User talk:JBW/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Among The Leaves

Not wanting to get into 3rr territory here. [1]. Album that isn't released, only a primary link, no notability, so I redirected to artist, keeps getting reverted back. Seems a waste to AFD, but somehow I'm failing to explain the idea of "notability" to them. If you have time to look, if not, I understand. Been a flood of crystalball stuff lately. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are perfectly right: the article comes nowhere near to satisfying any of the notability guidelines. I have given the user an edit warring warning, and will wait to see where it goes from there. I see that so far you have actually reverted only once, so you are in no immediate danger of breaking 3RR (the first time you redirected, it was not a revert). JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:User simple-N

Hi James. You recently salted Category:User simple-N which was repeatedly created by Babel AutoCreate. Yet half an hour after you salted it, Babel AutoCreate did it again. I'm not sure how that can be unless that account has user rights that it doesn't deserve but how do we stop this silliness? Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about this. Babel AutoCreate does not have administrator listed as a user right; in fact it doesn't have any user rights listed at all. However, Babel is a Wikimedia software extension, and presumably Wikimedia programmers are able to bypass the mechanisms that control what ordinary mortals like you and I can do. I have filed a Bugzilla report, and maybe it will be dealt with.

For what it's worth, other categories have been affected, as well as Category:User simple-N. In fact Category:User simple-3 has been fully create-protected three times because Babel AutoCreate keeps breaking through the protection. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Seton School

Dear Mr. Watson,

Thank you for your concern. In regard to the mission and vision sounding "promotional," I did not intend it to be that way. The mission and vision are public declarations made by the school which, from how I understand, represents its epitome as and organization. But if this conflicts with Wikipedia rules I will gladly take it out.

Also, as much as I would like to complete the article, I can only work on it during my spare time. Please extend some consideration with the editing for the meantime.

Thank you.

Ferdinand Alido — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdalido (talk • contribs) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have deliberately done only a minimum of editing of the article, to give you time to work on it if you wish to, rather than imposing my own version without giving you a chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Abhijay's talk page.
Message added 10:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 10:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Seen. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

CRGh

Hi James, you said for me to contact you in case CRGreathouse won't respond to your remark at their talk page, but they did (edit: clarification: with a kind of dismissive and self-congratulatory response), so I left you a message on my talk page. Please take a look and tell me if you consider the matter closed. Thank you Thanks in advance. WillNess (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to solve my IP problem

Thanks a lot, It works fine now. See you--Bruno2wi (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

List of the most famous and infamous people of the American Old West

I had asked RHaworth to look at this, but I guess he's busy. It is interesting, but I'm not sure it passes criteria. We have been talking on the talk page, but the arguments I've been getting aren't really criteria based. Honestly, I have no idea but my gut says it fails criteria. Would be happy to learn I'm right or wrong, but I think it needs another opinion before he invests too much time on it. Would appreciate your perspective on the talk page if you have the time. I'm guessing there is prior precedent in cases like this that I just haven't run across yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Maynardox Conflict of Interest

Was the vandalism noticeboard the proper place to report that user? I do consider those external links to be spam. Would the Administrator's Incidents Noticeboard have been a more appropriate place? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you should ask me about this, because I spent some time looking at this case, but didn't actually do anything about it, I think because I was called away from the computer before I got as far as doing anything. I see that Daniel Case thought you should have taken it to the conflict of interest noticeboard, but I think it was perfectly reasonable to report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, because for some reason that noticeboard is supposed to cover spam as well as vandalism, and this editor's actions could well be regarded as spam. I see that, after Daniel Case had rejected your report at AIV, you followed his advice and reported at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I have commented there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Papadimitriou

James,

Thank you for your advice. You advised me to contact Wiki Australia to help with posting but I got onto the site and found it too difficult to navigate. Can you please help. I am more interested in starting a Wikipage on the Benalla Art Gallery.

Arthur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur69papp (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I did. In fact, as far as I remember I had never even heard of Wiki Australia before, and there is no record of my having mentioned it on your talk page.

Before you start on an article on the Benalla Art Gallery you should consider whether you are the right person to do so. If, as seems to be the case, you have a personal connection to the gallery, you will have a potential conflict of interest, and you may find it difficult to write neutrally on the subject. However, I will post a (somewhat belated) welcome message to your talk page, which will contain links to information which you may find helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

talkback re Likealittle

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Spudst3r's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Answered there. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear JamesBWatson,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Block review.

That was irresponsible leaving the block on review and not accepting/declining it till it expired so that I couldn't add another request. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for not dealing with that more quickly. It was careless of me not to put it on a list of things needing to be dealt with. However, I'm not sure it was "irresponsible". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Its expired anyway, no hard feelings. By the way, would it have been lifted? If yes, and given that there was no 1RR imposed on me and I was blocked for the second revert, isn't such to be noted? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I normally like to keep a discussion in one place, this time I have replied on your talk page, as you may like to have my answer on record in your talk page history. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Idukki

You blocked User:Tony00142 recently as a consequence of their disruptive page moves etc. They are at it again, moving Idukki district to Idukki. The article makes it quite clear that the place is indeed a district and there is a convention of sorts among India-related geographic articles that we do keep them distinct, primarily because there are so many duplicated placenames in that country. I am very confused with all of these various page moves of the last couple of weeks because, for example, there was a separate article called Idukki back on 2 February. Can you figure it out? - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Even with an administrator's ability to see deleted revisions of pages, it can sometimes be difficult to reconstruct the history of pages that have been repeatedly moved. However, as far as I can see, the history of this page is not too complicated. The article was moved from Idukki to Idukki District on 3 February 2006, and stayed there until 29 January 2012‎, when Tony00142 started moving it around. It seems that the page Idukki which existed at the time you mention was just a redirect. It had been a redirect to Idukki District since the 2006 move, and had recently been retargetted to Idukki God's Own District by a bot as a result of Tony00142's moves. As for whether the article should be returned to Idukki District or left at Idukki, you have much more of the relevant knowledge than I do, so I will leave it to you: you may move it back or leave it where it is. (You should be able to move it as long as the redirect isn't edited.) However, if the user moves it again without explanation I shall be willing to consider another block: the ridiculous moves the user has made in the past have used up a good deal of his/her ration of good faith assumption. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll try to move it back because of the convention for India-related stuff, eg: Rewari and Rewari district, Thoothukudi and Thoothukudi district. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that it was a little more complicated than I realised, as there was both Idukki District and Idukki district, which I confused together. This probably doesn't matter, but it's just an example of how much confusion can be caused by these multiple-page-move vandals. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to "Use of Huggle" by User:JDP90

Thank you for the information about the warnings to User talk:Nhuffman68. I have understood the points made by you and want to say that it was totally unintentional from my part. I thought speedy deletion templates should not be removed and the matter should be discussed in the talk page. That is the reason I made those reverts. It was unintentional and as you mentioned "Huggle needs to be used with great care", I will be very careful using Huggle. It was really an unfortunate one-off aberration and not my typical editing. Thank you so much for the information. This will be very helpful for my reverts with Huggle from now on. Joydeep (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

George Cope

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that this page, which you created recently, has had several edits and been tagged for improvement. I thought I'd let you know in case you objected, or if you could help address the issues. Thanks for creating the page, it was clearly needed. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Far from objecting to the changes, I think they are improvements. Cleaning up of existing links is a task that needs doing: I'll have a look at that. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rogiet Primary

Hi James, Ive reverted your block. This user is most enthusiastic rather than self promotional. Lets feed their enthusiasm? Victuallers (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor

Hi, this editor ([2]) has incorrectly marked my edits to his talk page as vandalism, even though they were not, because I told him that he was biting a newcomer. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 11:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

3371.NGO26

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 3371.NGO26's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please email me

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Got your reply, thanks. Sorry for the short message, when I wrote it I didn't think I was going to get an internet connection long enough to save it.

I will say that I agree with your comments on our outing policy - which is really tricky when it gets to COI although this isn't a COI issue. And from what I've seen, the editor clearly must at some point have communicated with Jamie Kelso, the senior moderator at Stormfront, despite the fact that he denies it. Still, nothing to do at the moment as he hasn't returned, and if he does get unblocked he's attracted so much attention that he shouldn't be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to say I tried to email you before I posted, but got the message that you didn't have email enabled. You obviously do now. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Aah, that explains why you left the above message instead of just emailing me. I had accidentally disabled email in the course of changing my email address. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Email

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

Heiro 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Further regarding article on Abdul Qavi Desnavi 16:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWatson, Further regarding article on Abdul Qavi Desnavi, finally edited by Ehsan Sehgal his new user name is Justice007 on 30 Dec. 2011. His edits are not constructive. I consider, he is not familiar with topic, it seems he never read books & writing of Desnavi. He deleted important matters from the article, even the name of books from the list. Desnavi has written around 50 books Ref.http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n84-206925 but he mentioned only 13 books & deleted rest from the list. Even he given wrong Ref. (see, http://theindianawaaz.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2992&catid=12) That ref. is from news paper that only given one name of his book. In brief, I think said article not need any correction, in case if it is not in parameter of Wikipedia then it can be corrected by any of his editor but should not allow for deletion of matter which has proper references. Almost 45 days passed nobody has rated the article after deletion of matter, if you check history you will find the article was rated by many readers. As you had commented earlier on the article, so I requested please go through original article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bpldxb/sandbox & judge yourself. Regards Bpldxb 16:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpldxb (talk • contribs)

I didn't comment on the article. As far as I know the only thing I have ever done with any relation to this article was to place a "noindex" tag on a userspace page which later became this article. I know nothing about it and have no interest in it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

business designers

Hello JamesBWatson,

I have been notified that the business designer article has been deleted. I do not understand why the page has been deleted. The education actually exist. Could you please help me to make the page valid.

