User talk:JBW/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

142.55.218.104 (Sockpuppet)

• IP address user 142.55.218.104 keeps vandalizing the Punisher's page.[1] He/she gives no reson and no reliable sources to prove he or she's point since the page very well describes who and what the character is.[2]

Also, I believe that IP address user 142.55.218.104 is a what they call here on wiki, a Sockpuppet since the numbers are almost the same as the last

• 142.55.218.233
• 142.55.218.114
• 142.55.218.78

If you know another administrator who would be best to deal with this, please let them know.99.168.75.21 (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have range-blocked the IP-addresses involved. I have also removed semi-protection which another administrator put on the article. There are many constructive edits to the article from other IP addresses, so page protection would cause a good deal of collateral damage. However, in the last two months there has been only one useful edit on any article from the IP range involved, so range blocking for a few weeks will cause little if any collateral damage. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Block, please

Apparently upset by this [3], this guy went through my contributions reverting left and right [4]. Sorry to run to Daddy, but I believe a block is warranted. EEng (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I do see that the user in question has decided, rightly or wrongly, that there are problems with your editing and has evidently therefore been checking your editing history and reverting those of your edits that he/she rightly or wrongly think are at fault. However, I also see considerable problems with your editing, including edit warring on several articles, uncivil remarks to other editors, and so on. I do not see sufficient grounds for a block of the IP address, as you suggest, but beware of the possibility of a boomerang if you choose to pursue the matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to create an article deleted by you...

Hey, I was looking up Wikipedia to find out whether an article had been created on Inside Apple 'The Secrets Behind the Past and future Success of Steve Jobs' Iconic Brand' by Adam Lashinsky... I found out that the article had been deleted by you for the reason that there was Unambiguous advertising or promotion... Would it be alright if I recreated this article??? I assure you there will be no promotion or advertising and I will follow the norms of creating an article very strictly... I will create the article and hope that you will review it... This is just to remind you cause I thought you deserved to know....Please tell me if you like it or not...Ajayupai95 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a previous article on the subject was blatant spam should not in any way interfere with your ability to write a better article on the subject. I look forward to seeing the result of your work. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

third way/gun article

I re-redirected that article. The AFD was closed procedurally, and I was specifically instructed by the closing admin to take whatever action I felt was appropriate as if the AFD had not occurred.

Per their own site, they are firmly part of the third way, with the same management team "Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the AGS Foundation (AGSF) have been folded into Third Way, an organization founded and operated by the former AGS and AGSF management team." there is no reason for a stand alone article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. However, that does not address either the fact that the redirect target is unhelpful, as the target article does not mention the redirect term, nor the fact that I think the subject is notable enough to be the subject of an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrot Lord

You might want to take a look at my hunch at User talk:Dennis Brown#You'll probably say no. Ryan Vesey 18:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ME

Why did you block my ip? all i did was make the zomberry island part on the poptropica talkpage and its true that it already came on and i log everything so i dont knw whats wrong but just please respond :) Tyvm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.217.37.82 (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The IP address that you posted that comment from has never been blocked. I have checked every IP address that has edited Talk:Poptropica since June 2012, and none of them has ever been blocked. What blocked IP address are you referring to? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why u ban him till 14 december? Thats unfair cuz i know who he is and hes me so unblock him from editing adn other stuff please its completely unfair74.217.37.85 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How can I unblock "him" if you won't even tell me who you are talking about? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

74.217.37.82 74.217.37.87 (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The ironic part is that if the one IP address was blocked, and you came here using another IP address to request unblocking, then you'd both be eligible for longer blocks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Observe Hack Make

Observe Hack Make was already recreated again. Perhaps it should be salted. JDDJS (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been a few changes, making it questionable whether the article is sufficiently identical to the deleted version. Having recently had a G4 deletion of mine taken to deletion review for that sort of reason, I am reluctant to delete it. However, if another admin decides to delete it then salting will, I think, be appropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It was the right call to NOT G4 it. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Pratyeka and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 01:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Research institute DRAFT for review

Howdy, James. I'm following up with you about an article draft in my userspace that I'm hoping you'll review for me (User:JMoore501/Plants_for_Human_Health_Institute). You deleted the original article for being promotional, as was explained on my Talk page. I think this version is a big step in the right direction, hopefully you'll agree. I tried to source any content that could be construed as subjective in order to maintain a neutral perspective, but I'll let you be the judge. Many thanks! JMoore501 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)JMoore501

It's much better than the earlier versions, and I certainly wouldn't delete it in its present form. If you want to move it back to article space then I will have no objection. You may like to think about rephrasing things such as "Providing expertise in farm and agribusiness management, communications and marketing, and fresh produce safety, these Cooperative Extension staff serve as an outreach component to complement the research conducted at PHHI", which still comes across to me as somewhat promotional in tone, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and assistance throughout this process. I made a few more tweaks to try and eliminate any lingering promotional tone, and I moved the content back to article space (Plants for Human Health Institute). Let me know if you feel additional edits are needed. JMoore501 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)JMoore501

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

About Ashoka

search google and google books. you will find loads of them stating that maharani devi was ashoka's empress consort as his first wife.

• History of Ancient India: From 4250 BC to 637 AD By J.P. Mittal
• Costumes and Ornaments as Depicted in the Sculptures of Gwalior Museum By Sulochana Ayyar
• Aśoka By Mookerji Radhakumud
• Encyclopaedia of Ancient Indian Geography, Volume 2 edited by Subodh Kapoor
• Dictionary of Pali Proper Names By G.P. Malalasekera
• Aspects Of Ancient Indian Administration By Dilip Kumar Ganguly
• A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the ... By Upinder Singh
• Themes in Indian History By Dr. Raghunath Rai
• Age Of The Nandas And Mauryas edited by Kallidaikurichi Aiyah Nilakanta Sastri
• The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India By Balaji Sadasivan

I think ten books will be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.34.96 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. In that case, you should have no difficulty in providing sources for your edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

AppLift

Hi James,

May I enquire as to why you deleted AppLift?

Thanks, Thmomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaso67 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was unambiguous promotion, as explained both on your talk page and in the deletion log entry (which you have presumably seen, or you wouldn't know that I had deleted the article). Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion or advertising. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ángel Berlanga

Hello Watson. I just have a quick question about a page you recently deleted. Earlier today you deleted the page for the player mentioned above as it was an exact copy of the page that was recently deleted. Seems fair enough as I am guessing there were no sources to prove that he was notable but as a matter of fact he is. He made his official debut for Sporting Clube de Goa of the I-League which is included as a Fully-professional league and he scored a goal as well. Proof can be found here. Now I am not asking for you to unprotect the page and recreate the article in the version it was created in. Instead I am requesting that the page be unprotected so I could recreate the article from scratch while adding this source to establish notability and also add more sources to allow the page to pass GNG. Thank you very much. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Page Deletion....

