User talk:JBW/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Judy Wood

I would like to create a proper Wikipedia page for Judy Wood but I see that you have blocked previous attempts. I would like to know why, as she is notable even if you do not like what she has to say. It seems wrong that such an important if controversial figure is currently a 'non-person' on Wikipedia. Perhaps previous attempts have not been up to standard. Hopefully you can advise me on how to do it properly. Thank you for any help you can give. Chrischmoo (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I recall, I had never heard of Judy Wood before receiving this message, and I certainly never edited, deleted, or did anything else to, the Wikipedia article Judy Wood. However, looking at it now, I see that articles on this subject have been deleted four times, and there have been a deletion discussion and a deletion review. I also see that several accounts have tried to prevent or reverse deletion of the article, and that their attempts have, on the whole, been based more on a wish to see Judy Wood's views publicised than anything to do with Wikipedia's notability standards. There have been claims that deletion of an article about her was "censorship", apparently thinking that the arguments for deletion were part of a wicked conspiracy to suppress her opinions. There have been some truly wonderful claims, such as that the article was deleted because it was about a woman, and most Wikipedia editors are men, apparently all members of a wicked conspiracy to suppress information about women. (That explains, of course, why we do not have any articles on Marie Curie, Queen Elizabeth of England, Emmeline Pankhurst, Marie Stopes, Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Enid Blyton, Florence Nightingale, J. K. Rowling, or Lady Gaga. Hmm. Or maybe it doesn't.) Since most if not all of the attempts to keep the articles about her clearly come from people whose motivation is to abuse Wikipedia by using it to publicise or promote Judy Wood 's opinions, I suppose it is not surprising that we get these nutcase conspiracy theories about the reasons for deletion: people who dedicate their time to publicising one conspiracy theory are likely to be the sort of people who will see other conspiracies everywhere. However, nothing I have seen seems in any way to contradict the assessment in the deletion discussion that she does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nor do I see any significant evidence anywhere to support your notion that the deletions were because people don't like what Judy Wood says. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Or you can try WP:AFC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the useful and interesting reply. The reason I contacted you in relation to Judy Wood was because on starting the process of creating a page about her a "A page with this title has previously been deleted" notice appeared with "06:38, 16 April 2012 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Judy wood (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)" under it. I understand exactly what you mean re abusing Wikipedia by using it to promote opinions, certainly not my interest, although opinions do interest me. However I think Judy Wood is important for anyone who has an interest in the 9.11 'Truth' movement/phenomena and in the various theories/beliefs supported by different fractions. She is certainly notable in that arena. Anyone studying the conspiracy phenomena around 9.11 should have unbiased factual information available about the leading people and ideas involved; i.e in Wikipedia. Of course this is an absolute mine field as many of those involved behave like the worst kind of religious zealots. I am not a great wikipedia expert, where can i read the deletion discussion and review to get a better insight into the issues involved? I will not be attempting to create a page about Judy wood until I know it is right, thanks again Chrischmoo (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I had looked only at Judy Wood, and didn't realise there had also been an article Judy wood. Now that you have given me the exact title, I have been able to look back at the article which, as you rightly point out, I deleted. The page I deleted was indeed an attack page, describing Judy Wood as "a fraud", and claiming that "she made up a lie for the purpose of making a profit". I deleted it purely for that reason, not because of any opinion of how significant or notable she is, nor because of any opinion of her views. (I had no such opinion one way or the other, knowing nothing about her except what the attack page said, and Wikipedia has no place for attack pages, no matter what the subject.)

You say "Anyone studying the conspiracy phenomena around 9.11 should have unbiased factual information available about the leading people and ideas involved". That raises several questions. For a start, is Judy Wood one of "the leading people ... involved"? Evidently you think she is, but it is clear from discussions that have taken place in the past that some other people think not. How are we to decide, in the face of such disagreement, whose opinion should prevail? Wikipedia's way of dealing with that problem is that we assess notability of a subject not by the judgement of Wikipedia editors how important the subject is, or how much we think the information "ought" to be more widely known, but by whether the subject has received substantial coverage in multiple reliable third party sources. I have made a fairly brief internet search, and all the coverage I have seen has been in sources which are either not reliable (e.g. posts on forums, such as http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=14942) or not independent of Judy Wood (e.g. her own advertisement for her book at http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/). Other people who made more thorough searches than I have, when the article was being discussed, also failed to find suitable coverage. Rightly or wrongly, it is no part of Wikipedia's mission to make available information because it is "important", or because people "should" have access to the information. Wikipedia seeks only to be a convenient reference for information which is already available and widely covered in reliable sources independent of the subject. If you want to see more about what sort of evidence of notability is required, the most relevant pages are the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people, and the guideline on reliable sources. You may be able to find appropriate sources, but it doesn't look promising to me.

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Wood, and the deletion review is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 9. (Click on the blue link saying [show] at the right hand side of the section "Judy Wood".) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How to complain about an article?

Hi, I came here because I saw that you had blocked a 'Vanished User 167802'. I do not the reason he was blocked and don't care but I saw his complaint on the talk page of this article "http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Nair" and I think his complaint was genuine.

The article is a mess and is being hogged by one person who has made an enormous number of edits. He/She also refuses to let anyone else make any edits and is dismissive of their contributions.

The article is about a whole community and there are many reasons and motives to the way it is edited. Please let me know how the article can be taken away from a single person? I don't care which way the article goes from here but allowing a single person or a group of people to control an article on a community is unfair.

PS: My apologies in advance if I am not following any wikipedia etiquette as I am brand new to editing or commenting on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.155.131 (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this as soon as I get time, but that may not be for a day or two. I don't want to do a rushed assessment and risk getting it wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To answer a mere portion of the issue: vanished users are vanished because they declared openly that they will not contribute to Wikipedia any further. They are not permitted to edit. I have a pretty good feeling as to who it is, having seen the article in question - and if I guessed it, then anyone else will too. No sense vanishing if you're going to be that visible. Yes, Nair is a mess. "Retiring" then vanishing due to conflict will not fix the article. Being blocked because you broke your word will not fix the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response. I really didn't care about Vanished User and if you are wondering if I am him/her, I emphatically am not. I have never edited or posted on wikipedia before (except removing an obvious vandalism on some article about 7 years ago when it seems it was easier to edit). I took the risk of exposing my IP address and complaining because that article smacks of an attack on a whole community. In India, castes tend to be in conflict.

I posted some comments on User:Boing! said Zebedee's Talk page as well. I am not familiar with anybody here but as I have been just a reader till now.

My sincere suggestion is to please compare the article on Nairs from some other source (say Encyclopaedia Brittanica) with the Nair article here on wikipedia. I am sure you will see a major deviation with unsavoury remarks about Nairs in wikipedia. Also, please compare the article on Nair with the article on Ezhava (another community from the same region). The tones of the two article are completely different.

Finally, many people have complained about User:Sitush with no effect. In fact, the complainers seem to have got frustrated and got banned or simply left. I have also left some comments on the Talk:Nair page. I have left them in good faith though I believe that most of them will be deleted soon as has been the case the similar critiques from others.