Gr,

Romy (business designer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Businessdesigner (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not at all sure what clarification you need beyond what you have been told. The article was speedily deleted because its content was clearly copied from other sources, with no indication of copyright permission. If that is not clear, please let me know what needs clarification. In addition, even if the article were rewritten without copyright infringement, it would almost certainly have been deleted soon. I agree with Timtrent's (alias "Fiddle Faddle") message on your talk page: we do not have articles on every course at every university, college, or school in the world, and I see no reason why this one is more notable than most. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Children, personal details, privacy

I don't know everything about how much we regulate personal information on the userspace, but User:Jrobin08 is probably too much. CMD (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue I have never had to deal with before, and I am not very clear about it. I have posted a note to the user's talk page, referring to Wikipedia:Userpage#Personal_and_privacy-breaching_material. I'm sure somewhere there is something more specific concerning personal information about minors, but I can't find it. I'm afraid I can't help much, and I have to go offline now, so I can't spend more time searching. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm sure I've seen discussion about it in AN/I, but that would I feel defeat the idea of trying to keep the information low key. I'll look around and try to discuss. Thanks, CMD (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy#Response suggests warning of the dangers and says that deletion and even oversight "may be used in appropriate cases". I have seen that done sometimes, e.g. here, but as this lad is already on Facebook and blogging away, IMO your warning was all that was necessary. I added a note pointing him to WP:YOUNG and suggesting he remove his email address for fear of spambots: I see he has done that, so he listens, which is good. Yes, CMD, certainly a good idea to keep off AN/I. JohnCD (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnCD. As for AN/I, I wouldn't think of taking it there. Much better to approach an individual admin, and in a more sensitive case than this I would suggest doing so by email rather than on a talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block 204.108.196.2

This IP has vandalized Phoenixville Area High School. I gave him a level 4 warning for vandalizing J. Cole. He just vandalized 2002 FIBA World Championship about 48 hours ago also. Jawadreventon (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing

Please note that User 118.127.68.110 has returned to making unacceptable reversions at Burleigh Smith following your recent temporary block. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The editor has not this time made any of the malicious edits that led to the block. As for the changes to the content of the article, that is a content dispute, about which I have no opinion. However, I have given the user an edit-warring warning, and you are welcome to contact me again if the user continues to edit war, or does any other sort of unhelpful editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Not being into edit-warring, it's pointless for me to continue watching this patently self-promotional content. I will, however, make one attempt to reinstate the refimprove template, and will register a view on the Talk page. It is an unfortunate failing of Wikipedia that minor show-business types can use it to develop their sole comprehensive web publicity in the absence of any significant reliable third-party corroboration, and can exclude material facts, e.g., that this subject has the alternative name "Ross Farnsworth", as verified here, on which site the subject's "popularity ranking" is "down, 362,045 this week". Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you want extra content?

It appears that any stories I do on a subject that may add to a Wiki entry are unwanted. Here I'm a "vandal". Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maynardox (talk • contribs) 10:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Who has suggested that you are a vandal? Certainly nobody has said so on your talk page, nor can I find the suggestion anywhere in edit summaries or talk pages of articles you have recently edited. Perhaps you would like to let me know where that suggestion has been made. I assume that you have consulted me on this because I attempted to help you by posting a message to your talk page informing you that another editor had raised questions about your editing, and tried to explain to you why your editing might be thought questionable. I did this because the other editor in question had not informed you, and I thought you should be informed of concerns that had been expressed about your editing. I will likewise be happy to help you with the accusation of vandalism, if you let me know who has made it and where. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I made the original complaint on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboards. Read it here. The complaint invovles conflict of interest WP:COI and spamming, not vandalism. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Page - Ai Communications Limited

Hello,

I have just been advised you have deleted my page, i would like to know the reason, if it was for the external links why not just ask me to remove them, i was linking to the content so people can look further into it if needed, i can just as much link to that keyword on wiki it is not a major issue to me.

It is written as a third party and is not blatent advertising, its informing readers of what the companies does, who started it and why they started it.

Andrewiirvine90 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the notification on your talk page that the article had been deleted? If you do so, you will see that it was deleted because it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable. It is true that another editor had requested deletion as "unambiguous advertising", but I rejected that reason, because the very slightly promotional tone could easily have been edited out, and it was nowhere near promotional enough to justify speedy deletion. That is, in fact, why I took the trouble to post another message to your talk page, explaining what the actual reason for deletion was. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything, but requires that subjects of articles satisfy certain notability standards, as explained in the message I posted to you about the deeltion. In addition to the notability guidelines that are linked there, Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations may be helpful to you. Nothing in the article, and nothing that I have been able to find anywhere, suggests that your business satisfies any of the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving Pages

There is a strong reason to move all pages. 1.Guru Ravi "Dass" , Dass is a caste in India so many people have kept their name after it and using Dass as suffix which has double SS rather than single S thats why the page was moved. 2. Using double SS in all pages of Ravidassia Religion will bring uniformity in all pages.McKinseies (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Need to reset the clock on a 30 block you imposed

Hi James,

If this isn't an appropriate place for this, please refer me to the right place.

IN SUM: On Feb 1 you imposed a block on an IP for external link spamming vandalism. The sock has been evading the block, and I would like to ask someone to (A) softblock add'l IPs, (B) reset the 30-day clock for all of them. Details follow.

For background,

• Complaint 1, April 2011, No action

• Complaint 2, Sept 2011, result 2 day block

• Complaint 3, Feb 2012, soft block requested

Discussions

[discussion with responding admin]

[discussion with IP]

Results

Feb 1, 30 day block initiated for 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Feb 3, 30 day block initiated for 99.19.44.50 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

UPDATE Pattern of block evasion, IPS all geolocate to West Michigan; same type of edits and linking in edit summaries; fondness for wikilinking, posting news articles, esp on politics and climate

One targeted article is [[3]], which has been edited by the same sock (probably) using the following West Michigan IPs (after I post this to your page I will post links to the thread on each of theirs)

• 99.19.43.166 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• 99.181.132.23 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• 99.181.145.106 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• 99.181.157.121 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• 216.250.156.66 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Pursuant to WP:EVADE I am requesting the add'l IPs also be blocked, and resetting the 30-day clock for all seven. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You have evidently put quite a bit of work in here. I have reset the block on 97.87.29.188, which seems to be a stable IP address, used mainly or exclusively by this one editor for a period of at least six months (I have not checked further back than that). There doesn't seem to be any point in individually blocking any of the other IP addresses, as the user hops from one to another, and any IP I block now might already be no longer in use. However, I've placed a few range blocks, having first checked that there have been no constructive edits from those ranges looking as though they may be from other editors in recent months. I have also semiprotected a small number of the most persistently affected pages for a while. If any more IPs show up, do feel welcome to let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for caring. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

He's B-a--a--a-a--a-a-aaaAAAaa ccckkkk......

He has used four different IPs since your last reset of the clock regarding 97.87.29.188. Please reset the clock again. Query, as just a plain ol' editor (not an admin or anything) is there a rollback tool available to me by which I can revert all edits by a block evader in one fell swoop? Not sure if I'd use it, but I sure would be tempted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked 99.119.128.169, and Arthur Rubin has blocked 99.119.131.159. I've also placed a range block on a range covering them both, but it has to be a short block, as a couple of weeks back there were edits that were probably from someone else. I could keep on resetting the original block each time the editor uses another IP address, but there's probably not a lot of point, as the person just finds new IP addresses to use. I'm afraid in this sort of situation it's largely just a question of reverting edits and blocking each IP for a while as it comes up. Let me know of other IP addresses involved. Rollback includes a "rollback all" facility. If you have rollback rights, when you look at an editor's or IP's contributions page, you see a link to click which will rollback all pages showing in the listing where that editor or IP was the last to edit the page. If you want I can give you rollback rights (your editing history suggests to me that you won't abuse it). Let me know if you do want it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Sure, I'd like to give rollback a try, with the understanding I only intend to use it for this specific (probable) sock. If some other situation arises where I am tempted I'll seek some additional blessing before firing away. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is a belief...

