User talk:JBW/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Ngabirano Emmanuel

Hello! You recently speedy-deleted the above article without realizing it was at AfD. (The article's author had removed the tag.) A few days later you realized it and closed the AfD. During the course of that AfD the article had been moved to Emmanuel Ngabirano, which you also deleted. But User:Ngabirano Emmanuel immediately recreated it; I think this is the second or possibly the third time they have restored this article after deletion (you would have access to those records as I do not). This author may need a stern talking-to; issues now include recreating deleted articles, writing autobiographical articles, and (apparently) running two accounts, User:Ngabirano Emmanuel and User:Emmanuel Ngabirano Nshema. I assume these things are done in innocence of the rules rather than deliberate defiance - the poor quality of the article suggests a limited knowledge of English - but they are still a problem. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked both accounts, salted the article, and gave him a reading list including WP:AUTO, WP:EW and WP:BRD before requesting unblock. JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have done much the same, but I was busy getting a cup of coffee, so you were able to beat me to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You have very efficient talk page stalkers! ;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

CSD Nominations

Thank you for going through all the CSDs I've been tagging. Please let me know if I miscategorize as I'm a bit new to NPP/CSD and would gladly invite any feedback. Cheers. Odie5533 (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, when that message arrived, I was actually thinking about posting a message to your talk page thanking you for your good work. I haven't yet seen any problems with your tagging. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialist Studies (2005)

I note you recently speedily deleted the above-noted article on the grounds of unambiguous copyright infringement. I was the original contributor of that page but didn't receive any notice of the deletion. I had a look at my local copy of the article text, the current Socialist Studies web page, and past versions of it from archive.org. At the time of its creation, the only text the Wikipedia article had in common with the official web page was the phrase "will adopt a critical perspective which will shed light on, and offer remedies for, any form of social, economic, or political injustice". This ought to have been either paraphrased or put in quotation marks with a reference to the source. (I don't have any recollection as to why it wasn't. I think you already know from my work at WP:CP, WP:CCI, etc. that I was as familiar with copyright laws and policy then as I was now. I can only assume that this was a very glaring oversight on my part.) Anyway, given that the remaining text in the article was entirely original, either of these solutions would have been preferable to deleting the article. I can see why you thought the entire article was a copyright infringement, though: apparently Socialist Studies copied and pasted text from the Wikipedia article into their official website when it was redesigned some time in 2011 or 2012. This included not only the original unattributed quotation, but also some extra text surrounding it.

Perhaps you could restore the article; I'll source or reword the problematic phrase and you can revdel the offending entries from the page history. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the article, and will let you edit it as you think fit. Sorry I somehow forgot to notify you of the deletion, I certainly intended to. For the publishers to copy and paste text from Wikipedia is odd: do you have any link to show them doing it? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the page. It looks like, after my initial creation of the article, other editors added a lot of text to it; some of this text also appears on the Socialist Studies website. I'll investigate who copied from whom and let you know what I find. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. It looks like the only problems with the article were the phrase mentioned above, which was added by me, and one sentence added by User:Passport19 but copied from http://www.socialiststudies.com/index.php/sss. I rephrased the former and removed the latter. If you think it's necessary you can revdel all the previous revisions of the page.

Regarding the back-and-forth copying, you can see the Socialist Studies website at roughly the time I created the article via the Wayback Machine archive. Notice the "will adopt a critical perspective…" phrase, which occurs as part of a longer sentence, and which I mistakenly copied verbatim into the Wikipedia article as part of a slightly different sentence. However, if you visit the current version of the journal's website you'll see that their longer sentence has been changed to match the different one I wrote on Wikipedia ("Typically, articles will adopt…"). I think that when their website was overhauled some time in the last year or so, some lazy copywriter decided to use the version from Wikipedia rather than rewrite their existing material. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To save you the trouble...

... I've already requested oversight on User:Akis Kan's edits. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have replied to your comments about the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Noble

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

Jeremy Mark Noble (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion of User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique

Hello. I am here to inquire about the recent speedy deletion of my User subpage in which I demonstrated why the writings of Jeffrey Woodward are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. The page cannot meet G10, since it was not an "attack page": it was intended solely as a concise summary of my arguments against this particular non-academic writer (who has made extremely offensive and ridiculous statements about Japanese literature and culture) and my reasons why he should not be cited or promoted via Wikipedia. The Wikipedia:Single-purpose account that nominated it has been attempting repeatedly to post Woodward-inspired material onto Wikipedia and to undermine my edits on unrelated pages. I created the page solely so I wouldn't have to constantly repeat the same arguments against said single-purpose account. I don't see how a page I created in my user space, which did not threaten or attack any particular person, should be deleted. It also cannot meet G11, since it was not promotional in any way -- unlike most of the material added by the single-purpose account that nominated the page. If the page must remain deleted, can I at least get some advice on dealing with this particularly disruptive user in a more constructive manner? I have tried taking a Wikibreak, but that didn't work; I tried ignoring his edits and going back to only editing articles related to my area of interest (Japanese literature), but he continued to post spam on those pages; I tried going and editing completely unrelated pages, but he followed me there and continued posting personal attacks and attempting to undermine my edits. I don't honestly understand the procedures for RfC and Arbitration, but I am beginning to tire of the constant Wikihounding of this user. :( elvenscout742 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have restored the page. It comes fairly close to being an attack page, and it certainly exists to promote a point of view. However, on reflection, in the context in which it exists, and as a userspace page, I think it was a mistake to delete it. Please accept my apology. I have added a "no index" tag to it, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. Thank you for your kind consideration of the circumstances. I will alter the language so it does not give the false impression of being an attack page. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocking a range of IP's

I wasn't signed in and went to fix a broken link on a page and got this:

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.

You are still able to view pages, but you are now not able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 99.181.128.0/19 has been blocked (disabled) by JamesBWatson for the following reason(s):

All or very nearly all edits from this IP range are from one very long-term disruptive editor who ignores all messages about consesnsus etc, and evades blocks.

This block has been set to expire: 20:57, 23 November 2012.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and E-mail other editors and administrators.

I really don't understand the need to block a whole range of IP's -- simply blocking the offending IP should be a sufficient deterrent in most cases. Even if it is not a static IP most people don't know the difference. I understand you have good intentions as an active Wikipedia editor but this seems a bit arbitrary and authoritarian, it is likely ineffective at stopping a determined vandal, who could simply use a proxy server to get around the block.

Did you do a a WHOIS and Reverse DNS lookup on the IP address? You are blocking anyone using AT&T Internet Services in a large area of west Michigan. Based on the rangeblock calculator at http://toolserver.org/~chm/blockcalc.php up to 8192 users are being blocked. Do you believe that that is a proportional response? 8192 seems like heavy collateral damage given the nature of the problem.

