User talk:JBW/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Discussion at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding It doesn't appear that the block is warranted. The thread is Block of User:Since 10.28.2010.The discussion is about the topic User:Since 10.28.2010. Thank you. —Mlpearc powwow 17:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

JordonOng

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 06:40, 19 July 2011 (talk • contribs) JordonOng

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:SilentBlues

I checked with the checkuers, and SilentBlue was unlikely Access Denied. Therefore, I am deleting the sock tags. User may have been some sock, but we could not determine which, and it hardly matters now that user is no longer editing. Cool Hand Luke 12:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I am convinced that the account was a sockpuppet, but I have come to be doubtful whether it was a sockpuppet of Access Denied, as I once thought was likely. It is interesting to be told of the checkuser result, but, as you say, it probably no longer matters much. However, I still think that there should be notices about sockpuppetry, though not specifying Access Denied. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

tehelka edit

First thing, as you might already know, i am new to this.So apoligies if my language was a bit misleading. Secondly, thanks for your advice.It helps to get to know the ways of wiki pedia. Thirdly, you allege that my edit was bereft of evidence and liinks.But there was a link provide to a recent debate on a national news channel which basically led me to make that edit.So if you took the time out to see the dabate (which i can say with deep coviction, you did not) it might have helped you understand nad percieve that edit in a different sense rather than just some wound up guy and his biased babble.

You must take some time and read through the the tehelka wiki page, especially major stries and tell me if you can spot even one story incriminating the UPA govt. which has been in power since 2004 and it can be safely assumed (if you bother to open your eyes sometime) has been involved in a far lot more scams,corruption and wrongdoing.As i wrote,in popular paralance referred to as the most corrupt govt this country has ever had (seeing the record of politicians in this country, its no mean feat).

P.S:There are a billion news atricles from reputed and prominent dailies to support the 'most corrupt govt tag'.Another lot of surveys, again by reputed and prominent news organisations are waiting to burst open on your face.

--Nisargstar (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a response to a comment on your talk page, I have copied it to there and answered it there, so as to keep discussion in one place. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Solutions Institute

I did search for sources for the rest of the article, and did not see any obvious copyvios. I guess I missed them. I certainly have no problem with the article being deleted, as it had multiple other problems. -- Donald Albury 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Conflict of Interest

Oh Sorry, Missed that. I Guess I'll get somebody else to write one up, Not only that it isn't in-depth, I'm a Director of the company, So my judgement over anything to do with Tacplay may be clouded by bias.

Sorry for the Inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetsoap (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

WMRE

Hello! I have updated WMRE (Emory)'s page with a reference to an independent source (http://clatl.com/) to support WMRE's existence. Our station is certainly an amateur affair but non-notability is not a sufficient cause for deletion! MadisonPoche (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Hello! I have updated WMRE (Emory)'s page with a reference to an independent source (http://clatl.com/) to support WMRE's existence and notability. Our station is certainly an amateur affair but non-notability is not a sufficient cause for deletion! MadisonPoche (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know nobody has doubted the existence. Non-notability certainly is a sufficient cause for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

tehelka edit

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisargstar (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 July 2011

Replied at User talk:Nisargstar. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page block request.

Hello, long time no see. Can you prevent the blocked user Mbsetv15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from editing his page? This guy was blocked because he is making a lot of hoax TV articles and seems to be have an "advertising" username. I'm asking this because 10 days ago, the guy came back and used his talk page to do his "usual" work. Already reverted his edits. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Potential block evasion

Hi James, you might want to take a look at User talk:JoeR55 - an editor claiming to have created an account after you blocked his IP. Thanks, GiantSnowman 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson, thanks for your prompt reply. Authorship of the' most successful English Football Club page' on Wiki is attributed to you according to the message I received this morning. I have queried this. When I get a reply, I will get back to you. Cheers, JoeRob55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeR55 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have copied your message to User talk:JoeR55 and replied there, to keep discussion in one place. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi James,

this is the message I received (*below) regarding this Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_England#Most_successful_clubs_overall_.281871_.E2.80.93_present.29

• IP address (<IP redacted>) was blocked by JamesBWatson, who gave the reason Vandalism.

Cheers,

JoeRob55 BTW, Is it OK for me to give this IP ddress out on a public forum? JoeRob55JoeR55 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Piatak page deletion

Please advise as to why the Tom Piatak page was deleted and what information needs to be provided to reinstate the page.

Thank you, Pugglemom79 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Rosmarie

It was deleted because there was no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There is no evidence that he has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Such coverage has to about him, not published by any person or organisation connected to him or his works, and brief passing mentions are not enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How do I request a new username?

I need to change it, but do I put that on my talk page? Sorry for the confusion. VBPublicWorks (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RENAME. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I need to change it, but do I put that on my talk page? Sorry for the confusion. VBPublicWorks (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as with many things on Wikipedia, there is in my opinion far too much bureaucracy and documentation to work through, but I will try to help you get past all that. First of all there is a load of information at Wikipedia:Changing username which you are supposed to read all of, and probably it would be a good idea to have a quick look at it. Then detailed instructions for how to do it are at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, but really all you have to do is click on this link, fill in the blanks (Your current user name(VBPublicWorks), your requested new username (Intern20) and a brief reason for the name change (something like "I've been told that my current name conflicts with the username policy" should do), and then click on "Save page". That should do it. Unfortunately you may have to wait a while for a response, depending on how much of a backlog there is and how many Wikipedia bureaucrats are dealing with requests at the moment, but I hope it won't take too long. Please feel welcome to come back here if you have any more questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate your assistance! VBPublicWorks (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Asher Heimermann

I have concerns about an unblock I have brought up on AN. Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mecca

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

--Javaidiqbal6022 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've already seen it and replied, but thanks for telling me, anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Pimp of the City page was Deleted wrongly....It was airred on BET:Uncut and the first single off hidden adjenda

Pimp of the City ‎Pimp of the City is a hip-hop song by rap artist Nat (Rapper) from his 2005 album Hidden Adjenda. The Pimp of the City Video was created in Natalac's own Club night in Columbia, South Carolina Directed by Big A of Buck TV. It Was the first Video created in Columbia South Carolina that Aired on BET: Uncut. The video aired numerous of times till the show was cancelled in July 2006 with the last show being Jermaine dupre at the Body tap club in Atlanta....what is wrong with this write up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yameka (talk • contribs) 03:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

history of name of Azerbaijan

hi - I'm writing to you in regards to the page [History of the name Azerbaijan] since you edited it before [1]. Per the administrators' suggestion at the top of the page and in page talk that there are too many quotes and the article doesn't read well, as well as per the facts and quotations of both primary and secondary sources quoted in the article itself, I have deleted two irrelevant quotes that did not deal with the name Azerbaijan, and revised the intro sentence to better reflect the page, by removing the incorrect contention that the name of Azerbaijan supposedly became to encompass lands of the current Republic of Azerbaijan only in the 20th century [2]. I don't claim that I made the article perfect, but definitely made it slightly better, more consistent with Wikipedia purpose, and historically and factually correct. When one editor asked me about the edit, I've discussed it on his talk page [3], and on my talk page [4], showing all the scholars and geographers, who were already cited in the article, based on whose writings the edit came about. Then came editor Xashaiar and just started to revert (here's the diff: [5]), without discussions, without providing any logic or facts. Could you please take a look at the page and voice your opinion? --Agasalim (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My only edit to the article was to revert some dubious and ill-written unsourced editing, over a year ago. I don't have any particular knowledge of the subject, and can't help with what you want. JamesBWatson (talk)