Dear James,

I have left you a message in regards to a page that you deleted. I don't understand why, and would like to know exactly what cause you had in finding this particular page so offensive as to request deletion. If there was an issue that required some tweaking to the page or resources then I would have been happy to make amendments, but to have the page deleted after all of the work I went into, and then have no idea or explanation as to why is a bit disconcerting. Can you please take a look at the page again and tell me what exactly the problem was and how I can go about getting the page put back up and rectified to your satisfaction. Thank you, Kate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Wilkinson_(director) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate Field (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

1. For future reference, it does help, when posting a message to another user about an article, to give the title of the article. I tried checking your editing history to find what article you had created and I had deleted, but the account you posted this message from has never created any article, so that didn't help. Eventually, I found that an account called Ktfield, presumably another account of yours, has created an article entitled Mark Wilkinson (director).
2. Somehow or other the wrong deletion reason seems to have been recorded in the deletion log. The deletion took place in July 2010, and I certainly don't remember the circumstances, but the reason given was "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page", although, as far as I can see, you never did either of those. I don't know how it happened, but if, as seems likely, it was a mistake on my part, then I apologise.
3. You clearly saw the deletion proposal before the article was deleted, as you responded to it, and you will no doubt have seen the messages about it on the talk page of the account that created the article. You will therefore know that it was nominated by Ttonyb1 for deletion as a hoax. This impression was supported by the fact that not a single one of the references and external links in the article referred at all to Mark Wilkinson, but they were in fact largely about someone called Doug Biro. My own web searches also failed to produce any reliable source at all confirming anything written in the article about the subject of the article. If you can produce a reliable source showing that the article was not a hoax, then I can restore it for you to work on. However, I strongly advise you against asking me to do so, because doing so would virtually certainly be a waste of your time. My searches have made it abundantly clear that the subject of the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and so any article about him would be likely to be deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha! I have now found the reason why I deleted the article and gave "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page" as the deletion reason. On the talk page of the article, you wrote "sorry - you may delete this page - i thought i was working in the sandbox but then it published." That seems to me to be a pretty clear explanation of why I deleted it, and I think it answers your point about having "have no idea or explanation as to why". Evidently, after two and a half years, you had forgotten that you asked for it to be deleted. I also see that you have evidently forgotten that you have a copy of the article, at User:Ktfield/Mark Wilkinson, so there is no need to restore the deleted article. However, before putting time and effort into further work on it, I suggest that you carefully consider the comments I made above about notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ross Boggs

Can I ask you to take another look at this one. Although the page was written by OSUHEY, a previous attempt to get the article deleted for that reason failed at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Boggs), so it didn't qualify for G5, and there wasn't anything that might conceivably be a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 16:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about the AfD. Thanks for pointing it out. I disagree with the AfD decision, but I certainly have no wish to impose my own view against consensus at a deletion discussion, so I have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored the talk page as well. Hut 8.5 17:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops... I didn't think to do that. Thanks for doing it for me. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yoga pronunciation issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi! Let's get back and finish our debate over this issue. It makes little sense to terminate any discussion mid-way, unless you're willing to impose your views over mine. I ain't rebutting your arguments, but you need to understand the broader context of my argument. You seem to have taken offense of my last post here. --therash09 (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't take offence at all. I just disagree with you, but I have expressed my opinion, you have expressed yours, and I don't think it worth spending more time on the issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! It is not just about expressing views and parting ways. If it were that simple, I would have accepted your point of view as your own and marched ahead. But here, it is about an article and an edit that's being censored. So, you have to complement your opinion with reasoning and conclusion regarding my edit. With all due respect, you're a moderator here. You (and other moderators) can't therefore, undo my edit without giving any justification (does not include your personal view-point) behind it within the laws of the site. Kindly refer the last few lines that I've written in my last message here and let me know if you can allow me to put on the factually correct material, with edits to make the piece ethically right and abiding by your personal view-point too (something that I've agreed upon in the context of Yoga among few other words). If you feel that the content (after editing) is (yet) not appropriate, you'll have to give me reasons behind it along with any 'add-ons' that I shall have to put along to make it acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. That's what I'm expecting from a moderator and am hoping to read from you after this. --therash09 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My Goodness!!! You're an admin!!! O.O Wow, that only increases my respect for and expectations from you! ;D --therash09 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only do I disagree with your opinions about language, but I also disagree with your opinion that this issue is important enough to spend a lot of time on. Out of the thousands of issues that I could spend my time on, this one has so low a priority that I prefer to leave it and deal with other things where my time may be used more constructively. I have said all I wish to on the matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Galactic Battle.jpg

Hey, could you restore this when possible? It got deleted by SchuminWeb a couple of months back as being a corrupt or empty image. I don't think that was the case unless someone dicked around with the upload again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I think this was probably my fault. From the deletion log it looks as though last time I may have inadvertently restored just the file page, but not the actual image. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

IP 88.??????

This IP says that he/she has stopped editing, but it seems only in mainspace. In his/her user talk page, he/she still persisting in adding insulting messages. Arctic Kangaroo 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I saw that, and was going to block for 31 hours. However, when I clicked on the "block" link I saw that the IP address had previously been blocked as an open proxy, so I spent some time checking to see if this was so, with a view to a longer block. I have now confirmed that it is an open proxy, and blocked for two years. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

what? they don't let you do 2 years? LOL Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Who doesn't? Why? Proxies are often blocked for two years. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It says "1 year, 364 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds"... I find the precision of that funny. Btw he's vandalizing the block-notice now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

On second thoughts, maybe you are referring to the strange time which is a few hours less than two years. Recently, maybe a few weeks ago, some strange change in the working of the Wikimedia software happened. Previously, if I tried to block for a particular length of time, it blocked for that amount of time. Now, it often gives a time slightly different from the specified one, invariably specified down to hours minutes and seconds. Goodness knows why. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As for vandalizing the block-notice, I fully expected more talk page vandalism. I have removed talk page access. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected a typo you made

...and wished to inform you of it, with my apologies for intruding into a post of yours. You accidentally wrote "this kind of stuff is "one of the major reasons why you are unblocked" and I am certain you meant to say "blocked". I have made the minor adjustment to your post accordingly[5]mand sincerely hope you will find this helpful, rather than rude and intrusive. This is a courtesy notification, as I have altered a word of yours. If I have erred, please let me know. KillerChihuahua 13:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Abbass Public Relations and the "softer block" philosophy

Just thought i would explain the approach being used here. First off, a careful read of the template shows that it says the username can't be used, and also that promotional editing is not allowed regardless of what username they are using. This soft block approach is based on the idea that most spammers are acting out of ignorance, not malice. They are ill-informed and do not realize that Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of thing. The block tells them "we take this seriously" but the option to chose a new username and try to edit ina more acceptable manner tells them we're basically a decent bunch and willing to give them another chance.

By not using hardblocking in all cases and not posting the overblown {{spamusername}} template, which the blocked user never seems to understand, it is hoped that backlogs of unblock requests will be reduced. Regulars at WP:UAA have been using the approach for a while now. It has worked reasonably well, but there are exceptions where the user doesn't seem to understand that all they have to do is pick a new name and stop spamming. This would appear to be one of those cases. I would estimate it is only about one in every fifteen users blocked this way that appeals at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will think carefully about that. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Move Request

Could you move WXBQ back to WXBQ-FM where it belongs, please? The article was moved earlier today, for reasons unknown. The station's official callsign is "WXBQ-FM" and per naming conventions, we go with the official callsign, not the station calls itself, in naming articles. You may also want to let the editor who moved the article know of the problem, he's a newbie, so probably just needs a little guidance. Help all is well in your neck of the woods. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmies got it. Have a good day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

User page edit by a blocked user

How did this happen? You blocked the user at 12:42, 30 January 2012 with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) for (Vandalism). I have reverted the edit already — Peter Loader (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Errm, it happened because 1 February 2013 is more than a year after 30 January 2012, so the block has expired. Simple, really. However, if there is much more of that then a new block may be needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Woops — sorry, my mistake (and it has been 2013 for a whole month now). Peter Loader (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hob Bea Fridolin

Please restore all versions of article Hob Bea Fridolin on my subpage, I'd create article about him on Russian or Latvian wikis --Dark Eagle (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done See User:Dark Eagle/Hob Bea Fridolin. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Is my imagination going into overdrive?