Infohack (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

1. "Simply blocking the offending IP should be a sufficient deterrent in most cases." Yes, indeed, and in the overwhelming majority of cases I block no more than one IP address. However, because a particular course of action is not justified "in most cases", it does not follow that it is not justified in exceptional cases.
2. "Did you do a a WHOIS and Reverse DNS lookup on the IP address?" Certainly I did. I wouldn't dream of doing such a range block without doing so.
3. The toolserver statement that "up to 8192 users" will be blocked is misleading. It means "up to 8192 IP addresses". A study of a random sample of 200 of those IP addresses indicates that well over 90% of those IP addresses have never been used for editing Wikipedia. 199 of those 200 have not edited Wikipedia during the last 18 months. Of the very few that have edited in that time, it is perfectly clear that each of them was used by just one person for a brief time. ("A brief time" is sometimes a matter of minutes, rarely more than a matter of hours, and never more than a few days.) Even if each of the IP addresses was used by a different person, the number of people likely to affected by a three month block will be a tiny fraction of the figure of 8192 that you quote. Moreover, it is clear from the nature of the edits that it is not a question of a number of users each using one IP address. It is perfectly obvious that almost all of the edits have been from one person, who moves on to a new IP address frequently. Based on the full editing history (not just a sample) from the IP range in recent months, the expectation of the number of editors affected is about two, including the disruptive editor who was responsible for the block being imposed.
4. "It is likely ineffective at stopping a determined vandal, who could simply use a proxy server to get around the block." Nothing we can do is guaranteed to stop a determined vandal who knows enough to get round blocks. However, in practice, blocking usually does stop vandals, and even when it doesn't it slows them down. The fact that a method is not always effective is not a reason for not using it in the large proportion of cases where it is effective.
5. I blocked for three months. If my only concern had been with stopping the disruption, the block would have been for a period of several years, but it was drastically reduced to minimise collateral damage. On the one hand we have a huge number of disruptive edits by one disruptive editor over a period of years, and on the other hand a tiny number of edits by others, with long gaps between them. Based on statistics of past use, the block stands to stop hundreds of disruptive edits, and about one constructive edit. Range blocking is a last resort, because there is always a risk of collateral damage, but when the likely benefit outweighs the likely damage in such a huge ratio, it can be justifiable.
6. I never make any kind of range block, even for one day on a range covering 4 IP addresses, without first checking the history of the edits from that range over a time period substantially longer than the time of the block, to assess the cost/benefit relationship. If there has been more than a tiny handful of constructive edits in that time period, then I don't block, even if the number of disruptive edits has been enormous.
7. Almost all of your complaint seems to be about the practice of range blocking in general, rather than with the circumstances of this particular block. If you think that range blocking should never be done, then this is the wrong place to complain, because what you want is a change in Wikipedia's blocking policy, and objecting to one administrator because he or she implements that policy is missing the point.
8. A little while before reading your message I was reading another editor's complaint. I had refused to increase an IP block on a vandal who jumps from one IP address to another from two days to six months. I did not do so because it seems to me that doing so is unlikely to increase the effectiveness in terms of stopping the vandal, and just possibly might cause collateral damage. If in one day I get a complaint because I am not ready enough to impose lengthy IP blocks and another complaint because I am too ready to do so, what should I think? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Prod on article Jeremy Noble

Hi. I removed your recent prod of the Jeremy Noble article because the article was previously prodded and contested, but it did not have the prod tag on the talk page. I added to the prod tag to the talk page so other editors will know that it has already gone through the prod process. I spoke to the author of the page and he is worried that the article may still be deleted. My opinion is that the subject appears notable based on the first two sources, which are independent, as well as articles I found online which review his writings and praise him as well. The author also wrote a reply to the prod here. Please let me know if you have any immediate plans to AFD the page since the author would like to know if he needs to work more on the article to ensure it is not deleted. Thank you. Odie5533 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it had not previously had a PROD. It had had a PRODBLP, which, despite the similar name, is a quite different thing, and does not prevent subsequent posting of a PROD. However, your comments here clearly amount to contesting the PROD, so I will not restore it. I have no current intention of taking it to AfD, but if I decide to in the future then I would think the week that will be given will be enough time for a defence. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, and you are correct. I was only reading the page on PRODBLP which made it sound like it counted as a PROD; however, WP:PROD states that it can be applied even if the PRODBLP is removed. Thank you for correcting me, and I will update the user on article's status. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 20:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I was, at first, puzzled by this message. It took me a while searching through page histories before I found why you think I "may have been involved". Many months ago I made one talk page post, which I had completely forgotten. However, thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

HRW Hill article

Thank you for your help. I was reading the article I had submitted on HRW Hill and some links to the information that was at the top about verification, and thought perhaps I had done too much original research and so I deleted the whole thing for fear of doing it wrong. Let me know what you think. It's been several months since the original article posted. I appreciate your help. Drbrop (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)DrBrop

I apologise. I clearly did not check carefully enough, and did not realise that you had written the article, and nobody else had made any significant contribution. In that situation, normal practice is that if you remove all content it is taken as a request for deletion of the article, so I should have deleted it, rather than restoring the content and giving you a warning message. I have now deleted it. As for whether you had "done too much original research", I don't know, as I have not checked all the references to see how much of what you said is sourced. However, I do think that in places you seemed to be expressing opinion, rather than reporting objectively, as for example "The influential testimony of Hill", and at times your tone was perhaps not as formal as is considered desirable, as for example "Hill became interested in a young lady..." JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

2013 Orange Bowl

Hello. I just wanted to get an okay from you to create the article for the 2013 Orange Bowl. I saw that you had previously deleted the article back in April. Since all of the other BCS bowls have articles I thought it would be logical to create one now for the 2013 Orange Bowl. Thank you. NT1952 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Unclear message

Hey JamesBwatson sorry for deleting the photo i wanted to put a picture of the new generation safari (safari storme but i accidently deleted the photo. However i made my account just 2 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:CAE0:7586:A1A0:FD11:DE5D (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you don't say what "photo", or what account, and there are no other edits from this IP address, I have no idea what you are talking about. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Nguyenducloc1997

Returned off the 48 hour block and is right back to adding unsourced information and synthesis, along with 113.190.183.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As you suggested, I'm asking for a semi of Discovery Science Channel (South East Asian TV channel), Discovery Communications, Discovery Channel (South East Asian TV channel) and deletion of Template:TrueVisions, which isn't used in any articles and all redirect to TrueVisions anyways. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 21:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the user again, and given a warning of a likely indefinite block to come. I have put some shortish range blocks covering the IP addresses used (including the one you mention), but I am holding back from doing much range blocking to minimise risk of collateral damage. I have semi-protected the articles as you suggest. I agree that the template is useless, but it doesn't seem to satisfy any speedy deletion criterion, and I don't think it's anything like urgent enough to justify an IAR deletion, so I think if you want it deleted you will have to take it to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It all sounds fine to me, including the thin rangeblocks to stop CD. I will probably pursue the template deletion at TFD then, I just wanted to get admin eyes on it to see if would be warranted. Thanks for the help on this. Nate • (chatter) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Embedded Event Manager'?!

Please consider reinstating this article. I find it hard to understand why articles should ever be deleted rather than improved. As a student of network engineering post Associate level, I can testify from first hand experience the value of articles such as that which has indeed been removed & whole-spectrum, the magificance of the Wiki project. It is far harder to recreate deleted articles, than improve them. Please consider leaving them for Community use & reinstate this article.80.229.43.66 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If by "Please consider leaving them..." you mean that you are inviting me to become one of the Wikipedians who call themselves "inclusionists", who think that we should stop having policies and guidelines about what can be included, and that we should never delete any article, no matter how bad, and that keeping loads of crap articles would somehow improve Wikipedia, then you have a lot of persuading to do. However, as far as the article Embedded event manager is concerned, I have restored it for you. It will go to an Articles for deletion discussion, and you are free to express your opinion in that discussion if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me view a deleted page?

Back in March you deleted the List of The Animals of Farthing Wood episodes page. I'm not disputing the deletion, but I would like to be able to view the content on that page as I was using it to create pages on the Farthing Wood Wiki. Is there any way you can use your powers to view the content of the page before it was deleted and send it to me somehow? Or, even better, if you could somehow allow me to view the deleted content myself?

