Sept. 14th.
here again are my points,
we are both well known,
that unknown comment came from Robert Redfords wiki, so by all means I'm not saying I'm still unknown because I was trying to do things right and get proper material thinking grabbing similar format from R.R.'s site would help us.
...
we have two people, both getting big recognition,
i.e. Magazines, National exposure,
please (and you have been sincere) tell me why Nathan Anthony Carter can never make it as a page on wiki?
if you wouldn't mind highlighting why Nathan Anthony Carter can never be a Nathan Carter or why the two are so different
I would highly welcome and appreciate that.
Also,
what if we say, I leave a similar wiki page like his
i.e.
(Nathan Carter is a Canadian actor born on July 30, 1984 in Toronto, Canada. He is best known for his starring roles in Radio Free Roscoe as Travis.)
(Nathan Anthony Carter is an American actor born on May, 23 1982 in Honolulu, HI. He is best known for his starring role in Bloodwood Cannibals.)
would that work?
then, if you agree, sir,
I could forever refrain from adding content unless I do as -Bobby122- said and give administrators the ability to make changes for me and for each time I want to give an administrator an idea I can contact a sysop before hand?
You are quite right: the article Nathan Carter does not indicate notability, and I have tagged it for references. If none are forthcoming perhaps the article will be deleted. It is natural for someone unused to the ways of Wikipedia to think take an existing article as a guide to what is acceptable, but unfortunately it is not valid: have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why, or, if you feel like reading an even more detailed version, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. As for Nathan Anthony Carter, if you have read and understood the comments on your talk page you will realise that you do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, and no matter how you do your editing that will be the case. Also please read the guideline on conflict of interest, if you have not yet done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Nathan Anthony Carter Page
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have been looking at the history of Nathan Anthony Carter which has been deleted three times, and which you have created again. In particular I have looked at the posts you have made to justify keeping the article. You have written "I do not think this page should be deleted, because I have worked hard to get here." I have every sympathy with you: it must be frustrating to put so much work in and see it all deleted. However, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are based on the notability of the subject of the article, not the diligence or industriousness of the writers of articles. Another thing you have written to justify keeping the article is "As of now, he is popular in hometown, Chico, CA." That may well be true, but it is not enough to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards. Then we have "He is a member of the group who officially started the first annual Chico Independent Film Festival." Notability is not inherited: even if the group is notable, that does not make every member of the group notable. Wikipedia is notable, but that does not mean that every Wikipedia editor is notable.
-[I understand your statement and also highly appreciate your simplicity and and also your kindness so that I can understand]-
In the latest version of the article you have written that Carter is "still largely an unknown", which is very close to being to saying that he is not notable.
-[While still largely an unknown, Carter made his screen debut in Bloodwood, that is what I said meaning at the time he made bloodwood he was not a known, I got that here robert redford for an idea]-
Looking at the present version of the article, two of the three "references" do not even mention Nathan Anthony Carter, and the third falls well short of the standard required to establish notability.
-[I don't know which refrences, because the ones I gave all have my name because they bear me as the starring role, how can there be a movie without a starring role? Does that mean you didn't look long enough?]
let me leave references again here but when I left the references, such as Fangoria magazine (located on wikipedia) and bloody-disgusting (located on wikipedia) and you weren't able to find them, unfortunately, it leaves a lot of explaining on my part which I don't want to do, believe me. But now let me highlight the actual places on the page so that you don't have to "look". http://www.fangoria.com/index.php?id=1243:dvd-artdetails-suck-carnies-etc&option=com_content&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=167 Exact middle of page, my name Nathan Anthony Carter is right there. Second one; http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/20680 top of page, same movie and no my name isn't there but I cannot help that it is clearly or obviously the same exact movie we are talking about again starring me. Nathan Anthony Carter, the person in question for notability.]-
The article does not make any serious claim of significance at all. However, rather than just delete it, I have spent some time making my own searches. I have found mentions of Carter in numerous unreliable sources, where anyone can post, such as myspace, flikr, vimeo, starnow, and Wikipedia, but I have found no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Consequently I have concluded that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, and must be deleted. I understand, as I have already said, that this will be frustrating for you, but you have to accept that Wikipedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's standards or be deleted.
-[I am giving you recognition for doing your work plus more, however, you shouldn't tell me what does and does not frustrate me. Bobby122 (admin) has politely asked in a tab which you deleted, please check out google and do research before deleting]-
I came here as a result of a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. I do not view your edits as vandalism, which is why I have spent considerable time firstly checking the situation and then explaining my reasons, rather than just blocking you from editing. I also see you have taken a significant amount of trouble to discuss with another editor to get advice on how to improve the article. However, you must accept that Nathan Anthony Carter does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and therefore any effort spent in trying to improve the article will be wasted effort, as the article will have to go. You are, of course, very welcome to contribute elsewhere in Wikipedia, but if you re-create this article yet again you probably will be blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
-[No, my edits are not vandalism, but what seems to me to be an aspect is that I've created concepts for edits as simple as having my name Nathan Anthony Carter with a birthdate and one mention of a movie that will be hitting stores everywhere by Eagle One Media and not one administrator besides Bobby122 can recognize that, and unfortunately, it's creating a lot more work for everybody. I'd say, somewhere about the distance of 14-15 hours straight, give breaks for coffee and such and most of that time has gone into figuring out what admins are doing getting rid of my material. Out of my own research I've learned that 'names of living persons' are very hard to edit, however it seems that admins jobs are to quickly dispel the promulgations of people making edits on subjects involving 'living persons'.]-
To me, this is not a game,
and to me, I am fully aware of the rules and also of the aims I have. It is not my intention to make this site all for my own purposes. I have edited some other things and this one is of high importance to me. I do care about the general public getting the truth.
Now here, I move once again for us to make a simple page only for this wiki page.
here is what I hope to get and then leave it at that.
Nathan Anthony Carter was born on May 23, 1982 Honolulu, HI is best known for his starring role in Bloodwood Cannibals.