...that the previous block of User:TopGun was "unjustified" as can be seen here, then I would be more than willing to reduce his current block to 72hrs, as would have been the norm in an escalation process. Oddly enough, however, his previous block and current block both have to do with 1RR impositions that he disagrees with. I meted out the current block as 1 week as escalation from 72hrs ... there was nothing in the block log to note that the 72 hr one had been "wrong", and my review of the situation says it was likely right all in all. You may have already had a look at User talk:TopGun lately, and the 2 AN/3RR reports that let to his current block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that the block may well have been justified. However, the blocking admin failed, in my opinion, to clearly indicate what in the editor's history justified the block. I consulted the blocking admin who, as I remember it, did not directly oppose an unblock and did not take the opportunity to justify the block. Another admin who took part in the discussion seemed to think the block should be lifted, but did not do so. I did not return to the scene until the block had already expired. In response to enquiries from TopGun I said that the blocking admin had not adequately explained the block, that I was unwilling to spend a lot of time searching for reasons myself when the blocking admin could have saved me the trouble, and that in the absence of a justification for the block TopGun should be given the benefit of the doubt. That falls a good way short, in my opinion, of saying "the block was unjustified". Making two reverts did not on its own justify the block, but there may be justification in TopGun's recent editing history considered as a whole, for all I know. From the fairly brief checking I did it looks as though TopGun had probably been uncooperative and unconstructive. The one point on which I do think TopGun is clearly right is that there is no provision for an individual administrator to impose a 1RR restriction. In fact, doing so is completely out of keeping with the whole nature of adminship. To summarize: I think the block may well have been justified, but the blocking admin did not make that clear to me, and I said I would have given the benefit of any doubt. If any other admin who has looked further into the history thinks that the block was justified, or that it wasn't, I have no quarrel with them. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I would, however, disagree with one tiny thing: the whole nature of adminship is to protect the project - and there can be zero argument that either the current or previous blocks have not been protective. First, admins often singlehandely impose 1RR as a condition of unblock. In that vein, a 1RR restriction may also be (in theory) a condition of "not becoming blocked"...so what's the diff? In the recent block, TG was clearly gaming the system, and baiting DS into a revert war, then ran off to AN/3RR the moment it was broken. Arguably, this was probably in any case (as an absolute minimum) a WP:DISRUPT block - so even if the 1RR argument fails (although, based on the community's knowledge of TG it never would fail, so IAR would kick in), the block would logically be valid for disruption - of course, that's why his unblock has not been actioned by anyone before now). Are the Pakistan-related articles under any form of AE anyway? That would make them 1RR from the start?! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: I am not keen on the way TopGun has referred to my "I don't know whether the block was justified, and I would have given the benefit of the doubt" in support of "the block was unjustified", as though I had said that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I agree with you about admins imposing conditions for unblocking, or even for not blocking. In effect an admin can say "I think there is a justification for blocking for XYZ, but I will give you another chance as long as you abide by a 1RR rule." Then, if the user does not follow the 1RR rule, the admin can say, "Well, under the circumstance I don't think there is any longer a justification for not imposing the block for XYZ that was due to you all along." The trouble was that it was not made clear that that was the situation (if it was). JamesBWatson (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why my page was nominated for deletion

I am trying to start the Christian Democratic Party USA and have been working on it for a long time now. Why was it scheduled for deletion from wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidharris1981 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The article does not assert any notability, and so there is currently a discussion about whether or not it should be deleted, because all articles must conform to notability guidelines in order to be kept. If you want to prevent your article from getting deleted, please cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject in the article. --Bmusician 03:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about just anything. To be the subject of an article, a topic has to have received a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources. Nothing I have seen suggests that this party satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards, but you can look at those guidelines yourself if you like, and see whether you can produce evidence that it does. The most relevant guidelines are the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of organisations, and the guideline on reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations may be helpful. It is not an "official" Wikipedia guideline, but rather a collection of advice which various editors have put together to help newcomers. It may be helpful to you, and in fact my advice is to look at that first, before the other guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:DanielBowling

I see that you blocked this user on February 10th. I'm just letting you know that he seems to understand what the problem with his behavior was, and pursuant to that I've unblocked him. Just a courtesy note. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no charge for the hat - I'm just pleased it eventually found its way home, and embarrassed that it took so long ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at RockMagnetist's talk page.
Message added 21:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RockMagnetist (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_Payment_Group

Dear Mr. Watson,

I have been informed that you had deleted my posting in regards to Euro Payment Group(link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_Payment_Group). Could you please be so kind and render me further background information about the cause of this action. Euro Payment Group is one of the largest Gateway Providers in the payment industry and millions of payment credit card transactions are running through their gateway each month. I was about to render further financial background information about the company but needed to ask the company for permission. With your consent I would provide you with further background information that would stress the signifficance of this listing.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Kind Regards,

Benny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyb69 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was nominated for speedy deletion by Jeraphine Gryphon, on the two grounds that it did not indicate how the company was significant enough to be the subject of an encyclopaedia article, and that the article was unambiguously promotional. The article did look as though it might have been written as promotion, but I did not think it was unambiguous advertising, so I would not have deleted it for that reason. However, the other reason given certainly did apply: the article told us that the company is a provider of "payment services", and listed those services, but told us little else. I also looked online for information about the company. All of what I found had one or more of the following characteristics: (1) not independent sources, being on the company's own web site or the website of some associated organisation or promotional in nature; (2) not reliable sources, being in a wiki or some other sort of site that accepts content submitted by the public (e.g. www.complaintsboard.com); (3) a mere listing in a directory or some other minimal mention. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of redirects

I thought that some cleanup was needed but now I see that it doesn't matter, thanks for clarifying! --Zoupan (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Robb76

We have an unblock request from this editor, who claims not to be a sockpuppet. You blocked them directly following an autoblock in November. Could you have a look and confirm, if only to put this one to bed? I'm all for AGF, if warranted, but defer to you on this one. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Richard-Alatorre-Los-Angeles-City-Council-1986.jpg

I'm sorry, but do you think you might explain this deletion? Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The file is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License, which is incompatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License used by Wikipedia. The most important difference is that licensing terms of the file forbid use "in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation", whereas Wikipedia's licensing terms permit such use. This means that, if the file is included in a Wikipedia page, we are giving permission to others to use the file in ways that the copyright owner has explicitly stated is unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking my user name: Infuzein

Dear James:

First, thank you, very much, for unblocking my account. I sincerely appreciate your assistance and attention to that matter.

I will spend some additional time looking at all the rules and regulations, and if I have any questions, I hope I may be able to follow up with you?

Best regards, Infuzein (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Spamming

Dear James, I've updated two entries recently and been contentiously flagged as spammer. The first entry was under “Proxy Server” – I’ve added an external link to GeoEdge.com – which is today the largest proxy server provider in the world. A 100% legit provider, serving companies like, Google, Groove shark and MySpace Under the same definition there is a list of many other proxy server providers: Nginx, Wingate, Microsoft , TriangleBoy etc. Why is it different? I’m a big fan of the Wikipedia (and even contribute some money last year) and understand how spamming can harm the quality of Wikipedia, but I find it hard to accept that there are different standards and polices in place for diff companies. Thanks in advance, Hans Goldberg, www.geoedge.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.88.236 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 February 2012

(talk page stalker)You'll need to read over WP:LINK and definitely WP:COI since you're the owner of the site. Calabe1992 16:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think that the list of individual proxy servers was appropriate. That is not what a "see also" section of an article is meant for, especially with the comments that accompanied many of the entries. However, even if the list were considered appropriate, a user who does nothing but add links relating to one commercial product is likely to be seen as using Wikipedia to promote or publicise that product, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy.
• Two other points:

1. If you are blocked, that means that you may not edit Wikipedia. It does not mean that you are allowed to edit Wikipedia provided that you evade the block by switching to a different IP address. Any IP address you use in this way is likely to be blocked too, and the original block could be extended.
2. It seems that you are editing via an anonymizing proxy, which conceals your location and would have concealed the fact that you were the same person as the one previously blocked, has you not effectively said so. Unless there are good reasons why you should do so, use of proxies in this way to edit Wikipedia is unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you defiled and quick response. Let me start with your last comment re proxies – as a proxy provider I do have access to many proxies – but I have never used them (and will not use them in the future) for editing Wikipedia pages. I’ve tried several times to add reference to GeoEdge under “Proxy Server” and always used my legit IP address. Regarding your comment: “a user who does nothing but add links relating to one commercial product is likely to be seen as using Wikipedia to promote or publicise that product, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy.” – Agreed, so what would be an appropriate why to mention our company, and under which section ? – taking into consideration that we are the leader in this space.

As a side note GeoEdge Proxy Service is a premium service and is not used for as anonymizing proxy – all our IP are published and only used my business to view ads in different geolocations – you are welcome to visit our website to learn more about our service. Best Regards, Hans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.161.235 (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason I thought you were editing via a proxy was the fact that within a short time you have been travelling back and forth between Israel and Chile, and also that edits which look as though they may have been made by you come from France. I also seem to remember seeing an edit that looked as though it might have been you from the USA, but I can't remember where it was, and am not inclined to spend time searching for it now.

If GeoEdge is as significant as you suggest then I am surprised that some independent, uninvolved person has not yet written an article about it for Wikipedia, and my searches have also turned up less in the way of evidence of notability than I would have expected. I have found abundant material on promotional and advertising sites, unreliable sources such as blogs, FaceBook, etc, but little if anything from reliable independent sources. I can, in fact, find very little evidence that the business satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (It is also necessary to filter out references to "GeoEdge" that seem to have nothing to do with your business, such as this one.) You are probably not the best person to edit about your business, as you have a conflict of interest, but if you are thinking of doing so then I suggest looking at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

James, we are not as known as Microsoft :) but with all due respect you are simply wrong. We are the leader in this space, here some recent publications & blog post – none of them is a paid one. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/billrobinson/hightech-startup-focus-ge_b_1276772.html http://stage.adsafemedia.com/about-adsafe/blog/ad-tech-top-10 http://www.hasoffers.com/blog/testing-geo-targeted-affiliate-offers/ http://makettinginternetblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-do-advertisers-geoedge-spy.html Our leadership position is both in technological level and market reach level - What else can I do to prove you that?! This is frustrating – there are many companies that are much smaller than us and less notable that are mentioned in Wikipedia. I know your intention are good, but please be open minded... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.161.235 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You say that I am "simply wrong", but you don't say what I am wrong about. However, reading your message I get the impression that you think I was wrong to suggest that your business is not notable. If that is so, then I did not take enough effort to express clearly what I was intending to say. I was very careful to say exactly what I meant and no more, but perhaps I should also have explicitly mentioned some of the things I was not saying. I did not say that your business was not notable: I said that I had tried and failed to find evidence of notability, which is by no means the same thing. However, I have been alive long enough to know that many people will read the one as implying the other, so I should probably have pointed out the difference. My guess is that you are sincere when you say that your company is "the largest proxy server provider in the world", and my guess was that the largest proxy server provider in the world would have plenty of coverage in reliable sources. I therefore set out to search for such coverage, in the expectation of easily finding it. I was surprised that I did not easily find any. If my conclusion had been "this company is not notable" then I would have said so. Instead, I told you that I could find no evidence of notability, but left the question open, and gave you a link to Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, so that you could see for yourself what sort of evidence was required, if you could provide any. That page gives numerous links to other pages that may be of help to you. Perhaps the most relevant ones are the general notability guideline, the guideline to notability of organizations and companies, and the guideline on reliable sources.