Thanks for your time. Christophee (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You say you are "not disputing the deletion", but, having looked back at its history, I have decided to dispute it myself. The article was converted to a redirect by a disruptive editor who has been banned. I deleted the article it redirected, and, without my knowledge, the redirect was automatically deleted by Twinkle, as a dead redirect to a deleted page. However, there is no evident reason why the pre-redirect article should have been deleted along with the redirect, so I have restored it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Good thing I brought it up then. Thank you very much. Christophee (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Incomprehensible message

Cool, you proposed the deletion of "Sant" "guru" "Maharaj" "Holier than Thou" "all purpose" "Guru" "Rajinder" "Singh"....it's about freaking time. Now if you could only kick Gurdass off of the sant ajaib singh entry, as he's hijacked it for his budinski Sirio Carrapa, another all purpose numbchucks, we'd be all the happier... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.46.131 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you are talking about. Can you clarify that, please? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops

I didn't realize you were going to edit the SPI page after you closed it, so I went ahead and refiled the case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emmanuel Ngabirano since that was the actual master. Since you re-edited the page, it conflicted and now the history is all at the new case page. Would you mind moving your comments and checkuser request over to there? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Your revert of my revert

The user I reverted is a sockpuppet. Or a WP:DUCK of blocked user Findblogging. As an admin you should block the duck instead of reverting me, with all due respect. I am this much sure: If this user is not a sock-duck of Findblogging you may ban me forever from WP. Hereby I accept not to try to lift that ban. If I am wrong I will be away from dishonest people (puppetmasters) who use dishonest methods (sockpuppets) to impose their POV. Please take me seriously. Thanks and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me what edit you are referring to? I have spent a considerable amount of time searching through editing histories, and I can't find any edit of mine that is a revert of an edit of yours. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr Watson, I was so angry with a dishonest user who uses dishonest methods that when I saw you make a change among my reverts per WP:DUCK in Israel-Turkey relations, I may have believed, without giving it much thought, that you reverted me. Sorry if that is the case. Best. --E4024 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

great advice

I saw your advice to Rosieloves789. I like it so much that, if you don't mind, I'm going to adopt and use the wording from the paragraph "I do't know what your attitude is." It's better than anythingI 've so far come up with. (btw, I changed to to a prod; the material added about awarding a prize implies some possible notability) , DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 11:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gdandsnahb

I see that you have block that user indefinitely for disruptive editing. By the message he left here with his foul language (using the f**** word)...I think you should disable him from editing his own talk page too since he is taking this as a joke. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's exactly what I expected. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking him, so disruptive!--Septdix (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hoddywell Archery page

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Lizzy 1988's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi

I created a page for a place called hoddywell archery park in Australia. I understand that it was previouslly deleted but I just wrote some simple information about this place. I don't understand why it was deleted again.

Look forward to your reply Liz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzy 1988 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The original article on this subject was awful. It was written more like a personal essay than an encyclopaedia article. It was also thought to be promotional, and it was clearly written by someone associated with Hoddywell Archery Park who wished to make it sound impressive, rather than someone whose aim was to give dispassionate, neutral information. However, perhaps more important is the fact that the article gave no evidence that the subject satisfied Wikipedia's notability standards. The article was the subject of a deletion discussion, in which there was unanimous consensus for deletion. Wikipedia's policy is that, when an article has been the subject of a discussion which has decided that it should be deleted, if it is re-created without addressing the reasons for deletion then it can be speedily deleted rather than take up people's time with another discussion which would go over the same ground again. Did the new version of the article address the question of lack of notability? Far from it: it did nothing whatsoever to indicate notability. In fact, the only information it gave us was that Hoddywell Archery Park is a public archery park, and what town it is in. It therefore quite unambiguously qualified for immediate deletion as re-creation of a page deleted as a result of a discussion, without addressing the reasons for deletion.

OK, so the existing article did not demonstrate notability, but that does not necessarily mean that the subject is not notable. The essential criteria that need to be considered are given in the guidelines on notability and reliable sources. I have done a fairly quick Google check for signs of notability, which is not necessarily conclusive, but it gives a reasonably good indication. On the first thirty hits I see pages on web sites associated with Hoddywell Archery Park, and therefore not independent sources, so that they are no evidence of notability. Examples are www.hoddywell.com.au and www.hoddywellarchery.com.au. I see pages on sites which are not reliable sources, such as FaceBook, Wikipedia, YouTube, Blogspot, Twitter. (Most of these are also likely to not be independent sources.) I see listing sites, such as www.localbusinessguide.com.au, http://www.theguide.com.au, http://www.aussieweb.com.au/business, etc. These offer no evidence of notability, both because in most cases the information they give is trivial, because many such sites merely post paid advertisements (so that they are not independent sources), and because they tend to be indiscriminate, and include information on any subject that comes within the range of subjects they cover, irrespective of notability. I see not one single example of coverage in anything that could remotely be considered as a reliable independent source, let alone the substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that would be clear evidence of notability. Leaving aside the faults of the articles which have actually been written on this subject, if the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, as seems to be the case, then any article on the subject would be likely to be deleted. No amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A vandal has returned

Hi. This guy is back again. Here is his newest sockpuppet. Evenfiel (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I have blocked that IP (and another one I found) for a while, but he will no doubt be back on other IPs, so I have semi-protected several of the articles he has attacked. Maybe eventually he will get tired and go away, but if not this should at least reduce the amount of damage he does. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-creating (with cites) a speedied article

Hi, JamesBWatson. This is just a courtesy notice that I'm about to recreate Third Ear about the Israeli record shop that runs the EarSay record label. There's a Third Ear (disambiguation) page, but the incoming wikilinks all intend the record label -- I may end up with a redirect from Third Ear. I've got a handful of cites (primarily from the Jerusalem Post), so I think it will pass notability. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

About considering the deletion of Sayabito

Hello Watson, I want to talk about the page of Sayabito. Sorry that I had written that the links in references of "official website of Sayabito".However, the manga does exist in the Good!Afternoon magazine. Although the manga still hasn't had an "official website", I think the link in reference is an evidence for Sayabito. The link is the page of Sayabito in Good! Afternoon magazine in Kodansha. Also, may I ask a question? I want to know that if the twitter of the author can be one of the evidence for it? Can I add the link of Kodansha as an external link for Sayabito? I will add it as an external link if it can be one of the proofs. Please feel free to answer me,thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlelover (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "an evidence for Sayabito". If you mean evidence that it exists, then as far as I know that is not disputed. However, we need evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Links to "Good! Afternoon" (the magazine that Sayabito is published in), and to the web site of Kodansha (the company that publsihes it) do nothing to show notability, because they are not sources independent of theh subject. Twitter is not a reliable source, as anyone can set up a Twitter account and post anything they like. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

76.180.57.28

IP address 76.180.57.28 is not giving any reliable source(s) in his or her's edits when it comes to the Reception section on the Mortal Kombat: Rebirth page.[1][2]-68.75.31.213 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. The user has now, I think, been adequately warned, but I don't think that was so when you posted the message above. If he/she continues I will be willing to consider whether a short block is warranted, JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesusian

Hello, thanks for all the work you have been doing lately. Could you fix your edit to Jesusian (here) and remove "#REDIRECT". -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hoaxer continues

Hi, it appears Akuzaki77 is continuing with hilarious hoax footballer campaign. I have already requested G3s for Abdullah Hamzid and Muhammad Kamal Zaki, as well as AfDing Greenlast Boys FC as being unbelievably unnotable, in addition to reverting a number of other contributions to existing articles of doubtful provenance. He does seem to make the odd constructive edit, so difficult to call him a vandal only account, but perhaps a final warning? Fenix down (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins gave a final warning 4 minutes after you posted that message. There do seem to be a few constructive edits, but even they are fairly trivial, mostly relating to people of at best minimal notability. I think that any more nonsense will justify an immediate block. The same goes for Akubera77, who is clearly either the same person or the other half of a pair of friends working together. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

JetBrowser

I would like you to see this link --> http://www.unixmen.com/browsing-the-internet-with-a-jet/ I was just posting the reference link, you didnt give me the time maybe. The JetBrowser is attributed to "Performersoft LLC". The Browser's credits page reads "Jet is made possible by the Chromium open source project and other open source software." I have also put up a request to start a new Wiki Page on JetBrowser. If i made a mistake, please let me know. In case, i was right, please revert back the changes you made. Thank You. Eagerly Waiting for your reply. Please discuss the issue on my talk page if possible.