Thank you for your time 117.231.144.44 (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I didn't realize that there were comments from two separate people. I didn't notice BWilkins. Wikipedia talk is very confusing. But I am learning. 117.231.144.44 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Vanished User 167802 never edited Talk:Nair, so you have evidently made some mistake, unless there is some edit there that you somehow know was made by that user under a different name. Is that the case? I also don't see any "unsavoury remarks about Nairs". Can you specify what content you regard as "unsavoury"? I have also looked at your contributions to the article's talk page. Most of what you say there, like what you have said above on this page, does not actually say what content you disagree with, but merely expresses your believe in a wicked conspiracy to pervert the article. If you can actually state what content in the article you think is wrong, and why you think so, then it will be possible to assess your opinion. However, as long as all I have to go on is a the fact that you don't like it, there is really nothing I can do to help. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi User:JamesBWatson. Apologies for not following up. Please forgive me if I am not using the right usages of wikipedia and I mean this sincerely.

I did post several topics for discussion and it led User:Sitush to make an allegation against me to user Salvio, which was completely unfounded. But the mere allegation was enough for his buddy admins to semi-protect the page and silence me from discussing topics other than those deemed worthy of attention by User:Sitush, his admin friend User;Qwyrixian and his now-frustrated fellow-debater VS (apologies for my inability to spell out his complicated user-name)

SO, I did raise points specific but I was silenced immediately. I also participated in building consensus related to an issue and against I was silenced in time so that User:Sitush can bury VS and his arguments.

Unsavoury content includes implying that the Nair community was the creation of a foreign group. Placing of general bad opinions about castes in region in an article related to specific caste when the page of a similar caste Ezhava is in fact glorifying the latter.

Frankly, the caste pages touched by User:Sitush have turned into garbage. Please look at the Talk:Nair page and see the shock and amazement that user VS is showing at the new argument forwarded by User:Qwyxrian that Nairs were not in the military or something like that. This is beyond funny at some level and wouldn't have been taken seriously except that wikipedia is still a powerful medium and it has become a vehicle to slander many communities by a few powerful people.

I wouldn't have anything against dumb arguments but they become dangerous in the hands of powerful people who would go to the extent of getting people banned to ensure that they get their way. Many users have been banned because of User:Sitush's allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.65.124 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, a suggestion that "the Nair community was the creation of a foreign group" is "unsavoury" only to a nationalist or racialist. I see no evidence to support your view of how the issues have been handled by either Sitush or anyone else. I do, however, see evidence that you wish to impose your own point of view on Wikipedia articles on subjects which are clearly close to your heart, and where you may well have a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for unblocking the Orange broadband range! 2.24.254.126 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so ya know...

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Bwilkins's talk page.
Message added 20:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ok, so not a talkback ... but an answer to one of life's deep questions (at least, deep at the moment) = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 20:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A response waiting for you

Thanks for the message about my sandbox. A response has been left about it on my talk page. - Todd Barczak (talk) 18:45, June 26 2012 (EST)

Thank you

Thanks for the additional information. I'll study it all and give it another go. - Todd Barczak (talk) 19:33, June 26 2012 (EST)

User:90.214.19.213 block

Thanks for the block, and your more than excellent block rationale. I think I and User:5 albert square may have been too busy giggling to apply a block. This user, however, has used two ISPs (Sky and CarPhoneWarehouse) so appears to be wandering about large CIDR blocks spreading disruption. I'll be keeping an eye on "English/South Scottish" edits from now on. Cheers Tonywalton ^Talk 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

143.236.34.56

I reported the legal threat to AN/I the same minute you blocked him. Did you read my post? Just curious. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't see it. However, there were more than enough reasons for a block anyway, and the rather trivial legal threat was actually the least of the reasons, in my opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

58.163.175.178

Hi. Just a quick request. We've had an unblocking appeal from User:58.163.175.178 which you blocked in May as a proxy. Can I ask you how you found out it was a proxy? Thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, six weeks after I made the block, I don't remember the exact circumstances. I blocked a number of proxies on that day, and I do remember that for some of the IPs I had confirmed they were proxies by using the proxies myself, but whether this was one of them I can't say for certain. Checking now for evidence, the best I have found is the following.

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/58.163.175.178 lists the IP address as a static IP hosting a confirmed proxy server, though that does not show that it is necessarily an open proxy. Proxy base lists it as a possible (not probable) proxy or spamming IP. Stop Forum Spam lists activity from this IP address on various dates from 12 December 2011 to 2 June 2012. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Delete Ram Kishore Shukla

Respected Sir, I am relative of the family of him, but when the real members of the family, like his sons and grand sons came to know about it, they immediately started criticizing me asking who are you to do it? this is the primary reason, secondary one is some unregistered users continuously tried to blank it thus created a lot of nuisance for us primarily by Arthur Rubin, he just kept arguing and filled up all the talk page, if the talk page entries are deleted then i will ask my co-creators not to vote for delete, However we are interested to write it from the beginning we people have the source file. Please Consider, I once again assure you that article will be rewritten in just 10 minutes after we see deletion with lesser grammatical mistakes possible and same sources as before. Thank You Very Much--Alcides86 (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xoje007, could you extend the block on User:Nika Khojelani to indef? Confirmed. ⇒TAP 10:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! ⇒TAP 11:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

User: 121.1.11.50

Excuse me, can you block 121.1.11.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a very extended period of time? This vandal came back today and did his usual MO of adding unsourced anime related material into unrelated articles. This address was blocked three times, the block lasting two weeks. I decided not to give a level 4 warning because vandalism is constant. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Attack page block

I respectfully disagree with your declining the AIV report for User:DigitalQR, and I have indeffed this account. This user created an outrageous attack page, imputing criminal activity to a minor, and added to it over multiple edits. I agree strongly with you about not blocking for first offenses in most cases, but this was an exceptional circumstance in my view. I hope you will understand my position. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I was borderline for blocking myself, and I certainly won't object to your block. I agree that the editing was enough to justify a block, but I thought it was almost certainly just some kid playing around and not realising that the sort of playing around he/she was doing was unacceptable, in which case deleting the page and warning him/her might be enough to stop any more. However, I was very much in two minds as to whether to block despite that, and I have no quarrel at all with you for deciding to block. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Block

The edit war is on inline iwlinks. It was removed.Karma61538 (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Creation protected article

There is a brief discussion on User talk:Fastily#Roland Szabó (Slovak footballer) that can do with your input regarding recreation/undeletion of an article that was deleted for not having appeared in a pro game. I have also left a note on WP:Football --- Agathoclea (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

discussing other wikis in en wiki

Hey JamesBWatson, I've got a question about a hypothetical situation where a user makes a sub-user page and discusses, comments, and criticizes an issue in a wiki in an other language rather than English. Some users of that wiki may be attacked and labeled. Is this sth allowed in here? and can the user say that it is related to wiki and is allowed since has not attacked en-wiki users and isn't this considered canvassing? (although the whole thing might be not related to en-wiki at all). - -sicaspi (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Personal attacks are not acceptable, no matter who is attacked, and whether or not they are editors of English Wikipedia.
2. A user sub-page on English Wikipedia used substantially in relation to issues which are not to do with editing English Wikipedia is likely to infringe the user page guidelines.

Obviously it would be necessary to see the particular page to judge it, but it is very likely that such a page would be unacceptable. If its main purpose seemed to be to attack people then it would qualify for speedy deletion as an attack page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I just wanted to use your adminship experience on a similar issue somewhere else.--sicaspi (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at WP: AIV.
Message added 20:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Michael Valeone aka Mike G

he has been touring with National Recording artist Natalac and have been signed to Natalac REcords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yameka (talk • contribs) 15:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Instant steve/sandbox

Hi Watson

Thanks for your comments on my page which you have deleted. I understand what you are saying - Unfortunately I have been struggling with the mechanics of editing Wikipedia and in doing so have, I realise, not met the standards that you talk about.