You say "not one administrator besides Bobby122". Bobby122 is not an administrator. He or she has painstakingly explained various aspects of how to go about editing and creating an article, but, as far as I can see quickly skimming through the discussion on his/her user page, has not told you that this particular subject is notable. He/she has repeatedly drawn your attention to the conflict of interest issue, and has encouraged you to contact one of the administrators (also referred to as "sysops") who deleted the article if you wish to know why it has been deleted. I am one of those administrators, and I have explained why, at greater length than many would have done. You do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. You have a conflict of interest. You are clearly trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. Four different administrators have independently assessed the article, and independently come to the conclusion that it satisfies the criteria for speedy deletion. Please, drop your attempt to create an article about yourself. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thanks I will,
I'm thankful we could exchange ideas, comments, and exchanges in eventuality.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Elektrik Shoos's talk page. Message added 10:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
National Employment Savings Trust
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, sorry about the copy/paste move for the NEST article. I tried to move it, but there was already an article with this name. And then I tried to move that article, but it just made another redirect! And then I read the article on how to "merge" articles, and it just said to copy and paste anything missing from the one you're not keeping to the one you're keeping, so that's what I did. If you let me know how you restored the history, I would be very grateful, so I didn't make the mistake again. Kitfaaace (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In my opinion, this user is another useless wikipedia nazi rules enforcer. My team group article was fine, and the company introduced some of best low cost SSDs and the page and company are notable. Yet you put it on speedy deletion and got rid of it within 2 days with no way for me to even know it was challenged (assuming that EVERYONE visits wikipedia daily to check for such retarded messages is a plain dumb policy. i don't care if wikipedia doesn't have a way to email it's users (i'm not going to check, but i will simply blame you as you obviously didn't care or wanted to wait for my input on the speedy deletion challenge. ) The page was up on wikipedia for possibly a year with no complaint. Your reasons for promoting it for speedy deletion could be applied to ANY company - like compare it to page for OCZ company - they both make practically same hardware! BUT NO, just go to hell with your dual standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jernejl (talk • contribs) 01:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I entirely sympathise with your feelings on this, and if you like I can userfy the article for you, so that you can look at it with a view to improving it. Let me know if you want this. However, if I do this it will be a temporary move so that you can establish notability: the article as it existed did not give any indication of satisfying the notability guidelines. It is not true that the reasons for the speedy deletion apply to all articles on companies, as many of them give very good sources to show notability. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations indicate what is required. Let me know if you want help with understanding what is required. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I just don't care anymore, i'll just stop writing articles. Jernejl (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Did you notice that I was coaching the editors on the talk page on providing reliable citations in order to help determine whether or not material merits inclusions in an article? I feel that your deletion only escalates the situation and undermines my participation. —Eustresstalk 19:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
No I didn't. However, material which does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria should be removed. It is not acceptable to keep material which is unsuitable because someone is using it to make a point. If you think that the material does satisfy our inclusion criteria, and can explain why, then that will be fine, but keeping it for any other reasons than that is not acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
So a drama-documentary made by the same broadcaster as - and actually about - the World in Action programmes that are acknowledged on the page as being a significant part of "the story" of the Birmingham Six is "of only slight significance"? Nick Cooper (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The main point was that it was unsourced. In addition it told us not about the Birmingham six, but only about a program concerning the Birmingham six. Perhaps "only indirect significance to the subject of the article" would have been a more exact way of phrasing it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback nadavkna
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Errm, I don't see any... JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Iron Mask (band) deletion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, James! In Wikipedia there is existing article about the other band od Dushan Petrossi - Magic Kingdom, and everything's Ok! So, Iron Mask is another his project, well-known in Europe. Dushan is considered to be the guitar # 1 ib Belgium! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't understand that, except for a general impression that you are suggesting that a deleted article should not have been deleted because of another article which you consider similar. If that is what you mean then I suggest reading WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:Other stuff exists, or both. If, on the other hand, that is not what you meant, then perhaps you can clarify it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
BeSoPe page deleted
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi James,
I have just created a page for BeSoPe but I found that you have deleted this. My intention was to post the content when its ready and till then to keep the page blank. Now I have a draft with me. Can you help me to undo your delete?
I deleted the article because it was vandalism. I don't know what a "freakin' batman" is, but I am a Wikipedia administrator. As for your repeated vandalism of my user page, that is no doubt why you have now been indefinitely blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Removing things, adding unecessary information, removing refs (in turn removing reception section making a page not noteable enough to have it's own article). And ignoring warning and constantly repeating the same edits. Jayy008 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(This must refer to the report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about editing from 68.194.161.175.) Can you be a bit more specific? Removing things and adding unnecessary information are not necessarily vandalism: it depends on what was removed or added, and why. A few diffs would help, if possible with comments so I can see exactly what you are objecting to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically, the user keeps adding an image to the Naomi Clark page. There's already enough images in the article and another couldn't be claimed under fair-use. The user removed all information about the character from season 3, but basically the whole lead AND cut the reception section by half. Also on List of 90210 characters the user keeps adding an infobox to this page, there are only supposed to be infoboxes on a main characters own page, which is why the ClueBot kept reverted, but the user kept adding the info back. Maybe it can't be called vandalism, but it's disruptive and the user makes no effort to reply. Do you still want some comparisons? May take me 10 mins to find the info. Jayy008 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I now fully understand what the problem is. I can appreciate that it must be frustrating, especially as the user is not responding. However, it is not vandalism, but rather a content dispute. I have warned the user about edit-warring, and if they continue to make the same edits again I will be willing to block them, if I am around. Alternatively you may find help in finding other venues for reporting this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that existed, thank you! And thank you for giving a warning. As you're fully aware of the situation, if the edits are made again, I'll just make you aware of it to take action. That will save explaining it to someone else. Jayy008 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, except that, of course, I may not be around at the time, so there may be a delay. you are welcome to let me know on my talk page if necessary, though. JamesBWatson (talk)