As I have said, I expected to find evidence of notability, and I was surprised that I didn't. I don't know why that is. It is possible that the company is not as significant as you suggest, but I did not assume that. It is possible that there is evidence, but for some reason the usual ways of searching for it did not readily find it. It is possible that the proxy server business as a whole does not have the sort of notability that Wikipedia's guidelines require, including "the largest proxy server provider in the world". I don't know. However, it is important to realise that the fundamental factor involved in Wikipedia's concept of notability is substantial coverage in multiple independent sources: it is not the size of the business, or anyone's assessment of the "importance" of it (however that may be measured). Also, what matters is the degree of notability, not the degree of notability relevant to others in the field. I have looked at the three links you have given me above, and considered for each one whether it shows notability in Wikipedia's sense. One of the first things I noticed was that all three of them have "blog" in their URL. Generally speaking, blogs are not reliable sources, as anyone can set up a blog and write anything they like on it. It is not always that straightforward, as some perfectly reliable journalists write online columns which they choose to call "blogs", but usually blogs are not reliable sources. Certainly blogspot (which hosts one of the pages you linked to) is not a reliable source. Then, looking at the content of the pages you linked to, the first page I see is full of language that looks entirely like marketing-speak. I look further, and find that the website says of itself "AdSafe Media, the industry leader in online brand protection and campaign performance control", "the online advertising ecosystem with the goal of growing the size and strategic importance of the entire industry", and so on and so on. All of it seems to be telling me that the site exists to further the aims of the businesses it covers. The very language in which it describes itself and its services says the same: the kind of relentless peacockery that nobody but a professional advertising or marketing person could write. In fact, the only one of your links which looks as though it may be a suitable source is http://www.hasoffers.com/blog/testing-geo-targeted-affiliate-offers/. That one source is not enough, but it may be a step towards enough, if it is a genuinely independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are on the same page : “The first page I see is full of language that looks entirely like marketing-speak.” - The first link in an article that was written by the Huffington post – one of the largest and most distinguish online internet newspapers with more than 35m readers a month (owned by AOL) – the journalist did a research about us and this is what he wrote. Do you question the authenticity of the journalist and/or Huffington post? The second link goal was to show that GeoEgde technology was chosen as one of the top 10 announcement at the AD Tech show NYC (which is the largest trade show in the online adverting industry) – here is another link that that repeat this – (this is NOT our PR): http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/ad-tech-new-york-showcases-its-top-ten-exhibitor-news-announcements-1584748.htm Here is another link from a Q&A section (not sure if this meets the Wikipedia policy) http://www.seomoz.org/q/international-keyword-ranking-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.161.235 (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that above I wrote "One of the first things I noticed was that all three of them have 'blog' in their URL", but in fact there are four links, the first of which does not have "blog" in its URL. Evidently, seeing a string of blue URLs one after another over several lines of text confused me and I missed one. The Huffington post article is probably the best of the sources you have mentioned, but I have only glanced through it briefly. As for the latest two links you give, one is a press release and the other is a post to a forum. I have now spent a considerable time looking at sources and a significant time writing accounts of my impressions. I hope that the effort has been helpful to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

deletion of my biographical article of Dr. Joseph Berger - page called Joseph Berger (Neurologist)

Dear Sir,

I wrote a biographical article with tons of real sources from Medical Journals. - the page was called Joseph Berger (Neurologist) My name is Josh Hood and I'm writing about a doctor who does brain research that I read about a few times in medical journals. I compiled all this information at my local medical library. I'm a student. Josh Hood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josherb213 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of the content of the article was a direct copy of another document, almost certainly infringing copyright. What was left was unambiguously promotional in tone. It also went into quite unnecessary detail about his career history: the kind of stuff that people might put in their CV/resume, but not the sort of stuff that's suitable for an encyclopaedia article. Can you actually imagine anyone sitting down and reading all that? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I am going to resubmit without all the CV stuff I found. I just thought it was interesting because it had detailed reports of all of this guy's contributions to medical journals which other doctors might want to look up or read there I thought? I'll resubmit now without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josherb213 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for spending the time, reviewing these links and consideration! Believe me I don’t want to keep wasting your (or my) time anymore…so my question is simple, can we now re add the link to GeoEdge under “Proxy Server”? I believe that we have passed the test of general notability. BTW - the PR link is an announcement by the trade show that they choose us - Not a PR that GeoEdge published... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.161.235 (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Message to JamesBWatson

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at [[User talk:Wkponder#[Message to JamesBWatson]|Wkponder's talk page]].
Message added 22:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Observation

An old friend, I am guessing.[4] See contribs. You guys handing out free admin with a new account now? ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• A different IP Same user (sorry, been a looong day) User:122.109.245.111 certainly is. Editing as an ip while blocked. Editing the talk on Tinga Tinga Tales before asking for an unblock. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr._Curious_Man Already reported. Pretty much cut and dry. Have to start wondering about competency at this stage, I mean, how can you be more obvious? Dennis Brown (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have often thought that the person in question must be somewhat clueless. I will resist the temptation to say more, for beans reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Fashion Fringe

I had noticed the article Fashion Fringe and intended to add some references. However another editor deleted most of the article in a series of edits, leaving it in the state where you saw it and speedy deleted it. It was unsourced but there are many many available sources. Just a quick Google turns up Women's Wear Daily, Hollywood Reporter, Vogue, etc.

Could you either userify it or would you be ok with me making an incubator request? Cloveapple (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Somehow the deletion reason failed to be recorded in the deletion log, but the reason was that only one person had made any substantial contribution to the article, and that person had requested deletion. I can userfy it if you like, but I would be a little unhappy about restoring the user's contribution after they had requested deletion, and anyway I'm not sure there would be much point, as the article as written was so promotional that it would have qualified for speedy deletion anyway, and it contained no indication of notability, and very little substantive content apart from a completely unnecessary and unencyclopaedic list of everybody connected to the organisation. I suggest that you just go ahead and write a new article on the subject, if it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't realize that. If they requested deletion of their version of course I'll respect that. Thanks for the explanation as the chain of events had puzzled me. Cloveapple (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fireman Sam

I saw you fully protected Fireman Sam but looking through the article history it seems that the vandalism was primarily from IPs. Did you not mean to semi-protect it? Tra (Talk) 14:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did. Thanks for calling my attention to the mistake. I'm surprised it's been left this long without anyone picking it up. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread regarding User:VodkaChronic

Since you declined speedy deletion nomination for this page I thought you should be informed of this [ANI discussion]. ~Crazytales (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC

User:Sotdh

A look at the contribs[5] brings up two concerns. An inability to edit properly when they are trying, and a willingness to blank pages when they don't get their way. I don't agree with (CK)Lakeshade [6]] that the msg left on his page[7] was vandalism (although he had already had to fix Sotdh's messes before and was likely just fed up), it was just a question, but this editor has blanked the page twice (and others) and is being disruptive with other edits, reversions. I'm getting the impression that he is a bit too compulsive for his own good. Maybe someone shaking his tree a little will help. As it is now, he is dangerously close to getting blocked, imo. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, looking at his edit history, he lacks the competence required to edit Wikipedia. --Bmusician 03:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I have given the user some advice on editing, and tried to be encouraging, as it looks as though we are dealing with an editor who came here with good intentions. There are definite competence issues, but it is possible that the editor can edit constructively if he/she avoids those areas where the problems lie. It does look, unfortunately, as though a block may be on its way soon, but I think we are still in the stage where encouragement and advice are worth trying. I do think that a gentle warning that a block is a possibility is in order, and I have given such a warning. However, (CK)Lakeshade's level four vandalism warning was totally inappropriate, and unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• You have talkback on my page regarding my warning. In future, if my name is brought up in conversation please message me on my talk page if you intend to discuss anything related to my edits. Please and thank you :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 09:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To further add to this discussion for anyone viewing here, the linked edit above regarding me is incorrect. The editor got a vandalism warning for this edit: link because he was pissed of that I asked him to stop adding unsourced, incorrect, and test edited contributions to Kesha. His warning had nothing to do with asking me for help over 2 weeks later. If you had checked the time stamps you would have discovered that his warning was on February 2nd. His actual legitimate question was on February 18th. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 10:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That is my fault CK. The only reason I didn't leave a note on your talk page is because I wasn't complaining about your leaving the message, just making an observation, sorry if it looked stronger than it was. My concern is and was trying to rehabilitate a potentially well meaning, but incapable editor, not to pass judgement on your tag. Regardless, I read the history improperly. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, we may be getting nearer to a block. See this comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I expanded your template, in plain Texas talk, hoping that might help him understand a bit better, and offer some tips on determining RS from BS. All I can do is try, but I'm not holding my breath. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It Must be Nice