Compfreak7 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it was unsourced, and because it was rather promotional in tone. I have also failed to find any evidence that "Jet Browser" is notable. Almost everything I have been able to find about it is on download sites and forums. The review you link to above is the best coverage I've seen, but I don't think that on its own comes it anywhere near to providing enough evidence of notability to justify an article on the subject. As for whether it's enough to justify including a mention of it in a list in the article on Chromium, I will leave you to judge that. My own preference is for restricting such lists to topics with a reasonable degree of notability, but that's only a personal opinion, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and you have as much right to make such judgements as I have, provided you can provide a reliable source for verification of what you write there. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That's right. Since its a matter of being 'notable' or not, i shall leave it as it is. Whenever anyone finds a reliable source, it shall be added naturally. So be it. I was especially worried about the 'Level 2 warning' that the Wiki mail i got talked about. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compfreak7 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

OK JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Query from Lost007

Why did you undo the edit?? It is NOT The Valle Academy of Dance.

The correct name for that company is The Valle Academy of Performing Arts - see here www.valleacademy.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost007 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw a new editor making unexplained changes to a page in another user's userspace, and it looked dubious. However, I should have checked more thoroughly before just reverting your edit, and I thank you for prompting me to check back. Having done so, I now see that the page was unambiguous spam from a spam-only account, so I have deleted it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Siege The Band

I hope I got your intention right ... you put up the username warning, but deleted the cats, which I figured meant you were going for a good cop/bad cop thing and expected an admin would be along to block. If you'd prefer I take no action on user talk pages you've edited, please let me know. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it didn't mean I was "going for a good cop/bad cop thing". It meant I would give the user a while to see how they went on, rather than immediately blocking. One of the reasons for doing this is that very often in such circumstances it is unclear at first whether a username block or a spamusername block is appropriate. To anyone without extensive experience of assessing unblock requests, a username block or softerblock might seem more friendly than a spamusername block. However, time and again I see the following situation: a user is told by an admin that they are blocked because of their username, but all will be fine if they switch to a new username. They switch to a new username, but another admin tells them that they can stay blocked, for a completely different reason. The user tries to explain that they have satisfied the specified condition, but yet another admin says "no". It seems to me that this business of telling the user one thing and then, when they do what they have been told to do, shifting to a different reason for blocking, is actually more unfriendly than telling them right from the start that promotion, COI, and user name are all issues, and that they need to deal with all of them. I have seen discussions about this problem from other admins who frequently assess unblock requests. For this reason, in a clear-cut case I place a spamusername block right away, but in a more doubtful case, where the editing is not outright spam, I try to give a warning that there are problems, but not block. That way I can leave more time, to see how the user reacts. Later, it is possible to take anything in a wide range of possible actions, including an immediate hard block, a soft block, a message that the user really must change username (or else there will be a block), or sometimes even no action at all. Unfortunately, the intention of doing this is often thwarted by an admin coming along and blocking because the user is categorised as having username issues, so I remove the category. But this time even that didn't work... As for your invitation to let you know if I'd prefer you take no action on user talk pages I've edited, well, perhaps yes, but I claim no ownership of users I've warned, and if you make a different judgement than me about what is suitable action then that's your decision. Perhaps "think twice before acting", rather than "take no action". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't get the point of removing the cats, sorry. It's possible there's a misunderstanding here because I just finished a month of experimenting with a {{uw-softestblock}} message that said nothing about COI or deletion, on the theory that I might gain some support for that; the results were inconclusive, but more to the point, I found that covering Filter 188 hits (new account creates a page similar to the username, for the talk page stalkers) is priority work, it's likely to suck up all the time I allot to blocking and deletion work, and those messages really should educate people on WP:PSCOI and deletion ... and the reason you're giving is right on the mark, people don't usually explain it that well ... so I added that language to softestblock, along with unblock instructions. So I think you're saying we disagree on where the best block vs. warning line is, but no two admins draw it in exactly the same place. I have some data that suggests that what I'm doing is working, but I don't want to beat anyone over the head with it ... warnings work fine, too. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesusian

Hi, you recently turned Jesusian into a soft redirect. Any chance you can add a {{long comment}} to the page so that it doesn't shows up on Special:ShortPages? I would add it myself, but it's protected, and so is the talk page so I can't request {{edit protected}} either. -- KTC (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Danity Kane image

Hello, JamesBWatson. Do you know why this former image was deleted? I'm asking you because, as seen in that link, you removed the deleted link/remnants. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The file was marked for deletion by ТимофейЛееСуда as a file with no evidence of copyright permission (speedy deletion criterion F11). However, it seems that the file was a redundant copy of File:20060909 Danity Kane Chicago Signing (2).JPG, which still exists, so you should be able to use that, if you want to. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Another question: Do you know if the deleted file was a cropped or otherwise altered version of the existing image? Since those are allowed, it must mean that the deleted file didn't have sufficient information letting people know that it was a cropped or otherwise altered copy of the existing image...if it indeed was one. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Checking the two images, I see that it was a cropped version of the picture. More importantly, though, in the course of checking that, I saw more about the history of the original file than I had seen before, and I don't see any problem with the copyright permission. Since the cropped image looks better in the article, I have undeleted it and restored it to the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you very much, James. Should one of us alert ТимофейЛееСуда to this? Looking at the image, it definitely provides most of the information that the original image does; it's just that it's copied and pasted without the links, and doesn't have the description that the original uses. I'll fix that now. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the information, and alerted ТимофейЛееСуда to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, but to be honest, I don't care either way. I'm glad that JamesBWatson found that it was a copy of another file, I did not find that when I tagged it for deletion. Based on the content that was there when I tagged it, I decided that there was not evidence of permission and so I tagged it. I'm glad that you were able to resolve the issues though. Have a wonderful day! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, ТимофейЛееСуда. You have a wonderful day as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yves Arman

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, but rather than restore and immediately send to AfD I have userfied it to User:Faranne/Yves Arman and given some advice about notability at User talk:Faranne. Letting you know in case you want to watchlist it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Lord McAlpine "joke"

Regarding your "joke" slur, it was nothing of the sort but merely fair comment. My edit was absolutely not an allegation of a "cover-up" and reverting it on those grounds plainly some kind of misplaced conviction. Above all it was a knowwlegeable edit made in good faith.

I had the same sort of experience at Suicide of Amanda Todd just getting that unfortunate girl's date of birth recorded. In that case the principal reverting editor was of the opinion that the article wasn't a biography and a biographical detail like that was irrelevant, again nothing more than a personal conviction. I had to take it to an RfC to get it included.

As for your remark it is a hurtful personal attack. You really ought to know better. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean it as a personal attack, and I'm sorry that it came over that way. It really did seem funny to me that someone could, apparently without any sense of irony, accuse others of bad faith in the same breath as telling them to assume good faith. Since you evidently don't see the funny side of it, I suppose it would have been better to have mentioned the contradiction in a way that wasn't meant to be humorous. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I spent a full hour making that McAlpine edit. The comment I made about it being reverted was absolutely unobjectionable. Of course your little irony was not likely to be taken in good grace. I don't see the point in editing Wikipedia in this environment. I've been preparing an expansion on the Metock case and I may see that though, I'm not sure, but I should think it extremely unlikely I will continue to edit Wikipedia therafter. I'm just not prepared to put up with the fantastic hassle it apparently involves. Get this right JamesBWatson, I feel as personally attacked by you as if you had ridiculed me at a cocktail party to my face in front of my wife, in front of my colleagues. What is worse I have no redress. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It clearly wasn't a personal attack from you James. You're doing fine. JASpencer (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Awesome

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Many thanks for your help with a perpetual problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I only wish there were something more effective we could do, but I do what I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I publish this article now?