That's the plan; I'll just wait and not revert to avoid myself getting a warning. Jayy008 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Teambox deletion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I was still talking about what would be considered notability for Teambox when you deleted the aricle. I really don't understand which is the Wikipedia criterion to accept or deny an article, as mine was just like a hundred more articles of similar web apps which have a lot less users, are not open source or even worse, are dead-pooled. I'm also unable to understand how a Techcrunch article, the foremost web publication for technology news and analysis is not a valid source for notability, or why if you try to add a new app to Comparison_of_project_management_software the addition is denied because of "addition with no article" when it's almost impossible to add a new article for a web app. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdepabloss (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Look at WP:Notability to see what is required. If the software does not satisfy the notability guidelines then continually creating articles about it will be a waste of time, as the article will be deleted again. No amount of rewriting of the article will make a non-notable topic notable. Other articles which you think are similar are irrelevant, both because there may be an important difference that you haven't recognised, and because it may be that those other articles should be deleted too. See WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:Other stuff exists. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Then I think those other articles should be deleted too. The problem is that if you try to add a web app to a list like Comparison_of_project_management_software the editors ask you for a Wikipedia article, but then it's really difficult to create a new article for a web app, so you end up in a vicious circle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdepabloss (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Why was a page delete
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Can you please provide reasons for the deletion of the BURNDY Page on the basis of advertising? there are similar links for other companies using the same content see Panduit on Wikipedia
If you honestly can't see that an article full of language such as "These solutions coupled with and extensive distribution network and strategic partnerships with industry leaders provide quality engineered products" is promotional then it is difficult to know how to explain it to you. As for the other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:Other stuff exists, or both. Thank you for drawing my attention to Panduit, which i have now proposed for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the response and I clearly understand the issue of your deletion. If I repost the article specifically with the historical factural information related to Bern Dibner History and aquisition information does that fit within legitimate posting rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richbnh (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to ask if the criteria of "fairly major company" is including Google Books and News, because BURNDY is a fairly large company also (Using the same criteria)as well. In addition, it founder is well known world wide for the company's contributions to the electrical Industry. The same standards should apply however, my content was deleted Richbnh (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I have looked at your current draft. It is certainly much less promotional in tone than any of the previous three versions which have been deleted. However, it is still not clear to me that it satisfies the notability criteria. At a quick glance it seems to me that only one of the "references" provided actually mentions Burndy, and that that one cannot be regarded as substantial coverage. I strongly suggest looking at the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of companies, and perhaps you may also like to look at the FAQ for organisations. It is worth pointing out that the guideline on notability of companies and organisations says "'Notable' is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance,' and even organizations that editors personally believe are 'important' are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice." I'm afraid I don't understand your question about Google. As for the founder being well known, this is irrelevant, as for an article on Burndy we need evidence that Burndy is notable, not that someone connected with Burndy is notable, which is a quite different issue. Relevant here is WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't know whether or not Burndy satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements, but from what I have seen so far I would say there is no evidence that it does. If there is notability then the above guidelines should tell you how to show it. If, however, the company does not satisfy those guidelines, then working on the article is unlikely to be a productive use of time. No amount of rewriting will make a non-notable topic notable. Finally, a minor point, but one worth a mention. Wikipedia style is not to refer to the company repeatedly as "BURNDY ", but to refer to it once at the start of the article as "Burndy", and after that simply call it "Burndy". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Proposed deletion
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Can I suggest that you are a little more careful in your use of Proposed Deletion. As detailed at WP:PROD, this is for "an article [that] is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion". I have removed two of your prods today, one from Left Bank Linkeroever (2008), an award-winning, commercially released film, and one from Panduit, which judging by Google News and Books results is a fairly major company. In the former you specified 'No independent sources' and in the latter 'No evidence of notability. Also the article is distinctly promotional in character' - this suggests that you didn't look for sources in either case, as in both cases they are relatively easy to find. Many potentially worthwhile articles are currently unsourced and need cleaning up, including editing for appropriate tone. This is a reason for improving these articles and not a valid reason for deletion, and neither of these cases appears to fit the bill as "uncontroversially a deletion candidate". Thanks.--Michig (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You quote WP:PROD. Let us take your quotation with a little more of its context. "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion. If no editors object, nominated pages are deleted after seven days." yes, I did "suggest" that the article was uncontroversially a deletion candidate, and it turned out it wasn't: you objected, so it wasn't controversial. If nobody objected it would have been uncontroversial. If someone does object then either the article is left, or it is taken to AfD. I see nothing in WP:PROD that says or implies that if the deletion turns out to be controversial (i.e. if someone removes the PROD notice) then the person proposing deletion must have been at fault. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
So Again I ask the question why is the Panduit site not being removed? You state that the BURNDY article does not follow Wikipedia guidelines about being notable and promotion of advertising when the Panduit site is obviously in clear violation words such as Solutions, innovating products, industry leaders, etc. Because the Article was in place and one admin says it is fine it stays even though the precedence is set? I am just finding it a little confusing when you are quoting from Wikipedia guidelines that you uphold for one and not another. What one person find notable another may not especially if they do not have any reference to the topic. It sound to me that postings are being managed by personal opinion verses factual control. In this case it seems like you are allowing the promotion of an organization which portraits them as an industry leader however, you will not allow for organizations of equal standing to do the same, please clarify... Richbnh (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously there is judgement involved. My judgement of Panduit was that it did not demonstrate notability, but there were some sources which went some way towards doing so. I therefore proposed the article for deletion, which gives other editors a chance to judge it. Another editor disagreed. The proposed deletion process applies only to deletions which are uncontroversial. Since this one is not uncontroversial that is the end of that proposal. For controversial suggestions for deletion of articles there is an alternative process, which provides an opportunity for editors to discuss whether an article should be deleted. This is referred to as "Articles for Deletion", commonly abbreviated to "AfD". I could take this article to an AfD discussion. If you wish to you may take it there. The instructions on how to do so are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion.