Math for America page

I am going through and making some updates to the Math for America wikipedia page (adding new programs, correcting numbers) and I noticed you posted a message that the article may require cleanup. I am new to editing and wanted to check on what I can do to erase this message and keep the article neutral. Should we communicate on my talk page or here?

Mathteachers (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Mathteachers

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

206.190.68.46

Regarding User: 206.190.68.46, and also I notice Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents referencing the same editor:. I reversed an edit this person made to one of my sandboxes without asking me. The user removed a link I had to Fix bunching. Upon closer look at that user "contributions" page, it seems this user is going through many other user pages making such deletions and changes. Additionally, this user has made changes to WP templates, etc that seem to change the narrative. My concern is that this is not a registered user, but an anonymous person using a shared computer at Albuquerque International Sunport. Maybe this is not how the narrative and fixes on WP happen. Please have a look for yourself. Maile66 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

About: Shoumita Roy

Hi JamesBWatson!
The user Shoumita Ray is writing the article Shoumita Roy again, even after deletion. So, I request you to block the user Shoumita Ray and delete the page Shoumita Roy.
Regards,
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{11:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)}

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at JoeSperrazza's talk page.
Message added 00:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Block evasion?

• 2.220.204.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.138.219.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• → 88.5.27.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ←
• Good gravy, is it safe to say that the last IP is an obvious example of block evasion of the former two? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally safe. Thanks for pointing it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Names in red color without a page!!

To any ADMINISTRATOR:

Why in Wikipedia you have names of artists that you have not give them a page with articles?? For example in this page of list of Modern Greek Artists you have put some names of Greek Painters that are in RED color, it means they have not a page!! Why all you administrators in WIKIPEDIA don’t delete these names OR to make them a page with article?? I put my cursor in these names and appears a page with a name, without an article!!

Is this right??? --78.87.104.244 (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary for an administrator to deal with this: any user can do so. With over 3 million articles on Wikipedia it is not possible for administrators to check every detail of every article, and Wikipedia very much depends on ordinary users either clearing up problems themselves or calling attention to the problems (as you have done). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

External links?? Where??

""Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." from wikipedia

In this page, sources (Newspaper articles), which explain about Yannis Stavrou work, do not exist!! How can we confirm about the notability of his work???--78.87.97.96 (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

CABAL?

• Per WP:OWB#17 & WP:OWB#18
• FWIW, I wish to thank you for upholding what I feel is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia when you blocked the IPs (main: 2.220.204.70) for block evasion. Cheers and have a great weekend~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

Hi. A quick tip: this wasn't actually necessary, {{Userspace draft}} automatically applies NOINDEX. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Srinimisha

Thanks for your handling this. The user has now returned with a sock, User talk:Koustubh Kshatriya. I started an SPI, but since this is such an obvious WP:DUCK I thought you might be willing to take quicker action. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)  Done A duck indeed. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, he didn't get the hint. --Muhandes (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

IP template at 2.220.204.70

The IP complained that the template implied that s/he had committed vandalism, presumably because the template says "In response to vandalism from this IP address". No such finding has occurred, AFAIK. I actually came to this page to remove it a few days ago, and saw that it had been removed. I think it is being replaced because not everyone is clear that it was originally placed in error.

If I've misread the situation please let me know, but can we agree to follow the WP version of the Hippocratic oath, and leave it off until there's a consensus it belongs?--SPhilbrickT 20:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just informed that the template in question is one standardly used. I'm in the middle of watching the World Championships, so I can't do much more now, but I now have a better understanding of why this template was used. I'll engage in a discussion about the general use when the game is over.--SPhilbrickT 23:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good article review concerns

I have recently finished a good article review for Tim Pawlenty and in light of complete dissatisfaction with the article shown by User:Wasted Time R I would like to ask you to view the review here. Please note that this is an informal request for comment not a formal request for second opinion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete Insurance (disambiguation)?

You deleted the page as an implausible redirect but it wasn't a redirect at all. I tried to look for a cached version on Google but could only get the tiny blurb you see in the search menu. All I could notice was that the article was PRODed. In the instance of a PROD it shouldn't have been deleted until the 4th and the other problem was that the author was never notified. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was a redirect, left over after the original article had been moved to List of insurance topics. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just found it and came to tell you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someday they will make it so you can still view edit summary information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is often inconvenient not being able to see what the history of an article was before its deletion. However, if you look here you will see two log entries: the second one is my deletion, and the first one tells you about the earlier move of the article. So the information is available, even though not very obvious. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I should've checked. I think I cam here as soon as I saw that it was deleted as a redirect. Logic should have told me that the article had been previously moved. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

List of insurance topics

Hi. Please tell me why you deleted List of insurance topics. Thanks, An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Can this even be speedy deleted since it is a contested PROD? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it, as the deletion log showed, because it duplicated an existing topic. There is already a much more complete list of insurance topics in another article. Contested PROD? Well, the PROD reason was that it was an unnecessary disambig page, but the reason given for removing the PROD was "removing PROD, this is now a list not a disambiguation page". My reading of that is that the PROD was removed because it did not apply to the current version of the page {in effect it was a deletion proposal for a different article) rather than that you thought the version of the page which was current when you removed the PROD should not be deleted. If you do want to contest the deletion then let me know, and I will undelete the article. However, I will then immediately take it to AfD, as it is clearly totally redundant as a duplication of an existing topic. My opinion is that leaving it as it is will save time and trouble and almost certainly produce the same end result. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Grandmaster Caz

I was surprised to learn you cited notability concerns as a reason to delete the Grandmaster Cas page. Please take a look at the page I am developing. Please note that it establishes his notability through reference to articles published online, published books, and interviews with rappers who cite him as an influence on their careers.

Please verify that your notability and verifiability concerns have been addressed. If I should promote the page to full status before you have had a chance to review and verify, please do me the courtesy of contacting me with any concerns before deleting the page again.

Thank you.