Hi, if you have the time/inclination, could you have a quick look at this IP and this one as well please? Both make unconstructive edits, mainly removing section headers. My overly active imagination keeps joining dots between them to get a similar editing pattern and 'vague' focus of interest. I know a couple of times when I've reverted them, I've initially not put a warning on the talk page assuming it's just a case of something and nothing but now feel other editors have maybe done the same, so the situation has been running on. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your imagination is going into overdrive at all. The similarity in the types of editing is very striking, some of it being quite of rather unusual kinds. We canadd to that the fact that a clear majority of edits by 108.20.166.230 have been to articles previously edited by 50.138.176.117, the fact that a number of edits by 108.20.166.230 have been exact repeats of edits by 50.138.176.117, and the fact that both IP addresses geolocate to the same city (Malden, Massachusetts). Taking everything into consideration, I think we have what lawyers would call proof beyond all reasonable doubt. 108.20.166.230 is currently blocked for 31 hours, and 50.138.176.117 stopped editing before 108.20.166.230 started, so I don't see there is anything to be done at present. However, considering that the editing has been going on for more than three months, I think a significantly longer block would be justified if problematic editing continues from this person, no matter what IP address he/she may use. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you so much for taking the time to look at it as it's been driving me crazy! I think I stumbled across it a while ago and it was the edits to some of the rather obscure articles that started to draw my attention - I kept finding myself back at the Diane Whipple article when checking IPs previous contributions and it was an incident I'd never heard of. I suppose one good thing is that with the basic lack of imagination they show by always sticking to the same articles, it does mean they get noticed eventually! PS - I'm not quite sure why the IP number is just above this comment but have left it! Best wishes, SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again - it didn't take her/him/them (?) long to start again; I can't understand what they think it achieves! SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dana Ron

Was there a reason you did not leave a redirect when you moved Dana Ron to Dana Ron Goldreich? It broke several wikilinks. Also, I believe that "Dana Ron" is the name she uses in her professional publications (the main reason for her notability) so I have moved it back. Leaving the full name "Dana Ron Goldreich" at the start of the article should be ok, though. As for the proposed deletion, I believe she has a strong case for WP:PROF#C1, based on her citation record, so I unprodded it. You're welcome to take it to AfD instead of prod, but if you do I will certainly weigh in with a keep and based on my experience of similar academic deletion cases I would predict that to be the eventual outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

About the page of TWGHs Kap Yan Directors' College

Thanks for your suggestions. However, I obviously not going to add any advertisments or informations for that school. The information that I add can be searched in Internet. I will try to find websites to support the information. Please don't misunderstand me. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan Lake 2001 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, "Nowadays, the school is well-developed into a famous secondary school in New Territories. The school often gets outstanding results in public competitions and exams" reads to me rather like promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But this school is really good in HK. The result can be found in Ming Pao (A newspaper in HK). Also, you don't need to cancel the history part of the school. I will complete the page step-by-step because I am a bit busy. Anyways, thank you for your reminder. I will find points to support me. Wish that you will not cancel them again. Lastly, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, please forgive me if anything is wrong. talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan Lake 2001 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you believe that the school is "really good", but that is an opinion, not an objective fact, and a Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, thank you. Besides, I suggest you to check the page- "HKTA Tang Hin Memorial School", too. It has the same problem with mines and I have taken a wrong reference in that page before. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan Lake 2001 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you check the title of that article? There is no article called HKTA Tang Hin Memorial School.

Also, it may help you to know that when you post a message to a talk page you should finish it with four tildes, that is to say ~~~~. That will automaticallybe replaced by a signature, including a link to your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. It is called "Hong Kong Taoist Association Tang Hin Memorial Secondary School".Swan Lake 2001 (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The article was originally written virtually as an advertisement, in the first person. Most of the promotional content was removed years ago, but, strangely, a couple of sentences of the promotional material were left in. They have been tagged for sources ever since July 2008, and should have been removed long ago. I have removed them now. Thank you for pointing that out. I do understand your point of view: you come as a newcomer to Wikipedia, and look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, so that you can put the same sort of thing in articles you write. However, among the four million and something articles on English Wikipedia there are many that are not up to the required standard. Most of them get seen and improved fairly soon, but a few manage to survive for years before being noticed by anyone who will take the trouble to correct them. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada Apa Dengan Rina

Hi James, I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada Apa Dengan Rina under WP:NACD. My reason is listed above. I do, however, consider this a bold closure so please let me know if you disagree with my actions. I will talk page stalk this section for a reply. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there was a clear consensus to keep, and after two weeks there was no reason to leave the discussion open any longer, so I think you did exactly the right thing. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock reason

Hi James, would you please consider changing your block reason of 199.88.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to {{anonblock}} so that people on the range have some more information on what to do next? Maybe something like {{anonblock}}<!--Almost nothing but vandalism for years.-->. Regards, 03:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done As a matter of interest, can you tell me what difference it makes to what information people on the range see? Since I have never tried to edit from a range-blocked IP address, I have never seen the message that is shown. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's MediaWiki:Blockedtext, exactly the same as any other block, except $7 = 199.88.64.0/18 (for example). Primarily {{anonblock}} gives them a link to the request an account process rather than them having to go through two pages and have to read through heaps of stuff to get there. Plus on a range (as with well used single IPs) there is a much larger chance of 'innocent' people being blocked and {{anonblock}} doesn't directly accuse them of being responsible for years of vandalism. The main reason for the html comment (which isn't rendered in MediaWiki:Blockedtext - ie blocked user can't see it) is a reminder for yourself exactly what the block was for or for a more specfic reason for the block which the blocked user doesn't need to know. For example I've seen one from MaterialScientist which was (from memory) "{{schoolblock}}<!-- Range used by UkBoxen -->", which in terms of ACC, directed where I should look for a connection and where the checkusers should look for a connection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That is very helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I have tried to edit from blocked IP addresses, in fact that is why I created this account years ago, and I also quite frequently try to edit via a blocked proxy, in order to check whether it still is a proxy. However, I had no idea that using "anonblock" made any difference to what was seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it does but you have to use the curly brackets as well. But it just to the extent that the template has more information on why there is a block and what to do about it than "Vandalism". That's why {{blocked proxy}} (or {{checkuserblock}}) are and can be used as a blocking reason, they provide the blocked user with specific information about the block (because the template is called and rendered). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

Hi JamesBWatson. What must I do with this [6], [7], [8]? He don't want to discuss on the talk page. Divot (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppetry is not enough