BURNDY aka Burndy was a different matter altogether. There was nothing borderline about this, any of the times it was created. It gave no indication at all of notability, and was blatantly promotional. It is common for users who are new to Wikipedia to use "but other articles no better exist" as an argument against deletion, but it is a mistake, for two reasons. Firstly, there often are significant differences, which have been overlooked by a user whose focus is on trying to justify keeping an article. Secondly, there is the "other stuff" reason I have already given you links to.
I have written numerous messages to you, both here and elsewhere, trying to help you. Some of these messages have been fairly long, and I have given up a significant amount of my time to trying to help you. I did not have to do this. Many administrators would have just given you a short standard message with links to a few policies and guidelines, and left you to sort it out for yourself.
Finally, I would like to ask again a question I have asked you before and you have not yet answered. Are you the same person who previously edited under the user name "Burndy"? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for all of the information, my comments are not meant to be confrontational I am just trying to understand the process. To answer your question no I am not the same person that origional posted the BURNDY page however, I do know them. When they were having difficulty they asked if I could help. I think that some of the confusion is coming from "using Panduit and other organizations" as examples outlined in many of the "New Posting" articles on wikipedia. Having experience in the industry the BURNDY article seemed notable but I can see how outside of that knowledge base it wouldnt.
All of your guidelines and information has been extremely helpful and appreciated. Based on you assitance it is obvious that the article needs to take a different approach if it is to be posted. Again thank you Richbnh (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I removed the speedy tag from this article. The person asserts notability and has an imdb.com entry to back him up. Whether he's actually notable I'm not sure, but he deserves an AfD, in my opinion. I didn't nominate him but you might want to. Herostratus (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I still don't see much evidence of notability, and anyone in films can have an imdb entry, so that means very little. If I had thought it was a totally unambiguous speedy deletion I would have deleted it myself, but I tagged it instead to get a second opinion, which you have given me, and I will accept that. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That was good of you. I prefer it when admins do this in any but the most clear-cut cases, even though its a bit of extra work. Herostratus (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Sheffield Predators
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The article gave no indication of significance. You may like to read the general notability guide, the guideline on notability of sports, and the guideline on reliable sources. What other articles exist is irrelevant, as you will see if you read WP:OTHERSTUFF, or WP:other stuff exists, or both. Finally, over the course of the years I have been working for Wikipedia I have found that on the whole editors more often secure the co-operation of other editors if they are civil, rather than accusing one another of being "insulting" and "offensive". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Err, not that I can see.... JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @JamesBWatson: I think Theunknown85 was trying to sign. @Theunknown85: Sign your posts with four tildes (~) like this: ~~~~ but do not include the <nowiki> and </nowiki> tags. –dffgdtalk·edits 13:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I may have stated the page under the wrong heading. The Sheffield Predators are an
amature British American Football Team, playing in the BAFA; the offical British American Football league.
It seems most sports teams have a Wikipedia page already. The Predators were only instated into the league
this season and haven't since had a page made for them.
The first link you provide is to a Wikipedia article, which is not a reliable source. The second is to listing a page which confirms the club's existence, but gives no indication of notability. Most amateur sports teams do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. It is true that many teams have articles which should not, and when I happen to come across them I am willing to delete them if it is totally unambiguous, or propose deletion in more borderline cases. I do not do this very much, as I have other things to take up my time. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi James,
This is my first page I have submitted to Wiki. I will provide full and concise references where necessary.
I will make sure that I have strong notable sources. The head coach of the team has informed me that we are in fact Semi-professional and not amateur, all the other teams in the BAFA have a wikipedia page, the BAFA is an official league for American Football in Britain (so in affect is like the American NFL!).
Please consider this while I compile my sources, and in the mean time do not delete the page permanently.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I see that you've deleted the Lightspeed Magazine Wikipedia page, citing that it does not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I am the editor of Lightspeed Magazine. Can you tell me how we might be able to "indicate the importance or significance of the subject"? I myself have a Wikipedia page, and am a well-known editor of anthologies and worked for many years at The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. My anthologies have been bestsellers and nominated for awards and received much critical acclaim. With that in mind, I would think that a new magazine I'm editing would be notable. Also, we'll be publishing a number of major science fiction writers in the magazine, such as George R. R. Martin, Joe Haldeman, and Ursula K. Le Guin (which I believe was mentioned on the page), so I would think that that also establishes Lightspeed as significant and important to the subject (in this case science fiction and/or short stories and/or magazines). 68.39.53.167 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)John Joseph Adams
First of all I suggest reading the guideline on conflict of interest. Then I suggest reading the guideline on notability. You will find that a magazine does not inherit notability from its editor or its contributors. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I removed your prod for this 102-year-old company. Have you checked French sources, or any of the 146,000 sources at Google? Bearian (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
There are about 140000 hits on Google. That is nothing like the same thing as there being 140000 reliable sources. The age of the company is totally irrelevant. If some of the hits you have found are reliable sources and, prompted by the PROD, you have added some of them to the article, then the PROD has clearly been useful. A PROD works both ways: it leads to deletion, or it leads to finding good reasons why not to delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I was writing about Locallife, a company that expands the US, UK, NZ, and France. It provides a service similar to that of Yellow Pages, Yelp, Inc., Yell, and CitySearch (all of which have Wikipedia profiles). Please let me know what was unacceptable and what I should avoid in a profile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Locallifesd (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Swinggeek
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi JamesBWatson,
I think the "notable" is only for certain field. TWaver is only a software for GUI focus on network/topology/equipment. I don't think that's a good reason to remove this article. I already try my best to save this excellent software in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TWaver. Thanks your time. Swinggeek (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Some background I found, so you don't have to. Swinggeek seems to be putting this kind of message on the talk pages of most of the people that said "delete" in the above-linked AfD. Just saying. dffgdtalk·edits 03:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
deleted "Palace Kämp Group" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi James,
I would like to create a page for the Palace Kämp Group, and I would like to know why it has been deleted. PKG, is a well-known hospitality group in Finland (been on for over 100 years) and also abroad. In case I would like to create the page, which guidelines should I follow?