Holzman-Tweed (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't cite notability concerns: Tracer9999, who proposed the deletion, did so. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the deleted article did not establish notability, lacking any references at all to reliable independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

:D LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Bsadowski1's talk page.
Message added 20:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bsadowski1 20:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism at the Seal (musician) article

Hi there. You semi-protected the Seal (musician) article, which is good, however you left the obvious vandalism of the vandalising IP editor on the same page. S/he adamantly writes nonsense into the image caption field of the infobox: "Seal with Rich Alderwick in Frankfurt, Germany (2006), performing at the "concert against Amsaim"." Concert against Amsaim? What kind of nonsense is that? This is not edit warring/content dispute but blatant vandalism. I have thusly removed this disruptive edit. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right. I didn't notice that the name "Amsaim" in the edits was the same as the name of another editor who had edited the article. Thanks for pointing it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi James - Lionel Richie is on my watchlist and I just noticed the same vandalism there and just for the record - I am the photographer who took the Lionel Richie image and updated his info box with a 2011 picture of Lionel. I was present at this live performance - I do not know who Rich Alderwick is, but he was never on stage with Lionel Richie.

Cheers Di --Diane (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Voice actor IP vandal is back

...using User:166.137.136.207 Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:TheTakeover Sockpuppet blocking

The user behind TheTakeover (user2005) appealed to another administrator that he is familiar with and had this block overturned, both on his main account and on the two sockpuppets. This is what the administrator said as evidence for overturning the block "There may be MEAT, there may be tag-team behaviour, but abuse of multiple accounts it is not. –xenotalk 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)"

It is my understanding that whether it was a meat or sock puppet isn't relevant and this admin seems to agree with the fact that it was at minimum a meetpuppet but alludes to some 'technical evidence' as a reason for the unblocking. You can read more about this at the ANI here or at the sockpuppet investigation. DegenFarang (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Getting tired

I'm getting really tired of spending my time on this. Again, he created Institute of Career Development among his other creations. Not to speak of his personal attack on me here. Any help with this will be appreciated. --Muhandes (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User:HelloAnnyong was really quick this time, I hardly managed to type this :) Thanks anyway, and would still appreciate you help on this in he future. I doubt he is done. --Muhandes (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Can you please delete the Nintendo Rival Consoles category?

I removed the category from the articles that had it, because, while true, it was not relevant. 69.228.91.234 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears the category is now on the bottom of this post, either that or the bottom of your talk page. Sorry. If someone removes it from your talk before you see it, the category that needs to be deleted is called "Nintendo Rival Consoles." 69.228.91.234 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the heading of this message so the category wouldn't show up on the bottom of your talk. 69.228.91.234 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the "Japan Only Video Game Hardware/accessories" category needs deleting too. 69.228.91.234 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Good article review

Could you please post a less personal version of your comment at Talk:Tim Pawlenty/GA1. User:Wasted Time R still seems to be dissatisfied. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So apparently an inability to read can make you a Wiki mod?

Pretty much what it says in the header. You revert back all my edits despite my declared reasons? Okay, the first one was out of line, but all of them? Can't you be bothered to read? Hell, you're already spending your life being the gestapo for a website you're not even paid to maintain, so what's a few more seconds of reading? Or are you one of those liberals who decides socialism is enough for everyone because they figure everyone is more stupid than them? God, stupid liberals are the cancer of America. Douche. Learn to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XTStarmaster (talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Kathryn Calder and Are You My Mother? (album)

Thank you for your help in protecting the articles! --CutOffTies (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of WikiAlpha

This should not have been deleted- it was not advertising, rather an article talking about another (also free, non profit) online encycleopedia which compliments this one and indirectly expressing the opinion that WikiAlpha is better and more friendly. Thanks Alicianpig (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

1. It was unambiguously written to promote and publicise its subject.
2. Expressing an opinion as to what is better in an article is totally contrary to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It was an essay. They CAN express an opinion Alicianpig (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, as you are well aware, it was written as an article, and only later moved into Wikipedia space and labelled "essay" when deletion seemed likely. Secondly, while writing "essays" on subjects related to editing of Wikipedia is accepted, using Wikipedia space for a piece written to promote opinions on a subject away from Wikipedia is a different matter altogether. Wikipedia space is not for keeping pages which are not about Wikipedia editing in order to evade policies on what is acceptable in an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Newbie Question

Sorry for my ignorance... What does "Procedural decline" mean? 15:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.235.139 (talk)

What I meant was that I was just going through the procedure of declining it so as to remove the unblock request (but not really declining in the sense of deciding that you should remain blocked). The reason for doing that is that if the unblock request were left and not dealt with, then a lot of administrators who check for unblock requests would see that there was one on that page, and waste their time checking to see whether it should be unblocked. Once the procedure of closing the unblock request has been gone through, it will no longer show up as a request waiting to be dealt with, so administrators won't spend time on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK Thanks. Should I propose new contributions on the talk page of the article and if there are no objections then later move them to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.235.139 (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BASIS Schools

Hi. You nominated BASIS Oro Valley for deletion. I am creating a new article at that page and at BASIS Tucson, just to inform you. I will also likely create three other BASIS articles.

I am not affiliated with BASIS Schools; rather, I am an editor specializing in Arizona schools. I personally disagree with the AfD and find BASIS a notable institution (especially with repeated high rankings). Most of them will be stubs, except for the Tucson article.

Please comment or offer advice. Raymie (t • c) 22:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The user you recently warned

I noticed you recently warned User:Andreasegde. I was wondering if you were aware of the many warnings the user has recently received. Quick archival makes it almost impossible to follow but you may want to keep a close eye on the user's edits. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the house keeping chores that you performed on my account. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Our Favorite Vandal

... is back. Didn't take very long, either. I'm tired of even creating one warning on yet another IP's talk page. George Carlin and Sterling Holloway now: it seems he thinks that BLP is not being violated, at least. Sigh... Doc talk 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This person is a real time sink. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that I have to keep on my watchlist these animated films that I've never seen (or care about at all) to protect BLP and BDP(?) from this joker. But he just will not stop. Totally bizarre. Doc talk 00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the articles targetted by this IP address had already been semiprotected, and I have done so again for 3 months. The others have no such history, and I have semiprotected them for one month. I have also blocked the IP address for 48 hours, though no doubt another one will appear. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But (groan) I found another one in 98.70.140.86 (talk · contribs). Frank Welker has always been a favorite target, and this IP has placed him in films he was not in with an odd "snake" motif[6][7][8]. He has also cast Brad Johnson in a series he does not seem to have been in according to the extensive IMDB cast list. Cleaning up after this guy is gonna suck. Doc talk 01:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I had a look through the edits of this IP address, and many of them are embedded among later edits by other people, so it's not just a question of rolling back all of the recent edits. It is also made more difficult by the fact that many of the edits seem to be OK, and I don't know enough about the subject to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. However, I did find enough disruptive editing to justify a block on the IP for a while. I have also semiprotected Filmography of Frank Welker, which has been particularly badly affected. If you would like to point out any other articles which have been repeatedly attacked over a significant period I will consider whether to semiprotect those too. However, I am not going to automatically protect every article the vandal has ever edited, because doing so might cause a disproportionate amount of collateral damage to innocent editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance! I usually bring it to your attention for the quick block (rather than bring it to AIV), and I fully agree with you about not needing to protect every article he hits, as it doesn't deter him in the least and the collateral damage is certainly not worth his nonsense. He's really gotten under my skin, and I'm looking to link as many accounts together as possible at this point. Many of the IPs link to the New York area, but some are in Florida. It may not be one single person, but it's a meat-puppet show if it isn't. I'll keep looking into it, and thanks again :> Doc talk 11:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Back again as User:166.137.139.153, from Long Island City, New York. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit War/Copyvio