Hi James -

A couple of months ago you deleted the article I had created on the novel SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED by Aaron Cooley, as it had not yet been published yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaken,_Not_Stirred_(novel)&action=edit&redlink=1

As the novel has now been published, can I re-submit the article? Here are links to its Amazon and Barnes & Noble sales pages: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A2V7E4M http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shaken-not-stirred-aaron-cooley/1113750239?ean=2940015936186

You had also mentioned a desire to see some reviews of the book. Here are three reviews: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/aaron-cooley/shaken-not-stirred/

http://www.bookpleasures.com/websitepublisher/articles/5596/1/SHAKEN-NOT-STIRRED-The-Secret-Files-of-I__-F______-Code-Designate-17F-Reviewed-By-Dr-Wesley-Britton-of-Bookpleasurescom/Page1.html#.ULTjWIfAeSp

http://www.herliterarysalon.com/shaken-not-stirred-by-aaron-cooley/

Please let me know if you can restore the article, or if I should re-submit. Thanks - Mittern71011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mittern71011 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you have a relatively small amount of experience of editing Wikipedia, it may help if I start by clarifying the process which led to the deletion. As you will have seen from the deletion log entry, the article was deleted because of an expired "PROD", which is short for proposed deletion. This means that an editor proposed the article for deletion, time was allowed in case anyone contested the proposal, but nobody did. In that situation, the article is deleted. My role in this as an administrator was just performing the administrative tasks of (1) checking that the proposal had been correctly carried out, had been given the proper amount of time to allow a chance for it to be contested, and had not been contested, and (2) clicking the button to confirm that this was so. The "concern" listed in the deletion log is the reason given by the person who proposed the deletion (in this case the user Ubelowme), and does not reflect my own view. I would not myself have written a deletion proposal giving the concern as the facts that a book was unpublished and unreviewed, because that would be likely to give an inexperienced Wikipedia editor the impression that being published and reviewed were the only requirements, which is far from true. For a subject to be the topic of an article, Wikipedia's notability guidelines require it to have received substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject (i.e. not from the author, the publisher, any business selling the book, anyone else in any way involved, or anyone working for any of those people). The first two links you give are links to the web sites of businesses selling the book, and are clearly not independent sources. The other three are web sites that publish reviews on request from authors, and two of the three web sites quote prices for doing so. Again, they are clearly not independent sources. Consequently the information you have provided does nothing at all to indicate notability. Quite simply, anyone at all can get reviews for their work on sites such as kirkusreviews and bookpleasures, whether the book is notable or not. However, rather than rely only on the sources you gave, I made my own online searches to see whether there was evidence of notability. I found again the sites you have already linked to. I found such unreliable sources as YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia, and FaceBook, where anyone can post anything. I found www.goodreads.com and bookriot.tv, which both gave the identical text, consisting of one paragraph about Aaron Cooley and one about the book. It is perfectly clear that what they gave was a press release or equivalent, and not an independent source, but in any case it was not substantial coverage. And so it goes on with other pages that I found. To summarise the whole thing, there is a large number of web sites that mention the book, but every single one of them looks like part of an attempt to promote the book, probably by its author. The Wikipedia coverage is no exception to this: every one of your edits has been an attempt to promote the book. Many people mistakenly think "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can post anything they like to Wikipedia". It may well be that you thought that, and came here thinking that Wikipedia was one more place you could use to bring this book to public awareness. However, Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion, and far from being a tool to make something well-known, Wikipedia requires that a subject has already received substantial attention from independent sources. I see no evidence that the book comes within a million miles of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. If and when it does become notable, probably some uninvolved independent Wikipedia editor will choose to write about it: someone involved with the book is not the right person to do so, as they will have a conflict of interest, and are unlikely to write from a neutral perspective. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Annett

Hi James,

In the process of making some edits, I would like to ask for the content of the following page:

10:29, 17 July 2012 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Kevin Annett (Expired PROD, concern was: Self-published author, non-notable figure)

Is that still around? Thanks Jpabc (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I drafted a reply here, saying that I would restore the article and move it to your user space for you. Normally, doing so is automatic when someone asks for access to the content of an article deleted by PROD. However, when I restored the content of the article, I found that it made unsupported accusations against people, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which requires that we "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced", so unfortunately I do not think the material is suitable for restoration. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

help

i need your help

i want to recreat page Konia kshetra. Konia Kshetra is a region ( part of sant Ravidas Nagar district Uttar Pradesh India) for your reference: please check http://wikimapia.org/#lat=25.2296017&lon=82.2163188&z=12&l=0&m=b&show=/4085231/Konia-Kshetra i'm intrested to recreat this page please give advice for this place

(Baangapatti (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

I see that you created two versions of this article, both of them deleted as not having enough context to identify article's subject. For the first one, Konia kshetra, that deletion reason was certainly sound. For Konia Kshetra, although I nominated it for deletion, looking back now I am not sure that was the best possible reason to give, as you did say "Konia Kshetra situated in Sant Ravidas Nagar district in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India", which is enough to identify the subject. However, you also included personal opinion in the article, writing "One of the finest and isolated area where peach and brotherhood prevails". That is not at all objective reporting from a neutral point of view (quite apart from the fact that the meaning of "where peach and brotherhood prevails" is far from clear). You also need to provide sources, so that statements you make in the article can be verified. Provided that you follow those principles, I see no problem with writing a new article about Konia Kshetra, though. The map you link to is a good source, not only to show existence of the place, but also to show where it is, and illustrate its situation surrounded by a loop of the Ganges. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

TheFireLog

Hi there, TheFireLog page was deleted, I'm not sure why, but I'll have to review it. Due to the rapid deletion, it is gone from my sandbox too. Is there any way to get it back so I can modify it? Never mind - I found a copy. Is there any way to have someone evaluate before it gets deleted, for example make a request to look in the sandbox?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren.toombs (talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to resurrect the page and move it into your user space, but I see that you have already created a userspace draft of it, so I assume that you don't need another. If for any reason you do want the old one back too, let me know, and I'll restore it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The new one in my user space has been modified. I am trying to get the page from being an advert to being a product information page. The first cuts were pretty bad, but I think they are getting better. I am using Textpad as an example. Would it be possible to give me feedback so I can get it to pass the guidelines? Thanks. 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren.toombs (talk • contribs)

I have had a look at your userspace draft. The layout and overall design of the page are fine, and the writing is generally fine, though "Many people are not aware of the presumptive legislation that exists..." reads rather like a personal observation in an essay, and such text as "Firefighter exposure tracking software can capture any of the following types, TheFireLog will capture all of them..." reads like the sort of thing you see in a sales brochure, "look at all the good things our product will do for you". However, by far the main issue is notability. To be the topic of a Wikipedia article, a subject needs to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The essential point of those guidelines is that we have an article on a subject only if the subject has received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Reliable sources" exclude FaceBook, YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia, and anywhere else where anyone can post anything they like. "Independent of the subject" means that sources such as information put out by the publishers of the software, or by businesses selling or promoting it, or anyone working for them, would not be acceptable. (A point that many Wikipedia editors miss is that sources of that kind may be excellent at providing information about the subject, but worthless at showing notability: the two things are completely different.)

Your draft article at present cites no sources at all, whether reliable or unreliable, independent or not, and so it gives no evidence at all of notability. Of course, that doesn't mean that the subject is not notable, just that you have not provided any evidence that it is, so I tried searching for evidence of notability. I started with a simple Google search for TheFireLog. Most of the hits I got were pages on tumblr, with nothing to do with the software you have written about. There were also some other irrelevant hits, such as a book called "The Gospel of Jesus Christus According to Patience Worth" and a YouTube user with the username "TheFireLog". I did, however, find a few hits that relate to the software. Most of them were just domain listing sites, such as whois.domaintools.com, whoisbucket.com, etc, which proves nothing other than the fact that someone has paid to register "www.thefirelog.com" as a domain name. Pasting "www.thefirelog.com" into the address bar of a web browser, I found that the domain name is defunct. In fact, the only pages I found that referred to the software were www.thefirelog.ca and a Twitter account.

