User talk:JBW/Archive 72

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 ← Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75

Persistent vandal

Hi, James. There's been another vandalistic edit from 87.242.155.254, an account blocked twice before. Activity there is infrequent but seemingly only for disruption. Isn't it time there was a longer block? Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: At first glance I thought this didn't qualify for a block, because it's just sporadic vandalism with only one edit in four months. However, when i looked at the filter log for this IP address I realised that the edits that are seen in the contributions list are just the tip of the iceberg, with far more vandalism attempts blocked by filters, so I have blocked for a year. Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoroughness. I was sure a bit of investigation would reveal more about the pattern of behaviour. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Another climate vandal

Bari's climate box got vandalized by this IP user two days back. https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/151.45.13.242

I wish for help in blocking that IP from editing Wikipedia articles since I truly am sick of people who just ruin weatherboxes with make-belief data. Thanks in advance for your help :)

Lommaren (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lommaren: I fully sympathise with your sense of frustration at this kind of editing, but I'm afraid I can't block on the basis of one edit from an IP address that has never done any other editing, especially when that edit was a couple of days ago. The blocking policy doesn't allow blocking in such a situation, and in any case a block would almost certainly be totally futile, as the editor will probably never edit again from that IP address. If there is clear evidence that this is an editor who has a history of similar disruptive editing from one or more other IP addresses then I can look at the possibility of a range block, or article protection if a small number of articles are repeatedly attacked, but otherwise I'm afraid we just have to accept that such one-off vandalism edits occur. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to the matter and answer. I will keep an eye on Bari hereafter and report back if I find anything from that same IP again! Lommaren (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Prashant Wankhed (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Thank You for your guidance on my user talk page. I'll try and improve :)

Deletion of a copyright-infringing draft

James: This morning I saw that my draft on Surrender Lal Kapoor being deleted. If you would have been a little thoughtful then you could have sent the authors a notification before the deletion. I was looking for fresh references for this page. Now we would have to spend time in recreating the draft from scratch. I would like to make this a suggestion to the wikipedia administrators to treat the content writers with a little respect and time before taking such drastic steps. Thanks, Rishabh Kapoor —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapoorrishabh (talk • contribs) 01:28, 16 February 2018‎

@Kapoorrishabh: Wikipedia policy is that content which does not comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy be deleted immediately. Wikipedia announces that text can be freely re-used subject to attribution, and leaving content which has not been validly licensed under such terms, encouraging people to commit copyright infringements, while we give a warning and wait for editors to remove the unacceptable text would be questionable. You are free to suggest that the policy be changed, but I very much doubt that you would get anywhere with that proposal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

About adding the draft page OJSC "BZMP"

This page isn't SPAM. OJSC "BZMP" is an public enterprise. In Wiki there are more page examples about Pharm companies. Links: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Pharmstandard https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Alkaloid_(company) https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Pharmstandard https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Pfizer https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Takeda_Pharmaceutical_Company and others Why do you discriminate against the Republic of Belarus? Perhaps we need help writing this page. We ask you to help edit the page and remove the blocks that look like ads. We have everything written the same way as the above companies in the English version — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilearts (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mobilearts and Borimed:
  1. I never said it was spam, I said it was advertising or promotion, which although related is not the same thing. If I had thought it was spam I would have deleted it.
  2. I don't see any promotional language at Pfizer, but if there is any it should be removed. Unacceptable content in one article doesn't justify unacceptable content in another article.
  3. A word of advice. If you request an unblock, I strongly recommend following the advice you have been given to read the guide to appealing blocks first. One of the things you will find there is advice that unblock requests are unlikely to succeed if they contain attacks on other editors, and I don't think unsubstantiated accusations against me of blocking you because I discriminate against Belarus is likely to encourage any administrator to unblock you. If you have evidence that I discriminate against particular countries, as opposed to just jumping to that conclusion on the basis of one block, then I suggest you state what the evidence is. I am confident that an examination of my editing history will fail to provide any such evidence, but you are free to search through that editing history to try to prove me wrong if you like. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Re promotional material

Try to understand what you deem to be promotional material in the article you are referring to. The article contains factual information all supported by independent sources. Similar content can be found on most other tequila brand pages, but most such pages don't have as much independent verification. Please clarify. Philacevedo (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Philacevedo: The fact that content is factual doesn't prevent it from being expressed in terms that give a promotional impression, which it was. Are you really claiming that you were not posting the page for the purpose of using Wikipedia to publicise the brand? That is certainly what it looked like. One of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest discourage writing about a subject to which one has a close connection is that in that situation it may be very difficult to stand back and see how one's writing will look to an uninvolved outsider, and very often such involved editors write stuff which looks promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are not doing so. However, a more important point is that the brand of tequila you were writing about does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so that even if an article about it were written in a way which nobody could regard as promotional it would not be likely to survive for long. No amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject of that article. Have you read the message that DGG wrote in answer to your question to him? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Shyne

Hey JamesBWatson,

I see you warned 190.197.12.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) about soapboxing but they are back at it again [1] this time just blanking parts of the article. I really don't want to ask for a block because I think they are doing this without malice as, if they are really Shyne, they probably don't like negative things about them online. However, it is very disruptive to have them ignore our warnings and blank sections of this article. Do you have any suggestions on how to move forward? Would page protection be an easier step, just to get their attention and make them discuss their COI and edits? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: I agree with you that it will be better to avoid a block if possible. However, the trouble with protecting the article is that when an IP editor tries to edit a protected page he or she does not see a notice giving the reason for the protection, unlike an editor with an account. Instead he just sees a large (and in my opinion possibly rather intimidating) notice saying that the article is protected, but not why. There is nothing there to encourage him or her to go to the IP talk page. At least in the case of a block the blocking administrator can post a note in the block log entry inviting the editor to go to the talk page, and the editor will see that note if he tries to edit anywhere. For the present I have posted a fairly long talk page message in which I have tried to clarify the reasons for concerns, and I have put an edit notice on the article, which he will see if he edits there again. I hope that will get his attention, but if not we will have to try a short block. My intention is to remove the edit notice after a couple of days (or sooner than that if he responds to the message) but if you notice that I have forgotten to do so then please feel welcome to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Aussie IP hopper being dispruptive

Hi, JamesB. You should check out edits coming from 2001:8003:2E...; 2001:8003:2E5F:3B00:6D2A:4751:799A:4424 stopped editing after a high-level warning then 2001:8003:2e71:1700:8026:f7b7:b73c:abfa and similar IPs started four days later. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: It looks as thought the present disruptive editor has been editing since at least as far back as early December, so I have blocked the IP range for three months. However, there has been disruptive editing from the range since November 2014, so I did wonder about possibly blocking for far longer.
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SmartSE (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

block

I tried to find Vituzzu also. He/she is an admin and beaurocrat, i think, on itWP and Meta, and he has another title, i forget, what were the recent elections? He's one of those. The error message he left said it is possible to get a local waiver on enWP, but when i access via TOR, i can't even write on my own talk page. A STEWARD, I think that's what he/she is, but xe's evidently never created a page on english Wikipedia, and i DO know enough not to create it by leaving him a messagw there. Thanks for trying to help.

IP's: 93.174.93.71 185.220.101.33

and others, but it doesn't matter, 'cause every time I open a browser, the IP changes. I think that's an AT&T thing. It formerly didn't matter: as soon as I logged in, the IP no longer mattered. Now i'm getting IP blocks, and they seem to be universal on WMF projects. Oh well, such is life. rags (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Block on IP (Naraht)

Next time that I go to that Starbucks, I'll include the information as to what IP address it was if it happens again. I don't understand why the policy would prevent a user who was *logged in* from editing.Naraht (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Polish IP soapboxing

Hi, JamesB. I've already added Ruderman Family Foundation to the requests for page protection but thought I'd let you know as well. Some Polish editors have the misguided notion that the foundation has been practicing Holocaust denial and continually add this notion to the article. –Skywatcher68 (talk)

I see the page is now semi-protected. As active as these IPs have been, I don't think three days will be long enough. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: You may be right. However, let's see how it goes. It's possible a three day protection will persuade the disruptive editor(s) to give up, and if not then we can consider imposing a much longer protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Yogesh Khandke's talk page.
Message added 14:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You may choose to reply, if you wish to:) I don't think that you received the ping ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess that the conversation is heading precisely no-where! ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Yes. That's exactly how it looks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Quack quack

Hi, JamesB. Got an admitted block-evading IP hopper at https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/94.197.120.26. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:75.112.89.243

Hi, James, an infrequent contributor but deliberately disruptive each time; multiple warnings but no action taken so far. Would this be part of a school's suite? Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I don't know. However, I have spent a fairly long time checking the editing history of the IP range from the same ISP which includes this IP address. Unfortunately the conclusion that I came to was that there was a large enough amount of vandalism to make me want to place a block on the whole range, but a large enough amount of constructive editing to make me decide that I couldn't. The editing from the individual IP address is much too sporadic to justify a block, unless there is good reason to think it's the same person every time, but as far as I can see there isn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Combatron

FYI, this article was restored after your PROD/redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Got another IP-hopping hoaxer

Hi, JamesB. You should take a look at edits from 75.121.50.202, 71.129.176.117, and 2600:1702:110:5a50:adc4:b1af:772b:bf77. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like that hopping hoxer from Michigan has returned as well. Now using 50.105.120.236 and 50.105.114.58; the latter has been blocked already. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting second opinion

Given your existing experience with the sockmaster and comments from May 2017 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JacksonViking/Archive, I wanted to get your opinion. I've already blocked Jamalcrao (talk · contribs) based on the loud quacking I was hearing. As a result, the account has been tagged as a blocked suspected sock; but I would appreciate a second opinion. I could also add a fresh SPI for the new user, but didn't initially appear necessary to me. Thoughts? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Barek: Well, the glaringly obvious thing is the continuation of the old edit-war started years ago, which on its own is enough to make me think it far more likely than not that it's the same person. At first, though, I thought that with only eighteen other edits, and none of them related to the same topic, it would be difficult or impossible to get enough confirmation to be sure. However, on looking further I saw some other connections to the editing of the other accounts, which, although small in absolute number, were enough in proportion to the very small editing history that they would be surprising coincidences if there was no connection. My conclusion is therefore that I definitely agree with your opinion.
Incidentally, as a side effect of my checking the editing history of the article to be able to answer your question, I discovered evidence that JacksonViking was probably not, in fact, the original sockmaster account. That account was created in January 2014, a little while after the blocking of the CheckUser confirmed sockmaster and sockpuppets to be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francespennysworth11/Archive, which were responsible for edits such as these: [2] and [3]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Fancruft and commercialism

This may not be your speciality, but you'd best know how it can be dealt with. There's a nuisance called Myxxd who is placing blanket information about a single band all over WP - usually without reference, in certain cases with information about forward bookings. Is s/he doing all this because s/he's being paid to? From the Talk page this seems to have been going on since 2008 and no attention is being paid to the multiple complaints there. Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Aussie TV articles

Hi, thanks for sorting out that rangeblock the other day. The exact same edits are also being made by this IP4 address (possibly the range). Would you mind having a look please? Many thanks, Nzd (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd: I have had a quick look at the editing history. Certainly there are edits which are broadly similar in some ways, and in some cases on the same articles, but I didn't see any which were exactly the same, nor even almost the same. I don't have time now to check more thoroughly, but if you can give specific examples of edits from the new IP address and the blocked range, that may make it easier for me to see how much similarity there is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have done that before. You can see by comparing the following edits:

IPv4: [4] [5] [6]

IPv6: [7]

IPv4: [8]

IPv6: [9] [10] [11] [12]

IPv4: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] (+ many others)

IPv6: [22] [23] [24] [25]

It's probably worth noting, though, that both IPs belong to Telstra, a major Aus ISP, so the contribution histories could include other editors. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd: Thanks, that was very helpful. I have blocked the IP range for 3 months. At present I can't see any similar edits from similar IP addresses,so there is no point in a range block. However, if you notice any sign of the editor moving to nearby IP addresses, do let me know, and a range block may well be appropriate. For example, in the range 101.180.146.0/24 (if you don't know how IP ranges work, that means all addresses beginning 101.180.146. ) there have only ever been two other edits, the more recent one being 8 months ago, so there would be no problem with a block on that range, with virtually no risk of collateral damage. There are even larger ranges that have sufficiently thinly spread editing history that short range blocks could be considered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:120.79.194.189

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cahk: I'm reluctant to impose a long-term talk page block on an IP address, so I have put a 48 hour block with no talk page access on the IP range (120.79.194.188/31). (If you don't know how IP ranges work, that means just 120.79.194.188 & 120.79.194.189.) Since there have never been any edits from 120.79.194.188, that effectively amounts to the same as just blocking 120.79.194.189's talk page access for 48 hours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Af-Pak Insurgency Detailed Map

Hi. You deleted "Template:Af-Pak Insurgency Detailed Map". However, you forgot to delete the associated module: Module:Af-Pak Insurgency detailed map. Thanks. Tradediatalk 16:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tradedia: No, I didn't forget, I just didn't know that modules even existed. However, thanks to your message I have now read up on Lua modules, and deleted this one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

IPv6 rangeblock possible?