Exeter Spacex is an art gallery of similar status to the Newlyn Art Gallery and Modern Art Oxford (both of which are on Wikipedia). I had tried to model my contribution upon these pages. The Newlyn page has very little on it, while the Oxford page has more information but does include attributed quotes, like mine does.

I am keen to have another go and realise that I have to provide more independent references (which I can do). Can you please clarify why, apart from this, it is ok for the Oxford site to have direct quotes but mine are wrong. Is this simply because my quotes are taken from the gallery itself? Would it have been ok if I had quoted from and independent review? - or do I have to paraphrase?

Can I go ahead and have another go, based upon your advice? If I do, should I do it in my sandbox or somewhere else?

Many thanks

Steve

Instant steve (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for review of a user's conduct

Hi JamesBWatson. If you have the time today, I was hoping you could do a favour. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tasketz Kayo reported by User:Chubbles (Result: ) and User talk:Paul Erik#User:Tasketz Kayo. The original report perhaps ought to have gone to ANI rather than the EW noticeboard, as it is a bit more to sort out than what usually appears at the EW board. The user in question has been persistently problematic, and I think either a block or a stern warning from an admin is needed here. (Careful of the user's userpage, which is almost NSFW.) I don't think it should be from me, as I have expressed an opinion that might create a perception that I am too "involved". Much appreciated if you do have the time, or perhaps an admin who has your talk page on their watchlist. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Valeone

it was marked for speedy deletion, but he under contract as a artist and a producer at Natalac Records, and just completed a tour with Natalac, now has been included on worldstar hiphop with the Video "Cadillac Switchin Lanes" with Natalac, it has distribution through DEF JAM distribution. Could you tell me why this not notable..Thank you ..we are still gathering other references to futher back up this Page...from other reliable sources..(Yameka (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC))

1. Can you explain who you mean by "we"?
2. The article gave no indication of significance. Being under contract is not a guarantee of significance: thousands of obscure musicians have contracts. Going on tour is not a guaantee of significance, even if accompanying someone notable. I suggest that you have a look at the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Indira College of Engineering and Management

Requested Sir
I made this page for my institute but its been deleted under "advertising cat.". Sir, the page is not mean for advertising purpose rather i made it for educational purpose. This institute is reputed college of University of Pune, India. And i strongly believe it should be there on wikipedia. Its the top listed college of Maharashtra, India. And its best college in India providing 100% placement in management and also link to many countries. So for providing courses detail and campus specification i made this page. Although its not a local college but International college in which student from Arab state and European countries come here for studies. So if you think that its enough requirement for this page to be there on wiki then i appreciate you.
Thank you
Your sincerely
Hitesh.pendesk (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If you honestly did not see what you wrote as promotional in tone, then it suggests that you are so closely involved in the subject that you are unable to stand back and see it from the detached perspective of an outsider. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage us from writing on subjects in which we have such an involvement. Even if you sincerely intend to write objectively, it can be difficult to do so in that situation. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Case of interest

Hi James, you may be interested in this SPI case since I see that you were part of cleaning up his block evasion. His newest account is here. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sam Querrey article

I received your note and replied on the Sam Querrey talk page. Please reply only on your talk page and/or the Querrey talk page. Thanks. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 17:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Apology

I gladly accept your apology and yes, I think that it was vandalism, not a spambot. In the past month, there have been many spambots and articles containing the word "board" and they usually trip the page blanking filter first. I have caught about 20 of them and they all have gotten 3 month blocks. I really appreciate that you apologized for something, even thought you were right. See you around! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at that IP's talk page and it has been blocked for 3 months by another admin for being both a spambot and an open proxy. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I see that you use Huggle. If you want, you can join the CVUA as an instructor. I am also an instructor there, along with about a dozen others, including ItsZippy (Admin) and SwisterTwister, who's currently having his RFA. If you're interested, please add yourself to the staus page. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC).

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

Articles for deletion/Pakistan Murdabad

Hello, Could you please help ? I had added the afd here to India Deletion list. And User:Mar4d removed from the list. When it is clearly mentioned in the 'History' section that the slogan was used in India and by whom, how come its not related ? -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 14:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

An old friend

I think an old friend is back. Farthing Man (talk · contribs). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I just did the math, I think he is just outside the range of a checkuser for the last known sock of Mr. Curious Man (talk · contribs), but an obvious duck. I guess I will file an SPI on him anyway, but wanted you in the look. Not sure of the mess he left behind... :/ Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Should be within range for The Zooligical Editier, the last sock I know of. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephens City, Virginia

I was wondering if I should add a mention about the 2011 Virginia Earthquake being felt in town to the Stephens City page or if it was information that wasn't really necessary since everyone on the East Coast felt the earthquake. Just curious. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You evidently know far more about this than I do. However, if it is really true that it was felt all along the east coast then I don't see any reason for adding mention to an individual city, unless there is some reason why there is special notability of its being felt there. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really any special reason to mention it, other than I think it was the only time that we have felt an earthquake in Stephens City history (though I could be wrong on that). I didn't think it was particularly notable, but since I am updating the page with information (census, temps, etc.) I wanted to make sure before I added it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Block of Harasser

Thank you for blocking the user. As their question has been answered (What policy permits editors to remove comments from their talk page?) I think this editor will take the hint and not continue to use my talk page. FYI: This kind of harrassment is why I left the entire MMA article space because it's never going to get better unless admins start wading into the morass and drain the swamp of all the innuendo and bad faith. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Block Appeal: User talk:98.201.95.47#Notice of AIV. Regards, Hasteur (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Y26Z3 Sockpuppet investigation

Since you had involvement in the blocking of user Y26Z3 because of his edits at Lusitanic, I thought you'd be interested to know that I believe he has created a new sockpuppet through which he is beginning to make similar edits and is again lobbying for the deletion of Lusitanic. The sockpuppet investigation I started against him is here:

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Y26Z3 Goodsdrew (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Boundary 2 talk page

There has been consistent disruptive editing by Guillaume2303 on this talk page. Did you read the entry that he/she just removed? That is the problem, not its revert. Leaving the page as it is censorship. 95.241.252.9 (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I see no disruptive editing by Guillaume2303. I see only a concerted effort to deal with persistent disruption by a user who is determined to force through the inclusion of unsourced content to promote a particular point of view, with persistent edit warring, accusations of bad faith, refusal to accept consensus, and so on. (On the subject of the content being unsourced, perhaps I can remind you that you have stated that you have "inferred" it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• He deleted several times my comments, which intend to improve the page.

• What is unsourced from this edit that has been removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boundary_2&oldid=500706640

It is a discussion of this “social network” claim. I am not sure what you mean by I “inferred” it. These remarks discuss how the page could be improved. Isn’t that the purpose of a talk page?