OK, so I tried some more specific searches. TheFireLog "Tracking Software" produced a grand total of 6 hits, every one of which was a page on www.thefirelog.ca. TheFireLog "Black Knight" produced 9 hits. This included such gems as a page entitled "Fuck Fuck Fuck!!!! - PeoplesRepublicOfCork.com", which I feel confident in assuming is not relevant, and several pages where Google tried to be helpful by providing pages which did not actually mention "TheFireLog" at all, but contained related text such as "Cast Iron Fire Grate Log Fireplace". In fact, the only hits with any relevance at all were two pages at www.blackknightsystems.com. I could go on, but I feel sure that what I have said so far is enough to establish the point. There are subjects where there is so much material available that notability is obvious. There are subjects where a brief search produces marginal, equivocal, evidence, and a lot more work is required to find whether there is evidence of real notability. However, in this case, the complete and total lack of any coverage whatsoever in any reliable independent source found from quite a number of different sources leaves me in no doubt whatsoever: the subject clearly does not come anywhere near satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That being so, any article on the subject, no matter how it is written, will be deleted pretty quickly.

So what do you do then? Well, that depends why you have been editing Wikipedia. I don't know whether you are interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia, and just happened to make an unfortunate choice of first topic to write about, or whether have no interest in contributing except for the purpose of publicising software that you have some connection with, such as working for the company that produces it. If you are interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia, then my advice is to start by making small changes to existing articles, rather than writing a whole new article. That way, you will gradually learn how things work, and any mistakes you make will be small ones, so you won't lose a lot of work. After a while, you will have picked up enough understanding of how Wikipedia functions to be able to write whole new articles without risk of their being deleted. If, on the other hand, your only purpose here is to publicise this particual software, then my advice is that your time and work will be much better spent by doing so on some other website, as I'm afraid every minute you spend doing so on Wikipedia is likely to be a wasted minute. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a userspace page, but I can't do anything until I get it looked at. Also, I can't seem to sign these talk pages - doing something wrong there too. What is the process to get someone with more knowledge to take a look?

Thanks. 216.197.229.134 (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

To sign your post on a talk page, put four tildes at the end of your post, i.e. finish with ~~~~. That will be automatically converted to a signature, complete with a useful link to your talk page. As for how to request feedback, there used to be something called "Requests for feedback", but it was discontinued because the number of requests was far too many for the number of volunteers responding, so that requests used to stay unanswered sometimes for months, by which time as often as not the user who submitted the request had given up and left. It is possible to submit a draft article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but that suffers from a smaller scale version of the same problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

move request (From Noon till Three vs. From Dusk Till Dawn) / guidelines confusion

Hi. A while ago, I made a move request that was rejected. But since this question was never answered, and since one account involved has meanwhile been blocked for asserted sockpuppetry (a decision you upheld) and another user commenting currently is being suspected of the same, I'm not so sure how many people have actually thoroughly reviewed my request. Could you spare the time to take a look at it? It's not so much about this individual case, as it is about gaining certainty with regards to the guidelines and their implementations (to have From Noon till Three on the one hand, and From Dusk Till Dawn on the other, seems contradictory / inconsistent to me). Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1. The suggestion that Anthony Appleyard is "suspected" of being a sockpuppet of Materialscientist is absurd. How much checking did you do before posting a link to the unsubstantiated anonymous edit on this? The edit was done by a vandalism-only editor, who also made such ridiculous edits as this one, a warning message about editing an article that the warned user has never, in fact, edited.
2. The fact that an edit is made by a sockpuppet account does not make any difference to it unless the use of multiple accounts is relevant to that edit. The editor who used posted to the discussion you refer to under the username UnQuébécois did not also edit the same discussion using any other account. The fact that he used another account elsewhere is completely irrelevant to that edit.
3. All these ridiculous arguments about such trivia as whether or not to put a capital letter for a preposition in the middle of a title bewilder me. Why on earth should anyone care? Yes it's inconsistent, but why does that matter enough to be worth spending so much time on it? Ralph Waldo Emerson had the right idea about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

1. How much checking? None, I just wrote what's on his own talk page ("which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts"). I don't know that user (nor his accuser) and have no opinion of him. It just caught my eye, when I posted there to ask for comment on the spelling for From Dusk Till Dawn. With another user involved in the request I actually had very good communications before, seems like a nice chap. (By the way, if you can be bothered – no need for another rant against me –, just out of curiosity, with regards to the block you upheld, you wrote it was "way beyond all reasonable doubt". How does one positively know if someone is / uses a sockpuppet?)
2. How would I know what his sockpuppets are? You seem to know, I don't.
3. I happen to think consistency, spelling, typography and layout should matter in an encyclopædia. You apparently don't. Fair enough. It wouldn't hurt to bring that across a bit more politely, though. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I accept that I was less friendly than I might have been in expressing point three, and I apologise for that. I agree that consistency is desirable, but inconsistency at such trivial levels is really not of significant importance. Personally, I think there are more useful ways I can spend my time on Wikipedia than dealing with such details, but if you feel it worth your while then that is up to you. I meant what I said only as an expression of my own unwillingness to bother about such matters, but I can see how it will have come across as what you call "rant" against you. As for how one knows that someone is a sockpuppet, there is no single answer to that, and frequently a combination of different information is used. In this case, the wording I used, saying that the evidence was "way beyond all reasonable doubt", but without giving any indication what the behavioural evidence was, is the kind of thing I tend to say if I have seen evidence that I think the user was unaware of, but which could easily be avoided in future if the user were made aware of it. In that situation, I am naturally reluctant to spell out the details. However, it certainly suggests that I had in mind much more specific evidence than, for example, making similar edits to the same articles. There are many sorts of evidence that might come up, such as two accounts doing a large proportion of editing on different articles that are unrelated to one another, extremely similar use of language, and so on. I have known of two accounts which swore they were unrelated, which seemed to have forgotten that they had both made statements on their user pages giving the same real name, the same date of birth, the same religion, etc etc. I have known editors to say "I said ...." in referring to an edit made by the other account. My use of the expression "way beyond all reasonable doubt" suggests that I had in mind several different types of evidence, where one would have been highly suggestive, two pretty convincing. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for explaining. (About my initial post, I have no problem admitting I'm pedantic with regards to formal stuff. But as I have been corrected over spelling and typography in the past myself – "in the past myself" or "myself in the past"? –, it's also a case of just wanting to try not to repeat the same mistakes in the future; and for that I have to know what is considered correct.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK. Even though I usually don't bother about such things, you have acted as a gadfly and provoked me into looking into it. I have confirmed that, as stated in the discussion you referred to, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) does say that "till" should not be capitalized. I will therefore rename From Dusk Till Dawn. That will produce the consistency that, as I said above, I agree is desirable (even if I care less about it than you do). JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I'm not sure it shouldn't be the other way around (that the naming conventions and From Noon till Three's spelling be changed), but be that as it may, Dame Consistency riding in is what I was hoping to see first and foremost – and sorry for having been such a pest (although that being part of my "charm") over such trivial matters. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, like you, I prefer "Till", but consensus is clearly against renaming From Noon till Three. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It's just that I wonder where that funny "shorter than five letters" rule might stem from. One would think Wikipedia and IMDb to follow the same standards for titles, yet the latter [and others] spell it From Noon Till Three and From Dusk Till Dawn – and it's getting especially weird if you consider entries like Wait Until Dark, as "till" and "until" are not only the same type of word (preposition and conjunction), but essentially, well, the same word. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Snake bgd and Kobra011

User Kobra011 is the user sokpuppet of Snake bgd. It has been shown the Check User --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by this message, and perhaps you can help me to understand by answering a few questions.