Tammikuu (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The article told us that "Palace Kämp Group" is a Finnish company that runs hotels, bars, etc, and very little else. There was certainly nothing at all to indicate that it had any more significance than most businesses. The "references" were just links to publicity material, as far as I can see. Before considering how to write an article on this subject, consider whether the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. Unfortunately many editors new to Wikipedia waste a lot of their time and eventually suffer a good deal of frustration because they think "how can I write this article so it will show the subject as notable" without first thinking "is this subject notable". No amount of good writing will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. It may be worth a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. The main notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability, and also relevant in this case is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you do decide that the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria then you may find it helpful to look at the guideline on reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
POLFOTO
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The company Polfoto is only part of a larger media group that publishes the newspapers. Notability isn't automatically transfered?TeapotgeorgeTalk 11:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right, I didn't read carefully enough. I have now deleted the article. Thanks for putting me right on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Heads-up
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks. I'll wait until the new account edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback from LRKPR
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at LRKPR's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
21:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I assume that was a mistake?
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not the one who creatd the Seven bar foundation article; I just retagged it after the tags got removed the first time. That'd be the second time the author of that article removed the speedy tag. I think you meant to warn him, correct? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No worries; I've accidentally told a couple of admins that a new page will be speedied, when they were the ones who deleted it the first time, and someone else recreated it. It happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I had already corrected my mistake when I received this message. Sorry. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Problem with creating new wikipedia page
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi James, I was just trying to create a page for Data Quality Campaign, at first it was flagged as a copyright violation, and I realized that I had to add references as opposed to just hyperlinks. So I added a lot of references plus the hyperlinks that were already there and it seemed to be fine until I got a message saying you had erased it because of the same reasons. Should I put less information in the page? Should I put in more references? I don't want to create this page as a publicity tool...DQC is an education advocacy campaign that works to create awareness of Longitudinal data systems...and that was what the page was about. I was also wondering if there was a way to at least get the template back?? My User page was only a practice run for the real page, so I wasnt gonna use that as my page, but I didnt even have time to erase it before it was already gone. I would really appreciate it, since I worked on it a long time today. I look forward for your answer. Thank you very much!
Rosamary89 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Rosamary89
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
I see you were the last person delete it. But I was wondering if I could ask your permission to create the page once more. I'll preside over it adding references and all the bells and whistles. QuasyBoy (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will sandbox all of the info first. But the main reason why it was deleted in first place is because it was not properly sourced. I will improve this. QuasyBoy (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If you can provide good sources there should be no problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank You. I'll get right to it. :) QuasyBoy (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You've done quite a good job of writing the article. However, as far as establishing notability is concerned, you've provided sources for the fact that she is an actress, has got a baby daughter, and little else. On the basis of this I would say there is no reason at all to reconsider the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Fields that she is non-notable. As I said on your talk page, "No amount of good writing and reference adding will make a non-notable subject notable". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
So there's nothing else that can be done to overturn this? QuasyBoy (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Not if she doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, which is how it looks at the moment. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, But I'm not giving up. But based on your opinion, My draft is good enough for re-creation? QuasyBoy (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
A subject which does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria is not suitable for an article, no matter how well that article is written.JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, Thank you for your time. QuasyBoy (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait, Here's my last plea based on the first rule on WP:BIO#Entertainers, Alexis Fields does have notability based on her notable roles in her television acting credits. That's all I'm saying. QuasyBoy (talk) 3:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Problem with creating new wikipedia page
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have read your message on my talk page under the above heading. I am rather busy right now, but I will try to get back onto this soon. If I haven't contacted you within the next couple of days please remind me on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
JamesBWatson,
You left me a message today about my page I was creating: ISNetworld and I was wondering if now you could go back and look at it. I have made changes to the page and would like an expert's feedback since I am new to creating pages. Thank you for your time.
20:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etyler22 (talk • contribs)
please consider this IP user
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Special:Contributions/174.65.32.41 shows an interesting single edit. It reminds me of a user known to us both. I wonder if you might do some formal investigation that admins can do and ordinary users cannot. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah well. You may like to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.65.32.41 which I appear to have reported the wrong way around. I expect it will all come out in the wash, though. Same IP, same edit, same suspicions Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
When you first contacted me the IP had edited only once. The IP was blocked after it had edited twice. Perhaps I would have blocked after two edits, to be honest I'm not sure. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That is why I am not an admin and don't want to be one. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi JamesBWatson. Taztouzi is back at Mister World 2010 as Taztouz1[1] (the intermediate revisions are him trying to link to that suspect French modeling site that doesn't support the disputed edit anyway). He also edited as an IP[2]. I've submitted a second Taztouzi SPI request. I'd appreciate any advice you would care to give or action you would care to take. Best regards, Susfele (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
This just in...[3]. Same IP as the previously mentioned IP. Susfele (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, Taztouz1 was blocked as a sock puppet, and the I.P. has been blocked for 31 hours. He's been trying to create a bogus "official" website (using a table copied directly from WP to back up his claim. Susfele (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have also semi-protected the article for 3 months. The last semi-protection was for one month. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Crystall Robbot (talk) is at it again. (S)he's renaming pages all over the place, like Mitsubishi Pajero[4] and Robot Chicken[5]. I don't know enough about Korean railroads to know if (s)he's vandalizing, but the user clearly needs some reigning in. User also uses bad language written backwards ("lleh" being a favorite). Do we have enough to request a block? I've never had to deal with this sort of stuff before. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I know nothing about Korean railroads, but in my opinion even if we give maximum benefit of the doubt on those, such edits as this, following warnings, together with the edit summaries, are enough to justify blocking. In addition, the editor's history concerning Korean railroads does not encourage me to give much benefit of the doubt. For example, successively moving the same article to different targets does not give the impression of seriousness. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Sucks having to spend time on stuff like this instead of editing. Thank you, I will keep an eye in this direction. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Polaris Networks
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
hello,
I am aware of the fact that one cannot upload an article about a company on wiki but there are articles on other companies like Dimdim and JDSU etc.If you could tell me the exact reason then i could work on the article better.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have just reverted the edit because of the vandalism. That user did not show any respect to the ancient artists. Thanks for the note of the edit wars & three-revert rule.--Player23 (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
heather robinson live communication
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
hi James
I'm new to this and was in the process of uploading a page called the above but whilst I was adding some reference material links which supported the history of the company and the reason for the content it was deleted. I have seen other companies which are referenced on wiki so wondered if you could please advise why this was deleted and what does and doesn't constitute relevant information in this case?