Hi, JamesB. Please take a look at the edits from 2600:1001 at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Cleveland_Browns_season&offset=&limit=100&action=history. A bunch of them are blocked already but really should be a rangeblock if possible. Got some IPv4 ducks there as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Nairspecht‎

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you changed person and number at the end of the last senetence.21:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 21:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Well, I'm totally delighted that you were the one to tell me. Who better. I frequently post comments containing silly mistakes because I can't manage to discipline myself to always proof-read before clicking the "Publish changes" button (as it is now called) but this is rather a strange one. Thanks for pointing it out. (Though while you were about it you could perhaps have proof read your own comment to me here. ) Also, if you'd really felt like being nice to me you could have saved me a minute or so checking my latest edits by telling me which page the edit was on, or even giving me a diff. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: File:Blush.png How stupid of me. You did tell me what page it was, in the section header. I must have not read that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't be hard on yourself. It's systemic-- we're all making more and more typos.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Irony vs Q.E.D.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

moved

i understand that you have moved back my draft but i can rename it, right ? Xenon One (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xenon One: You can rename it within main space if you think doing so would be an improvement. Personally, however, I think it better not to rename a page while it is under discussion, as doing so runs the risk of confusing editors, since the title in the discussion and the title of the page discussed will not match. It seems to me better to wait until the discussion is over, and then rename the article if it has been kept. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

For this post. I've thought the same thing countless times. I don't really get the point of softpromo blocks, and I think I've only ever used it for notable NGOs who I'd expect to use the talk page before they were unblocked. Softblocks put us in the horrible situation also of making it more difficult for us to block after a new account is created or the account starts advertising again, because they're only doing what we implied was okay for them to do, just under a new name. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

SNCC tag

Hello. Can you explain what's going on with that COI tag on the SNCC page?

Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: It took me a minute to trace back and find out what "SNCC" was: it's generally better to give the actual article title. However, I got there. The substantial majority of recent editing has been from three single-purpose accounts that have done no other editing at all. Between them they have added a large amount of content, much of which is of a rather parochial kind, such as an absurdly detailed description of the circumstances of a conference, right down to such details as "On Thursday, April 15, 2010 shuttle buses arrived at the hotel in order to transport attendees to Shaw University and back in the evening. The conference registration desk opened at 8:00 a.m at Estey Hall and participants were allowed to mingle in the "meet and greet lounge" from 9:00 a.m - 5:00 p.m." That is a kind of thing which is likely to be included by an involved person writing about an event which he or she, from an inside position, sees as significant, but no neutral outsider is likely to think of including such absurdly trivial detail> In fact, it is highly unlikely that any outsider will even know of such detail. It also seemed that some of the content was somewhat promotional, but there was rather a lot there, and searching through to separate the wheat from the chaff looked like taking more time than I had available. My conflict of interest tag was really intended to be a stop gap, and I intended to come back and check through the content more thoroughly to see what needed removing. I have now removed a large chunk of content, but soon (perhaps tomorrow) I hope to find time to do more checking and improve on it. Obviously, if anyone else steps in and does some work on it, that could be useful, it doesn't have to be me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok, I hear you. That stuff is horrible and I thought it was already removed. Actually it may have been, but the boneheads reposted it apparently. Thank you then, and know that you would have my full support in banning those accounts.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked

James, as info, you had blocked (and extended for evasion) 92.22.150.177. I've blocked /20 for a month as they've continued. Feel free to adjust as you see. -- ferret (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Queen of Hearts Couture Cakes

I don't think this user is ever going to file a convincing unblock request, so I have turned their talk page access off. I now have a sore head :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Yes. When I first saw the talk page I thought that talk page access was pretty certain to disappear before very long. This is a fairly severe case of IDHT, with no sign at all that the editor's hearing is ever likely to get any better. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeat offender Climate Vandal from Sweden

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/65.99.134.199

This IP address near Gothenburg vandalises Gothenburg's weather box with fake data all the time and reverts each time I tried to switch it back. Could you please ban this person? There's no hope of change when someone pulls the same crap a third time.

Lommaren (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lommaren: I have compared figures in the article with those at ftp://ftp.atdd.noaa.gov/pub/GCOS/WMO-Normals/TABLES/REG_VI/SN/02001.TXT, which is cited in the article as a source. Neither the figures given by the IP editor you refer to nor the ones you have reverted to agree completely with that source, but at least some of the figures in the source are closer to those posted by the IP editor, unless I have misunderstood or misread something. For example, the average high temperature in January is given in the source as 1.2, by the IP editor as 1.1, and in the version you have reverted to as 2.5; the same for February is source 1.7, IP 1.5, you 2.8; for March source 5.0, IP 5.0, you 6.6. On the face of it that doesn't look like vandalism or "fake data". Do you have a better source which contradicts that one? Or have I misunderstood something? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
What I've decided to do is to get the Météo Climat 1981-2010 averages and link to an English-speaking page so hopefully that mess just ceases to exist with that IP clown who is too scared to start an account. What happened after 1990's especially, Gothenburg really took a turn and started to warm up much faster than the rest of the country. That being said, the 1981-2010 numbers while obsolete are still now easily verifiable for an English speaker.

Lommaren (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please delete Reliant Energy and its talk page

I want to approve using AFCH 0.9 Draft:Reliant Energy, but Reliant Energy and its talk page are blocking the approval process. Please delete Reliant Energy and its talk page, such that I can move the draft. 2 hours passed since I tagged both pages for CSD. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Luis150902:  Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Calton

I notice from Calton’s block log that they have been blocked multiple times for using edit summaries to disparage other users and that there is an ANI decision to this effect. I can locate the decision but since you were the last to block them, does this edit count? I’m not sure to what extent the restrictions were. Canterbury Tail talk 19:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Oh come on, Canterbury Tail. I don't know where the decision is, but that's surely not disparaging. The reference to alphabetizing paper clips is Calton's way of saying he thinks you're being pedantic. He does tend to put things colorfully, but disparaging? No. It's a comment, and not IMO an unreasonable one, on your edit in its context. Not on you personally. I hope nobody minds that I've pinged Calton, I just thought he might be interested in the conversation. Bishonen | talk 19:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC).
Nah, but just checking. I just get a bit annoyed that we’ve lost how to use punctuation so much we throw it in everywhere. Even when not needed. And by we I mean North American usage in general, not Wikipedia. A bit like those darn apostrophes in plurals these days. Yeah I get that language evolves, but sometimes ingrained teaching runs hard. I can’t help it if I’m from the other side of the pond. Plus in pain and a bad mood today. Ignore me everyone. Canterbury Tail talk 20:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
[Bishzilla, solicitously:] Poor little Tail! Welcome in pocket for recuperation! bishzilla ROARR!! 21:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC).
What an honour! A post to my very own talk page by Bishzilla herself! That has never happened before.
Bishonen on the other hand, you have posted here a number of times over the years, but welcome back. Most often I have agreed with you on the occasions when we have come into contact. This time I pretty well agree. I do regard Calton's edit summary as a little disparaging, but nowhere near disparaging enough to warrant another block. Even so, Calton, it might be better to avoid even mildly disparaging remarks, as some editors may see them as more disparaging than you intended.
Canterbury Tail, I know this isn't what your message here was about, but if it's of any interest to you, while I am broadly on your side (for example apostrophes in plurals really irritate me) I think in the situation where the disputed editing took place a comma is more natural. My criterion is not what someone or other decided to write in some grammar book or style book, but how one would say it if speaking. To me pausing after each of the items in the list until getting to "Kyushu and Shikoku" and then rushing through there without a pause, or at least a slight slowing down, would sound totally unnatural. That is how I would read it if it were written without a comma, so to me the comma is necessary. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bishzilla: By the way, I discovered yesterday that you used to be an administrator and got desysopped. I also see that it was Bishonen who demanded your desysopping. I knew she couldn't be trusted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • [Airily.] Never mind, Zilla not much need for tools as long as retain atomic deathray. Little 'shonen feeble admin, most likely jealous of Zilla more powerful adminship. Has 'shonen blocked sitting arb?[26] No. Has she been "strongly admonished" by cute little ArbCom?[27] Never. bishzilla ROARR!! 21:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC).

Digital Marketing

Hi Jamesb.

I was fixing some stuff over at ASOS.com in the Digital Marketing section, only for it to be reverted. Long story short - I eventually found your section on Victuallers talk page here: Concerns about editing on "digital marketing". Just to let you know (if you're interested) that in this article at least there are still concerns. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I have posted a message at User talk:Megv1596 about some of the concerns, but the problems go much further. There are major concerns with the editing of many of the students involved, though some are nowhere near as bad as others. I am dubious about the wisdom of including editing Wikipedia in a course on digital marketing, as it is probably inevitable that students will take it as being intended as an exercise in doing exactly the kinds of things they are being trained to do in that course, i.e to write marketing copy. Also, a number of them evidently have been assigned the task of editing articles on particular businesses, and since they are doing so as part of a digital marketing course, it is perhaps not surprising that they tend to post loads of stuff about digital marketing into the articles, giving that topic grossly excessive weight in articles which are not about digital marketing. This is the worst example I've seen for a long time of a Wikipedia editing "educational" assignment which is simply not properly taught or supervised. If Wikipedia editing is to be included in such a course, then it is vital that the students are given clear instruction on avoiding promotional editing. In the particular article you mentioned, I see that you put quite a bit of work into cleaning it up and improving it, only to see your work reverted. Perhaps now that you and I have both attempted to explain concerns about his or her editing, he/she won't be so ruthless in reverting again if you make another attempt to improve it, but who knows? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
James - there is an issue over writing about digital marketing and marketing per se. It has been emphasised to the students that this is the aim and purpose. I am absorbing your notes now and will reply at more length. I have asked that none of them created no new work outside their sandbox this weekend or today. Victuallers (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a tricky assignment for them as they are learning about the need to speak with a neutral voice and to understand how Wikipedia works. As you note some are better at this than others. Victuallers (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

James - I have read your comments. As you note some are doing better than others. The students are being encouraged to add 500 words. They are intended to be applying their knowledge to add information about digital marketing although they are learning so they do not always succeed first time which is why they are using their sandboxes and having to hone their attempts. Many articles are about "celebrities" and in many cases these are "brands" (as well as being footballers or popstars.) The marketing that they are involved in is an important aspect and is I believe an important aspect of their existence. I appreciate your assistance. Victuallers (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

RevDel request

I'd like you to delete this edit (and the edit summary as well) from the page history. Thanks, Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Thank you, Everymorning. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC).