• Incidentally, when I set out to protect the page, Guillaume2303 had not yet reverted. That revert took place while I was taking the steps needed to protect it, so the version that got protected was different from the one I saw when I set out to protect it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• So, why is the IP I was using blocked? This disruption was caused by Guillaume’s repeated removal of my remarks on how to improve the page. Guillaume should be the recipient of this block, not me. Moreover, I warned him/her of vandalism on the b2 talk page multiple times today

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

Guillaume has repeatedly removed the remarks linked above from this talk page, remarks which discuss how to improve the content of the page. What he is doing is vandalism, that is, disruptive editing, per wikipedias definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.114.79 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 July 2012

1. You are not sure what I mean by you "inferred" it? Did you actually read what I wrote? I never said that you inferred it: I simply stated that you said that, which you did, here.
2. Contrary to what you say, I see no evidence of bad faith on Guillaume2303's part. "Vandalism" does not meant anything that you happen to disagree with.
3. The answer to your question "why is the IP I was using blocked?" is already given on the talk page of that IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Blinky Bill

As the protecting admin on several Blinky Bill redirects, could you please repair the six Blinky Bill-related redirects here? — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

LarryBoy page deletion

I watch a number of the VeggieTales pages including the subject one and was wondering why the page was deleted. I don't know how much I've edited it, but simply deleting all the content and moving it the the List of VeggieTales Characters page seems like a mistake. For one, there is no VeggieTales character named "LarryBoy" - he is a role played by Larry the Cucumber and not an actual character (therefore to include him on this page would open the floodgate for anon editors to add even more listings for roles other characters played). Secondly, LarryBoy appears in several videos and therefore there is a wealth of info to put on this page. It looks like the page was first marked for deletion in 2008 so my guess is that things have changed in the past four years so that it is no longer a stub. Not a huge deal, but I don't really agree with it. Ckruschke (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

If you think that the mentions of "LarryBoy" in List of VeggieTales Characters are unsuitable then perhaps you would like to remove them. However, they are merely brief mentions, and the content of LarryBoy has not been moved there. (The deletion discussion contained a suggestion of merging the content, but nobody ever did it, so presumably there was little if any support for the suggestion.) The article LarryBoy was not a stub, and was deleted for other reasons, essentially for lack of notability. Looking at the latest version of the article, I saw nothing at all that even began to address any of the issues raised in the deletion discussion, and it had absolutely no sources at all. Consequently, there does not seem to be any justification for overturning the decision reached at that discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. My question was based solely on the LarryBoy page deletion and had nothing to do with content on the List of VeggieTales Characters (which I do closely monitor). As far as deleting the page content, I don't agree as it looks like you basically made a judgement call on a page that was far better than some of the other crap that's out there. However, as previously stated, I have no ownership stake and was thus just curious. Take care - Ckruschke (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

User talk:Zak123456789

Please look more closely at this editor. Their RFA wasn't a good faith self-nom. They claimed a year of experience and lots of knowledge of Wikipedia, which could be found in their talk page archives. Their talk page archives appear to be copy/pastes of User:NawlinWiki's talk page. --Atlan (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was obviously dishonest, with attempts to misrepresent their editing experience, but I didn't see the fake talk page archive, so thanks for pointing it out. I have deleted the fake archive, and given the editor a final warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson/Mr. Curious Man

Would this be better if it was listed at SPI as a long term abuse page? That way any time a sock popped up, the SPI clerks would have access to the information, as a link just below the Archives. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'm short of time now, but I can come back and do that when I have more time, maybe in a couple of days, or you can go ahead and do it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew McInnes

Hello. I see you are the most recent of several editors to delete an article by the name Andrew McInnes, and I can't seem to create an article with this name as a result. I'm not sure whether the Andrew McInnes in the deleted articles is the same Andrew McInnes that my article is about. Anyway, my article, which can be found in my sandbox at User:Aspirex/sandbox is about an Australian Football League player who (three hours from now) will make his professional debut and meet the notability criteria. Could you please re-create this article with the text from my sandbox, or let me know what I'm doing wrong when trying to recreate it myself.

Thanks. Aspirex (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done It does seem to be about the same person, but, unlike the previous versions, it looks like an acceptable article, so I've moved it to Andrew McInnes. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Voice Cast Vandal

Back again, using User:75.251.0.211. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fahrenheit (video game) review

The Fahrenheit (video game) page is going through an Edit war on the Reception part.[1] Several IP addresses are stating that Jesse Cox reviewed the game, gave it a 10/10, but there not giving a reliable source to it, just a link to Youtube[2]. Is Youtube a reliable source link for wikipedia? If not I don't think these IP addresses are going to stop.108.208.137.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally, YouTube is not a reliable source. I have semiprotected the article for a while because of the intensive edit warring taking place there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the Fahrenheit (video game) page is going to need a longer protection template[3]108.82.14.30 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Ekren

Hi! You told him to stay away from rollback and semi-automated tools, but he requested rollback at WP: PERM. Armbrust told me that as a clerk at WP: PERM, I am allowed to N requests at WP: PERM as a non-admin if they are obviously not going to be accepted. I put the (non-admin closure) template there, just to make it clear that I am not an admin (I hope to take a shot at it in January). In the (unlikely) case that you want to give it to him, feel free to reverse my closure. Regards, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC).

I have no worries about that non-admin closure! Further to that, see User talk:Ekren#Please stop using Twinkle. I'm not too familiar with Twinkle - am I right that, since it is turned on as a gadget, it isn't possible actually to remove his access to it? JohnCD (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

He disregarded that and is still mis-Twinkling this morning, so I have blocked him for 24 hours to get his attention. JohnCD (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your deleted article on EMRI

I've just tried to find information on EMRI on Wikipedia and saw that you deleted the article in 2010 because it was too promotional. EMRI, a huge non-profit medical emergency service available in many states in India, with 436 ambulances in Tamil Nadu alone (completely free of charge), is certainly noteworthy. If the content of the page was too promotional, you could put a warning on top. Lazy people like me are more inclined to improve an existing page rather than write a completely new one.

Some refs:

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/dial-108-for-ambulance-in-tamil-nadu/

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/netzwirtschaft/privater-notruf-die-letzte-rettung-fuer-den-indischen-staat-1543818.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerandy (talk • contribs) 11:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

After some time searching I decided you must mean Emergency Management And Research Institute. (It does help to give exact titles of articles you are referring to.) I'm not quite sure whether you mean this to be a criticism of the speedy deletion policy. or of my implementation of it on this occasion. If you meant the former, then clearly this is not the right place. However, assuming you meant the latter, here are some of my thoughts on the matter. If an article contains a little promotional content, then the way to deal with the problem is to remove or rewrite it: there is no point in simply tagging it as promotional and leaving it. In fact, in my opinion, the situation in which tagging an article as promotional is most likely to be useful is when the person who originally posted the promotional content is still actively working on the article, because in such a case sometimes they will be alerted to the problem and rewrite their content. However, the article in question here was not an article with a little promotional content which could easily be removed. The whole thing from start to finish was written as an advertisement, full of such language as "focus and deliver a world-class emergency management system", "the best in the world", and so on and so on. To have removed the promotional content would have meant either a massive rewrite, or else removing all but a few sentences leaving no more than a stub. Doing either would have been difficult, because the article cited no sources at all, making it difficult to know what content was reliable and should be kept. As for your idea of leaving the advertisement in place and simply tagging it as promotional, Wikipedia's policy is that Wikipedia must not be used as a host for advertisements, and merely labelling it to say that it infringes that policy would not deal with the problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Return of a user you blocked

[4] needs attention. Thanks once again for your help, JBW. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Kessler

The first openly gay man to be accepted to HUC, (as stated and clearly cited), plus coverage from multiple independent sources is enough to satisfy WP:N. --Bachrach44 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect supporting image

Unless I'm missing something (which is a distinct possibility), on Prolate_spheroid the [[File:Ellipse_axis2.png|elipse]] shown, when rotated, will not produce the [[File:ProlateSpheroid.png|prolate spheroid]] shown.