I know you have plenty to do, but there has been some disagreement with an article creator on this one. I've tried to be as reasonable on the talk page as I can, but well, can you take at look at this article? If I've done something wrong, please let me know. It is just hard to deal with people who forcefully take ownership of an article like it was their firstborn child. I still think some of the refs don't belong, but have held off until a more experienced person takes a look. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry to jump in but I agree with you about the 'firstborn child thing'. Almost every newcomer is like that. Even i was like that in the begaining :P Yasht101 04:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article creator has been here since 2/09, so I wouldn't really call them new. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I just ended up sending it to AFD. Using first editions of unpublished magazines and blogs for references, linking to imdb for unrelated individuals, etc. Some of the worth references I've seen, obviously trying to just pad the article to make it look ref'ed when it wasn't, removing tags, etc. I'm tired of trying to help someone who edits disruptively and gets personal, and hateful, on the talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I m sorry, I didnt knew it Yasht101 17:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• The author still seems to have communication problems that I don't think a simple explanation can fix. I've tried, but some people just can't work as a "team", no matter how good their intentions are, and I'm starting to think this is one of them. Sometimes, yes, as long as everyone agrees with them. Not sure what else to tell them. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I think I should chime in here because Dennis Brown is making accusations here that are not substantiated by the article in question. He falsely claimed that the article is "using first editions of unpublished magazines". The magazine source quoted was in print AND online. He claimed here that "references I've seen, (are) obviously tring to just pad the article to make it looked ref'ed when it wasn't". That is not true. There was no padding and there were four or five references. Also he claims that the references were from "blogs" and linking to "imdb" for "unrelated individuals." That is completely untrue and the biggest falsehood here. There were no "blogs" cited! There were media outlets that had been commissioned by the International Press Academy to do press at the Golden Satellite Awards! The Press Academy IS THE PRESS. And imdb was referenced only in regard to the filmmakers and cast involved, not some "unrelated person." It's one thing for someone to be unreasonable, as Dennis Brown has been, but it's quite another thing to completely gin up false accusations on other people's talk pages which do not reflect the reality of the situation. I don't know what your relationship is to Dennis Brown, or if perhaps you might be one of his accounts. I'm going to assume in good faith that it isn't. But please know that all of the above accusations are completely false and misleading. As for his statement that we can't work "as a team", he has made zero attempt at true consensus. It's "his way or the highway." Consensus means that BOTH sides have input, not just one side. Consensus is not a small plurality of "two people" ganging up against one. Consensus means finding "general agreement" and harmony and not soliciting others to gang up against one. Thanks for your time. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

An interesting, and in some ways amusing, case. When Dennis Brown posted the message that started this section, I didn't have a lot of time, and I thought that it might need a significant input of time to deal with properly, as I would need to do quite a bit of reading up of the history. For that reason, I left it, meaning to come back in a day or two when I would have more time. In fact, before that happened, the article was at AfD, with a clear consensus, so I thought there was nothing more to be done, and I dropped my intention of looking into it. However, the post above from Catpowerzzz has prompted me to look at it after all. I have posted a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice to try to help Catpowerzzz understand a little better how things work. I hope my comment there is helpful. I have not, however, made a "keep" or "delete" recommendation, because I have not looked into the matter in enough depth to enable me to do so properly, and do not at present wish to spend the time doing so. (I have no intention of becoming one of the people who have a quick look at an AfD, RfA, or other discussion, and make a comment based purely on what other people have said in the discussion, without carefully checking for themselves.) There are many aspects of this case that I could comment on, but the most striking aspect of it is the battleground mentality shown by Catpowerzzz. I see assumptions of bad faith and conspiracy theory again and again. (For example, on at least three pages there are accusations that people are "ganging up".) I even see the inevitable accusation of "fascism". Nowhere do I see any indication that Catpowerzzz has even considered the possibility that other people may simply honestly and sincerely disagree with him/her.

I am more than a little amused to read "I don't know what your relationship is to Dennis Brown, or if perhaps you might be one of his accounts. I'm going to assume in good faith that it isn't." A strange idea of how to assume good faith. If I were assuming good faith I would not raise the possibility that the person who I was addressing was acting in bad faith. Why would I even consider doing so, since I was assuming that the person was acting in good faith? What Catpowerzzz has said does not assume good faith: it unambiguously suggests a suspicion that there is bad faith, while admitting that he/she doesn't actually know that such suspicion is justified. I am intrigued by Catpowerzzz's raising of the possibility that I may be a sockpuppet of Dennis Brown. When he/she raised that question, Dennis Brown's request to me to look into the matter had lain unanswered on this page for four days. It is far from clear to me why that might suggest sockpuppetry. Am I missing something, or would it make more sense, had my account been a sockpuppet, for Dennis Brown to have used the sockpuppet account to respond to his own request, and act in support of his other account? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously, I'm the sockpuppet and you are the puppetmaster, as I started here 5 weeks after you and you're the one with the mop, not me. It was just a matter of time before people started talking. After all, you never see the two of us together at the same time, kind of like Clark Kent and Superman. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, and the fact that in the course of your 16,071 edits and my 71,865 edits to date, we have only a few dozen articles that we have both edited, and those mostly at completely different times (sometimes years apart) and in unrelated ways, was a cunning ploy to throw people off the scent. One of our my especially cunning pieces of deception was when you I, using the Dennis Brown account, made this edit, waited for over a year, and then, using the JamesBWatson account, made this edit, removing the content you I had added using your account. All that, plus so many more edits that look like two different people with sometimes quite different opinions, just so that we I could wait for five and a half years after creating the accounts, and then cunningly ask myself to look into a problem, and ignore that request for several days. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• • On a less fun note, all the recent comments (before and after the above exchange) and violations of AGF are bordering on (if not clearly crossing) the line worthy of a "time out", in my own humble opinion. Obviously this isn't something you can do, being involved, but your opinion in the matter would be a appreciated. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If the same kind of problem persists, then I think we should consider carefully whether the competence issues are serious enough to require action. However, at present, I see don't think the degree of disruption has been enough to justify any action, and I think we should just wait and see if the problem fades away once the AfD is over. As for my being involved, I have only given advice to the user, and commented on the problems. I don't think that gives me the kind of conflict of interest that leads an involved admin to be excluded from acting. It is also perhaps worth pointing out that the only reason I have even that degree of involvement is because the user himself/herself posted to this talk page, in effect inviting me to step in. Even so, perhaps it would be better for me to stand aside, as the user evidently doubts my neutrality, and justice must be not only done but also seen to be done. If the problems get worse I will be willing consult another, unambiguously uninvolved, administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Since writing the above I have looked at your talk page, and I see there is a suggestion that the competence issues go back before this particular case. If that is so, there may be a case for taking action now. Can you point me to any examples, to save me spending for ever searching? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that Catpowerzzz very well be Chris Innis. Possible COI stuff going on? I am just putting this out there - ignore me if it's too far out there. Doc talk 10:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that? I have had a quick look at a sample of the user's contributions, and only a few of the ones I saw were related to Innis, but you may have seen things I have missed. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the fixation on Grindhouse Releasing projects caught my eye (first 100 edits are interesting), and there certainly could seem to be a promotional lean to the overall edits towards this end. Innis' spouse's article is eerily similar to hers, BTW.[8] Per WP:BEANS, I think perhaps Catpowerzzz might want to confirm or deny any professional association with Chris Innis, and then I can go from there. I am not well-versed in what COI does and does not allow an editor to do concerning their own work, but my "Spidey-sense" tells me that this is one of these two people, or someone in their employ. Doc talk 10:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I checked contribs and I see very little talk. What I did see is in line with what we would expect [9], swapping edits with User:Ckatz at [10] (not unusual, but is prior related history of those two) plus unrelated "ganging up" claims where input wasn't particularly needed or helpful [11], plus your own warning him about edit warring [12], User:Boing! said Zebedee warned him about his conduct at [13], but that is all borderline. Paranoia seems to be a common theme (See also:competence). Before February, there is a gap until you go back to a dozen edits in May 2011, then another gap until July of 2010, gap, Dec 09/Jan 10, gap, etc. He did join Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Member List in the middle of all this, which is somewhat ironic. His sourcing [14] (and the current article de jour) is often less than stellar, and I question his understanding of WP:RS. Maybe it is a COI issue, but I don't see enough to show that. Maybe he is just Chris Innis' number one fan, who knows. It is my opinion that words won't fix what is broken here. It is a matter of living with it, or not. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• I just now caught this edit [15] which is a pretty strong condemnation and obvious violation of WP:AGF (to say the least), "Furthermore, after Dennis Brown and Ckatz together stripped the article down to a stub and removed all the references, and then one submitted it for deletion (to hide the evidence)" as well as the flatly incorrect " "were not there when it was submitted by him for Afd" and therefore should not be there, inferring that the article is "frozen" once submitted to Afd. ". Those are pretty serious charges and misrepresentations by him, done in a more formal setting, and I would take great exception to those. Under normal circumstances, his conduct during this entire process would at result in a talk page full of warnings, at the very least. At some point, someone will determine that he has had enough rope for one lifetime. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• I know it seems like piling on, but that it is "rare" and that women filmmakers need to be supported by the Wikipedian community and not gangbanged by overzealous editors (and others) is seriously over the line in a discussion, and beyond the scope of Wikipedia:Etiquette. It is almost like he is daring for action to be taken. Unrelated, but I can't figure out why he thinks I'm an admin, other than a history of not looking at histories or user pages. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Someone else has taken action[16] if you are interested. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Illyukhina and Petrukhina

Hello James,

I am sorry if what I am doing now is not the right procedure (in particular, please tell me if you think I should leave them a note about this discussion).