Request for Undeletion

I request you to undelete the article as the article was not created, it was restored by user:killiondude. It is unfair to delete the article if there was no discussion in AFD. The article was restored, so G4 Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion cannot be applied. Please at least check the history, before performing the deletion. Thanks. RamKaran Parjapati (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@RamKaran Parjapati: While WP:REFUND would apply to the AfD, it was also deleted per WP:CSD#G11. Cheers, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
There's way too much "should have" on this case from start to finish.
  • RamKaran Parjapati should have left the original A7 nomination in place rather than removing it while logged out.
  • The AfD should have been left to run its course so that we had a definitive outcome, rather than the haggling which has followed on.
  • The article should have been restored to Draftspace rather than mainspace.
  • I should have noticed it was a refund rather than a re-creation, and so I should have started a second AfD rather than tagging it for a speedy deletion.
Dlohcierekim is doing well to keep a safe distance from this mess. Well, good luck, however you call it. Cabayi (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@RamKaran Parjapati: I still think the G11 deletion was valid, irrespective of any issues relating to the AfD. Nevertheless I have restored the page and moved it to Draft:RedSeer Management Consulting to provide an opportunity for it to be improved.
For what it's worth, I would have relisted the AfD to give more chance for discussion, as Cabayi suggests, keeping soft deletion in reserve to use if there was still no discussion after more time, but killiondude (sic) chose to do it differently. I also agree that restoration to draft space in the first place would have been better than to main space. However, the eventual outcome is the same. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Tagged for AfC and Business & India projects added. Cabayi (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Movies

The edit war has continued between the three users involved in the edit war even after the 3RR 'resolution' (and RugratsFan2003 (talk · contribs) has been giving hostile warnings to said editors). We may need an RFP on this if it continues; I've reverted back to March 2 and warned all three to knock it off but I'm not sure it will have much effect. Nate • (chatter) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: I have extended the block on RangoLoudHouse1234 to indefinite for using the sockpuppets Chinese1234 and TellingTheTruth2 to continue the edit-war that he or she had been blocked for, and also blocked those two. I have also blocked RugratsFan2003 for a week, mainly for edit-warring. RugratsFan2003 has been blocked a couple of times before, but doesn't seem to learn. If the problem continues we can consider taking further steps, but maybe that will be enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action; hopefully this will help. I'll keep an eye on the article to make sure there isn't further socking. Nate • (chatter) 20:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I am so glad to finally be unblocked. Here are all of the sources that say that the Nicktoons movie is real:[28][29][30][31][32]
I'll add these if you want me to. If you don't want me to add these, I won't. Thank you! RugratsFan2003 (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@RugratsFan2003: I have no idea whether the movie is "real" or not, nor do I care. I am not one of the myriad of editors, mostly very young, who care enough about every trivial detail relating to cartoon series and films that they dedicate countless hours of their time to it. Frankly, even I it is "real", I don't see why anyone would care much one way or the other whether a Wikipedia article makes a passing mention of some animated film that doesn't even exist yet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@RugratsFan2003: By the way, formatting links on talk pages as references is usually unhelpful. Even if you have in mind using them as references in an article, when referring to them in a talk page it is much better to use wikilinks, i.e. to write [https://screenrant.com/nicktoons-movie-ren-stimpy/] rather than.<ref>https://screenrant.com/nicktoons-movie-ren-stimpy/]</ref> The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! RugratsFan2003 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding references

(talk page stalker) (Please feel free to revert this edit.) In case you weren't aware, you can add any number of {{reflist}}s anywhere on a page so that the refs don't hang around at the bottom of the page. The ref counter is reset after each {{reflist}}
e.g. <ref>111</ref><ref>222</ref><ref>333</ref>{{Reflist}}<ref>444</ref><ref>555</ref><ref>666</ref>{{Reflist}} results in: [1][2][3]

  1. ^ 111
  2. ^ 222
  3. ^ 333

[1][2][3]

  1. ^ 444
  2. ^ 555
  3. ^ 666

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: Yes, I was aware of that. There is also the variant form {{Reflist-talk}}, purpose-designed for use in the way you mention. However, I don't see any point in using either of them. In an article, giving a URL in the middle of a sentence would be distracting, and would interrupt the flow of the sentence, because the sentence in which it appears is not normally mentioning the page that the URL links to. However, if a talk page message mentions an external web page, it normally does so in order to say something about that web page (e.g. to suggest it might be useful as a reference in some article), and it is much more useful to see the link in the place in the message where it is relevant, rather than having to interrupt the flow of the sentence one is reading and scan down the page to find the relevant link. Using {{reflist}}, as you suggest, or {{Reflist-talk}}, and thereby putting the links somewhere closer to where they are mentioned (such as the bottom of the section in which they appear) is certainly an improvement on just letting the links appear at the bottom of the page, very probably nowhere near the place where they are relevant, but even if one does it that way, I don't see any advantage whatever of having links in talk pages formatted as article references. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. (i.e. If I didn't already agree with you, the above would have convinced me.) Pdfpdf (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Philippine vandal

The Philippine date-and-year-vandal you rangeblocked in February is still at work with their unsourced changes of years, dates and membership states in international organisations. 49.145.172.222 and 49.145.174.229 are two IPs outside the blocked range, but in neighbouring ranges, the last one currently active. These edits are very irritating, since they are seldom obviously wrong, but often tiny and difficult to verify. In the examples I have been able to check, the information is usually credible, but false. I do not know if the range can be extended without too much collateral damage. Regards! --T*U (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I have blocked two ranges 49.145.172.0/24 and 49.145.174.0/24 for 2 months. (I don't know whether you know how IP ranges work, but in case you don't that means all IP addresses beginning 49.145.172. or 49.145.174.) I see no risk of collateral damage there. A range wide enough to cover both of them would have some collateral damage sooner or later, but since almost all recent editing in the range has been from this vandal, a fairly short-term range block should cause very little if any collateral damage. Surprisingly, the very much wider range 49.145.160.0/20 covering both the two new IP addresses and the range that is already blocked gives scarcely any more likely collateral damage than the smallest range covering the new IP addresses. Also, in that larger range I discovered the IP address 49.145.164.142, which looks as though it may be the same person. For example, see the following edits [33] [34] [35]. I have therefore blocked the range 49.145.160.0/20 for two weeks. Unfortunately I think that is unlikely to be enough, but it is a compromise against the risk of collateral. Thanks for letting me know about this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the block, and thanks for the education! I'll keep my eyes open for more of the same. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

You very recently IP range blocked User talk:14.25.85.198. The editor seems to have moved to User talk:113.115.36.110. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the IP address you mention. I thought it best also to check for evidence of use of other IP addresses. I found that trying to trace all the IP addresses was like trying to fathom a bottomless pit: each IP address that I investigated led me to more articles that had been edited in the same way, each of those articles led me to more IP addresses that the same person had used, each of those IP addresses led me to more articles... Also, it looks very much as though the IP editing started only after the editor had had numerous sockpuppet accounts blocked, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Born A/Archive. If the IP editor is the same person as that sockpuppeteer, then the problem has been going on since at least as far back as August 2016, and I have seen some edits from even further back than that which may be the same person. The IP addresses are spread out over a large number of ranges, at least one of which is far too wide for a range block, so blocking is likely to lead to only a limited reduction in the amount of disruptive editing. Protecting articles is likely to be more effective, but there are so many of them that it is unlikely we can catch every article that may be affected. I have protected a number of articles, including all of those that I have been able to find that have been edited very recently, but please do let me know if you see any more of the same kind of thing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. A couple of hours ago I came across a completely different problem (in the Johnson South Reef Skirmish article) which similarly seems to have an ancestry across numerours pages going back more than a year (so far), and the problem set looks like it's the work of the same sockpuppet family. Like you, I think that protecting articles might be more effective than blocking IP address ranges, but I, too, lament that there are so many of them.
I assume you saw @O1lI0:'s contribution at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring:

I think they should be the same user. Editing habits and editing topics are highly similar. I suspect this is User-4488 but there is insufficient evidence.

--O1lI0 (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: No, I hadn't seen that post from O1lI0, but I have commented there now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Activity on Nine-Dash Line looks like the behaviour of "our friend". (Note that the other of 101.14.198.197's two edits was to one of the pages you protected.) Revision history:

  • 23:05, 21 March 2018‎ Pdfpdf (talk)‎ . . (34,778 bytes) (+26)‎ . . ( Reverting unexplained content removal) (undo) (Tag: Undo)
  • 22:41, 21 March 2018‎ Special:Contributions/49.214.148.206 (talk)‎ . . (34,752 bytes) (-26)‎ . . (undo)
  • 14:40, 21 March 2018‎ 223.104.109.156 (talk)‎ . . (34,778 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (icontent removal) (undo)
  • 08:37, 20 March 2018‎ Special:Contributions/117.19.5.80 (talk)‎ . . (34,752 bytes) (-26)‎ . . (undo)
  • 01:49, 19 March 2018‎ 223.104.105.129 (talk)‎ . . (34,778 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (rv unexplained content removal) (undo)
  • 00:42, 9 March 2018‎ Special:Contributions/101.14.198.197 (talk)‎ . . (34,752 bytes) (-26)‎ . . (undo)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

RE: User_talk:Ukpong1#Request_to_Look_into_UPE/COI_investigation_by_Smartse. SmartSE (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your reason here

I noticed your comment mentioning me and I apologize for deleting that "unblock request" as I didn't notice it in the word salad. I am curious, though, how you think the words "your reason here" is a valid request. Had I seen an actual rationale or even a coherent sentence I'd've left it alone for an admin to deal with. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Chris troutman: Yes, you'd be surprised at the Joycean word flow in some of these. I summarily decline those without a valid reason to unblock. Someone should compile a collection.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I don't think it was "a valid request". Obviously the request was going to be declined, and my only reason for restoring it was so that the editor wouldn't be able to use "I wasn't allowed to make an unblock request because someone removed my request. That's an abuse of process and unfair" as an excuse for complaining. Over the years I have seen many examples of such ridiculous complaints on the basis of insignificant procedural details, and although of course the complaints never result in any action being taken, it is just easier to avoid the waste of time they produce. Another point is that amazingly commonly blocked editors leave the words "your reason here" in the unblock template and post an unblock reason separate from the unblock request, in which case any reasonable administrator will take into account the given unblock reason, not ignore it just because it was not formatted properly. In this case it looked to me as though the word salad that the editor posted was intended to be an unblock reason, and a blocked editor has a right for his or her unblock reason to be assessed by an independent administrator, even if it is such utter nonsense that other editors (in this case you and me) know full well that the outcome will be a decline of the request.
I have actually changed the instructions in some templates to say something along the lines of "replace the words 'your reason here' with a statement of why you think you should be unblocked". Maybe some time I'll do all the others.
@Dlohcierekim: Your idea of compiling a collection of nonsense unblock requests reminds me of a project which I sometimes consider undertaking, and maybe one day will. That is compiling a collection of reasons for contesting speedy deletion nominations that don't address the given reason for deletion. Things like "this page should not be speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion because this band really exists", and "this page should not be speedily deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement because it does not contain any promotion or advertising". Perhaps even better are the ones which actually confirm the reason for deletion, rather than just not mentioning it, such as "this page should not be deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion because he is a highly talented up and coming artist and I have made this Wikipedia page to help spread his fame and make him better known". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
LOL The last one is my personal favorite.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Dantebish

Guess who's back? [36] --Calton | Talk 14:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: [37] [38] The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Credits: The World Is YOURS

Is anyone willing to make a friendly bet? Put your SOUL on the line if you have the light you speak of

Ss112 you're a clown. Keep whatever info you want. It's your wiki world. But the world is mine.

Ss112 I understand that IG is not a reliable source especially since I am not Officially Promoting the album for him or the Label. Here's the link to RTK commenting my photo https://www.instagram.com/p/BffQE73FV6i/?taken-by=cassiusclaybeats The official Record Label release date is set for March 30, 2018. Other than the singles already released off the album, the actual official album info/credits have not been released to the public yet. I am aware of cassius jay. He is a music producer. Rich The Kid is actually from NYC, but moved to Woodstock, GA, not ATL, when he was 13. I've been producing music professionally for 10yrs. If you would like some links to verify my work, I'd gladly provide more. You can see that I already have a song currently out on the radio that I produced for RTK. Here's the link to that song: https://soundcloud.com/seangast/sean-gast-ft-rich-the-kid-no-exaggeration There are a few artists related to the music industry that use the "nickname", "cassius" or something with a similar play on the name. Out of respect to the Hard Working musicians, I would appreciate you having more knowledge of the music industry if you claim to supply accurate and factual information for the world. And you keep claiming that you know as a fact that cassius jay is the actual producer of the song in question. Other than the "metadata" that could have been miss-printed or a typo, have you seen any other posts or even cassius jay claiming to have produced the record? Please take down the false information until you have physical proof or a copy of the metadata. I have not been provided any valid, factual, or visible proof that anyone including myself has produced the song yet. Please wait for the official release of the album credits. Thank You. JamesBWatson ARE YOU WILLING TO BET YOUR WIKI ACCOUNT THAT CASSIS JAY IS THE PRODUCER? I KNNOW AS A FACT YOU ARE LYING AND DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassiusClayBeats (talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@CassiusClayBeats: Do you know, I was actually considering removing the bit about "Cassius Jay" from the article, since it is disputed and no reliable source has been provided. However, the moment I saw you shouting at me all in capitals that I am "lying" I decided I wasn't going to spend any more time on this. I may, however, reconsider that decision if I receive a civil and respectful request to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Times group Pakistan

Hi James , its about above topic , I have nioticed that continued speedy deletion takes place, when ever above topicd page is created please help, there are numerous company pages with similar names like Times group India etc , and are about co or organization , but whats the reason behind when I create a page is deleted, kindly guide

Thanks

~~IndianRobotIndianRobot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@IndianRobot: I am puzzled as to what I can say that can possibly help to explain the reason for deletion beyond what you have already been told. Presumably you have see the deletion log here, with two entries for deletion of the article, both of which clearly state the reason for deletion as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Presumably you have also seen the two messages on your talk page, from two different editors, telling you that promotional editing is not permitted. You must also know full well that both times you created the article it was pure advertising or PR copy, written from start to finish in marketing-speak, since you wrote them. What further explanation do you need? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


Thanks Lot James for pointing towards the Main Points, So That means I should Re Write whole thing but as an Article or so ...