1. How do you know?
2. Since Kobra011 has never made any edits, why does it matter?
3. Assuming that you mean that a checkuser has shown that they are the same person, when was that? My understanding is that checkusers have access only to records over the last 3 months. As far as I can determine, the only action that Kobra011 has ever taken is to create the account, which was over four months ago, so the checkuser must have been over a month ago.
4. Why are you telling me? What do you want done about it? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

On the Serbian Wikipedia, after the war changed the article Dragan Djilas, the user Miut several times, returned user edits Snake bgd. After that Snake bgd vandalizing the Miut user page. Here is a report CheckUser. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. I see that you are right. Now that you have prompted me to look on other Wikimedia projects, not just English Wikipedia, I also see that Kobra011 is indefinitely blocked on Serbian Wikipedia, and Snake is indefinitely blocked don Wikimedia Commons. However, unless one or both accounts is editing disruptively on English Wikipedia, there are no grounds for taking any action here. As I said above, Kobra011 has not edited at all, disruptively or otherwise, and a quick look at a sample of Snake bgd's edits has not shown me any problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm just informing you so you know. --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

I'm Kurt4 / Francesds, the author of the article Massimo Firpo. Can u interceed for unblocking me?

As a resume of my case see these:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Global&oldid=4696087#Global_lock_for_Kurt4_.2F_Francesds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jafeluv#Kurt4

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Global&oldid=4688436#Global_block_for_Kurt4_and_Francesds.21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DoriSmith#Article_Massimo_Firpo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mediran#my_account

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurt4/Archive

best regards --37.182.81.34 (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for your information. When I created the article Massimo Firpo I wasn't banned on wikimedia projets. I was banned just locally in wikipedia Italy. My global ban has been decided after the creation of this article. Verify this. Best wishes --37.182.81.34 (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

global block

I has been globally blocked the 28 november morning at 11 o'clock, last edit at 23:10, 27 November 2012 as Kurt4 and at 10:42, 28 November 2012 (diff | hist) as Francesds, declared sockpuppet of Kurt4. The article has been created before the glob block.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kurt4

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mediran#my_account

best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.182.81.34 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• If it seemed to me that you were doing nothing other than making good faith attempts to appeal against a global lock, then I might be sympathetic to your case, even if you were not strictly following the rules. However, that is not the case, as you have repeatedly used sockpuppet accounts and IP addresses for other editing too. I don't know how good a case you have for being unlocked, and as long as you appear to be using disruptive methods to try to evade that lock, I am not going to spend time finding out. If you want to have your case considered then change your methods. Nor am I encouraged to be sympathetic to your claims by the fact that you are using sockpuppet accounts on Italian Wikipedia, where you certainly are blocked, invalidating your claim that you resort to sockpuppetry only because of unfortunate collateral damage to your English Wikipedia account. I also wonder why if, as you claim, at the time of the creation of the article, your main account was not blocked, banned, or locked, you did not simply use that account to create the article, rather than using a sockpuppet. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK, when I wrote "I am not going to spend time finding out", I meant it, but I was interested, so in fact I did spend more time looking into the situation. You have claimed that you have done nothing wrong on English Wikipedia, and that your inability to edit here is unfortunate collateral damage as a result of actions relating only to Italian Wikipedia. I now know that this claim is utterly false, and clearly totally disingenuous. Amongst other things, you have attempted to abuse English Wikipedia by using userspace pages here to host content which you had been prevented from putting on Italian Wikipedia. Your presence here is disruptive, and lying about what you have been doing does not help your case. I will block the IP address you used to post here, and if and when any further sockpuppet IPs come to my attention I will block those too. I am not over-pleased by the fact that by lying to me you caused me to waste my time looking into this. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

the page has been recreated Massimo Firpo -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thamk u for your attention and kindness. On 26 or 27 november (I don't remember exactley) I used an other account for creating this entry cause I wanted to change account name I asked to admin Mediran (see here) for transferring all my edit as Kurt4 to Francesds (if it was possible). I have changed my methods, stopping create sockpuppets, but when I started here I diden't understand why I cannot access to my account Kurt4 and nobody explained me I was globally blocked and I hadn't to do so. Furthermore an italian admin has decided to "persecute" for personal raisons and I have explained this, there is a discussion ìn progress in Wikipedia italy (sse the links I ve posted). Concerning the article Massimo Firpo, if you want to apply the rules, it has been created before my global block and so I think you could restore it. I will respect my ban and I will not edit anymore on wikipedia projects till the block will be in play. best wishes

--109.112.117.249 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Be that so or not, it doesn't alter the fact that you have used underhand and dishonest methods to try to get round steps taken against you. Nor does it alter the fact that, both on Italian Wikipedia and here (and perhaps elsewhere), you have edited disruptively, and wasted a lot of good editors' time. Go away, and find somewhere other than Wikipedia to do the stuff you want to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been banned for abuse of multiple accounts on italian wikipedia and after, globally. Not for vandalism and there's no evidence of this. I never vandalised on wikipedia.en or others wiki and I never undid good edits of other users. You can easily verify this. I thought some italian admin have been very dishonest with me cause the first time I was attacked and banned for one days for a fault that I demonstrated to not have committed, but that's another history. I admitt that many actions of mine haven't been honest too, but I haven't be the first ((in italian wiki). Now I'll go away with pleasure, no doubt. But if you want apply the rules and be completely honest you have to restore the good article I've created before my global block.

best wishes, Kurt4 --31.26.115.85 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

PPDPR -> PPD (PR)

JBW, I saw this; shouldn't we do something analogous to THIS? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

In the course of work at dealing with speedy deletion nominations, I came across a request for a redirect to a template to be deleted and the template itself moved, because of the naming convention. I checked, and the reasoning seemed correct, so I made the move. However, I found that the same naming issue applied to the related article. It seemed to me that, in addition to (1) the desirability of following Wikipedia's naming convention, (2) it would be much better for the article and the template to be consistently named, and (3) common sense says that, other things being equal, we should not use a title that gives the impression that the name of an organisation is something other than what it actually is. Consequently, for all those three reasons, I moved the article. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties)#Disambiguating name use says that, where such disambiguation is needed, "the name of the country could be put into in parentheses: Socialist Party (France) and Socialist Party (Argentina)." There is no suggestion of giving a "fake" name to the party which includes the name of the country, when the actual title of the party does not do so. So it seems to me that, both on common sense grounds, and on the basis of Wikipedia's naming conventions, the answer to your question is "no". Itseems to me that the other article you link to is probably not analogous, because the name of the party seems to be "Partido Nuevo Progresista de Puerto Rico", not just "Partido Nuevo Progresista". Certainly the longer name is commonly used: [3]. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Page Move

Could you do a quick page move for me? I need WXCF moved to WHTU (currently a redirect to an unrelated page) due to WXCF taking the WHTU callsign. Thanks!...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WXCF is a disambig page. Is that really the one you want moved? Would it be better to move WXCF (AM)? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was away from the computer for a moment. Yeah, it was WXCF (AM), not WXCF, my goof. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sir? Formal, aren't we? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a southern thing. :) I actually typo'd when I wrote "sir" and put "sire", so it was almost even more formal. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 11:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 11:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Undo Speedy Deletion of My article - Hradyesh

Hi James, I request to help me understand your reason for speedy deletion of my recent article- Hradyesh . There was no promotional data or advertisement in the article .

This is my first article I have learnt a long way and after months of efforts got the hang of neutral language and article supported by relevant facts.

Plz immediately restore the original article created today as the reason on the basis you speedy deleted my article is not correct.

There were other users/ administers too who have corrected the article or visited the same but found it in order.

Aaanshu (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What? "There was no promotional data or advertisement in the article"? The whole thing, from start to finish, was promotional. I can easily pick out a few examples of promotional language, such as "Hradyesh is a passionate individual", and "In a very short span of time Hradyesh have established his name", and so on. However, doing so may miss the point, because it is not a question of particular details or particular pieces of promotional language, but rather that the whole article was clearly written to tell us how wonderful this man is, how he has done things that nobody else has ever done, that we should really be impressed. Frankly, if this is your idea of how to write neutrally after you have spent "months of efforts" to "[get] the hang of" doing so, then you may as well give up, as you clearly have no idea at all what your writing will look like to an impartial outsider. It is abundantly clear that your sole purpose in editing Wikipedia is to tell us how great he is (or perhaps I should say you are). Wikipedia is not the place to do that. On a completely different point, you seem not to have noticed that normal practice is to put new talk apge posts at the bottom of the page. Posts at the top are quite likely to be overlooked, as editors will not be looking there for them. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Request Clarification

1. Article about individuals reflect individual achievements , if the person in discussion have done such work like introducing hot rods in India for the first time is it wrong to mention ?