I'm growing rather tired of this senseless round of bad acts. If PeterAmbrosia's newest sockpuppets ‎User:GalacticWarriorOfLight and User:DupreDuper wasn't enough for the prime purpose of editing the VGMaps article, he has resorted to harassment. Most of his sockpuppets were taken care before until now. I request you to sort this problem out in any way you can. After that I really want to move on without any more of this nonsense. Thanks in advance for assistance. Deltasim (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked GalacticWarriorOfLight as a blatantly obvious sockpuppet, reverted such of that account's edits that had not already been reverted, and semi-protected the article and its talk page. Unfortunately, I don't expect that will completely stop the problem, but it may help to slow it down to some extent, and it's as much as I can offer. As for DupreDuper, it's not clear to me that this is another PeterAmbrosia sockpuppet, but you could either try posting to WP:SPI and asking for a checkuser, or alternatively contact a checkuser directly and ask for help, if you think it worth doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I am very grateful. I think I put the sockpuppet case aside unless I am attacked again, after all other users have been helpful enough to do it for me with three other accounts. I can sit back and get back to being a busy body.Deltasim (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruption agan

After one month block expired, user again started POV national agenda, by removing the "wrong" nation. This is only minor thing, and not important, but please, send some neutral warning, or something. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the subject, and so can't judge how good or bad the edit was. However, even if it was, as you say, disruptive, it seems to have no connection with the reason for the previous blocks, which was edit warring. Since you evidently know more about the subject than I do, you are no doubt more capable than I am of giving a suitable warning, if one is justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you are right, sorry for disturbing. I will warn him... --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

edit on VTR Open

Hi, i see that you think i am a vandal, and you revise my edit but it isn't a vandalic action. Nicolas Jarry is a chilean player, not american as a person continue to change the nation. So please not consider my change an act of vandalism, please. It was only a simple correction. Best Wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.235.242 (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I suggest in future making sure you use an edit summary, though, to make it clear what you are doing, to avoid giving the wrong impression. (Use the box labelled "Edit summary" below the main editing area when you edit a page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But if you see in the edit history i made this change also a week ago and the same person change the country and i explanied the edit that i've made. I will hear your suggestion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.235.242 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

1. I see that an editor with an IP address similar to yours made the same edit nearly a week ago, but I don't see anywhere where you explained the edit. I again suggest using edit summaries to explain, and if you need to give a longer explanation than is possible in the edit summary box, then do so on the article's talk page.
2. I suggest getting an account, so that in cases like this people can see that you made the edit a week ago, as otherwise it is not at all clear that it is the same person editing. There are other advantages in having an account, too.
3. These sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and more, say that he is a USA player. The only source I have been able to find anywhere that suggests that he is Chilean is this one. It may be that that source is much more reliable than all the others put together, but on the face of it, it seems more likely that he is a USA player. If you do believe that you have reliable sources that show that one to be right and all the others o be wrong, then contact the otehr editor on his/her talk apge, and explain. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: deleting my addition to the NPD page

I do refuse the allegation and find it entirely absurd to assume anyone's intention to violate anyone's copyrights by my attempt to add th section for the revised DSM-5 criteria.

The former part of the article -Symptoms- contains rephrased parts of DSM-IV - why isn't that removed then? Or in other words, if I would have included the DSM-5 criteria as "symptoms" and rephrased in my own wording, that would have been acceptable?

I assumed that it is acceptable to insert quotations into an article, as long as we add the reference to the source. And I did so, by adding the direct link to a publicly available document on the official DSM website. Among many others, the article "Narcissistic parents" also contains direct quotations from the original contents. And exactly because I "admitted" that the respective following part was from the DSM-5 document proves my honest intentions. Quite obviously, as I am sure you are also aware, if one doesn't "admit" the source, that imposes a problem, not when he/she "admits" it. Such "admittance" is rather termed as referring to the source.

What I added to the article was the latest available official list of the NPD criteria, without which the current article is outdated and offers no accurate information on the current consensus regarding this PD. I am very surprised that the addition was removed, especially because it would have been relevant up-to-date information, while the currently offered link in support of the new DSM-5 proposal is not available publicly, only leads to a log-in screen, therefore it offers no information on the new NPD criteria at all. The reader may only start wondering what are those.

Fine by me, and no blocking me is necessary. I have better ways to spend my time than 'fighting for my rights' to work for someone for free then receiving false absurd accusations in return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezustnap (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to your concerns. I will try to clarify some of the points you have raised. I hope this will be helpful to you.

I never suggested that it was your intention to infringe copyright. However, people very often do so unintentionally, due to lack of understanding of copyright law, and that is what i thought had happened here.

The belief that text copied from elsewhere is exempt from copyright law provided one cites one's source is a very common misunderstanding, which appears to stem at least in part from a confusion between the two quite different concepts of copyright and plagiarism. Plagiarism is using other people's work in such a way as to give the misleading impression it is your own, and clearly citing your source is a defence against any charge of plagiarism. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, is using someone else's work without their permission, and telling the world that you are using someone else's work does not alter the fact that you do not have the copyright owner's permission. Copyright law is complicated, with all sorts of ifs and buts. However, it is commonly acceptable to make a brief quote of a sentence or so, but scarcely ever acceptable to copy substantial quantities of text, as you did.

If, as you suggest, you have found other examples of copyright infringement, either in the same article or elsewehre, then please remove them, or, if you are uncertain, raise the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Obviously, copyright infringement can be dealt with only when someone notices it and takes action. In this case, I dealt with the copyright problems taht i noticed, but there may well be more.

The answer to how to deal with a lack of up to date content in an article is to add content in your own words. I know that doing so takes more effort and time, but it is, unfortunately, necessary.

I am glad that you do not intend to "fight for your rights". People who come to Wikipedia with the attitude that they have "rights" here, and that they should fight and quarrel when they find others disagree with them, tend to be regarded as disruptive, and sooner or later tend to be blocked from editing. It is much more constructive to raise concerns with the other editors concerned in a collaborative spirit, with the aim of asking for clarification, discussing issues, and trying, ideally, to reach agreement, or, failing that, at least a solution which all parties are prepared to settle for.

As I have already said above, I hope this attempt to clarify some of the issues will be helpful to you, but please do feel welcome to contact me again if you have any other questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Killshot

I just watched the DVD - he's dead - how would you 'reference' that? Just a fact -- sorry that annoys you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.246.187 (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't annoy me. I wouldn't have lasted on Wikipedia a tenth as long as I have if I took such things personally. However, when I see an editor whose edting consists of adding such comments as "gangster wannabe" to articles, I tend to be doubtful, and in such cases unsourced edits are likely to be questioned. By Wikipedia policy, if anyone challenges your editing, you must not repeat the edit unless you can provide sources for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Watch the DVD -- I don't lie, why would i? You wiki-editor's 'don't take it personally' but you do love to wield your 'power' in mini-fiefdoms. If you met up with a contract killer in a bar, would YOU decide to team up with him? Gordon-Levitt (presumably) took this role to play a tough guy and change his image. And his wannabe character, after displaying anti-social behavior, tries to rob Rourkes character, another fact left out of the article. AGAIN, just the FACTS. You can't 'source' every word or phrase. Now, if i had said 'wannabe choreographer', then maybe you'd have reason to 'be doubtful' -- please, try to understand: if YOU have not seen the movie, you have NO authority on the matter.