~~IndianRobotIndianRobot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MarkRVS

This editor, which you blocked already once for adding unsourced information, continues to do so. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr Muhandes

Dear Mr Watson:

Mr Muhandes relentlessly tampers with every edit of mine; often, he turns perfectly good English into a construction that is ungrammatical, displaying a hubris which verges on bathos; and he's often indulging in rhetoric which is uncivil, bellicose and incessantly threatening.

Mercifully, we have full-time and superbly rewarding careers. But to see someone mutilate anything and every thing you enter, well, verges on both the comic and the pathological. It's like the kid and the cookie jar. And it robs Wikipedia of credibility.

Editors such as him, with a tenuous knowledge of English at best, and, it would seem to me, not the most astounding general knowledge, need to be restrained in order to not defile a good sentence or a good page.

I'm watching his - well, superfluous - actions and meddling over the next few days, after which I'll connect with one of Wikipedia's owners. That's pretty easy for me to do. It would be safe advice for Wiki to terminate editors whose USP - at least as I discern and experience - is to desecrate and defile, and who display a scabrous Uriah Heepish demeanour.

He wants details which, if I might use an argument from classic philosophy, are argumentum ad ignoratiam.

Thank you. And good luck. MarkRVS (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I think your actions speak for themselves. I will let other editors judge which of us is contributing to Wikipedia by creating well sourced articles, and which is degrading it by doing the opposite. --Muhandes (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Muhandes Redux

Mr Muhandes will, needless to say, attempt to delete the awards in a short while from now (or insert myriad "citations nedded" tags across the page) from the list on Oopali Operajita's wiki page. Her significant awards are listed on Carnegie Mellon University's pages; and on New York Public Library's bio of her. These have been in place on her page long before my attention was drawn to it.

The motive behind Mr Muhandes's deletions, ad lib interpolations, and errors of both omission and commission, are baffling, to say the very least. It reeks of a kind of vandalism that has nothing to with editing.

It's the very kind of obsessive-compulsive behaviour which gives Wikipedia a bad name.

I'm keeping you posted, just for the record; and will continue to keep you posted. And, finally, I will share this with an owner of Wikipedia.

Thank you. MarkRVS (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Somali placenames and User:Prince of Thieves

I see that you have reverted moves of articles of two of these where the discussion was muddied by this fellow. I'm inclined to resubmit them but thought I would ask first. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mangoe: I reverted a whole load of edits, page creations, and moves by that editor. Because there were so many of them to deal with I didn't spend as much time checking each one as thoroughly as I would normally have done, so it's perfectly likely that some of the changes I made were not good. Please feel free to revert what I did if you think it appropriate. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The story here is that a few years back, a couple of editors (both, I believe, since blocked— at any rate, neither is still active) appear to have scraped a geonames mirror to create a bunch of Somali "towns" without really paying attention to what they actually said about these place names. On top of that, the geonames data is very sketchy to begin with: a lot of the entries are tagged as "unverified", and I keep coming across cases where there is a town near the problem spot, with a different name, and that name geonames doesn't acknowledge. A bunch of us are sorting through these. The two in question I would probably resubmit for deletion but I would like some assurance that it's not just going to be procedured into closure without consideration. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Return of blocked User:Mou3awiya Rafi3i

A month ago you blocked User:Mou3awiya Rafi3i as a sock. Today IP User:160.176.95.113 showed up restoring identical content or making similar edits to the same range of pages. Quack. Agricolae (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

cheers. Agricolae (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

alireza motevaseli

Hello Mr James B Watson i noticed that you have been deleted my paged named "Alireza Motevaseli" because of 2 reason 1-copyright (one of them was my official website how can i prove this ? what evidence you need ?) 2-gramatically points in main text ( i will corrected them at once if i have access to Alireza Motevaseli's page) i would to correct the mistakes

how can i edit the page again ?i don't have any access to the previous page! should i create the page once again ?or it can be editable ? ... can you help me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fagottii (talk • contribs) 07:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for revert the spam on my talk page-RFD (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk page spam

FYI The talk page spam was from Haiyenslna. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Afd: Nadia Umber Lodhi

Hi James, I believe this user page should also go User:Habeeb sajid. --Saqib (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: The deletion log shows that I was actually deleting that page at the same time you posted your message here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I was trying to make sure you delete it because user page related CSD usually decline. --Saqib (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi James, can you please delete these three pages User:Saqib/common.js, User:Saqib/twinkleoptions.js and User:Saqib/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Women in Red. --Saqib (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Saqib:  Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Rapidgrass Wiki Page

Hi James,

I am sorry about my original wikipedia entry, I am friends with the guys in Rapidgrass and just wanted to create a wikipedia page for them to be in Google knowledge graph. I put in a lot of time formatting that and getting the sections setup, is there any way you could send me the source code so that I can at least have that base to rewrite it? It took me 5 hours to get it all formatted. I forgot to mention that if you look at the referenced news articles, they actually just copied information from the Rapidgrass website, none of it is copyrighted material. I believe this is where the confusion is from. I can email you from the Rapidgrass.com stating that Wikipedia can use some of the content written on the website. As far as a promotional tone, I think it falls in line with similar bands like Yonder Mountain String Band and Greensky bluegrass. I can't see very much of a "promotional" tone difference.

This is my first article on Wikipedia and I appreciate the feedback.

Hhuffake (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hhuffake: (talk page stalker). So many issues raised in this post. Let's start with friends. If your friends asked you to write the article, you have a WP:conflict of interest. Then there's sourcing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It relies on verifiable information from WP:reliable sources unconnected with the subject and with a reputation for fact checking. If the information is ultimately sourced from the subject's website, it does not meet that requirement. Let's go back to "for them to be in Google knowledge graph". That sounds like another way of saying "to promote their business". Please see wp:promo. We are not a venue for that. Finally, as to the copyrighted material. That's more complex. The source should be under a creative commons license, or the GFDL or in the public domain. That means anyone may edit the text and use and reproduce it in any way. I won't even try to explain Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. That has everything you need to know. However, that content was still unambiguously promotional, and would have to be completely rewritten anyway. Hope this helps. James will cover anything I've missed. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Hhuffake: Dlohcierekim has given a pretty good summary of the most important points, but there are two more things that I think should be mentioned.
  1. I have looked at Yonder Mountain String Band, and you are perfectly right about its promotional tone. I have removed some of the worst content, but more remains to be dealt with. Greensky Bluegrass is not as bad, but there are certainly parts of that article that need to be toned down too. Thanks for drawing attention to them. You may find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?, commonly referred to as OTHERSTUFF. If you don't feel like reading the whole of it, its essential point is that people often create articles with unsuitable content, and the existence of such unsuitable articles doesn't justify creating more with the same kinds of faults.
  2. I can email the content of the draft to you if you like. However, before you put yet more time and effort into it, I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines, if you haven't already done so. I have looked at the sources you cited in the draft, and I have also searched for more information myself, and what I have seen does not convince me that Rapidgrass satisfies those guidelines. If not, any article about them is likely to be deleted, no matter how it may be written. There are, in my opinion, far too many policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and most of them are far too long and complex, making it confusing and intimidating for a new editor, but the notability guidelines most relevant to you are the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (music). I remind you of the advice I gave on your talk page about starting editing by making minor contributions to existing articles rather than writing new ones. Of course, if you have no interest in doing any editing of Wikipedia other than creating a page to publicise your friends' band then that advice may not appeal to you, but in that case you probably shouldn't be editing anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Dlohcierekim and James, I should have read a little more before jumping in. I have read all of the wiki articles you mentioned above and feel confident in my next draft. I'm not just a friend, but a huge fan of the band. As a fan that is knowledgeable about the band, I feel that I can write an informed bio about the band that is not promotional. If you would email me my draft that would be a huge favor James. I appreciate your help. Hugh Hhuffake (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Recommending protecting Deji Olatunji from creation

You have in all likelihood seen my recommend before, but could I recommend salting Deji Olatunji once more? The article was deleted via AfD in 2015, created again, deleted again, salted, unsalted, created, deleted via AfD again, and then created and deleted again today. I am also suspicious that Mwanganzola is possibly a returning editor given that their first edited resulted in a decent recreation of a past article. We may want to head off issues here and now.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Yes, I did see your previous recommendation. At the time I considered doing it, and decided against it, for reasons which I can explain to you if you are interested, but I have now gone back and looked again at the history of multiple creations of the article, under at least two titles (three if you count draft space), and decided to go ahead. I have fully protected both of the article titles which I know have been used. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Huggle

Sorry for getting back to you so late, but I understand where you are coming from. Now that I'm no longer really active on this site, I don't see any need for the rollback tool on this Wikipedia any longer. Razorflame 02:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Razorflame: I had no idea what this was about when I read your message, but checking your talk page I see that it refers to a message I posted in 2014. I'm not sure whether that would be my personal record for delayed time in responding to a message I have posted, but a check of your editing history shows that in fact you did reply back in 2014. Also, after I posted my message there were no more of the same kinds of problems in the few days for which you continued editing, so I don't think there's anything to worry about. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Certified Gangsta

Maybe time to remove the indef semi you applied in 2013? --NeilN talk to me 19:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:  Done I can't imagine I really intended that to be indefinite. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Redditch Borough Council elections, 2018

Hi, I've just figured out how to cite a reference. Hope that's okay? There's more information I can cite, but it is being published tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digby2014 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thak-you

Thank-you for your advice. I will insert my efforts from today and hope it will stop the deletion process, and from there I will stick with editing for a while as you suggest. I have used wikipedia for a longtime as a sources of information, and noted some pages need help. I will keep in touch if/when I have future questions. MegEng (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2018 (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

11:13:37, 11 April 2018 review of submission by Addicted2sexx


Hello there, Im writing about the AGuard article that I wrote earlier today. Didnt understand the exact cause of the declined submission. Whats needed more in order the article to meet your notability guidelines. There isnt much informationa about that software except that its the main successor of the old HLGuard and is widely used now by the old GoldSrc server owners, including me. Here are some of the servers using that AC - https://www.gametracker.com/search/?search_by=server_variable&search_by2=ag_version&query=&loc=_all . Do I need to add more quotes or ? Thanks for taking your time to see my message. Also I saw that HLGuard once had also a wiki page here, but it is deleted. Can you show me its page content to see what exact information I need to have in order the article to be published.