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I added the citation to the article about Bishop Wisniewski who died a few days ago-[6]-I hope this is no problems-Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi James, this is a reply to your comment here, you were saying that you seen no evidence to prove that i'm trustworthy, the first time i had my tool revoked was because i had problems trying to figure out Wikipedia's Vandal Policy. Which i now know. The second time it was revoked because i used it for a content dispute (which was a mistake, i meant to undo rather than rollback). The third time was because i was forum shopping in IRC, which had nothing to do with rollback, as i was reverting edits without a problem, i also may note that i did not know forum shopping was against Wikipedia's Policies. I have learned from my mistakes in the past and it's very noticeable if you go through my contribs. If i know how to use the tool properly now, why not give it back? I also have reviewer rights in place on my account right now which deals with Vandalism, so it's just about the same thing. I've also been doing well with that, see my review log. I'd love to better the encyclopedia and fight vandalism, but i need admins to work with me. I also started my own WikiProject which is here. I'm still working on it, the question is what more do you need to see? I've shown i'm ready for the past 2 months. If you still say No, just further explain what i need to get done then i'll come back to you. If you trust me and think i'll do a good job like i've been doing with reviewer rights, then thank you for helping me in this matter. Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think HJ Mitchell is right in saying that there is a burden of proof on you. I am also not at all happy with "i had no idea forum shopping was against Wikipedia's Policies". Whether it is against policy or not it is clearly an attempt to get round decisions instead of accept them. If anything I am less willing to give rollback rights to someone who has (in effect) said that they can't see that there's anything wrong with such underhanded methods unless there's a rule against it than to someone who admits they knew all along that what they were doing is wrong, but have changed their ways. I also think that the whole tenor of your explanation above is that you do not accept that you were really at fault, but were just making innocent mistakes. That too has made me less inclined to consider changing my mind on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Your doing an horrible job in assuming good faith, you aren't believing that i changed my ways. We all make mistakes, we are humans. I read your RFA and saw the mistakes you made, (you have a record of biting newcomers & being unhelpful and not assuming good faith) and i supported you because i thought you'd actually change your ways, which you are somewhat doing. So since i trusted you, how come you can't trust me? And at least i'm being 100% honest about this situation rather than going to WP:RFP/R and saying that i think that i'm ready for rollback, and just not say anything about what has happened in my past. Being honest is also trust, and that's exactly what i did. And you have no idea what was going on in my mind, so you cant just say I also think that the whole tenor of your explanation above is that you do not accept that you were really at fault, but were just making innocent mistakes. I was making innocent mistakes. Once again, i will provide to you what happened in the order of my rights were revoked. 1) Was having trouble understanding Wikipedia's Vandal Policy at first. 2) I used it in a content dispute, and i meant to undo rather than rollback. 3) Was because i didn't know about forum shopping. They were innocent mistakes, if i would have known better back then, none of this would have happened from the start. Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Players Club (Stanford University)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi James,
thankyou for deleting the page. I was about to do it myself.
It is a group of punk kids trying to make their misconduct at stanford sound legit. They have a website, but posted the wrong results about a poll designed to ratify their ****.
Please continue to make sure that the page remains off Wikipedia, as they will no doubt try to reload/recreate it.
Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raimund 101 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no sign of an article called Players Club (Stanford University) ever having been created. If you give me the exact title of the article then I can look for a re-creation of it, but at present I can't. Since you are not an administrator and the above message is your only ever edit I'm not sure what you mean by saying you were about to delete the page. Tag it for deletion? Blank the contents of the page? JamesBWatson (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
L'Atelier
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there,
I've just seen that you've desqtoyed the L'Atelier page I've created.
But first I'll introduce myself : I'm the news director of L'Atelier.
When I created the page, I knew that could happen, but I didn't know it would be so quickly...
the L'Atelier page already exist in France, and has been accepted by all the representant of Wikimedia foundation in France.
Because L'Atelier is a business unit that doesn't exist anywhere exept at BNP Paribas. It's unique because it's the only monitoring agency that is also a real media : we are producing and presenting a 2 hours radio talkshow once a week, we hire journalist to publish information on our websites (I'm a journalist). And because we have also an office in San Francisco, it seemed normal to create this page in English.
And if the forrester had talked about us in the past, it is not because the senior analyst in charge of the report about innovation and big companies wanted to do our promotion.
So I'd like you to publish the page again. And if you have some advices to make the L'Atelier page less "promotional" even I disagree with the term, I will be glad.