My 'source' is the fact that i (just) watched the DVD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.246.187 (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusing me of "loving to wield power" is not likely to improve your case. On the whole, it is more likely to help your case if you are civil to other editors, and avoid personal attacks, even if you think other editors don't deserve civility. Maybe you can't source every detail, but that does not alter the fact that Wikipedia policy is that any content that is challenged must not be included unless it is sourced. An anonymous person who comes along to Wikipedia and says "You can take my word for it, I have seen the evidence" is not a reliable source. Anyone can come here and make any such claim they like, and unfortunately many people do come here and make unjustified claims, sometimes out of dishonesty, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of incompetence. The use of such terms as "wannabe" does not, of course, mean that you must be wrong, but observation over the course of the six and a half years I have been contributing to Wikipedia shows that usually people who write like that, rather than in standard English, are people (commonly, but not always, children) whose approach is "I want to put this in this Wikipedia article, and the fact that I think it's right is enough", rather than people who are willing to carefully consider issues such as the need to make it clear that their edits are justified. (Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.) As for my having "no authority on the matter", I never claim to have authority over any content of any Wikipedia article. Rightly or wrongly, the way that Wikipedia works is not that people who have first hand experience have more authority than others, but that we require evidence which can be verified by anyone, whether they have first hand experience or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You can verify authenticity by watching the film, which anyone can do, but/and yes, that is firsthand experience. If 1000 wiki-contributors 'voted' that the character is a 'wannabe', would that be enough 'proof' for you? -- i doubt it. We're not in a court of law here, requiring 'evidence' to convict; it's about a movie, for gawd's sake! What 'evidence' can YOU point to proving " ...Wayne shows up at the office of Carmen's boss wearing a suit..."? And Wiki's policy makes no logical sense; the film project disallows 'attribution' from IMDB.com, yet EVERY film entry puts a link to the film @ IMDB.com. Why? Your presumption/arguement is that site is fan-based, but so is Wiki! -- get real! AND, you do 'take it personally', as all wiki-power users do; that power is your little piece of 'fame', i don't fault you for that -- it must be thrilling for you. And, almost lastly, i am much older than you; you're a wannabe wannabe, definitely not a 'hipster'! Lastly, i won't bother to contribute anymore, so you "win". Yippee for you!

( I expect you to delete this exchange soon; get rid of the 'evidence', quick! ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.246.187 (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

1. There's quite a bit of I didn't hear that there.
2. More personal attacks.
3. So how old am I? Clearly you must know, or you wouldn't know that you are older than me.
4. etc, etc... JamesBWatson (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

189.27.160.15

Hi, JamesBWatson, I see you blocked 189.27.160.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) yesterday. Another IP address is doing the same changes. Regards. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

To begin with I was a bit puzzled, until I worked out that by 189.27.160.151 you meant 189.27.160.15, and by 87.113.202.181 you meant 187.113.202.181. However, I have now blocked the new IP address and semiprotected the articles edited by that one for a few days. I hope that will be enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. It was a copy-paste error. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agmori & related edits

Wrong JBW. Read this back to yourself and this time, place it in context within the section. The reference "pig ignorant" was NOT directed at the editor, it was uttered to describe the personality of the article subject who has chosen to involve herself in political commentary on the side of her own nation on a matter on which her ignorance is unequivocal. I gather that is not the issue here, but now I have cleared this up, it should now be evident that there was no personal attack by me. My deletion of an edit that is contrived from end to end to attack me is within site rules, furthermore this type of edit can also be removed by any intervening editor. Ask yourself one question, supposing I went back and reverted myself to restore the comment that referred to me as an "idiot", what exactly am I adding to Wikipedia? How can the continued display of such an edit be conducive for the site? So, I issue a warning. Was that unfair? Would it have been better that I did nothing? To all intents and purposes, that would have given the "new user" the green light that it is fine to go insulting people. The next action of this user is to remove every comment I have made on that talk page. Am I right in thinking you countenance this? I thought we were here to write an encyclopaedia. The user was warned that such behaviour was unacceptable, still free to edit, could have gone onto any article and made a positive contribution but opted to be disruptive. Do you still sense a fledgling good faith contributor here? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the situation. It is clear that, as you say, I misunderstood part of what you did. Re-reading your "pig-ignorant" comment in the light of what you have said here, I see that it can indeed be taken the way you said that you intended, referring to the subject of the article. However, it is also perfectly possible to read it as referring to the editor whose comment you were referring to: perhaps, if you haven't already done so, you may like to go back and re-read it, and see how it could be taken that way. It seems that you were guilty merely of making an unfortunate choice of words, which left your comment ambiguous, rather than of a personal attack, which is what I thought. Perhaps something like "...it shows her as pig ignorant and biased towards her nation's mindset..." would have been better, so as to avoid the possibility of your comment being read as "...it shows you as pig ignorant and biased towards her nation's mindset...", which is the way I read it. As for the removal of the other editor's comment, from your point of view it was an unprovoked personal attack, and removing it will therefore have seemed reasonable, but from the point of view of anyone who had read your comment the other way, it looked as though you were removing another editor's response to your personal attack. When the other editor then removed your comment, he/she had just seen you remove his/her comment, so, as far as he/she was concerned, he/she was only doing the same as you had done. I think it would have been better to have given the user a talk page message, explaining why you thought your removal of a comment was justified, while his/her removal of your comments wasn't. An immediate level four warning with no previous messages is justified only in very exceptional circumstances. Likewise, reporting to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is something that should normally be done after the editor has been given gentle explanations, has continued in the same way, has been given at least one sterner warning, and has still continued, not when a new user has just done a couple of things that are not acceptable. (There are rare exceptions, but that is the general rule.) You ask me "Am I right in thinking you countenance this?" No, I don't countenance it, but I think it would have been better to go further in assuming good faith and explaining the situation to the new user. Remember that he/she may well have wrongly thought, as I did, that he/she was responding to a personal attack, and also that in removing talk page comments he/she probably thought he/she was just doing the same as you had done. You ask me "Do you still sense a fledgling good faith contributor here?" I don't know. It may be that we had a bad-faith editor from the start, or it may be that we had a good faith contributor who, under the impression that you were being belligerent, made the mistake of joining in doing the same. It may be that we will never know which of those two was the case, but in a situation where either is possible you should start by assuming good faith, which you clearly didn't. The long and the short of all this is that, while I now see that you did not, as I first thought, intend to make a personal attack, nevertheless you (a) unfortunately wrote in a way which could easily be read that way, and (b) were much quicker than you might have been to jump on a newcomer, rather than trying to advise him/her. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

All right JBW, thanks for the explanation and for the alert message on my own talk page - if you wish to reply to this then you may do so here as I shall watch for developments. To be honest, I know the ambiguous comment was not taken as a personal insult by the other user because his own reply (the "idiot" statement) acknowledged my branding of the article subject as ignorant. Either way, I think that is finished now and I have nothing to add to the section. Another editor thought it best to restore the offensive edit but I have chosen to stand back as I really don't wish to inflame things. You see, after your message I was editing very uncomfortably because I have in the past received a block for a personal attack - I think you as admin have access to this type of review. The victim was an editor with whom I'd had a series of single-theme squabbles inside the past hours and when I addressed another editor arguing with him, I said something to the effect of "there is no point trying to explain this to someone with learning difficulties". That had been the second time I made an offensive remark and I suddenly found myself unable to edit. The interesting thing was that I really did not know that an indirect comment with no bad language could count as an attack but indeed it does. I appealed successfully so was very thankful to have the block lifted and I have had no more problems in that field - I merely adopted a new strategy for future edits. However that half hour of not being able to edit felt horrible, it was set to last 36 hours I think. My point is I know exactly how little can constitute a personal attack and to call a fellow editor "ignorant" goes deep into dangerous territory. Technically you could have blocked me given that past activity. I am glad you didn't, I just hope that I am not on any type of disciplinary ground. Meanwhile, regarding the other editor, I shall after what you said resort to gentler cautions if problems persist: I cannot be too quick to raise another AIV/ANI case as even I could see that this looks like harassment of a new editor. Now we're in the clear, I hope not to have any more trouble. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions and a request

I am requesting that you remove the following unsupported accusation from my User Talk Page:

"I see editing to promote a point of view"

You made it as part of this edit.