Wish you all the best. Addicted2sexx (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Addicted2sexx: The main requirement is given in the general notability guideline, which is a section of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability. I recommend reading the general notability guideline for yourself, if you haven't done so already, but the essential point is that the topic of an article has to be something which has received substantial coverage in independent reliable published sources. A passing mention in a sentence or two, a mere inclusion in a list, or anything similar is not regarded as substantial coverage. Coverage in sources which are directly connected to the topic, such as the web site of the author, is not independent coverage, and gives no evidence of notability, as anyone can write about their own stuff. I'm afraid your statement "There isnt much informationa about that software" tends to confirm my own impression; if there isn't much coverage of a topic then it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. You ask "Whats needed more in order the article to meet your notability guidelines", which is a question that is often asked by new editors in this kind of situation, but it is not the right question to ask. No amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject that the article is about. The first question to ask is "Is the subject notable?" and only if that question has been answered "yes" is it helpful to move on to the question "How can I make the article show that the subject is already notable?" If the answer to the first question is "no" then any article on the subject, no matter how ell it might be written, is likley to be deleted.
My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.
You are, of course, free to choose not to follow that advice, and instead to continue to try to get your draft accepted instead. I think that would be a mistake, as you would be likely to put a lot of time and effort into something very unlikely to succeed, but if you do choose to do that then I suggest looking first at the general notability guideline and then at the guide to reliable sources.
I don't think seeing what the deleted article HLGuard looked like is going to help you to know what you need to have in order for an article to be published, as it is an example of an article which was not suitable, which is why it was deleted. In fact it was far worse than the draft you have created. Nevertheless, since you have asked to see it, I have made a temporary copy of the text of the deleted article at User:JamesBWatson/sandbox3. If you want to look at it then do so right away, because I shall have to delete it very soon, as re-creating content deleted as a result of a deletion discussion is against Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL

Hi 'James'. Getting ACTRIAL finally through was the fruit of a 7 year personal challenge. I would personally like to thank you for your vote and excellent comment - from the bottom of my heart. Chris, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Evasion by user name

Can you advise me here James.
An increasingly recurring and widespread theme in user name generation over Wikipedia is a long string of numbers with letters and punctuation marks, very often for what I see is hit-and-run on the same or similar articles. For example, on the Henry Bessemer] article we have two, both beginning with '2602' (many of these start with '26'). How they can log-in remembering a particular string is interesting... I think they don't, they just register new ones for their drive-byes. I believe many of these are the same person (socks), with these strings possibly running against user name policy. If you can't investigate this, can you point me to where I can bring this up. There may of course already be a discussion somewhere... I can't think I'm the only one noticing this. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Acabashi: These are IPv6 addresses, the next generation of IP addresses. You're probably used to seeing IP addresses like 212.34.65.12. These are the same thing. --NeilN talk to me 15:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I didn't know this! You live and learn. Such a long string would make it a bit more difficult to keep an eye on them I suspect. Acabashi (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of page User talk:C2216/Apologies

Yes please, I want the page to be deleted C2216 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Return of blocked User:Mou3awiya Rafi3i, again

Looks like the same editor is back using another sock:

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/Bradshaw_Viscera

Agricolae (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Agricolae: Thanks. Blocked, various edits reverted (I see you had already reverted some) and articles created deleted. JamesBWatson3 (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Jonezetta

Hi, could you userfy this deleted article for me? I may be able to do some work to substantiate claims to notability. Chubbles (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chubbles: I will do it, but the Wikimedia database is currently refusing to allow restoration of the article. I can do a workaround, but it will take more time than I have available now, so I'll try to come back to it tomorrow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It is now at User:Chubbles/Jonezetta. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability of elections

I raised a query a while ago at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of local elections in the UK which has attracted some discussion. On the basis of that discussion, and taking on-board the points raised there, I have drafted an essay here which might form the basis of future guideline/ policy. What I am unclear about are the procedural steps to get this accepted (or rejected) by the community. I am not asking for your views on the proposal - although they would of course be very welcome- but simply how to make procedural progress with this. There may , of course, be a community forum for discussing just such issues, but I couldn't find or recognise it in the dimmer ginnels of the Wikipedia structure. Any help would be very much appreciated. I did post this request on Oshwah's talk page but have since withdrawn it as I think this issue may have particularly British resonance. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   14:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Velella, It's lovely to find use of the word "ginnel" from the dialect area where I once lived. Do you (personally) pronounce that with a hard or a soft 'g'? And is their dimness due to gas lighting? Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Always with a hard "g". Probably most of them have gone now but there were many around Bigg Market and Pudding Chare and going down from the Castle to the Quay Side. Many also disappeared when they built the Eldon centre, but hopefully the word will survive. And yes, some on the way down to Quayside were still lit by gas!  Velella  Velella Talk   18:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Velella: Ah, so that's where you are from! I became familiar with the word several decades ago when I was living much further south than that, in West Yorkshire.
On the subject of where to raise the question of your essay, I am really not sure what is the best place for it. You could raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), but on the whole I feel the best may be to take it back to Wikipedia talk:Notability, and perhaps link to it from one or two other pages to attract more people to it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. There was an on-going discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability so I have linked the page to that discussion. I am still unclear where the process of getting formal acceptance of guidelines or policy exists in Wikipedia, but hopefully that may become clearer over time. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   12:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Velella: Actually, "the process of getting formal acceptance of guidelines or policy" is just "start a discussion in some appropriate place, and if the outcome is support for your proposal then it becomes a guidelines or policy". The important thing there is "in some appropriate place". For a minor change in a guideline or policy the talk page of that guideline or policy is the obvious place, but to make a major change or to introduce a whole new guideline or policy it should be made visible to a fairly large range of editors, to make sure that there is plenty of opportunities for editors to participate. That's why I suggested "link to it from one or two other pages to attract more people to it". By the way, this would be a guideline rather than a policy, as all the notability pages are guidelines. Finally, for what it may be worth to you, personally I would oppose such a guideline, not because I have any problem with the ideas you have suggested in your essay, but because in my opinion by far the worst change that has happened to Wikipedia over the years has been the steady increase in both numbers and length of guidelines and policies, making the environment more and more confusing and intimidating for new editors, and more and more impossible for anyone (even highly experienced editors) to actually know all or even close to all of those guidelines and policies. Far better, in my opinion, to stick as close as we can to the original conception of editing Wikipedia as based on a few simple and basic principles, not defined precisely by pages and pages of detailed instructions. I prefer to introduce new guidelines and policies only when they seem to be absolutely necessary. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits

Hi James, can you please tell me which parts I need to remove or edit? Thank you! JasonLWriter (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi James, I do work in marketing, but Judge Graham isn't a client of mine. He's well-known in the Dallas area and I've been following his work for some time. I was doing a profile on him when I noticed he didn't have a page of his own, which surprised me. I wanted to add a page because I'm a fan. As a matter of fact, I modeled the page closely after Tony Robbins, whose work I also follow. The only language I see that could be construed as promotional is taken from the sources I linked to. Can you please help?JasonLWriter (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@JasonLWriter: OK, I'll say a few things which I hope may help.
It seems to me that the promotional impression comes mainly from two things.
  1. Again and again there is wording which has the feel of trying to give the reader a positive impression of Graham. Many of the examples taken on their own would not be very significant, but there is a cumulative effect from reading a string of them. For example, there is "known as one of the foremost innovators". It may be true that he has that reputation, but expressing it in those terms gives a feeling that the writer agrees with that assessment, whereas a Wikipedia article should be written in such a way that nobody should be able to tell from reading it what the writer's opinions are. Similar remarks apply to "devised a new paradigm of marketing". "Ranked as one of the most creative work spaces in the world" also raises the question "ranked by whom?" For a statement of that kind it is essential to give a reference to a reliable source which supports the statement, as otherwise there is no way of knowing that it isn't just the opinion of whoever wrote that in the Wikipedia article.
  2. The selection of what to write about him has the feeling of being like a resume, telling us the achievement he has made from the point of view hw might like us to see them. Unfortunately I find it impossible to give specific examples to illustrate that, because it is an overall impression, rather than being tied to particular details.
I have had a look at the article Tony Robbins, which you mentioned. Obviously, it is natural for new editors to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, but unfortunately that is not always a reliable method. Vast numbers of articles are created, and many of them are then subject to hundreds or even thousands of edits. Amongst all that there is often totally unsuitable material. Much of it gets spotted and removed very quickly, but some of it doesn't, so that some articles persist for a long time with content which really doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's standards. Tony Robbins is nowhere near as promotional in tone as the draft you have written, but it is far from ideal.
You describe yourself as a "fan" of Judge Graham, and you also say that you work in marketing. Both of those facts are likely to contribute to making it difficult for you to stand back from your own writing about him and see how it will look to an impartial outsider. All of us tend to find it difficult to be objective about topics of which we are fans, or in which we strongly believe. In addition to that there is, as I have already mentioned, a particular difficulty for people whose work involves in spending hours at a time dealing with promotional language, because such language is natural to them, whereas it can at times seem very unnatural to others.
I'm afraid that experience of working in marketing can be a disadvantage in editing Wikipedia, because it can be necessary to make a conscious effort to learn to write in a different way than one is used to. However, if you can make that effort there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to make valuable contributions.
You may like to try editing your draft in line with the few pointers I have given you above. However, my advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. Obviously, that advice may not appeal much to you if your only interest is in writing about Judge Graham, but if you are at all interested in contributing more widely then I suggest leaving the draft for now, and making minor contributions on other topics, preferably ones where you are not a fan, and perhaps coming back to your draft when you have more experience. That is, of course, just my advice, and you are free to take it or not.
I don't know how useful you will find those comments, but I hope at least some of it may help you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, James, I really appreciate you taking the time to address my post. You are very cool for doing that. I am new to this and want to do a good job. You are also absolutely correct that working in marketing has most likely skewed my perception. Still, I would like to try to make it passable. And I do wish to continue to edit articles and produce non-biased content for Wikipedia long into the future, even if this page doesn't get accepted. Honestly, it was just an idea I had, but I had fun annotating all the sources in the Article Wizard. I want to create more pages. Your guidance will help. I get what you mean about Tony Robbins. He was the closest I could think of to Judge on a grand scale. Thanks again. I look forward to editing more and really appreciate your advice. I'll definitely be taking it. Take care. JasonLWriter (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Closed ANI

James, thank you for looking at my ANI. Upon closing I'm not sure I understand which comments from Legacypac are considered legitimate vs not. I don't consider the repeated accusations of whitewashing to be civil or acceptable. It's fine to say the edits or proposed edits are against policy but totally different to say the intent is whitewashing. Am I correct to say that comments like the ones I quoted are not ok but, of course, comments such as an edit on proposing is undue or lacks weight or (name policy or guideline here) is ok. I think Legacypac should at least respond to the ANI before the closing. Springee (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Perhaps there is a difference between you and me about what the word "whitewashing" means. I see that as a descriptive term referring removing content supporting a position which you don't agree with, rather than implying anything about your motivation in doing so. I thought very carefully about whether to wait for Legacypac to respond before closing the report, but decided that on the issue of conflict of interest there was no doubt that he or she was wrong, and on the other issues there was no case for him or her to answer. Nevertheless, in view of what you say I shall reopen it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I was being a gentleman and ignoring the baseless allegations, but, since Springee insists on reopening the tread to get me to respond and because they seem unclear on how to define whitewashing I've supplied a few illustrative diffs for strictly educational purposes. I've also linked some media articles on his (and confederate editor's) activities least anyone think I'm seeing things others are not seeing. Of course it is a (multiple interleaved) DS area as Springee keeps telling me, so if his activity is found to be problematic that is on him, not me. Thanks JamesBWatson. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Whitewashing, according to Wikipedia, is "to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data". It's not merely removing it, there is an allegation of bias. Using it implies an agenda, not an innocent removal. Its use is often a pejorative. This looks like one of those cases. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, is it appropriate to ask you to weigh in on the ANI thread? I would understand if you simply want to wash your hands of the whole thing at this point! Thanks Springee (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: I was going to stand aside from this, because I decided that when I first stepped in I misjudged the situation, and it would be better to let someone else deal with it. However, since nobody else is bringing the matter to a close, and since you asked me to "weigh in" I have gone back there, read the whole discussion, and checked a few bits of editing history. I have pretty well formed a view of the situation, but I need to think out exactly how best to deal with it, and right now I can't afford to spend any more time on it. I shall try to come back to it and "weigh in" for you, but it won't be for some time. If I haven't said any more about it by 18 hours from now then please feel free to remind me again. (I really do mean that. I suffer from attention deficit disorder, one of the effects of which is that things I genuinely intend to come back and deal with get totally lost as my mind jumps off onto other things, so reminding me again will be helping me, not harassing me.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Well for what it's worth the ANI was closed [[39]]. I'm not sure I'm happy with the closing. Good because too much off topic stuff was getting dumped in there. Bad because I don't belive Legacypac went away thinking there was anything wrong with how they were replying to others. If the closing was inline with what you were thinking I'll assume my read was the one that's off and move on. Thanks Springee (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Springee: What a pity I didn't have time to deal with it when you contacted me last time, because my closure would have been very different. The close dealt only with the content dispute, not the question of Legacypac's approach to other editing. In relation to the content dispute, I am not at all happy about some aspects of the close, but it is broadly in the right direction. However, closing the discussion without even mentioning the issue about which the discussion was opened was a highly dubious act. I did eventually come to the conclusion that you were right in your criticisms of Legacypac's incivility and unsubstantiated accusations, and I also think there was a consensus in the discussion that his behaviour was unacceptable. I am considering possibly mentioning my thoughts about thsi to the closing administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I would appreciate comments to the closing editor. Springee (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't my fight but the last sentence is the sort of thing I'm concerned about [[40]] Springee (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I like Legcypac and I like a lot of what they do, but they really need to deshrill their interactions. And it's getting worse instead of better.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