The article looked purely promotional, and also did not indicate that the company has any objective significance. Since you say you are the news director of L'Atelier, English Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you from writing an article on this subject. No matter how "unique" the company may be, if it does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines then it is not suitable for an article. I suggest looking at the General notability guideline, the guideline for notability of organisations and companies, and perhaps Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, especially the section Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on my organization?. The presence of a similar article is irrelevant, for several reasons. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for one reason, or WP:Other stuff exists if you want a longer account. In this case there is also the fact that different language Wikipedias are autonomous, and I know that many other Wikipedias do not have the same inclusion criteria as English Wikipedia. Whether French Wikipedia does I do not know, but it's irrelevant, as only English Wikipedia's criteria are relevant here. As for advice on how to make it less promotional, it is difficult to know where to start. There is no one point which makes it promotional, but rather the overall tone of the article gave the impression that it was written to promote the company. It was written from the point of view of someone in the company, not the point of view of an objective outsider. This is, in fact, one of the reasons for the conflict of interest guideline I have already mentioned. Even with the best of intentions, someone closely involved in an organisation is likely to have difficulty in seeing how an article on it will look to an outsider, and this may lead to a kind of blindness to promotional tone. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I can't remember why this talk page is on my watchlist, but since I'm here: Personal attacks are not a good way of getting what you want. They are a good way of getting blocked, though. I suggest you change your approach. Check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for advice on how to deal with disagreements. --Tango (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that JamesBWatson deleted the article because... and here's the punchline... Bushy Park requested that the article be deleted as a duplicate of "Inflation". Blimey, that JamesBWatson, eh? Bit of a loose cannon. Worth keeping an eye on rogue admins like that, always doing what they're asked, with no regard for anything but the wishes of the community. TFOWR 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, what do I say? Bushy Park thinks I'm an idiot because I did what Bushy Park asked me to do. For what it's worth, Bushy Park , I thought quite hard before making this deletion, as the new article did not actually duplicate content of the old one. I decided, however, that if the content was to be added to Wikipedia it would make more sense to add it to the existing article, rather than creating a fork just to contain one little fragment of the topic, so I decided to go along with what you had suggested. Does that make me an idiot? JamesBWatson (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Berghof Foundation for Conflict Studies
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I left a "hangon" message on Monday asking why the entry I submitted for "Berghof Foundation for Conflict Studies" was scheduled to be deleted. This entry is VERY similar to the entry for the United States Institute of Peace (as well as other similar foundations doing similar work) and that entry has not been deleted. So far, I have not received an answer to my question. I fully disagree with the reasons for deleting it, and would appreciate a personal discussion about the issue. Thanks, Janelbeth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janelbeth (talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have read the message which you posted at Talk:Berghof Foundation for Conflict Studies. Firstly, the existence of other articles is irrelevant. For an explanation why, see WP:OTHERSTUFF, or, for a longer explanation, WP:Other stuff exists. This is quite apart from the possibility that one article may indicate notability and the other one may not do so, which I could not check, because I didn't know what the other article was: there is no article USIP. (Now that you have given the full title United States Institute of Peace I have had a look, and at a quick glance it looks as though you may be right in thinking that that article too does not establish notability. If so it too should perhaps be deleted. However, I think it may well be notable, and searching may produce suitable third party sources.) Secondly, the reason for deletion is given in the deletion log. There was no indication that the organisation was significant, and the article was promotional. There were various links to the organisation's web site, but there was no indication that it has received significant coverage in independent sources. The article was full of such stuff as telling us that the organisation "seeks to fulfill its philanthropic mission", that it supports "excellence and innovation", and so on. If you sincerely cannot see that this is promotional, then my guess is that you are a representative of the organisation, so closely involved that you cannot stand back and see what you have written from an objective perspective. If this is so then you have a conflict of interest in writing on this topic, and it may well be better if you don't do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear JamesBWatson, thanks for your message. I do realize that other articles are irrelevent, but if the foundations are similar in their fuction, you should understand why I would use the USIP entry as a guide. As the USIP listed the USIP site as its references, I did the same for the Berghof Foundation. If the entry I created does not establish notibility, neither does the USIP entry. However, I agree with your statement about independent sources, which I can certainly find. Berghof if the largest private funder in this field in Germany, so other sources will not be hard to locate. However, as the USIP entry did not list outside sources, and it was allowed to stay online, I assumed this was ok. I see now that I was basing my assumption upon an entry that should not have been listed on Wikipedia for the same reasons as my entry was deleted. As for your argument that "The article was full of such stuff as telling us that the organisation "seeks to fulfill its philanthropic mission", that it supports "excellence and innovation", and so on.", I totally agree with you simply because this is an actual quote from the Berghof's website, which is allowed according to Wikipedia's guidelines (which I read in full before I wrote the entry). Perhaps my mistake was not putting the 2 direct quotes in quotation marks, although I cited them. Sorry about that, my mistake. (Again, even though you feel this is irrelevant, the USIP entry uses direct quotes as well.) I do feel that my entry about the Berghof Foundation deserves to be on Wikipedia. It is an independant foundation in the (relatively new) field of conflict studies, which is a very important field, and people working in this field are invariably looking for new information about funding from such foundations. Therefore, I find it of great importance that such an institute is on Wikipedia - particularly if other very similar institutes (USIP) have an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janelbeth (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello again!
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can you help me to discuess with the article( Lot (Bible) ) please? My English is not good. Is that new user violates WP:POINT? In Chinese wiki I also spam by this guy by using same method (maybe his puppets). Regards.--Player23 (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.--Player23 (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding deletion of Pavle Bihaly article...
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Can u please explain me what should we do about article that u deleted Pavle Bihaly. I understand speedy delete rules, and was wondering if i make same article, and wait for someone to talk with it about is it ok then? I wrote several sources, the man i was talking about was founder one of the biggest publishing houses in this part of europe, and i provided links in original-serbian language from popular daily news magazine Vecernje Novosti to prove such constatations...Pls respond in which manner should i act because no one is answering. Thank u very much. --Palikalane (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There was absolutely nothing in the article that indicated that Pavle Bihaly was of any significance. At a quick glance the reference you gave does look as though it confirms much of what the article says, but what it says does not indicate much significance, and in any case that one article is not very substantial coverage. It is also worth mentioning that your grasp of English is not really up to writing encyclopaedia articles in English. Perhaps you should consider contributing to one of the other Wikipedias instead of English Wikipedia, such as Serbian Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, but only thing we can agree is part about my english, we already have page in serbian, http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Павле_Бихаљи, but Pavle Bihaly is big historical and cultural personality of Serbia and Europe, very famousin art and literature world-wide, so can u tell me who could help me from "staff" on english-wiki to shape this text to be suitable for public reading. Thank u in advanced. --Palikalane (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank u very much.--Palikalane (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Request for your help with recent deletion
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi James,
I am curious why you deleted the Tanner Krolle page. I am a new user and learning the space and trying to add content, however was a bit surprised that it was so quickly removed after all of my hard work. Can you please help me understand so that I can make the appropriate corrections so that it does qualify for Wikipedia standards?