There are two users, User:Illyukhina and User:Petrukhina, who are mainly edit-warring with each other, using their logins and also several IP-addresses (e.g. 116.39.110.175) I think you were the last admin that blocked them, but it did not help too much. Do you have suggestions on how to proceed?

Best regards, Sasha (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have blocked both accounts, and the IP address you give. You say "several IP-addresses", but 116.39.110.175 is the only one that was obvious to me. Can you tell me what others you think are involved? I could search around for evidence of use of other IP addresses, but I have already spent quite a long time investigating this case, and since you have evidently (from what you say) already found others, perhaps you could save me that time and trouble. You asked me to tell you whether you should leave them a note about this discussion. Usually, it is a matter of courtesy to tell a user of discussions about them, but in this case both users have had plenty of warnings, including being told that continuation could leave to indefinite blocks. They both know well enough that what they are doing is not acceptable, and under the circumstances I don't think any more warning was necessary, though you could have told them if you had chosen to. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks! 173.48.248.192 is one more such IP. I think I saw a few more, I will have a look in the evening. Sasha (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean about that IP address, but the evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions. If several IPs from the same IP range or from the same geographical area made similar edits then I would regard it as suspicious, but this one could easily be an innocent bystander who happened to come along and see problems with a particular user's edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

211.253.60.34 is obvious too, now that I've looked at it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you very much! If I find some more, I will leave you a note. Sasha (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I can fix this myself

Hi JamesBWatson,

I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at Alkris mike's recent edits. He's redirected his userpage and talkpage to a newly created userpage and talkpage for non-existent User:Mike Angelo Obiña. I've pointed him at WP:Changing username, but I'm not sure I can fix the bad redirects without making more of a mess - care to step in? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 08:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yunshui 雲‍水 10:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

sock investigation

Some time back you were involved with warning a user who blanked my talk page based on some deletion actions I was involved in. I have noticed one of the related pages has been recreated, and renominated for deletion (by others). I suspect new creator may be a sock, based on the only other edited page is the same as the user name of the previously troublesome editor. I have reported to ARV, but you may wish to chime with your viewpoint, such as it may be. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bahador_kharazmi Gaijin42 (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The user is editing on their autobiography page currently, and removed one of the maintenance templates you replaced (possibly a valid removal). I am not sure how the outcome of the sock investigation affects this. Clear violation of sock, possible ban avoidance, continued COI etc, but their current edit isn't overtly malicious. Anyway, might want to take a look. Bahador KharazmiGaijin42 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Stone roller

Hi JamesBWatson,

The article in my sandbox is fictional, me and my friends update it every now and then about a fictional footballer (the names we come up with tend to be random). If you look through the history you can see that we reset it every now and then (it's generally based on computer games). Is it a problem to have it in the sandbox or is there somewhere else you would like us to place it? We like to pretend he's a real person :) Stone roller (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This might not be good humour (lowest form of wit and all that), but it made me chuckle nonetheless. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you.... Dennis Brown (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashley Blake

James: the provided reference from the Birmingham Post specifically states that "After the verdict was delivered, the court also heard a list of Blake’s previous convictions, including two counts of theft in 1986 and three more in 1987. In 1988, Blake was convicted of handling stolen goods and altering documents following a road traffic accident and, in 1990, of driving whilst disqualified. Blake was again convicted of theft in 1993." which does not contradict the text in the article. Blake's insistence that the section is inaccurate simply isn't true. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right, and if you look back at the article you will see that I realised my mistake and corrected it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep - cross-posted, apparently. Thanks! MikeWazowski (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Big Brother finds this user

	Guilty of Thoughtcrimes!
	This users activities triggered the AIV bot! Sent to Room 101 for re-conditioning! :p Troll-Life (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

AIV report removed, though I was tempted to block anyway just because bots are never wrong :) Best, EyeSerene^talk 11:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pie Magazine Deletion

Hi Mr Watson! I am just looking into the deletion of the Pie Magazine article. Of course, I want nothing more than to meet the Wikipedia guidelines (and it was not my intention to ambiguously advertise) for articles and I will admit to being new to writing for Wikipedia. I came in to try to rectify the article since it had been marked as not having enough outside source support, so I was trying to beef up the article. However, I was under the impression that the Pie Magazine article, at the very least, was allowed and would not be deleted as it followed the Wikiproject Magazines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magazines) guidelines, for giving general information about specific publications. Can you please shed some light on this and let me know what I could change to adhere to the guidelines? Appreciate it! 24.69.202.136 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The best place for you to start is Wikipedia:AFC. This will allow you to have some oversight into the creation process, without worrying about it getting deleted. You can get help developing it, and submit it for inclusion. You might also want to read up at bit first at WP:COI, which will help keep you from making the most common mistakes. It is easier to do this than try to learn all the policies, if your only interest is to add the one article. You will learn the basics in a less stressful environment there. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello to you both. I am also a contributor to the Pie Magazine page. I too do not understand why it is being repeatedly sent for deletion. This magazine is a National publication in Canada, is much larger then fab magazine which seems to have similar size, length, breadth of article etc. Oddly someone who seems to have a background in biology and not fashion originally flagged this article. As I am not an experienced wiki editor it has been a bit of a challenge to find out what is wrong with the page and why it is being repeatedly deleted. I will try to find this via your link. As far as i read the article needed references to third party sources etc. (I was the original author that published the page. I did so because I work in fashion and I found there to be reason to have this referenced in this format. Several artists contribute to Pie Magazine from all over the world, and it struck me as odd, so I published this. I had done so for some Indigenous articles in the past, so I just decided to make the page. I honestly feel this was flagged by someone who doesn't know a lot about the industry and might not consider it notable without knowing enough about the publication. I will read up on this, but any assistance would be appreciated. This is not an advertisement it is an article about something in Canada which is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WM324AHI (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC) 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)WM324AHI (talk)==

Editing of Grapefruit drug interactions

The following message was copied, without saying so, to here from User talk:99.104.126.16. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that, if any statement in an article is challenged or questioned, the onus is on the person wishing to keep the information there to provide a reliable source to support it. It may be that what you say is true, but we cannot assume that it is true just because some anonymous person chooses to edit Wikipedia and say so, because unfortunately many people edit Wikipedia and make false claims. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

However, you did not bother to read the attributions as given. Also, your harassment of someone who is not actually anonymous - Wikipedia knows who I am - as being a poor editor over someone who is logged is is not Wikipedia policy. You're supporting a user who is maliciously protecting an incorrect, unsupported version of the article, and your stated reason is that you don't bother to read the citations of the artcle because I am anonymous 99.104.126.16 (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1. I very carefully read the source cited (I assume that's what you mean by "the attributions as given", and it does not say that other flavourings have the same effect as grapefruit juice.
2. Harassment? You mean posting the message which you have copied above? That was intended to help you, by explaining what the problem was, as you didn't seem to realise. I am sorry that it came across as harassment: it certainly wasn't intended to be.
3. By "anonymous" I did not mean "not logged in to an account", I meant that anyone at all can edit Wikipedia, and we have no way of knowing who it is. I am just as anonymous as you: the fact that I have created an account doesn't alter the fact. The point I was trying to make is that we need reliable sources to support claims made in articles: we cannot assume that something is valid just because someone chooses to edit Wikipedia and says it is, since we have no way of knowing who that person is, and therefore no way of knowing whether they are a reliable source. I did not mean to suggest that it makes any difference whether or not that person has chosen to create a Wikipedia account. Sorry I did not express myself unambiguously, and I hope I have clarified my meaning now.
4. My "stated reason" is certainly not that I don't bother to read the citations of the article. Nowhere did I say that I had not read the citation. Indeed, the point is precisely that I did read the citation, and it does not support the statement it was cited to support. I have no doubt that you were acting in good faith, but to start from a citation which says that a particular substance or class of substances may be a significant factor in causing the grapefruit reaction, and jump from there to stating that other substances which contain the same or related substances also cause the same reaction, is to go way beyond what the source says. It is necessary to use a source which supports the statement made in the Wikipedia article, not merely one which supports another related statement from which you have inferred the statement made in the Wikipedia article.

I hope that helps to clarify things for you. Please do let me know if you have any more questions about what I meant. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User talk:Codebiker --Bmusician 16:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Reg: Intergy Consulting Re-Post

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

We would like to edit following link page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergy_Consulting&action=edit&redlink=1 with informative about Software Development as well as our excel in this area. We'd like to know whether suits to Wikipedia Rules or else we request to post an article with diplomacy of Wikipedia about our company details — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhamosyd (talk • contribs) 05:19, 3 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Dear Mr. Watson:

(I know that is not your name, but if you prefer another salutation, please let me know.)