Since you didn't supply evidence (you know, diffs and such), one could easily misinterpret your comment to mean that I have edited to promote something other than a neutral point of view as defined and required by Wikipedia editing policy. I've done no such thing. Alternatively, if you feel there is some merit to your accusation, and you would be so kind as to bring your comment into compliance with WP:NPA - Never acceptable Personal Attacks (Example 5) policy by including the required evidence, we can discuss it further and see if we can find the source of your misperception. Thanks in advance. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that that comment can be regarded as a "personal attack". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it can, as I've just indicated. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Is there a reason you are floating that allegation about my personal behavior without providing evidence? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Stating that your edits appeared to promote a point of view is not a personal attack, even if you think it is mistaken. I have no intention of spending my time finding a whole string of edits that promoted a point of view. However, since you ask, I will give you two diffs to edits where you referred to a particular disputed view as "inaccurate and unfounded", and another view as "the truth": [14], [15]. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't state that my edits "appeared" to promote a point of view, which would have softened your allegation a little; you said "I see editing to promote a point of view" — but yes, both are indeed personal attacks when you cast them out there without supporting evidence, regardless of what I may think. It's policy. But it is not my intention to lecture you about policy specifics, and I totally sympathize with your sigh of exasperation (I'd rather be doing something else, too), so I'll try to be brief. Your last comment, along with your diff selection, has revealed to me that there is indeed a misperception here as I suspected. Bear with me for a moment longer, then I'll get out of your hair.

You are operating under the misperception that this is still a situation of "particular disputed views", as did I until not too long ago. It's not. It's no more disputed than whether the earth is flat or spheroid (yes, you can still find people espousing the "unfounded and inaccurate" view, but WP:NPOV prohibits us from elevating and comparing them as equally "disputed views"). The "inaccurate and unfounded" and "[media] were criticized for failing to debunk the charges and report the truth" wording is not mine; it is conveyed by countless sources deemed reliable for assertion of fact as required by Wikipedia. (I cited FAIR.org and FactCheck.org only because the opposing editor had just introduced them, but reliable academic sources convey the same thing.) I apologize to you for assuming you were aware that this NPOV matter has already been repeatedly dragged through the stages of Dispute Resolution multiple times, always with the same conclusion. Almost always with the same aggitating editor at the helm (see Talk:Swiftboating/Archive_2#POV_-_Section_DISPUTE for just one example). My edits in the 2 diffs you provided (it's the very same edit in each diff, by the way, with the only difference being that one is under a different header) were compliant with WP:NPOV, and in no way "promoted a point of view". I can see how there might be that perception to someone totally unfamiliar with the subject and it's history, but that simply is not the case in this instance. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, if your concern really is, as your initial comment in this section suggests, to have the statement removed from your talk page, then why don't you just remove the whole thing? JamesBWatson (talk)

Because that's not what my concern is, and that action wouldn't address my actual concern. My concern is that you have made an incorrect allegation about me (regardless of whether it was made in good faith, accidental or malicious - it's still incorrect), and I'd like to see that corrected. If I delete it (or argue and bitch about it), that just means that I disagree, which is not what I wish to see conveyed to the reader. If you remove it (or strike it, or do that admin-voodoo that removes it from view from all non-admins, whatever), that prevents the reader from getting the wrong idea about me. That's my big concern here. I can take criticism when justified, but that isn't the case here. So what do you say? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, it seems that the examples I chose were not such unambiguously good ones as I thought, but the general tone of much of your recent editing, not just those two edits, has been to support a particular point of view which other editors have opposed. Whether you think their opposition is reasonable or not does not alter that fact. I don't see how "I see editing to promote a point of view" differs from "Some of your editing appears to me to promote a point of view": it seems to me that you are making a distinction without a difference. However, the fundamental point is that, no matter what the exact details of what I said, and no matter whether my impression was justified or not, expressing the opinion that your editing sought to promote a point of view comes nowhere near to being an "attack" on you. However, since your main concern seems to be that you want the declined unblock request with the remark about promoting a point of view removed from your talk page, and since for some reason you think that my removing it will somehow be better than your using it, then I will remove it, although personally I think it is yet another distinction without a difference. My final remark on this issue is this: I had never, so far as I remember, come across you before I saw the unblock request that has led to this. However, if the amount of fuss you have made about this one remark, and the belligerent attitude you show, are typical of your approach to other editors who do things you disagree with, then it is not surprising that you have such a long block record, though it may be surprising that you have not yet been blocked indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Having looked more closely at the block record, I think my remark about it, although made in good faith, was unfair, and I withdraw it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, now you've made me sigh in exasperation — no easy feat. You and I have indeed crossed paths several times before; always amicably, which is why this discourse from you strikes me as completely uncharacteristic. (This instance from your Talk page archives comes to mind, but I can try to find the others if you require.) The reason I am making such a "fuss" about your personal attack is because I take my efforts to edit according to WP:NPOV very seriously. You erroneously accused me of editing to promote a point of view, so I asked you to substantiate or withdraw that accusation; simple, and no drama. I figured you'd redact those 9 words, and then this mess could be relegated to the archives and forgotten. Instead, you backpeddled your accusation to say I only "appeared" to be promoting POV (and offered diffs), rather than simply withdraw the erroneous accusation. When those diffs were shown to be "not such unambiguously good ones", and in fact are shown to not support, but actually contradict, your attack, you shifted gears again and doubled-down with another diff-less mischaracterization: "the general tone of much of your recent editing, not just those two edits, has been to support a particular point of view which other editors have opposed". That's completely backwards, and outrageous. My recent edits, along with the edits of several others, have been to support the reliably sourced Neutral Point Of View which one editor personally opposes (just as he has in numerous past Talk page, Noticeboard and RfC discussions that have concluded against his personal POV pushing). Please, just look at the article recent edit history for once so that we have our facts straight.

No one likes to admit when they've made a mistake, I get that, but all this backpeddling and equivocation is unnecessary. Folks make mistakes all the time, and I just figured you made an understandable minor misread of the situation, so I asked you to remove that 9-word unsubstantiated accusation, that's all. But after reading your "final remark on this issue", I am beginning to wonder.

• you want the declined unblock request with the remark about promoting a point of view removed

No, that is a mischaracterization of what I said. I asked if you would please remove just the 9-word attack because it is erroneous, not the whole declined unblock response.

• (Removing declined unblock request, as a favour to the user, who has asked me to do so on my talk page.)