Sorry, I didn't add the paragraph. The other editor removed it and I added it back, telling him to discuss it on the talk page, which he didn't.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a blatant copyvio, BRD does not apply. If it would have turned out to be clean, you could have added it then. And yes, you added it, a couple times. You have to take responsibility for your reverts.

My apologies for calling you funny, you so obviously are not. --91.10.26.218 (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't add it. I only restored it when you deleted it without discussion. Anyways, I've added a new, clean plot synopsis, so this discussion is over.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, you have to take responsibility for your reverts. --91.10.26.218 (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

My question is this: I wrote an article named Bilkent Erzurum since I am new here I was speedy deleted. I rewrote it making the required changes and according to the feedback given to me. I guess It wont be deleted again since I deleted all the mistakes bur still when I open the article after logging out as a normal wikipedia viewer I see the discussion part in red. When I click on it there is a text saying this article were deleted. Is it possible to remove that? Is my article now a real wikipedia article which wont be deleted but may be improved by you(I mean the admins) and me? Also, I added some photos to wikipedia but I got some messages which I did not understand clearly about some of them. Can you make them more clear for me to fix the mistake? All in all, I need to submit this article to my school administration to show that I added some information about the school but I need to be sure that it wont be deleted again. Can you as the compotent person clarify that point for me? Sorry for writing so much. Can you please leave a talkback on my page(I dont even know how to do it but I get lost while searching other talk pages) Thank you very much!

Good day, Aysinpir (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Community Standards: OE contribution

In compliance with Wiki guidelines that you should receive notification: you have been noted in a grievance discussion with regards to the OE page concerning failure uphold Wiki policies and guidelines which has now been escalated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatthecyberhate2 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Marqus55

Now adding offensive nonsense to talk page since he's blocked. Needs access revocation. Calabe1992 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection question

Hi James. I see that you recently salted Kelvin Lawrence as [create=sysop]. Just wondering if you could downgrade that protection to [create=autoconfirmed] so that good editors who are non-admins can create the article. See User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 34#Protections for a similar request (resulting from the same vandal?). Jenks24 (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of notability, but I've moved to semiprotection to give you a chance to prove me wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, at the moment he isn't notable, as he hasn't played a senior match. But by next week he might have and that would make him notable per WP:NSPORTS. A case could probably be made for GNG anyway, but I tend to wait until notability is assured before creating articles. Anyway, I've turned Kelvin Lawrence into a redirect and I'm wondering if you could also unprotect Tom McDonald (Australian footballer) (which you protected a couple of weeks ago) for the same reason. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

After 3 years, 7 months, and 5 days..

WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

At a quick glance it looks pretty good, but I don't have time to read it properly now. I will try to have a better look at it tomorrow, and let you know. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd much appreciate the extra set of eyes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Page protection of Seal (musician)

Hi there. The IP editor vandal is back again, adding unsourced nonsense material into the said article. It would be a good idea to semi-protect that article for a longer period to ensure that this annoying IP editor vandal no longer dumps his nonsense into Wikipedia. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Edgar181 got there before me and semiprotected it for a month. Do feel wlecome to get back to me if the problem continues after the month is up, and I will protect it for longer. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will do so. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

James - thanks for the unblock and other. Lloyd/Herbolzheim 82.11.178.239 (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam from "GOOD"

I have recently started receiving spam emails from something called "The daily GOOD". I have received this spam on an email account that I have never used for any purpose except replying to Wikipedia emails, so my email address must have been obtained by abusing the Wikipedia email service. I have only used the account to email a fairly limited number of Wikipedians. If anyone else has received spam from the same organisation then I will be very grateful if they can let me know. That way we should be able to work out which Wikipedia account has been abused in this way and block it, including disabling email access. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Haven't seen that yet, but if your wiki-associated email is gmail and something similar to your username here its 'easy' for someone to figure it out and spam it. A sockpuppet I blocked earlier this year tried various permutations of my username on gmail and 'figured it out' (as in, his emails got to me but I never replied so he has no confirmation that he hit the right one). Just a possibility. Syrthiss (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam correction

Hi JamesBWatson

Thanks for your correction. Just wanted to follow up on my addition on Maven article. Obviously made a mistake on linking to the meetup group page. Should I just mention the group and not put a link in the reference of the page?

Thanks for letting me know Cheers, InMktgWeTrust (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by InMktgWeTrust (talk • contribs) 12:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Copy-paste move

I was unaware that I could move the information like that. I will do this in the future for sure; thanks for telling me. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 23:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 74.13.202.11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, though I was watching anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Help regards warning system