Thank you, again for your recent assistance with my account. I don't want to have any issues, as before, and wanted to let you know what I have done; if this does not meet Wiki requirements, please let me know. I have uploaded a picture into Wikicommons of Engin Akyurek; the picture was sent to me by the Production Company which employs Mr. Akyurek. I assume that by emailing me this picture, the right to use the picture is conveyed as well?

If this is not correct, I can delete the picture on your advice.

Thank you, again for your time and attention.

Infuzein (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete SA8?

Mister JamesBWatson

may i know why you deleted the Sa8 page? we need the page, that is Valid. want to know what credientials you have to delete this page.

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.106.78 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A page named "Sa8" has never existed. Please be more specific on what was deleted or James may not be able to help you. The "credentials" he has to delete the page is being an administrator. Also, please do not post personal information here (such as e-mail or telephone number), it's a big no-no. (I've redacted it.) --Bmusician 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I finally figured that he meant SA8. If you go to the old page, you will see why he deleted it. [17]. Expired PROD. Someone PROD'ed it, meaning they proposed it be deleted. No one argued against deleting it for 10 days, so it defaults to delete. It wasn't James' opinion that deleted it, (he just clicked a button after 10 days). The big problem, it appears, is that it had no sources. Articles that don't have sourcing (and I don't mean to Amway's page....) tend to get deleted. See WP:42 for more answers. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted in 2010...a loong time ago. Anyways, if you want the page back and are willing to support the article with reliable third-party sources, make a request at WP:REFUND. --Bmusician 03:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was confused here for a while. As Bmusician says, Sa8 has never existed. SA8 does exist, but has never been deleted, contrary to what Dennis Brown seemed to be saying (the page can be reached by clicking on the link immediately after the words "I finally figured that he meant".) However, after wasting some time searching, I eventually found that the next link Dennis gave (after the words "you will see why he deleted it") refers to a deleted article called SA8 (detergent). I would probably not have found it without Dennis's help. The article was proposed for deletion by Nuujinn, on the grounds that there were "no sources demonstrating notability". The article had three references, one of which is to a page not mentioning SA8, and the other two are currently dead links. I have made a search for sources myself, and found nothing to suggest that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Many of the pages I found are on the company's own web site, others barely mention SA8, or for other reasons do little or nothing to show notability. (Also, earlier version of the article had content that seemed distinctly promotional.) However, if, despite this, either the person who posted the original query that started this section or anyone else thinks that the subject does satisfy the notability guidelines, they are welcome to say so here, and I will restore the deleted article. In that case, unless sources are provided, it is likely that the article will be taken to an articles for deletion discussion, which it may or may not survive, depending on whether evidence of notability is available. I am unlikely to have much (if any) chance to edit Wikipedia in the next few days, so it is likely to be a few days before I respond to any request for restoration of the article. However, for an article that has been deleted for a year and a half, a few days' delay probably won't make a lot of difference. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry.

I'm sorry that I did an edit warring on Thomas and Friends before. It was a mistake I made, and I won't do it again. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock no good?

Hello James! You might want to have another look at your generous unblock of a user who does things like this over and over. Looks unwarranted to me. Regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oopsies

Hello James; when you reblocked User:Nikharshukla with new settings, you set the new expiry time to "2011-03-07T12:09:29Z" which I feel was a mistake. --Bmusician 14:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It was indeed. Thanks for pointing this out. However, the intended block expiry time passed without any editing by the user, so it didn't make any difference. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sumatra PDF

Thank you for carrying out that deletion and page move! - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Martha

I notice you declined this CSD; would you re-consider that?
The reason for the request was remedy an out-of –process move, which ought to be reverted. In making the request I was following the advice given here.
The page was moved without any discussion or any prior involvement with the article; the editor who moved it has since been edit-warring to maintain the position here and the discussion on the article talk page offers no support for the move.
It has been suggested to the editor in question if he has grounds for his move to take it to WP:RM , which is the correct thing to do; leaving the page as it is would be rewarding a fait accompli, and forces those who wish to fix the problem to jump through hoops in order to do so. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I see this has been fixed; I don't know if it was you that fixed it (as all trace of the redirect page in question has disappeared now) but if so, my thanks. And if my explanation for the CSD request originally was unclear, my apologies; I've not done one of these before. I'll try and do better next time! Moonraker12 (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the relevant pages, I see that it was not as straightforward as I originally thought. I would have looked back and checked whether you were right, but since you say it has been dealt with, I suppose I don't need to. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Burgess Hill Town F.C.

The article on this club indicated that they have regularly played in the FA Cup, the oldest and most prestigious national knock-out Cup competition in football, as well as FA Vase and FA Trophy, and have played their league football for a number of years in the Southern League and Isthmian League, which are highly notable competitions. All these are claims to notability, so I firmly refute that the article was eligible for deletion under A7 and would like to restore it post haste -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored by Number 57 (talk · contribs), so no long-term harm done, but an extremely poor deletion - clearly not eligible for A7. GiantSnowman 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Clearly" not eligible? An amateur club in an obsure low-level league that apparently has had the odd occasional moment of taking part in significant competitions, with not a single source to confirm even that? Or have I misunderstood? That's what it looks like to me, reading the article. It may be suitable for an article, but I don't see that it is "clearly" so. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The club is not amateur, and the league they play in is neither obscure nor low-level. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I evidently misunderstood about it's being an amateur club. Thanks for correcting me. However, "Division One South of the Isthmian League, the eighth tier of English football" seems like a fairly low level to me: I suppose it's a matter of judgement how low a level the words "low level" suggest. Also, the article is still virtually completely unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7 - "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." GiantSnowman 09:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that, and lack of sourcing was not the reason for the deletion. However, I don't see that that means I can't also raise the lack of sourcing in a discussion about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that the article needs improvement; I'm merely saying that A7 was not an appropriate CSD. GiantSnowman 09:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

help!

hi watson, im new at this wikipedia thing, i recently created a page called Maria D'LUz recently but i had trouble w/it so i requested to be deleted, now i have all the information correct and would like to fix it and create it, how would i do that? theres a message from wikipedia on the top part of my project that says "a page with this title has previously been deleted." and to contact the deleting administrator... using the information provided below... which is:

11:41, 10 March 2012 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Maria D'Luz (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maria D'Luz)

do you think you can help me with that please?

thank you! --Imariela (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what help you want. I got a bit confused at first for various reasons (such as that the deletion time was 17:41, not 11:41, which resulted in my searching for a page that I deleted at a time when I didn't actually delete anything), but I eventually found that Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Maria D'Luz did indeed duplicate Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maria D'Luz. The usual place to request an article creation is at the relevant "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation..." page, rather thna at the "Wikipedia:Articles for creation..." page, so the current page is in the right place, and we don't need two copies of it. However, as a registered user, you could just create the article yourself, by clicking on the "Move" link at the top of the page, and giving it the new title Maria D'Luz instead of Articles for creation/Maria D'Luz. If you can't see teh "Move" link, point your mouse at the little downward-pointing triangle at the right hand end of the list of links along the top of the page. Please note that I have no opinion about whether it is a suitable article, as I have not studied it: I am just telling you what the procedure is if you do want to create it. At a quick glance I can't see any obvious reason that the page is not suitable as an article, so I suggest you just go ahead. (Incidentally, for any talk page stalker who may read this, I realised after I deleted the page that technically I was wrong to delte it using speedy deletion criterion A10, as it was not an article. However, I could have deleted it under criterion G6, so I don't see it as a big deal.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

You missed out on most of the fun. We had cookies. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I missed them. I shall cry. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) lol...Sorry to butt in but i just cant stay away from commenting. Really its the best reply Denis Brown ever got from u. Good one sir! Yasht101 06:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Hello James.

Firstly, thank you for unblocking me.

Secondly, after my experience with this case, over the last few days or so, I'm in dire need of some help in understanding exactly what the WP:Consensus policy actually means. My reading of it is that, if article content does not become stable by the natural editing processes, that editors should then strive to reach a reasoned consensus through debate and negotiation.

However in this case of the Metrication in the United Kingdom article, my attempt to start a negotiation phase on the talk page was stonewalled, and a "consensus" was unilaterally declared as "support removal" based, not on any reasoned debate, but on a count of the initial unreasoned personal POVs of those participating.

The WP:Consensus policy seems very clear to me; no avenue to reach an agreed position should be left unexplored. In this case we weren't even allowed to start negotiating an agreement, let alone look for outside help if no agreement could be reached. What's your view of that?

There seemed to be an undue haste to purge that content from the article, a content that had been refined as the result of a 2-month discussion at the end of last year. The latest discussion was acrimonious, rude and single-mined, on the whole, with no attempt to compromise. Indeed one contributor actually wrote (in bold): "You get no fucking compromise from me". In my opinion, there was no attempt by most participants to adhere to the requirements of the appropriate policy, yet their POV seems to have been allowed to prevail.

This paragraph from the policy seems to summarise this case precisely:

Consensus arising from a rational discussion based on policy and common sense is the Wikipedia ideal. However,

the practical reality of editing often falls short of the process described herein. In 2012, a group of researchers studying Wikipedia disputes reported: "Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by

outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group

The "numerical dominance of one group" prevailing rather than the quality of the discussion.

The policy also says:

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections

of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like

it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

Yet it was precisely that type of argument that characterised the discussion, and won the day.

Another quote:

Limit talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to

explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be Wikipedia:Consensus 3

guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.