No, again that is a mischaracterization of what I said. I never requested that you remove the declined unblock request; I can handle that part. I requested that you remove the unsubstantiated "I see editing to promote a point of view" verbiage. Would you mind doing that, please? If you genuinely did misunderstand what I have been repeatedly requesting, then perhaps this has made it clear for you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I forgot I had had contact with you before. Evidently the example you give, which was from over six months ago, had got swept away from my memory by the water under the bridge. I don't think that I have been "backpeddling". To me, "I see editing to promote a point of view" means that there is something which to me looks like editing to promote a point of view: what else can "I see" mean? Evidently what I intended to be a different form of words saying essentially the same thing came across to you as meaning something different, and I am sorry that my unfortunate choice of words gave a misleading impression. When I wrote "my final remark on this issue" above, I really intended it to be that, but in light of what you have written above, I will say little more.

When I looked at your unblock request, the central point was whether you were edit warring. I found several edits in which you added the same content repeatedly. (You also made other changed in one or more of those edits, but that is irrelevant.) Making the same edit, or substantially the same edit, is what "edit warring" means. However, the edit warring was on a very small scale, and in itself, without other context, would not have justified the block, so I considered other factors. I found that you had previously had several blocks for edit warring, which in itself changes things, as you clearly already knew that edit warring was unacceptable, and had had an opportunity to get acquainted with Wikipedia's standards on edit warring, which in itself justifies blocking sooner than would be reasonable under other circumstances. I also found that, apart from the particular edits which repeated the same changes, your whole conduct in relation to the article in question was combative, and you had been expended a significant amount of time in trying to ensure that the content of the article reflected what you clearly regard as the correct view of events, in the face of another editor who was trying to impose a different view of events. It may well be that your view of the matter is fully justified, and that the other editor was completely wrong, but that does not alter the fact that you were editing to keep a particular point of view in the article. In my view, this puts the very small-scale edit warring in a different light, because even though the actual reverts may have been small in number, they were part of a larger-scale pattern of repeated attempts to keep the article in line with what you believed to be the correct view. That is what I meant by "editing to promote a point of view". No doubt I could have chosen different wording, and if I had done so then maybe I would have avoided giving you offence, I don't know. However, I have an offer to make to you. I am willing to post a message to your talk page, stating that my statement about "editing to promote a point of view" was not intended to be a personal attack, and that it was not intended to imply any judgement as to whether that the point of view in question was wrong or biased, but only that the rather small-scale edit warring took place in the context of a larger-scale dispute over the point of view that the article should reflect. I am also willing to add that I accept that the point of view you favoured is not a biased or unreasonable one, and that I am sorry that my choice of words gave you an impression that I did not intend. I can post that statement to your talk page on its own, or I can restore the declined unblock request and put the statement after it to give it context, whichever you prefer. I still do not regard expressing the opinion that you were editing to promote a point of view as a "personal attack", and I am not willing to refactor the declined unblock request to remove or strike out those words, but what I have suggested should, I hope, make it clear to anyone who sees the declined request that it was not intended as an attack or an accusation of bias. Although that is not exactly what you asked for, it seems to me that it covers the main substance of your grievance. In your original post which started this discussion, you said that one could easily misinterpret [my] comment to mean that [you] have edited to promote something other than a neutral point of view", and the clarification I have offered would explicitly state that I did not intend to imply that.

If you are willing to accept that offer then please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response, both here and in your email. I also appreciate you taking the extra step of making an offer, in an effort to help move things along to an amicable resolution. Since I'm sending a reply to your email momentarily, I'll include my response there. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Advice?

Hello! I need some advice, and Peridon suggested maybe you could help me. I am considering whether to report a user for a years-long pattern of tendentious editing. A year ago he was taken to AN and threatened with a topic ban; the topic ban proposal was suspended after he promised to change his editing style, but he hasn't. He was also warned at an unrelated ArbCom case (about a larger subject, not just about him) to change his editing pattern, but he hasn't. I was not involved in either of those cases and wasn't aware of them until recently. I and many other editors have asked him to tone down his aggressive, long-winded, argumentative style; however, he has dismissed all such comments, even after I reminded him of his promises made under threat of a topic ban.

Encouraged by another user, I am on the verge of taking him to the community for a possible topic ban or other solution. My question to you is, what is the appropriate forum? I don't hang out in the "drama areas" so I'm not familiar with the right place for such things. Should it go to AN, AN/I, or RFC/U?

I have been drafting (offline) a detailed summary of the situation over multiple discussions with plenty of diffs. I was going to take it to AN/I since that is the only place I am familiar with for such things. However, this is not about an "incident", it is about a pattern of problems. I note that his earlier topic ban threat came at AN rather than AN/I (the topic ban was actually proposed after an administrator posted at AN to say they were giving up their mop in frustration over the badgering from this user). One of the recommendations at that closure was that the user should be taken to RFC/U if problems persist. I was unfamiliar with RFC/U, so I had a look - and was appalled. It looks dauntingly complicated and formal, and despite all its formal trappings it can't enforce any result. It seems to be the recommended place to take cases of chronic tendentious editing, but I don't see the point - when the problem has persisted so long and has been addressed by so many people, and all efforts at negotiated change have been futile.

I deliberately haven't given you any specifics here; I just want your advice about the proper forum for this kind of situation. Please reply here on your talk page. Thanks for any advice! --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid my short answer is that I hate AN, AN/I, RFC/U and all those ridiculous drama-fests, and avoid them most of the time. I am therefore probably not the best person to advise you, and I'm not sure why Peridon suggested me. However, I will give you a few thoughts on the matter. Sometimes, by far the best thing to do is to approach an individual administrator, rather than going to one of the boards. For example, if an editor is being so disruptive that an immediate block is justified, there really is no reason not to get it dealt with directly, without wasting everybody's time with prolonged discussions. Of course, there are cases where this is not suitable, as a community discussion really is needed, and from your brief description this may be one of those cases, but without knowing more details I can't say. If you are going to take it to a board, AN/I doesn't seem right, as what you have described doesn't seem to be an incident. RFC/U has two drawbacks. Firstly, the amount of formality and process involved makes it awkward to use. Secondly, in my experience it rarely achieves much. It's all very well getting a lot of comments about an editor, some favourable and some unfavourable, but at the end of it all, you are just left with a closed case with a lot of opinions and no action. At least, that's the way it seems to me, but bear in mind that my experience of RFC/U is very limited. My inclination would be to suggest that if you are going to take it to a board, AN would be my choice. However, you say that a previous AN case was closed with a recommendation that the user should be taken to RFC/U if problems persist, in which case there is a risk that taking it back to AN would just result in your being told "you were told to take it to RFC/U, so go away" (only more politely, I hope). Sorry that I am not giving you a clear recommendation, but it is difficult to be more specific without knowing more about the case, and my limited experience of the boards doesn't help either. On the whole, I think the best advice is to give more details to someone so that they can give you more specific advice. You could do so by email if you think you need to keep things confidential at this stage. I said "someone": you are welcome to give details to me if you like, and I will do the best I can to advise you, though I may not be the best person to do so. All of the others that Peridon mentioned are in my opinion very helpful. Boing! said Zebedee has experience of being an administrator, but has voluntarily stepped down from his adminship, but that does not diminish his ability to offer advice, and I believe he was much more of a regular at the admin boards than me. I think Dennis Brown is there more than me, too, but I don't know about Drmies. So, to summarise: if you are willing to, then give more details to someone, in confidence if necessary, so they can be in a better position to judge what is best. (It is also possible that this is a matter that can be dealt with by a single administrator, though from your description I am doubtful about that.) If you don't want to do that, then my personal inclination would be to prefer AN, despite the previous recommendation to take it to RFC/U, but I may be wrong there. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JBW. I hear you about avoiding the drama; that's usually my approach as well. That was pretty much my read on RFC/U as well - all that effort and what's achieved? Nothing. This is not something that could be handled by a single administrator; there's too much backstory, and there will certainly be arguments and opinions. Dennis Brown's page says he is really busy right now; I'll ask Boing. Thanks for your thoughts! --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