Hi, I was prowling through my watchlist and noticed that here you went from my level 1 notice straight to a level 3. As you are an administrator, I assume this is the right way to do it. Could you fill me in with the details on when you can skip warnings? A few times I've had to go slowly up, warning by warning, watching the user continue to vandalise the wiki. Is their an essay on it? Thanks,--Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 11:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Personally, when I "skip" levels it's usually due to severity/frequency. For example, if they vandalized once and got a level 1, vandalized 3 more times before being warned again, I'd likely skip. Similarly, if their first vandalism has ethnic overtones/BLP issues (as an example) I might skip right to a higher warning (or even block). I don't recommend it for everyone ... it's a gut-feel thingy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't any essay on it, but for what it's worth I will describe the sort of principles I tend to follow. First of all, the idea that you always have to go through all the levels is common but certainly mistaken: there are even a few warning templates such as {{uw-vandalism4im}} specifically designed for giving an immediate level 4 warning to a user who has not yet been warned. I should emphasise that those are for use only in very exceptional circumstances, but the fact that they exist shows that it is accepted that it is not always necessary to go through all four levels. Level one templates generally assume good faith, in some cases a good deal of good faith. I often use these in cases where I actually doubt that the editing was done in good faith, but I draw the line at saying something like "It might not have been your intention, but..." when the editor has made a string of edits which quite clearly could not have been done in good faith, and where it quite obviously was intentional. I therefore frequently start at level two. However, there is a good deal of judgement involved: even if an edit was clearly unacceptable, I may give a level one warning if I feel it may have been some kid making tentative experiments in editing Wikipedia by trying something random, rather than an intention to do harm. However, if the editor has been given a level one warning in a case where I think that assuming good faith was being hyper-generous (i.e. where I think an immediate level two would have been justified) and has continued with one or more further edits which are clearly out and out vandalism, with good faith being out of the question, then I am perfectly willing to jump from level one to level three: if a user has been warned and is continuing to vandalise then they need to know that they are in danger of being blocked. However, I would only do this in cases where it seems to me the editor is unambiguously acting in bad faith. If in doubt take the slow route, both because of the need to avoid biting editors and to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and also because if and when the case is referred to an administrator at WP:AIV or elsewhere, if it looks as though inappropriate warnings have been given, then there is a chance that the admin will decline to take action. There are really no rules for this sort of thing: it's just a matter of experience and judgement, but in my opinion if an editor quite clearly and unambiguously has no intention of editing constructively then it is rarely necessary to wait for four warnings and further trouble after that: one or other of the levels can usually be skipped. However, I should also like to make one other point. While I quite often jump up a level if I think there is a lack of good faith, I also quite often do the opposite if I think there is good faith and an innocent failure to understand Wikipedia's ways. Not only will I sometimes repeat a level rather than move up, but I will also give what is in effect a "level 0" warning, i.e. a friendly note explaining the problem in my own words, without the formal and potentially intimidating manner of even a level one templated warning. In my opinion there is more harm done in Wikipedia by editors being too aggressive with warning messages than by being too tentative. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I think I will not skip levels because the admins at WP:AIV seem to believe a million warnings are needed to get across. You, however, you of course need not go through that process.

Regards my user page, I wouldn't mind if it was fully protected, let alone semi protected. I do not think I will need to edit it again. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 13:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Matthew ... you picked up on something I was actually going to say: AIV typically wants to see a history of warnings, so yes, skipping from 1 to 4 might not get the same action as going 1-2-3-4 (or even 1-2-4). Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Akhmetov

They ("Orekhova" and "Komul") are doing the same thing, none of their claims were resolved but they keep blanking information. Last time this happened, the users who did EXACTLY as these two are doing, goth IP bans for disruptive editing and socking. I'm kind of at a disadvantage here if they are going to tag team to skirt the 3RR and blank mod-approved sources without offering any real discussion.--Львівське (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept your point, and I have warned those two editors. Thanks for pointing it out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I was taking a wiki-break so I neglected to follow up on the past wars I was having with the two, but I'll get back on this article now. The biggest problem here is that many sources are just lumped together as one giant "BLP violation"; they have a problem with every source. They can't just blank and force me to go through an approval process on every single link or journal article used, its a war of attrition.--Львівське (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear James, thank you for your message. Львівське is not putting anything new to the article; on the contrary, he keeps reverting to his version, for whatever reasons, known only to him, breaking by that logical and chronological order, blanking the verified facts and therefore nullifying my efforts I have applied to organize the facts and sections logically and to back them up by verified sources. You are very welcome to check this by comparing our latest revisions. Best regards, --Orekhova (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

While I have not added anything 'new', I have restored vast quantities of deleted material that you blanked for no real reason. That's the crux of this issue.--Львівське (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Gurmukh (yoga teacher)

Dear "B" -

I responding to a message from wikipedia that you apparently feel the above article should be deleted because: no evidence of notability; no independent sources.

Notability -

If there were to be a listing of North America's 25 most popular yoga teachers, I am sure Gurmukh would be in that listing, perhaps in the top ten. Since there is no such listing, we can go by teachers' participation in yoga festivals and concerts and touring and workshops. Gurmukh also has two yoga centers - in NYC and in LA. When I googled her full name, "Gurmukh Kaur Khalsa" 366,000 articles came up. She has 249 Youtube videos. Then there are her own popular publications: 3 classic videos and 2 books.

Independent sources -

The article cites five magazine articles, including one from Yoga Journal, the biggest, longest-running and most credible yoga magazine in North America; and others from Vanity Fair, Vogue, Mothering Magazine and LA Yoga. The web-zine totallyzen.com and the resource site yogatech.com are also indicated as sources.

Respectfully yours,

Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Return of the edit warring monger

• Fleetham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on → Singapore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
• Hello James, the last time you reviewed this guy's block (after his block expired), he was blocked for 48 hours due to his constant edit warring nature, he's now edit warring on the article page of Singapore, repeatedly inserting the opinion piece of a journalist without credible sources to back him back. This was done by him despite my invite to him to discuss this on an Admin's talk page and it took him almost two weeks to finally show up on the article's discussion page, his latest reply shows no intention of doing so too. TBH, I think its time for him to go, for repeatedly conducting blind reverts without verifying on the sources content, which is no different from tendentious editing behaviour. Wikipedia can do without such disruptive editors, for sure. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Blinky Bill

Would you kindly unprotect the articles. Stop reverting people's requests for unprotecting. I will one day if I get an account create personal articles for the seasons. Please do not block me but this is something useful to Deltasim.

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.yoramgrossfilms.com.au/images/projects/blinkytv2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.yoramgrossfilms.com.au/completed/blinkytv.html&h=390&w=330&sz=95&tbnid=UogSoFARieSY3M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=76&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dblinky%2Bbill%2Bcharacters%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=blinky+bill+characters&docid=bGQarsgp75BQcM&sa=X&ei=_B1OTvvNII7KiAL96dCKAQ&ved=0CFMQ9QEwCQ&dur=133

It's a Season 3 dvd. Now I'm not harrasing or being rude but I'd like the Blinky Bill articles to kindly be unprotected if you please. 58.110.243.245 (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Abusive email: the sequel

Hi; please could I draw your attention to this post? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 09:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; forgot to let you know that they've been blocked since I posted the message above. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Creating Astrid Bryan Article

I would like to create a previous deleted article Astrid Bryan. She is one of the most famous woman in Belgium and Holland. I will put some references so you can see if she is notable enough for a new Astrid Bryan article. She has already a Dutch Wikipedia. (http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrid_Bryan).