Shouldn't the elipse be tall and narrow and rotated about the vertical axis.

DavJenkins (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The specified rotation of the ellipse shown would create the right spheroid, but in a different orientation than shown in the diagram of the spheroid. I agree that it would be better to redraw the ellipse diagram so that the two have the same orientation. That would not be at all difficult, and maybe I will do it some time, or you may like to. The diagram of the ellipse was originally added to the article in July 2011 by an anonymous editor using the IP address 94.66.82.255. As originally shown, the diagram was wrong, as the labelling of the axes did not agree with the notation used in the text. My only contribution to this was to change the labelling on the ellipse, so that it was not actually wrong, but I do agree the orientation is not helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

hersh davis-nitzberg deleted for a G11 violation

Hello, It would be greatly appreciated if you could please suggest what i can do to re-add this article...it was written by me, and not sure how it violates g11. maybe you can suggest a few pointers to perhaps make it publishable :)

Jmjamahl (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I started by spending some time looking at the history of the deelted article Hersh davis-nitzberg, and writing a fairly detailed response to your question on the assumption that you were referring to that article. I then discovered that there had also been an article Hersh Davis-Nitzberg. Since neither of these was created by the account Jmjamahl, and the former has a title the same (apart from the initial capital) as the form in which you refer to the article, it was natural to find that one first, but it now looks as though you more probably meant the latter. How many accounts have you used? Since you say that you wrote an article on this subject, but the account you used to post here has never created one, you have clearly used at least two, and I wonder whether you have used more. In particular, which of Trickskelley, Hershdavis and Rolandeavey were yours? Also, can you say why you have used more than one account?

The first version of the article was deleted both for speedy deletion criterion G11 (unambiguous promotion) and for criterion A7 ( no indication that its subject is significant enough to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia). The deletion log for the second version mentions only G11, but it seems that lack of evidence of notability is also an issue there.

As far as the promotion is concerned, if you can write either of those two articles and sincerely not see it as promotional, then I can only assume that one or more probably both of two things applies: (1) You are so closely connected to the subject that you are unable to step back from it and see how your writing will look from the detached perspective of an outsider. This is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages writing about a subject to which you have a personal connection. (2) You work in marketing or "public relations", and are so used to marketing speak that you have become desensitised to it, and can't see it when it is there in front of you. Both versions of the article were full of such PR-speak as "in a city where image is everything RIC is exactly who you would want behind you", "if the past is any indication his golden touch will make Exchange LA your favorite new nightlife hot spot", "based on his strong relationships and insider intelligence, he has a reputation as a successful entrepreneur", "motivated by a desire to mobilize new energy", etc etc.

You ask for "a few pointers to perhaps make it publishable". Firstly, you need to look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines to see what sort of subject is suitable for an article. Most relevant in this case are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people. Only if it seems that your subject satisfies those guidelines is there any point in considering putting more work into the article: no amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. However, even if the subject does satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, the kind of promotional prose you used, illustrated by the quotations I have given, is totally inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, and articles have to be written from a neutral point of view. Finally, I think it is only fair to warn you that I have done some internet searching, and have found nothing at all that looks remotely like evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. There is plenty of material around, but all of it is either trivial mention of him, unambiguous promotion, content from non-independent and/or unreliable sources, etc etc. On the basis of what I have seen I very much doubt that he satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. My advice is that your time would be more usefully employed promoting yourself, or your employer, or what ever the correct description may be on sites that are intended for the purpose of promotion, rather than trying to use Wikipedia as a free advertising service, which it is not. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hi JamesBWatson :) Thank you for protecting and keeping Wikipedia free from disruption, trolling and vandalism! Your quick response on anti-vandalism saves everyone's time and keeps Wikipedia functioning smoothly and efficiently! Keep up the good work :) Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Old image on What Car?

Hi James,

Thanks for giving me more information about editing the What Car? entry on Wikipedia. I'm obviously aware that it's a sensitive area so I will read up on reliable sources and make sure to provide them.

One of the things I'd like to do is change the front cover image on the What Car? entry to a more contemporary one; we've redesigned the magazine at least twice since that 2001 cover was on sale.

How do I go about changing the cover? I already have a 2012-edition cover, as a JPEG in the same dimensions as the one that's on the page right now.

Hope you can help.

Kind regards,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcilroy (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Kayo

Hey, thanks for closing that EDITWAR thread. Happy to finally have that off my hands. Chubbles (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's back again to his old ways, but you beat me to reporting him; thanks once more. Chubbles (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note - there's an unusual influx of new accounts editing Anticon discographies today...User:Rijkhamout, User:LazyEditorsRuinWikipedia, User:Poet4life, User:Brenjen, User:F C K Y, User:Panda Gold, and User:KKK Life. Nothing particularly objectionable (other than one of the usernames), but it does seem rather curious, that's all. Chubbles (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So, if you've got a moment, have a look at what's happening at Alias (artist) and the associated talk page. Damned if I'm not dealing with a block-evading sock, here... Chubbles (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cvlwr. Chubbles (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User:HumanNaturOriginal

Hello JamesBWatson. I would like to ask you to take a look at the borderline harassment on my talk-page by User:HumanNaturOriginal. This user is in constant violation of Wikihounding ("The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions").

Many of his edits are disruptive, since he has poor command of English and poor understanding of Wikipedia policies. He keeps engaging in borderline edit-warring over common syntax/grammar/punctuation/MOS-related errors ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), and he keeps stalking/reverting my edits in a completely unjustified way. I tried to engage in dialogue with him but there was no result ([11], [12], [13]). His tone is completely is inappropriate; he claims in my talk-page that my edits are not "clever" (referring to this one) or that I have created a mess after correcting him a couple of times ([14]: he had falsely inserted that Jorge Luis Borges wrote a book called "The Biography of Evaristo Carriego", while HumanNaturOriginal's source just had this piece of information "Evaristo Carriego" (biography); I tried to correct it and there followed this). I cannot assume good faith any more; I would like to ask for advice on the matter. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Peace for everyone, guys... HumanNaturOriginal (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. We could also check the following accounts: Phallussok, Dactarianou, Rousfo, Zeromaker, AngBent, and IPs: [15], [16] as suspected sockpuppets of Plouton2. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no time to check them now. You could try taking them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lena Pessoa

Hello

I have talk to you on my page. Here is my message. Thanks for your future answer :

an answer to 3 peoples

To : Strike Eagle

To : JamesBWatson

To : Amatulić

Hello,

I do not understand why do you treat us like that.

2 days ago we decide to bring Lena Pessoa on english talking Wiki and Portuguese talking wiki. Since 2006, she is on the french Wiki, with never no complaint.

I am the same man, with "mouzaia" as a name, writing on the french one, the english one, and the portuguese one.

I am the same man taking the pictures, who belongs to me, this is the reason why I gave these pictures in the public domain under my wiki name, using the procedures described on your pages.