JBW, would you please take a look at the ANI. I'm concerned it may archive before the close is reviewed. Thank you Springee (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think the close was OK in so far as it went. What troubles me is that Legacypak appears not to have taken on board advice concerning their behavior.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Springee and Dlohcierekim:
  1. I agree with Dlohcierekim that "the close was OK in so far as it went". I would have expressed various aspects of it differently from how Seraphimblade did, but obviously there are bound to be personal differences in details like that. The one thing where I differ significantly from Seraphimblade is that he made it symmetrical between Springee and Legacypac. I agree 100% with Seraphimblade that there were faults on both sides in several respects, including "And as a quick point of reference, if anyone can tell what your personal opinion is on a topic from the way you're editing or discussing it, you're doing it wrong", which seems to me to be fundamentally the crux of the dispute: both Springee and Legacypac are equally at fault there. However, I also think that Legacypac, unlike Springee, is guilty as charged of incivility, personal attacks, and unsubstantiated accusations, and I would have preferred that to be mentioned in the close. However, Seraphimblade closed it as he saw fit, and I accept that he did it in a somewhat different way than I would have done.
  2. The edit linked by Springee above in the sentence beginning "This isn't my fight..." is not one I like, but it is very mild compared to many other things that Legacypac has done many times, and I don't see that there is any need for action over it. However, Dlohcierekim's concern "that Legacypak appears not to have taken on board advice concerning their behavior" is probably well-founded. The best I can suggest at present is that if Legacypac continues to show an unacceptable attitude to editors with whom he or she disagrees, it may become suitable to take some action. From the recent ANI case there is not only Seraphimblade's criticism of both sides, but also the critical comments from other participants in the discussion, and Legacypac also has two blocks in his or her history in which unacceptable attitude to other editors was all or part of the reason, not to mention other messages etc over the years. I therefore think that Legacypac has had plenty of warnings. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Just for clarification, the close wasn't just in regards to Legacypac and Springee. At that point, the ANI thread was a tangled mess that was itself degenerating into bickering and mudslinging. It's not the first time there's been an issue in that area, so it was more intended to put all participants on notice that anyone who continues to behave badly is likely to be taking a break from the topic. That very much includes Legacypac. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Yes, I did read it as applying to all the participants, but Legacypac and Springee were central to the issues that I was commenting on, so I sort of ignored the others. Perhaps I should have made that clear. Also, it was certainly clear that what you said "very much includes Legacypac"; it's just that I would have given Legacypac an individual warning in addition to the general warning to all concerned. However, now that I've had time to think about it I don't feel as strongly about that as I did when I posted my message above that begins "What a pity I didn't have time to deal with it ..." because, as I said above, "Legacypac has had plenty of warnings", and your close at ANI was one of those warning, even without giving Legacypac the special emphasis that I would have done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, would you please remind @Legacypac: about the civility guidelines in context of accusing others of whitewashing. Disagreeing with words is one thing but edit summaries like this one [[41]] are exactly the story of thing that was discussed in the recent ANI. Springee (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Yes, I have given what I believe is a very clear reminder, as you can see here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Can I just say thank you? I’ve been watching this whole thing without saying anything because I was uninvolved in the dispute, but as someone who feels like I got similar harassment (although not as prolonged or pronounced) from Legacypac stemming out of a completely unrelated saga, that got brushed under the rug so to speak, I’m grateful he has received a very strong reminder that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable. ... Thanks,   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac

I've lifted your block of Legacypac based on discussion with other admins. [42] --NeilN talk to me 18:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Mad Max video game

User DasallmächtigeJ[43] is stating the on Mad Max video game page that's it's both a prequel and a sequel to Fury Road[44], however the source links on the page don't support that claim.

  • "A Mad Max game is coming, but it's not going to be related to any of the movies, because of Avalanche's radical position that movie tie-ins are pretty terrible."
  • "A Mad Max game is in development, but don't call it a movie tie-in. Developer Avalanche Studios is making it clear that their upcoming game, based on the long-standing franchise, is not tied to any of the films, particularly the upcoming Mad Max: Fury Road."[45]
  • "The studio is very clear that this game is in no way associated with the upcoming Mad Max: Fury Road movie starring Tom Hardy, that it is very much an original, standalone story, set in a standalone world."[46]

The official comic book doesn't show the events of the video game[47] and the Mad Max wiki doesn't use the events of the game on the character's page, "Do not put information from the video game. It is not canon.".[48]

This is becoming an edit war and DasallmächtigeJ is only putting in links to opinions from people who didn't work on the game and had nothing to do with it.108.208.136.214 (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I expanded the article with several sources on how the film and the game are connected. The user appears to be some sort of errate fan, his only excuse for removing my content is that it a.) doens't appear in a comic book (because obviously you put out a comic book with the exact same content as a game and of course they can't have two separate stories) and his assertion that b.) because the developers stated that it is not a frame-by-frame reproduction of the movie it of course cannot be a prequel. I tried to reason with him, but he simply reverted the edit and cleaned his talk page. I actually don't like doing this, but I will have to report him now and suggest to protect the page.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • User DasallmächtigeJ is still not providing any real proof from the studio, the developer or from George Miller himself that would backup his claim that's it's connected to the film. The video game's story doesn't even fit Fury Road or any past Mad Max film. Mad had a baby boy, not a preteen girl, Glory in the game isn't the same from the movie and comic book (written by Miller). Max meets her and her mother differently, the car he has at the end of the game is not the same as the one seen at the beginning of Fury Rad. Like I said, user DasallmächtigeJ is just using a review's opinion and speculation, that's not how wikipedia articles work. The way he's editing the page, it doesn't make any sense, it's not connected the film... and yet... it somewhat is...108.208.136.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Another IP hopping vandal?

Hi, JamesB. You should check out edits coming from 2607:fea8 when you get a chance. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FF2D:445E:A806:CD87:9EB2 & 2607:FEA8:DE0:9C0:29B2:6328:542D:9381, for example. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Message on top

You have a message at the top of this page about May 2016. Enigmamsg 17:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: Thanks for pointing that out. It was a result of copying pasting and editing an old notice for reuse, and failing to notice that there was a date in the original version. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD

  1. I think it is irregular to close an AfD that has been open for 3 days as a G5 without indicating anywhere who the article creator was a sock of — usually there is a note for future reference of those who work at NPP or AfC and it is unhelpful when there is no such note)
  2. In this case it is not even indicated as a G5 in the log, the only link is to the AfD discussion- this misrepresents to any editor who might want to recreate the article, such as myself, that this close reflects a community consensus about notability. Please be clear about this - if you are saying in the close that you are deleting this as a G5 then indicate that in the summary as well.
  3. My understanding is that editors had worked on it since the nomination/creation and it was in substantially different from when it was created- were these edits made by the same editor or had multiple editors worked on the article? Is there anyway to view the history and confirm this? Seraphim System (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: First of all, my apologies for the long wait for an answer. For personal reasons I have not been able to edit recently. however, here at last are some answers to what you have said. I hope they are helpful to you.
  • I have tended to work on the basis that if a page is deleted while a deletion discussion is in progress then a link to that discussion, and a mention on the discussion page about the speedy deletion reason, gives anyone who sees that the page has been deleted and wants to know why the opportunity to see both the speedy deletion reason and also whatever was said in the deletion discussion, which is likely to be more helpful than just the speedy deletion reason. However, you are right to point out that an editor who sees that a page has been deleted at XfD might not look at the discussion and see the speedy deletion reason. I shall re-delete the article mentioning both the AfD and the speedy deletion criterion, to make it clearer. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. (Obviously it is just as true that an editor who chooses not to look at the deletion discussion page will not be aware of why the page has been deleted under other circumstances, meaning that he or she will not know whether it will be suitable to re-create the article or not, but there is no harm in making the information easier to find in this case.)
  • You are right to point out that I should have said what sockpuppet it was. I shall also add that to the deletion log.
  • There was only one edit to the article by anyone other than its creator, and that edit merely added the AfD notice to the page.
One more small point perhaps worth mentioning is that it is usually better to mention what page you are referring to in this kind of situation. This time it was very easy to find it, as it was the last AfD that I had edited, but in the past I have sometimes had to spend considerable time searching through editing histories in order to find what page has been referred to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the summary especially, so it doesn't create the impression of misconduct by recreating an article after an AfD I was involved in closed delete.Seraphim System (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Return of blocked User:Mou3awiya Rafi3i, yet again

Our old friend is back, this time as User:Jimmy Jam III, who barely let the paint dry on your announcement of reduced activity to do all the old edits again (of US presidents and anachronistic style and arms on the Byron family, plus some others). Since I saw you did an administrative action earlier today, I am raising the issue here first since you are already familiar with the scenario - if you have the time and inclination and you agree it is a sock, then if you flag the account I will take care of all the reverts. Otherwise, I will proceed to the more formal SPI process for a determination. Agricolae (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Agricolae you can do the reverts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
and done. Agricolae (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Newsies sockpuppet

Hello. Is this another sockpuppet for User:Roosterknees? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but an indef for 'vansalism only' puts an end to this one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Obvious spammer, not here to contribute.

Having trouble posting to the vandalism noticeboard so trying here instead. User Deworucijo is obviously WP:NOTHERE. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Another admin blocked the account, and I did away the copyright violations. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Incivility again

JBW, a few months back I asked you about issues with editor civility [[49]]. After the editor didn't get the message you implemented a block (which was then reversed). The editor and I have largely not crossed paths in the mean time but recently the uncivil have returned. Here is an accusation of whitewashing [[50]], the exact accusation from last time. There is also this MfD an accusation of POV pushing against two unnamed editors (almost certainly myself given previous comments) [[51]]. Do you have suggestions for dealing with this? Thanks. Springee (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Unfortunately, the short answer is "no". I thought some of the comments in the discussion of my block were ridiculous, such as the claim that I had blocked the editor for one edit, whereas anyone who took the trouble to look at the relevant history would have seen that i blocked because of a history of numerous unacceptable edits. At least part of the problem is the perennial moronic view that someone who makes a lot of good edits should be allowed to get away with being uncivil and making numerous personal attacks, unlike new editors who should get blocked for far smaller numbers of uncivil comments. I have no idea why that view is so common, but it is, and it makes it virtually impossible to take any effective action against such editors. As far as I personally am concerned, for personal reasons I am restricted to a far lower rate of editing than I have done for many years past, so I am afraid I don't think I can get involved again. I am really sorry to be so negative and unhelpful about this, bu I'm afraid that is how it is, from my perspective. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
JBW, thanks for the reply. I recall that unblock discussion and I sadly I think LP came away feeling like they did anything but wrong. At least NeilN showed their typical good sense and offered some level of warning. Hopefully LP and I simply won't cross many paths and it just won't be an issue. Take care! Springee (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer

Hello JamesBWatson, you might be interested in the issue I am reporting as you have already been involved in it previously. It is about a bunch of IPs which are very likely (99%) related to an old acquaintance of en.wikipedia: a sock-puppet abuser who created about 50 socks to disrupt IPA transcriptions, obsessed especially with Italian names and words. The investigation I am referring to is the following: 84101e40247. The new IPs from which similar or identical edits have been done recently are the following: 95.235.116.126 (see: Loayur, Duelai, Ddgfs), 87.17.102.163 (see: Sasalikasty), 193.204.194.210 (see: Dyukpore), 79.30.8.179 (see: Vufroled), 5.90.255.50 (see: Ksyru), 79.49.65.250 (see: Fruial, Kilorty); it is also possible that there are some more, but for the moment these are enough to care about, right? I hope that you or someone else will take appropriate measures against this recidivous vandal! Thank you for reading :-) 198.46.84.16 (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is very difficult to do anything useful in cases like this. Blocking IP addresses is likely to be futile, as the editor just moves to new ones. Protecting articles is not realistic, as there are numerous articles affected, most of them only occasionally at long intervals. Some of the IP addresses you have listed are in IP ranges which have sporadically been used by this editor over a long time, with very few or no other edits in the same period, and I have pout range blocks on those, but at best that will slightly slow down the activity, with other IP addresses being used instead. Not very satisfactory, but the best I can offer.
On another point, please don't post multiple copies of the same request for help to several administrators, as it can cause people to waste a lot of time checking up on something which is already dealt with. See also WP:ADMINSHOP. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay for the multiple requests, I have understood. About the sockpuppetteer, you might do the same thing you did the last time you dealt with him: reverting his vandalisms concerning IPAs and blocking at least the last IP he has been using, there may be much less work than the previous time and I could give you a hand with that. Even what you have just said would be useful anyway, on my opinion. 198.46.84.16 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Fucking Weaboo... LTA?