2. I fail to understand what are you so upset about ? there’s no promotion or advertisement language in the whole article.

3. I had said this earlier and repeating it again I am new to wiki and learning never claimed m experienced , if you are so experienced help me learn dont try to demotivate me .

4. The article was also shared at teahouse but the experts did not raised such comments , other administrators also saw the article but they did not reacted the way you did.

5. As quoted earlier I am ready to learn n correct if there’s something not in order but at the same time will appreciate a correct language usage from you too. I understand you are an administrator who have lots n lots of power n rights but look at the way you have used your words in the recent reply and actions.

Aaanshu (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

if it was the same language as here Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Hradyesh, you certainly dont understand "promotional". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Libraries by Lake Mihigan

Hi, Our friend has taken a road trip and appears to be on now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

article

Dear sir, I note you have deleted the article Massimo Firpo. I'm pleased to inform you that M. Firpo is a preminent historian who is frequently consulted by the most prestigious anglo-saxon universities for tenures and promotions. He has also taught at Cornel and Oxford Universities. You can find his name in various english Who's who. For these reasons, he is "encyclopedic". I see you have said that the creator was a "vandal". I don't know if this can be true, but this person is a fellow of mine and he ask me for restoring his entry. I controled and it was very good. So I recreated it with no substantial changes. I do a little mistake and the first letter of Firpo's surname is in minuscule; I hope wikipedia staff can resolve this. Best regards, --Teophrastus redivivus (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

To save you the trouble, James - the recreated article is word-for-word identical to the deleted Kurt4 version; hence I've blocked Teoprastus as a loudly-quacking sock. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you got the deletion in before I could! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what "this person is a fellow of mine" means. If "this person" means the author of the deleted article, then we have an admission of helping a blocked editor to evade a block. If, on the other hand, it means the subject of the article, then: (1) We have an admission of editing with a conflict of interest. (2) We have a "new" editor who has access to a copy of a deleted article, despite not knowing the author of that article. (3) We have a "mistake" in the article title which is exactly the alteration of a title which is most popular among disruptive editors trying to evade create-protection, and, guess what? yes, you guessed it, by a strange coincidence, the article title was indeed create-protected. (4) We have an editor who by a funny coincidence makes exactly the same kind of mistakes in English as the blocked editor. Oh dear, I suppose I should try to give up wasting my time by writing messages such as this, rather than just ignoring the nonsense, but I find such absurd cases so amusing that I find it difficult to resist the temptation to get that bit more amusement out of the situation. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This person means the author of the article, of course. Same mistakes in English ? We are all the two italians. --37.183.14.86 (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. "All the two" is something I might have expected from a French person. Italian would more naturally produce "all and two", I would have thought. However, evidently not in this case. What a pity that we have not met in different circumstances, where we could have a friendly discussion about differences in idiom among different romance languages, and their varying effects on attempts to communicate in English. I could consult you for advice and help with my use of Italian, too. But no, unfortunately we have to meet instead on Wikipedia, where I have to keep blocking your endless sockpuppet accounts and IP addresses, because you will not or cannot accept that the sort of thing you have come to do is not welcome on Wikipedia. Still, you can, if you like, take pleasure in the knowledge that time I spend on you might otherwise be spent on other administrative work for Wikipedia, so you are helping a few vandals and spammers to get away with what they are doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This time it is really kurt4, in violation of his block. Is it impossible for you that someone defends a "vandal"? What we have to do for being trusted ? Send you our real names, email, number of telephone, passports, certificate of birth  ? In every case you preach honesty and respect for rules but you've deleted two articles that I wrote before the beginning of my global block. These entries were good and very well sourced and with this deletion you have - just a little bit - damaged this encyclopedia and not respected the rules you defended. This is a fact ...So, don't judge too much and too bad the others: you haven't respected strictly all the rules you too, thinking to do the best thing, perhaps. You don't admit this but you know it's the truth. I have been blocked globally on 28 nov morning and I've created these two article on 26 and 27 nov. Best wishes and with all my consideration and sympathy, Kurt4 --2.44.13.157 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC) ps I have a large series of dynamic IPs and I should edit wikipedia freely as I want but I'm not more interested. But with all these paranoic/paranormal blocks, you'll risk to block a large part of users from Italy and many other countries :p ...

1. I find it difficult to find out when a global lock was placed. At first, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, and keep an article that might or might not have been created in defiance of the lock. However, I then discovered that you had been thoroughly dishonest in various ways, that the article was created by a sockpuppet account, that you were continuing to evade blocks, etc etc. Yes, ideally I should have spent however long it took to find out the exact details before taking action. In practice, though, there are limits to how much time it is worth spending on trying to ensure fair treatment for a deliberately disruptive editor. I quote form the Wikipedia user Gerardw, writing on 3 June 2011: It's important to realize WP does not have a justice system. It "has a most of us just want to edit and if someone causes too much aggravation they're going get blocked because no one wants to deal with it" system..
2. If you are honestly so concerned about possible collateral damage on other, innocent, users from blocks, then why don't you stop doing things that you know full well will cause such blocks? Could the answer be that you actually don't care, and are just using that as a pretext for criticising those who spend time obstructing your disruption?
3. I never block an IP address, let alone an IP range, without checking the editing history to see how many innocent users have used it recently, and so assess how much collateral damage is likely, so that I can balance that against the need to obstruct disruptive editing.
4. I take back what I said about the possibility, under different circumstances, that we could have a friendly discussion. You appear to be the kind of person whose idea of a discussion is trying to score points against the person who you probably regard not as your collaborator in the discussion, but rather as your opponent.
5. I make no undertaking to respond to any further trolling here, and if I do choose to then I will consider myself free to do so in whatever way I choose. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It was just a little observation. I tried only to discuss, I don't see you as an opponent a priori. You have criticised me so strongly without trusting to my good faith, you accused me and I defended myself moderately. I repeat I created some sockpuppets just for protecting my sandbox page that italian admin Vito vandalise many times. If you control I used this sp only for editing and deleting vito's change in my sandbox.I created the first entry Massimo Firpo with my IP address and the entry Eugenio Di Rienzo with my user kurt4. You can control. Another entry I created 2 days before the block: Mario Rosa. You can delete it too if you want if this can be make you happier. :p Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.117.196.10 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC) --109.117.196.10 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

sorry, I created the article Mario Rosa as Kurt4 on 27 November 2012, 21.42 (see history). That was my last entry before been globally blocked the day after, 28 nov., during the morning. For this I reapeat I can't understand why you deleted my articles Eugenio Di Rienzo, Massimo Firpo and Bartolomeo Fonzio that I created before this last article Mario Rosa. My last edit as Kurt4 was: 23:10, 27 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+233) . . User talk:Vituzzu.I said to Vituzzu that I was present on wiki.en, the day after he blocked me globally for personal reason (unfortunately he's also a steward of wikimedia and I diden't know this). I diden't understand why I couldn't utilize my account no more and so I created some SP to protect my sandbox pages he was deleting. After I asked for unblock. This is the history. best wishes 109.117.196.10 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello James, just thought I'd give you the heads up that this user is a prolific (we're talking dozens and dozens) puppeteer who has done some pretty heinous BLPvios on itwiki among other things, aside from evading every single block that has been placed on him without any regard. I'd just keep reverting this LTA as there's nothing to be gained in giving him a pulpit. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)