Several editors refused to engage with attempts to negotiate, and went off and removed the disputed content anyway, citing their 5:1 majority as a "consensus" and thus justification, before the discussion had reached a conclusion. Yet rather than they being reprimanded for being "dispruptive", their actions were condoned and supported by the actions the administrators took against me for attempting to restore the article content to the pre-dispute state.

Can you help me to reconcile the policy requirements with the actual result that has been imposed in this case please? -- de Facto (talk). 10:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines lay down the general principles we should try to follow, but in a project which works substantially without central direction, the manners in which those principles are interpreted and applied are determined by what the mass of participants do. It is certainly true that the consensus policy tells us to assess consensus by the quality of the arguments, not by simple numerical count of editors. However, in practice, if there are editors who sincerely believe that the quality of the arguments is better on side A of a dispute, and other editors who equally sincerely believe that the quality of the arguments is better on side B, how do we decide between them? We do not have some sort of authority figure who steps in from above, and makes an "official" ruling on the question, so in the last resort, when the substantial majority of Wikipedians support a particular view of what is suitable, that substantial majority constitutes a consensus. In a case where a majority in a particular discussion is a clique or organised group who are clearly trying to impose an unreasonable view, it is possible to go to some other forum, such as an administrators' notice board, to get input from a wider range of people, not involved in the subject. In this case, though, that does not appear to be the case. I am not involved in the dispute, and I have no wish to get involved, or to take sides. However, I have looked at the discussions of the various issues involved, and I can see no basis whatsoever for the view, which you appear to hold, that those who disagree with you are being unreasonable, so that their views should be given less weight that yours. For example, consider the issue of including or excluding the section "Before 1799". (Similar points apply to other parts of the dispute, and this one will adequately illustrate the points.) I can see that you do have a case for saying that this is not part of the subject, and should be excluded. I can also see a case for saying that, while not strictly part of the subject, it is relevant historical background, and therefore should be included. Thus if I were to "consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree..." I would see reasonable arguments on both sides. I might or might not decide that the arguments on one side were better than those on the other, but I certainly would not see any grounds whatsoever for deciding that the argument on your side was so overwhelmingly superior that the other side was unreasonable and could be dismissed. I do not agree at all with your claim that "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" arguments "won the day": there are perfectly rational arguments advanced, whether you or I agree with them or not. The long and short of what you seem to be trying to convey is that the supposed consensus is invalid because it is based purely on numerical superiority, while your arguments are the more reasonable. However, coming in as a complete outsider with no prior knowledge of the dispute, I do not see that your arguments are so obviously superior that the other side can be dismissed.

You say that you were "attempting to restore the article content to the pre-dispute state". However, there is no basis at all for thinking that when there is a disagreement about an article, the person or persons supporting the "pre-dispute state" have some sort of default right to maintain their preferred version. Indeed, it would be completely unhelpful to have such a default principle, as a person who wanted to keep the old version could simply persist in disagreeing with the others, thus ensuring that the dispute was never settled, and keeping the old version in place indefinitely. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right", nor "don't edit war unless you are trying to keep the version you prefer until the dispute is settled". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the very full reply. I know you aren't involved in the dispute, and are probably wise to keep out of it, but I must feedback a few observations, if you don't mind.

You appear to be condoning the bypassing of the provisions laid down in WP:Consensus for achieving a reasoned compromise. It is very clear that a consensus isn't achieved by a count, and that if no consensus is achieved, outside help should be sought.

The particular "dispute" (amongst many in that article) that I am concerned about, is not that one of the particular sub-section of the history section (which as you rightly say is, at best, a subjective decision), but the one about the Asda paragraph (about their customers preferring imperial over metric units). A group of editors, who had not been active in this article, arrived (some of whom are active in the MOSNUM guidelines - attempting to get the use of imperial units minimised and the use of metric units maximised for UK related articles, and/or were involved in another acrimonious dispute about the use of imperial units in the Hindhead Tunnel article, and another has a self-proclaimed "strong pro-metric POV") and gave one-liner "don't agree" type comments or even this 'I doubt I'm speaking only for myself when I say we don't care about your "putting it neutrally" we don't care about your "duly weighted" and we don't care about your "amply sourced"' and 'yes what they did can be reliably sourced. We don't f***ing care!. The point is that it remains incomplete.'!!! to sway the "vote". Of those that did offer reasons they varied (and even changed) from because it has no proper ending to it is POV to undue weight, but largely unreasoned. There has been no attempt to reach a compromise on the wording - they just wanted it out. It seems to me to be a concerted effort to minimise any pro-imperial content and maximise the amount of pro-metric content in the article.

We need to ensure due process is followed in these circumstances, and not bypassed for expediency, surely. -- de Facto (talk). 12:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't blame those editors from becoming exasperated with your behavior on the talk page, which amounts to pestering. There is consensus on the issue you keep raising, and you'll just have to live with it. James, I placed a note on the article talk page: in the case of continued disruption by this editor about that Asda story, I will go to ANI to ask for a topic ban for this editor for this specific article and the talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin Help

I am really not satisfied. i have been reading thousands of pages to edit and create a new company profile. when ever i make new, wiki delets it saying it does not match to criteria. other companies are simply providing their intro , image and other stuffs and wiki accepts it.

Really need an strong and accurate assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya.brother (talk • contribs) 10:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Aditya.brother (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to host "company profiles". What you are saying amounts to stating that you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote your company, which is against Wikipedia policy. You suggest that other companies sometimes get away with abusing Wikipedia in the same way. Unfortunately you are right, and we are continually deleting spam, some of which has survived for quite a long time before it is detected. That does not make it all right for you to do the same. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Watson,

Thank you for your instant response. In reply to this i would love to say, I received your last warning for my created page international institute of management and technical studies editing and getting blocked. i wish to specify my self here, i have been with the wiki policies and i know with every means that promotions on wiki is prohibited. i really did not expect any such protest. what i did was again a try to give information about an organization. When i click on write new article page, i get an option to write about a company. so i did. i am again warmly requesting you to please guide me what if i want to write about the company.

one more thing, you mentioned that long back few companies created such and those are under deletation.On an experimental base i edited Adecco page which as per my point of view is a promotion of a company. I got a warning not to do any editing on such pages. If you have that page with you why dont you just delete it if its a promotion. One side , i have been prohibited even to write a general info by wiki and on the other hand, you even prevent me to edit any promotion page. please answer my queries.

Aditya.brother (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You say that you edited Adecco. you do not, however, describe the nature of your editing of that article, so I shall do so. You started off replacing information relating to Adecco with information which did not relate at all to that company, at least some of which was about your company. This editing can be seen here. You then completely removed all content from the article, as can be seen here. It is difficult to see your editing of that article as anything other than outright vandalism, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and restricted myself to informing you that removing all content was not acceptable. I could have done much more. If you think that Adecco, or any other article, is promotion and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia, then the thing to do is neither to vandalise the article nor to blank it, but to request deletion. There are several ways of doing this, but a simple method in this case would be to put {{db-promo}} at the top of the article, to request speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for cratship

User:MBisanz has requested suggestions as there is a requirement for new crats.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Suggestion_for_new_crats Would you interested as one of the best admins around to be nominated for cratship  ? Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Move assist requested

Hi JamesBWatson. I'm hoping you can help me tidy up after a user page move. User:Kkonop, in an attempt to create a sandbox article, accidentally created two new users: User:The effect of media on teen relationships and User:Media and teen relationships. I've moved the actual text back to User:Kkonop/Media and teen relationships, but I'm not sure of the implications created by those two non-existent users. If you could take a look and fix the string of redirects by deleting/moving appropriately, I'd appreciate it (and yes, I did cock up my first attempt at a fix, sorry to have made extra work!).

On an unrelated note: if you chose to follow Pharaoh's suggestion above, I for one would definitely support the nomination. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the spurious user pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin Help

Sir,

Please believe me I was just doing an experiment. I did not know anything and i neither wanted to delete any of the addeco article. Please do believe me. I just wanted to write an article as same it is (the format) and got an option of "edit". It was absolutely unintentional. I removed all contents it was just to avoid miss contents on the page of addeco. My purpose was absolutely holy and writing an artical same as the others. For that I also talked on live chat with some body assistant. He simply denied to who the way in depth and suggested me to edit some of the existing article. I was not at all aware about getting the page saved of addeco with new information and i appreciate your less strict action against me. I did all innocently. but again my purpose is still clear even in this explanation to write the same article as those are available and could be seen on wiki. Please assist me . I tried lot many times. If you can track the page hown in your answer (the edited page) you can surely see my efforts. Obviously i learnt much more about wiki by all these experiments but still finding the accurate way to write about an article for a company.

Please assist me. Aditya.brother (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Sehmuzisin

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Octopod_External_Fixator&action=history this page includes complete advirtesement details — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehmuzisin (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that the article is nothing but an advertisement? If so, you may like to request speedy deletion by putting {{db-promo}} at the top of the article. Alternatively, if you mean that the article contains some advertising content, but is not totally advertising, then you can edit the article to improve it, if you are willing to go to the trouble. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianbud137...

...has decided to abuse his talkpage, for what it's worth. Calabe1992 15:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Not any more: talk page access revoked. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh

Would you mind weighing in? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator_User:Toddst1_canvassing_for_support_for_a_topic_ban_action Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kondicherry talkback

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

Seen and replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)