@Widr: JamesBWatson: Behavior sufficient to check for sockpuppet abuse? --JustBerry (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@JustBerry: The account created a user page and a user talk page which said that it was a blocked editor. That may be true or it may be a lie, but either way it is clearly trolling, and it strongly suggests sockpuppetry. I am inclined to doubt that a clerk or CU would regard it as sufficient grounds for a check, but I may be wrong, so perhaps Bbb23 and/or Vanjagenije would be so kind as to express an opinion, since they have extensive experience respectively of CheckUsering and clerking, as well as both being administrators. Also, Widr, the fact that you blocked talk page and email access right away makes me think you may know more about the editor's past than I do, so maybe you can say something helpful about it. (And by the way, I don't care whether "CheckUsering" was or a word before or not: it is now.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I would be inclined against that that alone is sufficient grounds to check, but I thought you may know something about the editor that may lead to there being sufficient grounds. I'll leave it to Bbb23, Vanjagenije, and Widr to comment. --JustBerry (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@JustBerry: Since all three of them have edited since you posted your last message here but none of them has responded to the pings, I think we can assume that they have nothing to say, so we will just have to leave it there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Burt Kearns and user Peytondaley

Is it worth taking this to WP:COIN or might that be an unnecessary escalation at this point? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drm310: My feeling at prsent is that there is nothing that could be established there that we can't establish by direct communication with the editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Drm310: You may like to read my message at the bottom of the page here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I saw the increasing hostility in the user's responses, so I'm not surprised that there was more COI than was being disclosed. Sorry you had to put up with the unpleasantness. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

LP... again

I know you are trying to withdraw from this. I just felt this comment was too blatant [[52]]. Calling other editors a "troll" is just over the line. Springee (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Calton on WP:AE

Hi since you've blocked User:Calton for personal attacks in summaries once upon a time I think it's courteous to let you know about this AE thread where he's subjected to. 79.102.176.21 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Helpme request

Hey, perhaps this might have been a little sharp? Just a thought... stwalkerster (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nope, I would not treat undisclosed paid editors as legitimate new editors, particularly when this editor is not exactly new. Perhaps JBW could have nullify the template in the normal way as suggested by the template, but this is no biting. Alex Shih (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I accept Stwalkerster's criticism of me, and I don't agree with Alex Shih's defense of me. The edit summary here does disclose the paid editing, and although it is not done in the approved manner that is no doubt because the editor is unaware of all the relevant guidelines, policies, etc, rather than out of any bad faith. Any editor acting in good faith deserves courtesy, even if he or she is unknowingly doing things that are not approved of. I was irritated by finding I had spent time checking something that didn't need checking, and responded in an irritable way, which was not good. Thank you, Stwalkerster, for drawing my attention to it. I have rewritten my comment in a way which I hope is better.
The reason that I used "nowiki" tags rather than "the normal way as suggested by the template" is that I was not answering the request for help, which is what "the normal way" is about.
Having said all that, in fact it turned out that checking the "help me" request was not a waste of my time, as it drew my attention to other problems with the editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I am feeling grumpy after spending some time in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. My bad. Alex Shih (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks James :) Alex Shih, a bit of WP:AGF and a kind guiding word is much more likely to be effective in encouraging change and future productive editors, no matter how they start out. stwalkerster (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Hey sorry for dragging you into my help request, I am still trying to figure this out for some of my clients :) Any help would be appreciated. Mainly I would like to get the Rameses Nightingale page citations and errors complety gone so the page looks nice and clean.. Thank you :) Offthehooktv (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Broken block template on User:Caftaric

The block notice template you left on User talk:Caftaric is broken. I'd fix it, but the substituting would then assign my signature to it, after which I'd have to manually edit in yours—potentially leading to what I suspect is exactly the kind of confusion that's not needed when it comes to blocks/block notices. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson, in regards to Caftaric's indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts, is there an associated SPI or ANI that links Caftaric with R567 or any other abusive accounts? None appears when searched for. Curiously, Loopy30 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
No. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Is that because the reasons for this block rely upon confidential information? I understood that blocking was a serious matter that should be explained to both user and the community at large. Regards, Loopy30 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
How much explanation do you want? It is very common for block logs to give no more than the default explanation, which in the case of a block for sockpuppetry would be "Abusing multiple accounts", whereas I also provided the name of another account used by the same person. Most of the evidence is easily visible to anyone who looks, such as a considerable overlap in articles edited, very similar editing of those articles, including in some cases repetition of exactly the same edit, and other details too. Spelling out the exact details of evidence of sockpuppetry is often very unhelpful, as it warns the sockpuppeteer what give away signs to avoid with future sockpuppets. What is more, it looks to me as though precisely that may have already happened in this case, when earlier sockpuppets were blocked, which look as though they may be the same person as these accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for that. No need to give away the farm by providing any exact details. I had just thought that a user was blocked only as a result of a complaint/investigation and not summarily banished without any further process visible to the community as a whole. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Block evader?

Could you keep an eye on Smeef89? It may well be another sock of User:Danieleb82. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: There is enough similarity in the editing to make me think it probably is, but nothing definite enough to justify blocking. The editing is in a topic area which is clearly much more your thing than mine, so if you see anything more definite please let me know. You can do that by email if there is evidence that you don't want to be visible. (I see that you haven't got email enabled on your account, but if you ever want to enable it and don't know how, you can do it via the "preferences" link at the top of the page whenever you are logged in.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't seen this, but I came here because of this to let you know about my report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danieleb82. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: In case you haven't already seen, I have now found enough evidence to take away the doubts that I had, and I have blocked the sockpuppet and deleted the pages it created. Thanks for pointing this out to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a problem

im off to bed now but see this[53] which made a major change with a bit of I don't know what (the "are were") - not just bad grammar but wrong, and deleted important information about open air activities. This is a site I've actually visited several times. Doug Weller talk 21:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hedgewars

Hello, I noticed Hedgewars was deleted as you removed many links. Couldn't find any recent discussion on that. Either way, I believe hedgewars should have an article, could you please restore a copy to my user space so that I can work on it? thanks Shaddim (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can, but can you provide any reason to justify doing so? That is to say, any reason to think that, contrary to the conclusion of two deletion discussions, the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
indeed, I believe there is enough notability for this game. I will extend the article accordingly. cheers Shaddim (talk)
Yes, obviously you believe there is enough notability, or you wouldn't have made the request. By "can you provide any reason" I meant "can you provide any reason for believing that it is notable". Simply stating that you think so is not very helpful: see WP:ITSNOTABLE. If you know of sources that show more notability than was demonstrated in the deleted versions of the article then you should be able to tell me what they are, and if you don't then restoring the article, after not one but two AfDs and not one but two deletion reviews have ended in the article's remaining deleted, would be questionable. You may also like to read WP:MUSTBESOURCES, if you are not already acquainted with it. I have seen your user page, with its comments about what you refer to as "the infamous 'reliable sources' policy (and the notability policy)" and your comments about what you call "inclusionism" and "deletionists". Are you sure that your request is motivated by knowing of sources which satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than by personal opposition to deletion of articles even if they don't satisfy those policies and guidelines? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I will gather reliable sources and will not re-add the article before I come to the decision that the article has a serious chance for surviving a review. Currently, with the article and its history deleted, I can't review the source situation of the old one. (I think it is in general a bad idea to delete articles that way that they can't be reviewed via their history, but thats another problem.) So, could you please restore the article to my user space? thanks Shaddim (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Usually I am happy to temporarily restore articles to user space, but in the case of an article which has been to two deletion discussions, both of which resulted in consensus to delete, and two deletion reviews, both of which resulted in the deletions being upheld, and the article has again been unilaterally re-created, I am reluctant to do so without better reasons. However, since the reason you give for wanting the article restored to user space is so that you can "review the source situation", I have posted a list of all the sources from the deleted article at User:JamesBWatson/Hedgewars sources. I hope that will be of some help to you. To me, it seems that the only one of those sources that even begins to give significant coverage is the gry-online page, but of course you will make your own judgement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
As I assumed there is indication of notability available in even the article before deletion. While I don't want to argue with you abbout notability, there are other indications of notability like pure usage & citation in common culture. Hedgware is one of the bigger open source games and most likely could have an article. Therefore, restore this article to my user domain that I can work on it and eventually bring it in for review. I think you can't & should not block my intention on working on this article. Shaddim (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I note that you asked that the article be restored to user space because you couldn't "review the source situation", but now that I have made the sources available you want it restored to user space for other reasons.
You are clearly well aware of the notability guidelines, and you must be aware that "one of the bigger open source games" is not one of the criteria. You have said that you "will gather reliable sources", and there is nothing to stop you from doing so: you don't need the text of the deleted article to do that. You say you "don't want to argue with [me] abbout notability", but if you have any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines then you can easily tell me what that evidence is without arguing about it, yet you do not do so.
You are seeking to overturn the outcome of four separate discussions. The onus is on you to provide justification for doing so: I am certainly not going to do so simply because I am told to by someone who asserts that he "believe[s] there is enough notability", that he "assumed there is indication of notability available", and so on, but who after repeated requests does not provide any evidence. I will restore the article if and when you provide justification for doing so based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just because you say that you believe and assume things.
If you believe that what I am doing is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines then you are, of course, free to take this to a third deletion review, but doing so because you personally don't like those policies and guidelines is not a good idea. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
As you said I'm well aware on the notability guidelines. I will review and expand the full article to the point where it has good chances of surviving a review. If I can't bring it to such state, I will not hand it in and scrap it. So, put it to my userspace that I can work on it. Shaddim (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for being an unconstructive blockhead and bureaucrat, I reconstructed the article on my own. Shaddim (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thnaks again for being an unnconstructive asshead, misusing his administrative powers Shaddim (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC) I apologize for this unneeded confrontational reply in anger on the deletion of the with some work and time invested reconstructed draft article. Shaddim (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Shaddim: OK, I know myself how easy it is to act hastily and unwisely when one is irritated, as you will see if you read my comment in the section of this page headed "Helpme request", so I do understand. Thank you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
While I appreciate that we found common ground on the way how we should talk with each other; in the core issue the blocking of user space drafting we have a severe disagreement. I believe, backed by many policies like even g4 of speedy deletion, user space drafting is an valuable and wanted mechanism in WP. Admins should not blocking authors in utilizing it, especially if the author ("me") is demonstratable productive and interested on creating content for WP (which should be clearly proven by my edit history). Shaddim (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Shaddim: Yes, but that is a misunderstanding of what I have said. I have never suggested that user space drafting is not a valuable and wanted mechanism: of course it is. However, saying that something is a valuable mechanism is not the same as saying that it should always be available, no matter what the circumstances. On this occasion I do not believe that it is appropriate, for the reasons which I have already explained at length. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
this is by no means a misunderstanding. User space drafting is encouraged in wikipedia and not limited by permissions of a council or individual admins. Again, there is no policy preventing me drafting this article. and I will do.Shaddim (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 June 18. —Cryptic 07:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shaddim: You suggested that I had expressed an opinion which I had not expressed. I assumed good faith and described it as a misunderstanding of what I said, but you now deny that it was a misunderstanding. If you claimed I said something that I didn't say, even though you had not misunderstood me, then what was it? I hope it wasn't deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, but I can't think of a third possibility. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I motivated my demand: I said I want to do an draft and evaluate if the article has enough mass to survive an review. You did not gave me the benefit and doubt but outright rejected my demand, obviously not valuing draft works in user space. Shaddim (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Re:Caftaric