Lena Pessoa is quite famous. As mentioned on her pages, the is the designer of hundreds of stores all over the world, working for Vuitton,Pucci, Tods, Jimmy Choo and others,it is also possible to see this on her site, http://deuxl.com When googling "lena pessoa" the answer of Google is : Environ 7 080 résultats (0,43 secondes)

Our company,DeuxL,exist since 2000, it is a small company,and before the Crisis,it was very profitable.

But yes, no one wrote a book on her, so I cannot ref no books with her name as a title. We have a lot of pages on books on architecture all over the world, I have mentioned one of these books this morning to one of your censors, his only answer was "she got only one page" !

I have read somewhere in your 'so difficult' pages to read that we were using pictures coming from ttp://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_Pessoa this is ridiculous, I am the one who wrote both of them, and the pictures are mine. I am the one who take care of Deuxl's internet site, with the same pictures ..

So please, be reasonable and let us work ...

Thanks for reading.

Sebastien BERNARD (Mouzaia)

(talk page stalker) It doesn't matter if she has a page on different Wikis. They each have their own policies for notability. Also, it seems that you have a conflict of interest with the subject. I would strongly advise against writing this article. Lastly, biographies of living persons, also known as BLPs have very strict rules here. We also have rules on notability, which she unfortunately does not meet. Please see WP: Notability (People). Regards, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

User:Ceedjee

In this edit, you restored a tag to a page that the editor himself did not add, and was added by a sockpuppet of a banned user who has been, for several years, harassing the editor in question. The only requirement for such notification is to ArbCom, not publicly on a user page. Why did you restore that tag? And, if you would be kind enough to answer this question, what brought this to your attention, given that the tag had been removed 3 days ago? nableezy - 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the information might potentially be useful, and there was no evident reason why it shouldn't be there. You may have good reasons why it shouldn't, but there was no indication of any reasons, so perhaps it would have been more helpful to have mentioned the reason in your edit summary, so that I knew not to restore it. As for what brought it to my attention, I think I was checking Powder Hound 3000's edit history because he/she had made an unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Should a tag like that be allowed to be placed by any user, including a sock of a banned editor who had maliciously hounded this user for years, or should it require some sort of self-disclosure? nableezy - 15:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bump. nableezy - 15:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've thought about it, and come to the following conclusion. Sorry it's taken me so long. Normally, rather than put a tag like this on another user's page, I would do them the courtesy of suggesting to the user that they might like to do so. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for just going ahead and doing it, but perhaps this is not one of them, and I do agree that the fact that it was done by a block-evading sockpuppet account does count against it. Because of those considerations I shall remove the notice, even though I still think it's useful information and does no harm. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Iaaasi

Hello JamesBWatson,

I do not know how it is possible this......but there is a Ip user (202.117.4.226 ) who is from Peking ,according to "Ip2 location. com" [17] and yet it looks to me that this user is Iaaasi.

There is a banner on Iaaasi user page saying that "Banned user Iaaasi has been soliciting users by e-mail in an attempt to get people to edit on his behalf. Please do not act upon any instructions issued by this banned user".

A couple days ago, a user who had previously no interest to edit Wikipedia, approached User:Omen1229 on his user page to elicit his email address for purpose of cooperation [18]. Shortly before a "IPv6" type of Ip user user:2001:4BA0:FFF7:12:0:0:0:2 appeared at the article Bratislava to help User:Omen1229 winning at an edit-war here in which I was also involved. Okay it was a coincidence...

However, there is a Ip user from Peking who helped User:Omen1229 winning at an edit-war at the article Jan Jesenius again. It is obvious that it is impossimble geographically, knowing that Iaaasi is from Romania, Craiova.

But said Ip user coming from Peking, added sources to the article [19][20], and the google books display characters used in the Romanian alphabet such as [21] [22] :"Din interiorul cărţii" , "Ce spun oamenii - Scrieţi o recenzie, Acest utilizator nu a creat deocamdată un profil. - Afişaţi-le pe toate".

What is more, this Ip has shown up at the talk page of administrator HJ Mitchell from whom he wanted to cadge an Wikipedia:ARBEE notice for user:Norden1990 who Omen1229 edit warred with on the article Jan Jesenius [23] and within this message the user betrayed a particular knowledge of Eastern Europe which makes it highly unlikely that this user be from China.

Furthermore, there is a blocked meatpuppet of Iaaasi, User:Daccono , who also wanted to manage a similar WP:DIGWUREN warning in the past to one another Hungarian user too here[24] and here [25].--Nmate (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is very complicated, as Iaaasi sockpuppet cases often are, and I make no claim to fully understand what is going on. However, http://www.liveipmap.com/202.117.4.226 says that the IP address has been detected as open or anonymous proxy, so I have blocked it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed Anderson's addition from Ekren's talk page and told him why I thought it was not helpful. JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that Anderson9990's editing was unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for considering my unblock request and unblocking me. Your decision will not be in vain.Worsnupd (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bandaranayake Central College, Veyangoda

this is my problem. I named our school name incorrectly & published the page. then I've to create a new page with the correct name & copied the incorrect page's script then pasted on the correct page. But unfortunately, the new page has been deleted and I can not edit it. Please let me know how to reedit it & then what to do.

The correct name of the school is Bandanayake Central College, Veyangoda I want to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manowiki123 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Very Very much for Unblocking me from editting Bandaranayake Central College, Veyangoda.

I will copy & paste whole WIKI MARKUP script of incorrect page & then I will redirect it to that new page. Please Don't Misunderstand!

Shall I Do it..?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manowiki123 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please Unblock me from editing Bandaranayake Central College, Veyangoda. I made a mistake of name while I was creating the old Article. Then, I corrected it & created above article. After that, I copied the whole wiki markup codes of the old page then pasted to above page. Currently it has been deleted. Please understand the matter & give me access to above page to create it for the school with all your help! Thanks..........

--MR 16:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manowiki123 (talk • contribs)

If I understand you correctly, what you are asking is for the deleted article Bandaranayake Central College, Veyangoda to be restored so that you can copy the text there and post it to another article. However, that article was deleted because it infringed copyright. We cannot restore content that infringes copyright to allow it to be copied, as doing so would be illegal. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP PROD

Re [26]: the final reference (Florida Times-Union) seems to me to be a valid reliable source, and that's why I rejected the BLP-PROD. I'm not saying the article should be kept, but I don't like deleting articles for invalid reasons.  An optimist on the run! 19:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I suppose to be technically accurate, the link in question is a valid reference for the fact that someone of the name Jeannie Greenwald has adopted a child of Chinese origin, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and so you could say that it's a valid reference. However, unless I have missed something, nothing else in the article is referenced to a reliable source, and that trivial fact is not a significant part of the article, nor is it a reason for notability. It seems to me to be a rather pedantic interpretation of the BLPPROD policy to regard that as a valid reference. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Pedant is my middle name :-)  An optimist on the run! 07:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

PhoenixMIXr

I note that you blocked PhoenixMIXr (talk · contribs). Bravo! Please have a look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/PhoenixMIX and see if you have any input. Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:48, 18 July 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.