. http://astridtakingover.com Official site http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3055666/ http://vtm.be/vlaamse-hollywood-vrouwen http://www.net5.nl/web/show/id=1487864/langid=43/dbid=553/typeofpage=78934 http://www.vijftv.be/programma_astridinw_blog.php

NHOJ38 (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternate account

Hi, I recently made an alternate account because I am tired of using SSL in public locations. I've requested confirmed status, because I've seen other users do it with their alts, but I'm wondering if rollback is givable on alt accounts. Maybe I shouldn't bother, in case the account gets hacked? But it would be useful as I could vandal hunt w/rollback at work, etc. PS this is a little awkward, since you just protected my page, but could you add {{User alternative account name|Thompson.matthew (alt)}} on my page. Thanks. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 03:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, I don't think I'll need it. I'll just get Twinkle. Too dangerous, a hacker could go crazy. Could you please, however, fully protect User:Thompson.matthew (alt), User talk:Thompson.matthew (alt) (it redirects to my talk page, no need for anyone to write on it) and add that template above. Thanks! --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Joel Tippett

I would like to created the article Joel Tippett, since he is (now) a notable person, having made his AFL debut. Please unprotect this page. StAnselm (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've unptotected to allow StAnselm to create the article and pre-empt the banned user. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted page: Christene Ledoux... why?

May I ask why Christene Ledoux's page was deleted? I notice you have copyright infringement listed as a reason, but I happen to know she was aware of the page and perfectly happy with what was on it. I haven't seen it lately, but the last I recall, it certainly didn't look like promotion, any more than 90% of the artist pages out there.

I like her music, and know her from the net. That's it. I have no dog in this hunt.

Thanks, Miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadkills-r-us (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What was the article called? I can't find it in the deletion log. If it was deleted for G11 (copyright violation), then you probably copy and pasted the article from another website. If it was also marked for A7, you didn't explain why the subject is significant, that is why the subject should be included in the encyclopedia. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 03:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I can't find a deletion log for it either. No article called Christene Ledoux has ever existed. In case there was a spelling mistake I also tried checking the last 15,000 entries in my log (that goes back to 5 August 2010), and there was no article I have deleted containing "Ledoux, "Christene" or "Christine" in its title. Unless you can give the exact tile of the article I can't see any way I can help. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Capitalizations are your undoing. Try Christene LeDoux, which you, James, deleted as ‎"G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of http://www.last.fm/music/Christene+LeDoux/+wiki and http://www.christeneledoux.com/bio.html G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I will add that crap like "LeDoux's down to earth approachability and heart-warming songs are quickly winning the hearts of both fan and industry alike" has no place in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Orange Mike. I thought of Christine/Christene, but not of LeDoux/Ledoux. Deleted 5 July 2010, exactly one month further back than where I gave up searching. Well, to answer the original query, I think the quote that Orange Mike has given is enough to illustrate the totally promotional nature of the article. I'm not surprised that Christene Ledoux was "perfectly happy with what was on it": it was pretty solid advertising. If you mean that she was the copyright owner and was happy for the text to be used, then I could give you a link to instructions on how to provide the Wikimedia foundation with evidence of copyright permission, but frankly I think it would be wasting your time, as it would simply be deleted again as totally promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it not possible that Christene/Christine did not know the rules? She did not create the original article and only added to it, unknowingly 'bio' thinking it meant her actual bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prettycontent (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)

Please review the map, the work of Tofanelli et al, Hassan et al, and comment in the discussions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HG_J1_(ADN-Y)
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384897/figure/FG1/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
Essentially, the issue is whether J1 dominates in Sudan and the Caucasus at over 60%. John Lloyd Scharf 09:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Luxriot.V requesting unblock

See this editor's new statement which I think means he won't recreate the article unless it passes a review. Would you consider this sufficient? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've unblocked the user. Thanks for calling my attention to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Block Request

Hello James, I just want to ask you to maybe temporarily block User:Sourav1807 after he vandalized the article of Indian football club Kingfisher East Bengal F.C. in a very heavy and rude way. For example he messed up the squad list by changing the name of a few players like Alan Gow whose name was changed to (Alan Cow) and Tolgay Ozbey whose name was changed to Gay. I would not mind this if this was an IP user because this could be easily fixed but because it was by an actual Wiki user who signed up for an account and then use it for vandalism, well I see that as very wrong and very blockable. Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)  Done - but indefinitely, as the account has done nothing at all except vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Request you reconsider umblock denial for User:Jm1106

Well, you declined the request, not on the merits, but rather on technical grounds (only the blocked user can use {{unblock}}, according to you). But this is pettifoggery, about which see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Will you reconsider? (If you want to decline the block on the merits rather than on a technicality, that'd be different.)

If you don't, I guess I'll have to go to WP:ANI and make the request, after which you (or maybe some other admin) will then be able to make the unblock (assuming the request is found to be valid on the merits), am I reading you right? This really seems like unnecessary paper-shuffling and a waste of everyone's time and energy, yes? So would you reconsider? Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pettifoggery"? "Bureaucracy"? Why unblock an editor who has not requested an unblock? If the user wants to be unblocked then they can say so, and their request can be considered. If the user doesn't want to be unblocked, then what is the purpose in unblocking? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I was going to decline for exactly the same reasons by the way (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, OK. So first of all, just to make sure that we're on the same page, you and I are in agreement that the user was was blocked wrongly and by mistake. We're in agreement on that, right? Or else you don't know if the user was blocked wrongly and by mistake, you didn't look into it, in which case you can take my word for it: he was. Well, why didn't he request an unblock himself then? There's a number of reasons I can think of:

1. Maybe he doesn't know he's blocked -- he hasn't been back since the block.
2. Maybe he doesn't care if he was blocked -- he had no intention of making further contributions anyway.
3. Maybe he's appalled and disgusted at how he was treated, threw up his hands, and is now down at Joe's regaling a table about what a clusterfuck the Wikipedia is.
4. Maybe he's daunted or confused by the unblock request process and doesn't know what to do.
5. Maybe he's a spammer who's been caught red-handed, knows it, and realizes he has no case to make for unblock.
6. Maybe he thinks he's done something wrong and deserves to be blocked.

It could be any one of these and maybe there's others I haven't thought of. Well, if it's any of these except #5, there's no reason not to unblock him. True, if it's #2, there's no benefit to unblocking him, and if it's #3 it's probably too late for there to be any benefit (but maybe not, if a proper apology is supplied). If it's #1 or #4 or #6 there would be a benefit, assuming he intends to make further contributions. If it's #1 and we could quickly unblock him maybe no damage is done. Only if it's #5 would it be out of order to unblock him. But #5 is impossible, because he didn't do anything wrong. Even if he's the owner of GateHouse New England he didn't do anything wrong because the links are valid anyway and per WP:COI an interest in a given contribution does not automatically invalidate an otherwise valid contribution.

OK. so the situation is:

1. The person was blocked in error. We're all in agreement on that. (And with neither warning, engagement, or sufficiently detailed explanation, at that.)
2. And there are no credible scenarios where correcting the error would be unbeneficial to the Wikipedia.
3. But there are several credible scenarios where correcting the error (and apologizing) would be beneficial to the Wikipedia.