I noticed you deleted at least one of their stub-templates under G5. Fair enough, but considering they were also fairly prolific stub-sorting into such stubs including removing whatever stub-templates may have been present before, it's resulting in some stubs remaining out of stub-categorization and redlinked stub templates at the bottom of articles. I'm aware of Template:Tabanoidea-stub. (Its linked category Category:Tabanoidea stubs remains extant, though. Probably should be deleted too if the template feeding it no longer exists) and it's on my list of things to fix in mainspace. Were there any others you deleted, and if so, any chance you could send me a list so I can fix them? (Either by re-stub-sorting or verifying with WikiProject Stub Sorting & whichever is the relevant Tree of Life WikiProject whether it should be recreated if I suspect it may be a valid stub type, should any of the latter type even exist) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC) EDIT: I just found the full string of deletions today per your log. Is my presumption that the entire string of stub templates were Caftaric creations correct, and should I be looking into earlier days in your log, or did you only delete Caftaric creations today? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: I seem to have opened a can of worms there. Usually when a persistent sockpuppeteer keeps coming back one of the most effective tools to persuade them not to is to revert and delete everything they have done, so that they don't think they can just get away with block-evasion, and I started on that road here. However, I then realised that in this case there was a huge number of pages involved, and most of them looked useful, so I stopped deleting them. Adding to that what you say about the problems it has caused, it is clear that deleting them has done much more harm than good. I have therefore restored the Templates I deleted. Probably I should restore the categories too, but I am out of time now, so I'll have to come back to it. If I haven't done it within 20 hours from now, please remind me. (I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back to very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. Consequently if you do remind me I will regard it as help, not harassment.)
And I didn't delete any of Caftaric's creations before. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear so, because yes, the sheer scale of clean-up (and frequently, re-creation) it'd have required wasn't exactly something I was looking forward to. A sizeable (albeit non-majority) number of their categories and templates probably should be deleted but it's unfortunately essentially impossible to tell them apart at a glance: whether they're useful or not tends to require significant time looking into things. Their stub categories and templates appear to have all been created without first proposing at WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals making it impossible to tell with certainty which would be considered valid, so I'll see if I can't find some time listing the entirety of their stub-category/template creations over at the stub-sorting project. Would be useful to have some help trying to figure out which are legitimate categories and should be kept, which should be turned into upmerged templates because they might become useful but currently result in an undersized stub category and which should be dumped over at TfD as not useful. (I could just dump the entirety over at TfD I suppose, but it's easier to filter out those that are almost definitely going to be kept by asking the relevant project. Post-Caftaric clean-up is going to be sizeable enough anyway that anything that can be fixed outside the slow bureaucratic processes probably is better fixed outside said processes).
Thanks for letting me know you wouldn't mind a reminder if needed! Always good to know beforehand that it won't come across as harassment. I have similar tendencies myself, except in my case it's more related to sleep-related issues leading to frequent exhaustion and distractability. Still, I understand where you're coming from. I suppose it doesn't exactly help that en.wiki has so. many. things that need doing, does it? (It's certainly my wiki-bane, at least) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Reminding you to un-delete Caftaric's categories. I know it's not actually 20 hours yet (18 or thereabout), but you appear to be offline anyway, so chances are that by the time you see this reminder, it's been 20h as asked, and I'm about to log off and may forget to remind you otherwise. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@AddWittyNameHere: I started restoring all categories created by Caftaric and deleted by me, and then it occurred to me that perhaps it was only the stub categories that needed to be restored, so I continued restoring only those. In fact, it turned out that by then I had already restored almost all of the non-stub categories anyway (all but 2, I think). Let me know if you think either that I should restore the few remaining non-stub categories or that I should re-delete the ones I have already restored. If you don't care either way, that's fine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Eh, as all articles that may have been in those two categories no longer are anyway, there's no use in restoring those two as it'd do nothing in helping the post-Caftaric clean-up. (Chances are that in most cases, the now-redlinked category was simply removed rather than the relevant parent category re-applied but eh, so be it. Someone'll get around to recatting them some day I'm sure) On the other hand, I'd keep everything you've restored restored for now, as that allows for making informed decisions on whether there's use in keeping them (as it shows where in the categorization trees the various categories are slotted, how many and what articles are in it, etc.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Eight years of adminship

Wishing JamesBWatson a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

185.50.25.24 appears to be currently WP:NOTHERE

Hi, JamesB. Just ran across 185.50.25.24 while perusing recent changes and noticed harassment of an editor called Thraen. This IP also recently harassed Thraen on the Polish Wiki, along with at least one other IP that has been rangeblocked here as socking for Wikinger. Suggest looking into the possibility of 185.50.25.24 being another Wikinger sock. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Caftaric etc

Hi James. I see you blocked Caftaric. Editors who have created large numbers of ill-advised fauna-of-place categories are Nono64 / NotWith, Wwikix / R567 / Caftaric and Couiros22. Can you to see if there's evidence that any of these 3 groups are actually the same person? I see that both NotWith[54] and Couiros22 (and possibly also Wwikix) use the Breton language which must be quite unusual amongst en wp editors. Other editors have suggested (e.g. in CFD discussions) that Caftaric and NotWith are the same person). There may be material (e.g. Wwikix's userpage that has been deleted) that I can't see that might be relevant. If you can provide any info/advice that would help me unravel this I'd be grateful. DexDor (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@DexDor: I have spent some time looking into this, and I have some observations which I'll let you know about, but I don't have time now. If I haven't got back to you within a day or so please feel welcome to remind me. (I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back to very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. Consequently if you do remind me I will regard it as help, not harassment.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@DexDor: I have now spent yet more time looking into this. There is enough evidence that the accounts are all the same person to persuade me, but much of the evidence consists of little bits and pieces which are not individually significant but which all add up, although there are a few more significant points. I am considering consulting another administrator for help. I am reluctant to give more specific information publicly, as doing so would merely alert the sockpuppeteer to what giveaway signs to avoid in future. Once again, if I don't get back to you on this within (say) 48 hours then please feel welcome to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Reminder :-) DexDor (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@DexDor: Thanks. I have decided that the sockpuppetry is clear, so I have blocked the accounts that were not already blocked, though the only one that has been editing recently is Couiros22. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

St. Caurgula

St. Caurgula shows every sign of contributing in good faith (e.g. [55]) and has engaged with the warnings on his talk page. The only major problem with his editing is not using edit summaries, which he has acknowledged [56], and he has not edited since he received his second warning about that. Was a block really called for? – Joe (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your description does not agree with what I see. The editor has been making numerous contentious changes to articles, including removing significant content, without explanation. Also, you say that he or she "has acknowledged" the messages about edit summaries, but how is "acknowledging" them and then ignoring them helpful? I can even see a case for regarding that as worse than not acknowledging them, as it shows without any doubt that the editor is aware of what has been said. As for "contributing in good faith", how is that relevant? There was no suggestion that the block was for lack of good faith. Four times (counting the virtually simultaneous messages from Doug Weller as just once) the editor was told either about using edit summaries or about removing content or both, the last time being warned that doing so might lead to a block. He or she ignored those messages and continued to remove content without explanation. If you can think of a better way of getting over the message than (1) a couple or more friendly messages (2) when those don't work a warning of a possible block and (3) when that doesn't work a short-term block to make it clear that we are serious, then please suggest it. I am not the only person who can't find a better way, as evidenced by the very high frequency with which that approach is used.
There is one thing which your message has drawn to my attention where I clearly made a mistake, because I misread the timing of Eric's post to the user talk page, and thought it was before St. Caurgula's latest edits, whereas it was after them. I have therefore removed my mistaken mention of Eric's post, and I am very glad you did draw my attention to it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I just thought a friendlier approach would be better. They received a lot of templated messages in a short period of time. It's easy to miss or not fully take them in when you're new and in the middle of editing. Thanks for correcting that bit. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
They were editing very erratically - various small text fiddles with no great gain or loss, then yanking out whole chunks for no obvious reason. Usually no edit summaries, little added apart from the ok new article. Their talk page comments showed attitude, and an awareness that at least some of what they were doing did not meet WP norms. And jumping about the place, to several rather key articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
James, I have answered you on my talk page. Can email you the reasons for this account if you wish. Re edit summaries and removal of content, I think I was editing archaeology articles in a similar way I treat my usual editing area of art history, ie removing see also, long block quotes etc, without appreciating incumbent convention. Also, because I got so many warnings within minutes, I missed some of them, and only really though Dough was bothered; at that point he seems to have check usered me, and I though emailed the results to you and others (so it seemed). So I gave up on the edit summaries, waiting for the inevitable check user block. I was not aware that not using edit summaries was a blockable offence. I think archaeology articles on wiki are generally excellent, and do not want to step on toes. St. Caurgula (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

N-dimensional sequential move puzzle

Hello, I saw you reverted an edit by sockpuppet V-Cube 6x6x6 - I just wanted to tell you that this one edit happened to be useful, so I reverted back to that version. In case you were wondering - I know that sometimes with mass-rollbacks it sometimes happens that constructive edits get reverted as well. Judith Sunrise (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, Judith. I am perfectly willing to accept your judgement about any individual edits. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

79.78.241.248: short blocks having no effect, suggest longer

79.78.241.248 appears to be not here, what do you think about extending the two week block to one month? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I agree with you, and if I had been the administrator placing the latest block I would have made it much longer, but once an administrator has made a decision it normally best to accept that decision rather than fighting over it, unless it is clearly an unreasonable decision. However, if the same sort of thing starts up again when this block is over I shall be willing to block for longer. Please feel welcome to let me know if you see the problem coming back. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Will do, if I happen across similar edits from that IP (or close to it). –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: You may be interested in seeing the latest entry in the block log for this IP address. Ronhjones has done exactly the same as I would have done had I got there first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice! –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

107.77.169.9 would like to be unblocked

Hi, JamesB. Just ran across this request while perusing recent changes and thought I'd give you a heads-up. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I posted a message about this to the talk page of the blocking administrator (Gilliam) who then unblocked the IP address. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2018 (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

IP hopper: 106.80.107.3 & 106.88.208.21

Hi, JamesB. 106.88.208.21 has been blocked for 36 hours; 106.80.107.3 is very likely the same editor and should be blocked as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Just found more Chinese IPs exhibiting the same behavior last month: 119.86.240.215, 106.81.38.49, 14.106.222.142, 106.88.209.31, etc. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: I've had a quick look, and semi-protected the pages edited by either or both of the 106... IP addresses. Very likely more needs to be done, but right now I am far too tired to think about it any more. You are welcome to get back to me on this if you like, and I'll look at it again, but it's unlikely to be until at least 12 hours or so from now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Philippine date-and-year-vandal

You may remember this conversation. Some weeks after, User:Bishonen took over when you were away for a while. Since then I have unfortunately not been able to follow it up, but recently I came across them again. Still active, I'm afraid. Some of the latest IPs are 49.145.161.155, 49.145.162.226, 49.145.161.23, 49.145.175.117 and 49.145.175.78. Today no less then three new IPs: 49.145.165.248, 49.145.168.82 and 49.145.173.89. Many of their edits are fortunately swiftly reverted, but there are so many... I will take a round to check the latest. Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I have checked the range 49.145.160.0/20 again, for a longer period of time. Looking at the editing history, I see not only that a very large proportion of the editing is from this one vandal, but also much of the unrelated editing is vandalism or otherwise unconstructive. There are some constructive edits, so unfortunately there is bound to be some collateral damage, but it will be much less than the benefit. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanx! Tidying a bit more... --T*U (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
They have not given up, now from slightly outside the range: 49.145.140.202 and 49.145.135.143, the last one still active today with a non-existent 2 peso coin they have presented several times. --T*U (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@TU-nor: Do you have any reason to think it's the same person? I don't see any of the usual trademarks, such as obsession with changing dates. For some reason the Philippines are the source of far more serial IP vandals than anywhere else in the world. Wikipedia seems to be a national pastime there; goodness knows why. Merely being vandalism from a fairly nearby IP range and the same ISP doesn't prove a connection. Anyway, whether it's the same person or not, I have semi-protected the articles concerned for a few weeks, and blocked the IP range 49.145.128.0/20 for 3 months. I found that the vast majority of editing from that range is vandalism, and most of the rest is not constructive, with very few edits that could be considered useful, so blocking for much longer might be reasonable, but I don't plan to do it at present. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Some of the typical edits I have seen beside changing dates and years, are changing membership countries in international organisations, changing TV program listings, changing TV systems listings. All these have come in different combinations from the same IP, so they are definitely connected. The newer 2 peso fraud has also been combined with different TV-related edits, but taking a closer look, they are not necessarily the same type of edits as our old friend, so we may have two different IP-hopping vandals in the same range. Our old friend has also made a fair number of edits to coins and banknotes, but they have mostly been the typical change of years and dates. Both our old friend and the new one do sometimes take the trouble of making synchronous changes to several articles. Perhaps that is part of the Indonesian Wiki-game. Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW/Archive_72&oldid=1045688344"