Yunshui 雲‍水 07:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Udayar (caste)

Hi James, would you please block the IP (188.28.13.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) continually vandalising this page - it's getting crazy. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If only all the other rollbackers were willing to WP:DENY. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was actually looking at the IP's edit history considering how long to block for and what reason to give for the block while you posted the above request. Please feel free to contact me again if the trouble restarts after the block (or during the block via a different IP address). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you I'll do that. Generally if the block can't wait (ie the reported user is just being ridiculous (like this one)) I usually look through Special:Logs for an online admin and you were the name I recognised. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

PhoenixMIX sockpuppet

Dear Mr. JamesBwatson,

It´s me PhoenixMIXr. I have understand that i should not doing damage to wikipedia. Please unblock my account. --217.255.226.75 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

66.25.135.33

Hi. I see you blocked this person after I declined to do so at WP:AIV. I looked over their edits and their talk page and I didn't see any bad-faith vandalism nor did I see any efforts to welcome or explain to the person how we do things. I also saw just one warning, a draconian final notice.

I left a note for the complaining editor at User talk:Freshh#66.25.135.33. Am I missing something? At a time when there's concern about new editor recruitment and an excessively hostile environment for newbies, this seems sort of discouraging. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for prompting me to think again about this. I have reconsidered, and decided I agree with almost everything you say. I am not convinced that all the editing was done in 100% good faith, but I should have given the benefit of the doubt. I have removed the block and posted a welcome message. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm. I have now looked at Freshh's talk page, and at Special:Contributions/24.28.64.91, and I think I may have been right in the first place. However, I'll leave it unblocked for now. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I, too, looked at that other IP but once again saw more BITE than bad faith. Both IPs are in the Austin, Texas area, so it's probably the same person.

My user page

Please don't edit my user page. My service level was not in error. Yworo (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You claim to have 51,000 edits, whereas you are on record as having 38,302 (including deleted edits), and you claim to have 7 years of service, whereas your account was created on 1 June 2009, giving you just over three years' service. I assumed that the discrepancy between your claim and the record was an error, and by putting it right I was helping. Was it was not an error? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Recall

Hi there. I have chosen you as one of the editors who may request my resignation as part of my recall procedure. Could you have a look, and confirm whether you're happy being on the list? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Protect my user page

I don't want anyone to go changing my userpage.Receptie123 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about those edits on Ekren's talk page. I didn't realise they were unhelpful.--Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 07:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback|carlywgt5 - Southbound Brewing Company

Hi James - Could you please explain in what way the information given on the SBC page differs from all the examples I provided. I actually used them as a format and nothing is wrong with them. Please note back on the talk page for SBC. Carlywgt5 (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Carlywgt5

Sweetwater Brewing Company was no better, and has now been deleted. You may or may not have noticed that it was tagged as being written like an advertisement. At a quick glance, Terrapin Beer Company looks similar, but I don't have time to check now; I will try to do so within the next few days. Moon River Brewing Company looks as though it just may be more notable than the others, and again I'll try to look at it properly when I get time. Meanwhile, you may possibly find WP:OTHERSTUFF informative. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Goyden pot and New Goyden pot

Talkback/Chris Fox (Goydenman) (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Recreating the page Maya Chitram Art Institute

With due respect sir I would like to draw my attention that earlier the page has been deleted due to removing speedy at Maya Chitram Chitram Art Institute.As I was a new user for creating article in wikipedia I wasn't all acknowledged with the html codes and saw many other pages codes and tutorial to making the endeavor. I have not even seen the notification also where I can actually deal with the matter and as when I was about to understand the matter I was blocked. Taking about the page there is no doubt with its authenticity as its a Institute registered Under Society Registration Act 1961 with Reg. No. S/33019(81-82) Dt 11-08-1981 in Cooch Behar, West Bengal. For any further link you can asses with this link http://www.mayachitram.org and http://indiaforyou.in/ngos/ngodisplay.php?ngo=MAYA%20CHITRAM%20ART%20INSTITUTE. There is no conception of promotion its just a endeavor to let other people know about this Institute in Cooch Behar, West Bengal which all unique with its kind. This Institute has fostering the Culture of Cooch Behar since 1981 named under the legendary dancer Uday Shankar has a very close relation with Mamata Shankar and inaugurated by Governor Shri K. V. Raghunatha Reddy. I would like you to look over this matter and let me complete with the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahinkumardas (talk • contribs) 21:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I find some of what you have written somewhat difficult to understand. However, one of the things that you appear to be saying is that you did not see the messages warning you about removing the speedy deletion tags. I am always somewhat puzzled when this claim of not having seen messages comes up from new editors who have repeatedly removed speedy deletion tags from an article they have created, as I find it difficult to understand how anyone can miss the orange banner saying "You have new messages" and giving links to the user's talk page. however, if you did indeed manage to miss it, at least you know now, and it is unfortunate that it took a block to get your attention.

You say that "There is no conception of promotion", but I really don't see any other way of reading it. The article was full from start to finish of such language as "rendering sincere and dedicated service for the growth and development of artistic talent among children and the youth by imparting them a sound method obtaining fine art and culture", "providing its young talent adequate exposure", "rendering sincere and dedicated services to society", and "We cherished them and are proud of them because they have helped to maintain the unbroken immanency of our culture and civilization". Such language is clearly designed to tell us how good you think the institute is, not to inform us in a dispassionate way about what it is. A Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and should not tell us that its subject is good or bad, worthwhile or worthless, noble or ignoble. An article should not tell us the personal opinions of the person or persons who contributed to writing it, or try to persuade us that the subject of the article is good, so that a method is "sound", that services are "sincere and dedicated", or that those who wrote the content of the article "cherished" something or "are proud" of it. Unfortunatley, I see that you have re-created the article with the same kind of promotional language, and it will be deleted again. If you wish to write Wikipedia articles that will stay in place, you need to write them from a neutral point of view, that is to say from the point of view of someone who has no opinion one way or the other whether the subject of the article is good, bad, or indifferent, but merely wishes to record objective and dispassionate information about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you sir for your response and I also concede the fact of neutral point of view after reading the article again. I have deleted the promotional lines from the article and also recollecting the facts regarding this article. Now there is only valid description regarding the Institute and please let me know about any more things that need to omit from the article. And again thank you sir for the reconsideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahinkumardas (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahem?

Did I really vandalize the page Can't Stop Me? Before you post a warning on my page look at this page -Afrojack- read the first four words in the article (in bold) and then say I vandalized the page. 178.16.6.194 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Afrojack's real name is Nick Van De Wall, and I am not vandalizing if I say Can't Stop Me is written by Nick Van De Wall instead of Afrojack. (It says N. Van De Wall in the linear notes, I expanded). And seeing as Nick Van De Wall should (or does) redirect to the Afrojack page then I make it say Nick Van De Wall and direct it to Afrojack. I don't see how that is vandalism what so ever. If you do not reply in the next five minutes then I will revert your revert to Can't Stop Me. Thanks. 178.16.6.194 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I got it wrong. A word of advice to avoid future misunderstandings: giving an edit summary, even if only a few words, to indicate what you are doing, helps. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I went off yesterday (my IP address has changed again), that's fine. I assume you were just patrolling recent changes and saw Nick Van De Wall, and thought it was a bit weird (as you may or may not know who Afrojack is), this is fine I'm happy with your explanation. Maybe it would have been better if you were to check my edits and see that they were all good faith. 87.254.87.148 (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback

But I didn't request your input, so please mind your own business. --Intimidated^talk 16:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

NFL Player Engagement Page

JamesBWatson please forward a copy of the deleted NFL Player Engagement page, I'll be re-doing it to ensure full compliance with Wiki policies and not to imply any bias. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by CareerUpdate (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This user left the same request on my talk page yesterday: here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. See answer there. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor under the bridge