So what am I missing here? Correct the error. Yes, probably at this point the user isn't going to come back. I wouldn't. (But you never know.) But it's a matter of principle. When a mistake is made, and this is pointed out, and everyone agrees that it was a mistake, the proper course of action is to rectify the mistake. Right? This is how functional and successful organizations operate. Do you want to be part of a functional and successful organization and contribute that success, or do you want to be part of dysfunctional and unsuccessful organization and contribute to that failure? We are having trouble retaining new good contributors and wrongly indef blocking them is probably not the best way to address that, n'est-ce pas?

WP:BURO is a policy. It's not an essay or guideline. You're supposed to follow it and in fact as an admin are honor-bound to do so. It's not an personal insult to cite policy. So -- come on. I ask you again to follow the policy. Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many things I could say in answer to your rather long message, but I will restrict myself to one of them. Why on earth do you presume that it goes without saying that the block was a "mistake"? As you know, SchuminWeb and Thparkth have both explicitly said that they don't think so, and Wikiklrsc has made statements that suggest that he doesn't think so, so I can't see how you can possibly think it goes without saying, and that I must agree with you unless I "didn't look into it". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well fine. But look, your unblock-decline reason was "If the user wants to be unblocked then they can say so, and their request can be considered. So far that has not happened." Suppose User:HMSForestall vandalizes, and User:HMSForrestal is blocked by mistake (due to the similarity of names). Even then you would decline an unblock request I would gather, on the grounds that the blocked user had not himself personally made the request. Right? As far as I know at the time you hadn't investigated the substance of the block, or at any rate I gather this based on your unblock reason and your early defense of your action ("Why unblock an editor who has not requested an unblock?"). To my mind that's a technicality, and when you consider that the downside is pissing away a perfectly good editor it makes no sense (and violates policy).

Now, since then you've indicated here and elsewhere that you think the block was good on its merits. That's very different. Whether you're right or wrong about that I can't say for sure, and whether or not you're disinterestedly examining the merits of the case or casting about for new arguments to defend what you did (a strong human tendency, after all) only you can know. But I can accept a decline on the merits. Herostratus (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hero, from what has been established, James, myself, and few others do not agree it was a mistake. Jm1106 has posted on her own talk page, stating she is a girl, but nothing else regards a request for unblock. Either she doesn't know how, or doesn't care. Most people can figure out an unblock request, by the big template up the top with simple instructions. --Matthew Thompson (alt) ^{talk to me bro!} 06:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. The person did come back. "Stating she is a girl, but nothing else regards a request for unblock" is not a very good characterization of her post, the rest of which was "Um, what happened? I added some links and this whole crazy drama unfolded? I guess that's all the Wikipedia contributions I'll be making". I would take that as denial of wrongdoing and just a de facto unblock request, and your point that maybe she "doesn't know how" (to use the {{unblock}} template) and should therefore be ignored is another example of paper-shuffling pettifoggery. (There's also a subtext that if she isn't among the "Most people [who] can figure out an unblock request" she's too stupid to be editing the Wikipedia, which is belied by her actual article edits.) Granted, "I guess that's all the Wikipedia contributions I'll be making" could be taken as sign that an unblock would be moot. However, as a matter of principle we should unblock her and offer an abject apology. Maybe she'll come back then. You never know. Herostratus (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh whoops, mistake on my part. I didn't read the first bit as the reply wasn't formatted properly. She still could have requested unblock herself. Also, I am not calling her an idiot.--Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 23:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Niki Raapana

You PRODded this - at least, you sorted out the reasons for a PROD by an IP with no other edits - and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so I have restored it and notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. See also the identical User:Nraapana/Niki raapana and likely connection between SPA users Stopcp (talk · contribs) and Nraapana (talk · contribs). JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability of High Schools

I am not positive, but you may have once told me that consensus has shown that all high schools are notable. If you did not say that, I am sorry for the mistake. Regardless, there is a discussion going on at Talk:Salmon High School on the notability of High Schools. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In discussion after discussion I have seen it asserted that there is consensus that all high schools are inherently notable. I used to think this was nonsense, but once someone explained the reasoning behind it, and pointed me to discussion on the question from years ago, and when I read it I found it made some sense. Unfortunately I don't now remember what the arguments were, nor where the discussion took place. I was not 100% convinced, but I think my position shifted from "of course high schools are not automatically notable" to "well, there is a reasonable case for high schools being automatically notable, and there seems to be a substantial degree of consensus for that view, so I'll accept it". I see that Jimbo Wales doesn't think they are automatically notable. However, in my experience the likelihood of an AfD on a high school resulting in "delete" is zero (unless nobody can find verification that the school even exists). That effectively means that, whatever you or I or Jimbo or anyone else thinks, to all practical purposes high schools are automatically treated as notable. Having said that, there is nothing to say that consensus can't change. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 09:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User talk:Wustenfuchs

Based on his new statement, I would be OK with unblocking Wustenfuchs. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What abt review, should I finish it, or you can asign this job to some other reviewer? Contact some volunteers, because review is open for 3-4 days with no edits at all. --Wustenfuchs 12:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.-- DQ (t) (e) 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Complaint

Hello.

I am curious why you think my article "CheeseDaddy" is inappropiate. I fail to see how the article was inaproppiate. Please explain to me about this.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotTrialz (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DoDo Bird Brain tagged the article for deletion, and posted a message to your talk page about it being inappropriate, and NawlinWiki deleted it. I can find no sign of anywhere where I said that it was inappropriate, or even mentioned it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

GAN of Spanish Civil War

Now Wustenfuchs' status has been resolved, could you please either confirm he is able to complete the review, or else rule him out? Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think that was not accepted, but you may consult EdJohnston, who established the topic ban, if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Could you please offer me some advice regarding this issue? It all started after I made a comment on this talk-page. Is it legitimate to revert this edit to my user-page? I explained the reasons on Zalinda Zenobia's talk-page. Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Voice cast vandal

Now using IP 75.213.79.171 and 71.57.112.65 Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Both blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, as always. They're now back as 75.213.187.184. Any chance of some kind of range block here? This is getting monotonous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have put a short term range block that covers the two 75.213.x.x addresses you give, but the other one is much too far away to include in the same range. There is also a problem with range blocks at the moment, because the tool for checking the editing history of an IP range isn't working. This means that I have no way of knowing whether the range is being used only for vandalism, or whether there are hundreds of constructive edits from the same range. I am very reluctant to block a significant range for more than a very short time under these circumstances. I have asked the user responsible for the tool for help, but so far have received no response. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable. With luck, the tool will be up and running at some point and perhaps the range block can be expanded in some way to help keep this person at bay. In the meantime, I guess it's Whack-a-Mole! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the 71.57.... is him: it's in Chicago on Comcast, whereas the two 75.213...'s are unquestionably him, as he uses this exact range using Verizon wireless for many of his edits. Thanks for cleaning up his garbage again, BMK! Doc talk 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, sorry about the misidentification -- itchy trigger finger! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Brazilian vandal

Hi there JAMES, VASCO here,

i noticed that you duly blocked this Brazilian vandal (nothing more nothing less, a VANDAL - please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:177.0.204.119), however it's a lost battle.