Also, I did not save the content. Would you please be able to transfer it to me so I don't have to start all over again?
If you click on Tanner Krolle you will see the deletion log entries, which indicate that the article was twice deleted by two different administrators for the same reasons. In both cases the reasons were "advertising or promotion" and "copyright infringement". If you sincerely can't see that the wording of the article was promotional, then I can only assume that you are so closely involved with the company that you are unable to stand back from it and see it from an objective perspective. This is one of the reasons we have a conflict of interest guideline which discourages editing of articles by people closely involved in their subjects. As for how to make "appropriate corrections so that it does qualify for Wikipedia standards", I feel you may be making a mistake which is commonly made by newcomers to editing Wikipedia, especially those who come here with the intention of promoting something. First it is necessary to consider whether the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and only if the answer is "yes" is it worth spending time on how to write an article on it. No amount of good writing will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. I have searched for information about Tanner Krolle, and virtually everything I found was promotional. I have found no evidence of notability. I suggest looking at Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. Finally, on the question of restoring the content of the article to you, yes, I could, but I am reluctant to do so since it seems that the material was probably posted in breach of copyright. In addition, I find it surprising you would want me to do so, since I assume you still have access to the source from which you copied it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. TravelFan8 recreated the page with a message to me, and then blanked it (presumably realising that it was not the right place for the message) and posted a somewhat rewritten version of the message on this talk page, above. Allmightyduck then tagged the article for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Question regarding DeLeon Tequila's Wiki Page
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
James,
I am the creator of DeLeon Tequila's wikipedia page which you deleted yesterday. I created the page to give DeLeon Tequila a presence on Wikipedia; I had no intention of creating an "advertisement". When I created the page I believe that I did it from a neutral point of view. Before creating the page, I took a look at some of DeLeon's competitors' wiki pages (Casa Dragones, Patron, and Grey Goose) , and saw that their pages all outlined the beverage's history, production, various other facts about the brand, and some mentions in the press. After DeLeon's wiki page was first flagged, I then redrafted it to have it sound "less-promotional". I was just wondering if you could give me some guidance as to how properly write the page, so it won't be flagged or taken down. I'm just looking to give the brand a presence on Wikipedia, I'm not trying to create an "advertisement". Thank you.
"Give the brand a presence on Wikipedia" reads to me like another way of saying "use Wikipedia to promote the brand". Wikipedia does not exist to give brands a "presence".
If you sincerely can't see that the wording of the article was promotional, then I can only assume that you are so closely involved with the company that you are unable to stand back from it and see it from an objective perspective. This is one of the reasons we have a conflict of interest guideline which discourages editing of articles by people closely involved in their subjects.
When you ask how to "properly write the page, so it won't be flagged or taken down", I feel you may be making a mistake which is commonly made by newcomers to editing Wikipedia, especially those who come here with the intention of promoting something. First it is necessary to consider whether the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and only if the answer is "yes" is it worth spending time on how to write an article on it. No amount of good writing will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. I have made web searches for "DeLeón Tequila", and virtually everything I found was promotional. I have seen no evidence at all that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If it is not notable then there is no way to "write the page so it won't be flagged or taken down". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
To Whom this may concern,
Thank you for your response. After thoroughly reading over Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I realize what errors I had been making on the page's original copy. Do you think you could "un-delete" DeLeon Tequila's wikipedia page, so I can create a more notable page? Thank you!
I have restored the page to User:BrittCar/DeLeón Tequila for you to work on. This is, however, a temporary move, to allow you time to establish notability. If notability is not established, the page is likely to be deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
R3 states:
"R3. Implausible typos. Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages. This does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects."
The title is not a misnomer and it is not a typo. Quite frankly I think it should be undeleted. If you do not think the redirect should stay, why not start a redirects for discussion? If there is any previous precedent, please let me know.
As a note I restored the redirect because it does not qualify for speedy deletion under R3. You are welcome to start a discussion at Redirects for Discussion if you wish. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
The article may claim that Ince plays for Liverpool, but he in fact plays for the Liverpool reserve team. He has never made an appearance for the first-team, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE at this time. User:TheInfoboxer would have you believe that Ince's competitive first-team debut is imminent, but since we don't operate on a crystal ball policy, you surely have to delete the article until that debut has happened! – PeeJay 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I declined the speedy deletion on the grounds that there is a claim of significance. Whether the claim is justified is irrelevant to CSD A7. However, prompted by your comment, I have now looked into the matter further. It is clear that even the person making the claim admits it is not at present true, so it is not a credible claim. I shall delete the article after all. Thanks for pointing this out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks James. Sorry if my tone sounded a little abrupt! – PeeJay 19:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand why it was deleted, but can I have the article sent to my talk page so that it can be recreated when the player makes his debut.The Infoboxer (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Could I please request that the article be sent to my sandbox so that it can be easily recreated when the player does make his debut. Many thanks in advance.The Infoboxer (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I could do that, but it seems to me more straightforward to just restore the article directly to its original place if and when it happens. If it happens, just drop me a note here, giving a source, and I will restore the article. Then you can edit it as appropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Would it not the correct procedure, as far as I am aware for an administrator to abide with the request for a deleted article to be sent to an editors sandbox, so that they can continue to build a credible article and publish it when they become eligible for an article.The Infoboxer (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. Have copied the article to my sandbox and removed the categories to stop them linking elsewhere on wikipedia. Will transfer only when and if he makes his debut. Once again many thanks.The Infoboxer (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(I was just writing the following when you posted your last message.) I have restored it at User:The Infoboxer/Sandbox. Bear in mind that this is a temporary measure to allow preparation as an article, not a long term way of avoiding deletion, and if notability is not established the page may well be deleted again. However, I wish you luck with it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