50.135.199.114

Howdy! I reported this IP vandal to WP:AIV, but my request was removed with no clear explanation. This IP has already been twice blocked by you and they're at it again. Date-faking, unsourced, questionable edits with no explanations. Here's the content of my report. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• 50.135.199.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Twice-blocked IP continues to submit bogus, unreferenced content, and with no justification by way of edit summary. Has been warned about that before. Widespread and questionable date changes. For example: changing this song from a 2007 release to 2006 release. Or removing a Nick Jr. show from the Nick Jr. template, when a quick Google search shows that it was a Nick Jr. show. This IP has a long-term pattern of disruptive edits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the same person as before, and clearly vandalism only. Blocked for six months. Thanks for letting me know about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Brigantes

Hello James

I believe the right content is more important than the form is. But yes, we have to do our best about using correct words. Wrong syntax should be changed or warned, not deleted. Has Nick consider neutral point of view and 2nd pillar? The Brigetio is one of the Roman cities. Does Betanzos, Bergondo, Bragança, Briançon have more common to Brigantes, than Brigetio/Brigetium? There are a lot of information’s about Brigetio on the internet. If the sources are problem I can provide them more. I also noticed Nick don't understand basic principles of etymology. Would you help me find out wrong syntax in: ", Brigetio on the border of Slovakia and Hungary." ([16]) please. I hope the nationalism is not the reason for blockade? If there are no other problems I see no reason to add that text to Brigantes. Rheton (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Canadian athletes

Hi James

Something went a bit awry in your attempted closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 18#Category:Canadian_athletes. I have now formally closed the discussion, and explained my actions in the closing statement.

Hope that's all OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't attempt to close that discussion. In fact, I didn't even know it existed. If you look at either my deletion log reason [17] or my edit summaries when I replaced the deleted category [18], you will see that I was acting on the basis of a speedy deletion nomination made on the basis of an earlier discussion in February 2011. However, I have no quarrel with what you have done. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm sorry for not spotting that you were referring to an earlier CFD, and that the categ had not be tagged for the CFD which was open.

Thanks for the clarification. Do you want me to amend my closing statement to reflect this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have put a brief note there. If you want to change what you have done that's up to you , but I don't really care. It's not a big deal, really. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I put a note here thanking you for the clarification, so I hope we are all sorted :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Swimmer/Swimming Coach

Hi James,

I am a nationally and internationally recognized swimming coach from Pretoria, South Africa. I was also a decorated competitive swimmer in my formative years. I have testimonials/references/photo's/official results from swimmers/newspaper article on file to attest to this.

I would like to create a Wikipedia page for myself. Is this possible? I have registered and started a page but it seems to have been deleted by Wiki admin.

I by no means want to advertise/promote myself and I am new to Wiki so don't quite know how it works yet. I would just like to be recognized.

Could you give me some advice please?

Regards,

Marcel da Ponte Head Coach - Pretoria Aquatic Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceldaponte (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest strongly discourage anyone from writing an article about themselves (or any other subject in which they have a close personal involvement, such as a business they work for).
2. The article you wrote is a very good illustration of one of the main reasons for that guideline. Very often it is very difficult, or even impossible, for an editor writing about a subject in which they are closely involved to stand back and see their own writing objectively, with the result that their writing is very likely to come over as promotional, even if the person in question sincerely did not intend to use Wikipedia for spam. The article you wrote really did read as promotion, and Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion.
3. A topic may be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if it satisfies the notability guidelines. I have searched on the internet, and can find no evidence at all that you satisfy those guidelines. If you don't, then any effort put into writing an article about yourself is likely to be wasted effort, as the article will almost certainly be deleted very soon. While some problems with articles, such as promotional tone, can be dealt with by rewriting, no amount of rewriting of an article will change the notability of the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Images - technical questions

Hi, a new editor has asked me some technical questions about adding / changing images in articles but my technical knowledge is minimal. Who can I refer them to? Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not an area I know much about, and I really don't know who is suitable. If it's a really easy question I might be able to help, but otherwise I suggest referring the editor to Wikipedia:Help desk. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the request I received. If you can help I would be grateful. Again, Thanks for all your help.

Template:Tucker Smith Revision Hi Denisarona. I'm quite new to this so please forgive my fumblings. I tried to add a photo of Tucker Smith to his page and the thumbnail image was (and is) coming up as a negative image. If I click on the photo, the larger view is fine but the thumbnail looks, well, odd. I took the image down, not knowing what to do next and you've put it back up and yet, it's still a negative image. I've tried to make changes under my old username but my password is not recognized and when I request a new password, no email is sent to the email address I've given here. I'd love for the photo issue to be resolved, he's my uncle and it would be nice if his photo can be posted. If not, it's okay. Thank you. ~rickkilroy~

Denisarona (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea. I can only suggest the help desk. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

KDS and Klee Data Systems Pages

Good Evening James,(even though I know your name isn't James)

I can see that 2 x pages have been deleted, the KDS and Klee Data Systems pages.

I would like to ensure that the existence of our company is noted on Wikipedia and as such can I please add the content below?

'KDS (www.kds.com) is a leading international provider of Travel & Expense (T&E) management systems for private and public sector organisations. The KDS unified Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)-based technology addresses the full range of T&E requirements, from travel policy definition and enforcement, and the online self-booking of travel, through to automated travel expense processing and invoice reconciliation. With each stage handled seamlessly by the KDS fully-integrated technology, clients achieve significant efficiencies and cost-savings. KDS offers the most extensive back-end connectivity to financial service and travel providers (airline, car, rail and hotel) in the industry, ensuring optimised pricing and up-to-the-minute inventory control.'

This is factual information and in no way a sales/marketing message. Can it please be added?

Thanks Ewan Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eross27 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a truly wonderful illustration of one of the main reasons why why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourage an editor from editing on a subject that they have a personal involvement in. I can only assume that you are sincere in saying that you think this is "in no way a sales/marketing message", and yet it is full from beginning to end of unambiguous marketing-speak. Absolutely nobody could possibly think that that stuff is "in no way a sales/marketing message" except someone who works in marketing, and is so used to reading, writing, and thinking marketing-speak that they have become totally desensitised to it, and can't see it when it is staring them in the face. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

G-Man (Half-Life)

IP address user 81.207.42.63 needs an explanation on why original research/opinion with no reliable source is not allowed on wiki.[19]. The G-Man (Half-Life) and other Half-Life pages go through this every few weeks or months.-68.75.26.69 (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sanillin1

Did you specifically mean to ban User: Sanillin1 from just the article and talk pages, or from the topic in general? The reason I ask is that the user has just opened a thread at DRN on the matter. I am willing to respond to the DRN, but would rather not if the intent was a full topic ban. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. At the time, the only editing was on the article and its talk page, so that seemed sufficient. However, a topic ban would make more sense. It is, after all, meaningless for an editor to seek dispute resolution about editing of an article which the editor is banned from editing. I shall go back and amend the ban notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)