From what i see he has TONS of anon IPs (in the region of 10-15), including this one (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.30.65.79), where you can see the same pattern (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andoni_Iraola&diff=442429828&oldid=437229729 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gorka_Iraizoz&diff=442429669&oldid=438109239 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Chica&diff=442696756&oldid=440289854 for example), stuff in box removed without one word of explanation. This IP too has been warned, to no avail. Ah, and he may also be User:Bruno corinthiano, warned in his talkpage for akin behaviour (i.e. removal of captions in infobox pictures).

Attentively, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

71.3.234.41

More ban evasion. Could you address it please? Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My article about Tarkett

Hello James, I have been re-editing my article about Tarkett over the summer to address your concerns about "notablity". I have found quite a number of articles from independent sources that discuss certain and distinct sections of my article. Could you please have a look when you have a minute and let me have your comments. Many thanks in advance and best regards, BBPMB (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Open IP issue - it's a Starbucks

Hello. Msg regarding User talk:74.223.65.82. --Brad Patrick (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Association of Croatian Orthodox Believers

I made this article. Word Ustaše is mentioned by other user. However, association has no conection to nazism or fascism (see official page). It is religious organization. You can read whole article, it does not violate my topic ban. I reported my self so you don't think I make dirty buissines.

Regards. --Wustenfuchs 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

FxStat Article Deleted

Hello. I would like to know on what grounds exactly you deleted the article "FxStat". I see you mentioned "unambiguous advertising or promotion", but none of the words I used was favouring this company or putting others in a bad light. I tried to keep an unbiased tone and I think I managed to. So can you please give me some examples of unambiguous advertising? Secondly, you mentioned "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" - it was an article about one of the top companies in an area that grew quite a lot lately, retail forex. And can you clarify why FxStat is not important, while Currensee is? Currensee is one of this company's direct competitors and I can see it has a page on Wikipedia. Maybe I was too enthusiastic with this company, but I wasn't trying to create promotional material, so please help me with some more details about your decision. Thanks, Myaccount fx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

• (talk page stalker) I have just read the wholly promtional article, and I have to say "ouch". What's supposedly so notable about the business that it deserves an encyclopedia entry? What's so notable that not only did you create it once, but three times - each after being deleted. Businesses that do not meet notability under WP:CORP are unfortunately not yet appropriate for inclusion - and making WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are not helpful at all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The article said that FxStat is "a financial services company that launched in April 2010 its first product", but did nothing to indicate that it is a significant or important company. There was not a single statement in the article that was not fully consistent with its being a fairly ordinary run of the mill business. I also made web searches to seek evidence of significance, and found none, For example, the first couple of dozen Google hits for "FxStat" largely consist of the company's own web site, a press release site, twitter, facebook, Wikipedia, youTube etc. Some of the hits are not even for this company at all. As for promotion, there was no single sentence that screamed out "This is promotion", but the character of the article as a whole was promotional, appearing to be written to tell us all about what a good thing FxStat is, and what facilities it offers us. Three different editors have either tagged the article as advertising or nominated it for speedy deletion, three different administrators have deleted it, and another administrator has indicated (above) agreement that it was promotional and lacked indication of notability, so it looks to me as though there is a clear consensus about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Change to equivalence relation

On 09:58, 7 June 2010, you restored the statement stating that within the natural numbers, the property of being even is not an equivalence relation. "Being even" is reflexive in this case, which means it is an equivalence relation.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation >

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.253.80 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 3 September 2011

The relation referred to is defined on the set of integers by "let two elements of A be related if they are both even numbers". In this case 3 is not related to 3, so the relation is not reflexive. If the same definition is used to define a relation on the set of even integers then it does indeed define an equivalence relation, but it is defined on the set of integers. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at [[User talk:BBPMB (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)|User talk:BBPMB (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IP not quite worthy of your trust

Shortly after you unblocked 94.8.193.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), they went and did this, so I sent them back to the sin bin. Favonian (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

yes. There was a good deal of WP:ROPE in my unblock, and the user has now provided ample justification not only for the original block, but in my opinion for a longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian vandal - Part 2

Hi there JAMES, VASCO here,

In the message #6 of this page ("Brazilian vandal"), i reported a "user" who goes at his pace, removing stuff in boxes and akin, without one word in summary and/or talkpage conversations. You duly blocked him, i received no reply whatsoever but that's ok, WP is the most important not me.

After the warnings and the block, what did he do? THIS (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalu_Uche&diff=448670841&oldid=447725259), please deal with this individual accordingly if you see fit. Attentively, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theunknownnun/Archive

User is now regularly creating socks in order to continue editing pages of child actresses. If you can, do keep any pages he has edited on your watchlist - any new edits might be by new socks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

bumblebeez

i change the bumblebeez page because it is incorrect ,they where not booed of stage!?? and all the information there is negative and not nice,it is not fact more a article of someone slagging them of! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpum123 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Small request

In this edit, would you mind removing the statement you made in parentheses? I don't think it really needs to be pointed out that I, Silvercitychristmasisland, sign as "SilverCity" instead of using my long, obnoxious username. (Just look at it. It annoys you. Four words, no spaces, twenty-five letters. You hate it. It's okay to admit it.) Is someone going to come along and think "SilverCity" and "Silvercitychristmasisland" are two different people, or one person and a sockpuppet, editing the same obscure deletion discussion? It makes me wonder if someone will point out that my signature doesn't match my username every time I say anything. The username "SilverCity" has already been taken, and I really don't feel like trying to figure out how to usurp it right now. And for that matter, there are tons of people whose usernames don't match their signatures.

If not, no big deal. Just thought I'd ask. SilverCity 02:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And for that matter, "CityOfSilver" isn't taken and I'm going to try to change to it, so feel free to make this an even lower priority. SilverCity 02:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I regularly provide a gloss of "who signs as..." when referring to posts by people whose signatures differ from their user names, to avoid misunderstandings, but I agree that in your case it's not really necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And it is now a moot point. CityofSilver 20:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

JamesBWatson, thank you for the unblock and I would just like to confirm to you that I was not the one to have operated that account that was the reason for my account block in the first place. Sense the computer I use this account on is a family computer I am just going out there and saying that it could have been my brother and or his friends. Very sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for unblocking me. Arsenalkid700, 12 August 2011, 22:04 (UTC)

John A Rowland High School

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Sbelder8's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelder8 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 August 2011