Of course you are being trolled. The block was good and appropriate, as were the declines to lift the block. You have gone above and beyond in your application of good faith, and you have bent over backwards in your attempts to communicate and address concerns. Now you are just being toyed with; best to just let the troll serve out his block without providing more entertainment for him. Kudos, however, on the superhuman display of patience. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Yes. I have also removed talk page access. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocking spammers

I read your message before it disappeared and you have a good point, actually; I am aware of being inconsistent in my use of softerblock and spamublock. I will think about it and comment in a day or so. JohnCD (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Benjamil Cites Goebbels

James,

Wikipedia policy exhorts us to "assume good faith" - I invariably do so, once. You have decided to step into a controversy where user:Benjamil and his allies repeatedly reverted my careful edits to the Eurabia article. You have taken it upon yourself to warn me - but not him - over an "edit war". Have you looked into the substance of what is going on? What is happening is that Benjamil (helped by one other user, probably a sockpuppet) has been hijacking the Eurabia page, insisting that the lede of the article relegate the term "Eurabia" to the pariah status of a "conspiracy theory" before giving a neutral definition. The correct NPOV approach is to first define what Bat Ye'or and others mean by the term in the lede, then go on to state that some people have criticized this as a "conspiracy theory", and what exactly that charge means according to those critics.

Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia" can be partially viewed on Google Books.

Regards, WikiFlier (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Note that I am NOT, and other editors are NOT, advocating for the mirror opposite position - that the "Eurabia" hypothesis couldn't possibly be wrong, or couldn't possibly be irrational or a "conspiracy theory" - by all means let's acknowledge and document what various critics say.

P.P.S: Civility is nice, but granting a "hecklers' veto" to loudmouths and organized interest groups will simply open the floodgates to even more widespread intimidation and hijacking of "their" subjects by ruthless political interest groups such as those represented by Benjamil. WikiFlier (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

P.P.P.S.: I have now made an unrelated edit to the "Eurabia" page adding pertinent background concerning "Mattias Gardell" - he is a pro-Palestinian activist who with his wife took part in the "Ship to Gaza" action as indicated in the cited sources. This is clearly relevant to balance the alleged neutrality of Gardell's judgments implicit in the reference to his status of professor at the University of Uppsala. The new information and sources were taken from the existing Mattias Gardell page (which I have never edited). Let's see how long user:Benjamil and his consorts take to delete these unwelcome details from "their" article. WikiFlier (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)How right Mike Godwin was! JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That was one of the many things I though of mentioning in answer to the above message, but decided not to bother. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Remind me, JamesBWatson - who was it who insisted on introducing Goebbels' favorite propaganda device - The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - into the Eurabia article? You do know, right? I know you read the article carefully, and were not just shooting from the hip. Regards, WikiFlier (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Un menteur !

Sorry but when I read in your presentation : I try hard to be welcoming to good faith new users, believing it is worth the effort of trying to explain why a contribution is unacceptable, rather than simply throwing a link to a guideline, i think you are a lyer. When I was trying to organize a page about Lena Pessoa, you finally erased it talking about copyright ! Which copyright ? I was using the text I WROTE for Facebook ! Without even talking to me, you erased that page already moved in my personnal page by Amatulic ... At least Amatulic was trying hard to be welcoming ..., not you. The result about your attitude ? you can read it there. Mouzaia (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do try to be welcoming. Did you read the note I posted to you? Did you check the link to the page about donating copyright? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and unfortunately many people make false claims here, so we can't take it on trust that a person who creates an account here and copies content from elsewhere owns the copyright. That is why we have a procedure, explained in the page I linked to, to donate copyright. One other word of advice: you are far more likely to get help and cooperation from other editors if you are civil to them. Many an editor, seeing an angry message accusing them of being a liar, would simply have ignored it, or deleted it and forgotten it. I have chosen, as you can see, to reply to you, and try to explain the reason for the deletion, but many editors would not have done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you do not try to be welcoming to good faith new users How did you welcome me ? by destroying a page first, then writing something about copyright ! how could I dare you were talking about that Facebook since the text was coming from a commercial booklet done to present Lena's work ? To be welcoming would have been to ask me about these copywright before to erase that page, and not during the war I had with that ovni Eagleyed something, or with the Religious monk whose I forgot the name, reproaching to Lena to be on only 1 page in a book talking about 40 designers, or you ereasing that page, all this in 1 day ... Welcoming ? the only one Welcoming again is Amatulic, explaining me what to do and how to do it ...

About being a liar, maybe my english is not as good as it should be, maybe liar is not the good word, even if I say it in french in my title, maybe i should have talk about "une langue de bois (in english, no idea)" So i apologyze about "the liar", but not about my feelings, sorry. Mouzaia (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Brechbill123

Hi James, just dropping by to let you know that this user has returned to wikipedia. He was blocked in October 2011 for 3 months. The block was for disruptive editing - you revoked talk page access. Although the block expired in January they didn't return to WP until a couple of days ago[27] (July 22 to be exact).
Unfortunately it seems that this user has returned to interesting behaviour, and are pushing, civilly, OR & fringe content on Race and Gender articles. I ran a wikistalk on this account and a banned user - the result is intriguing (please note that Anacapa mainly used Ips to edit feminism related topics and these don't appear in this list: see my old investigation for full details). Brechbill123 has 155 mainspace edits[28] (204 edits in total). 36 are related to Amish/Mennonite/Old German Baptist Brethren topics. The rest to feminism and race related articles. Anacapa's interests match (Amish/Mennonite/Anabaptist/Shunning as well as incest, feminism and domestic violence). I could be wrong of course but besides the similarities with Anacapa, Brechbill123's own current behaviour is repeating his past point making tendencies.
In short, I believe we either have a sock or a user who has returned to point making edits. If you get a chance I'd be much obliged if you'd have a look--Cailil ^talk 19:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit of "Early Life" of John Atta Mills (http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=John_Atta_Mills)

I made an editing of the "Early Life" portion of John Atta Mills, the late President of Ghana. The portion edited was change of "Akan" to "Fanti". But this has been reverted back twice and am amazed. I want you to check the facts correctly before doing so. Prior to the death of John Atta Mills, that portion has always been "He was a Fanti" and even the same wikipedia page about Fantis (Fantes) mention his name. Check it yourself http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Fanti

And also, let me remind you "Akan" is just a name for a group of many tribes in Ghana and Fanti is one of them. I'm a Ghanaian myself and in Ghana you don't say you are an Akan but you say you are a Fanti, Ashanti, Akuapem, etc (all tribes/languages that fall under Akan.

My surprise is why all along the correct portion that reads "He was a Fante from Ekumfi Otuam in the Central Region of Ghana" has been there and all of a sudden after his death yesterday someone edited the Fanti portion to "Akan" and the wrong one has rather been accepted.

My little advice is get your facts correct and also ask/verify from people from Ghana to really understand the two "Akan" and "Fanti" very well. This is the moment many people will be coming to Wikipedia to find information about the late president of Ghana (since he died yesterday)so any wrong, inaccurate or "slightly-doctored" information is to the detriment and accuracy of Wikipedia.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.223.106 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out to me. I have done some checking, and you seem to be right, so I have restored the references to "Fanti". It helps to give a few words in an edit summary to indicate why you are making a change. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)