User talk:JBW/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Sheena Bajaj

You have protected Sheena Bajaj which is redirecting to Best of Luck Nikki. I think there should be the article currently named Sheena Bajaj (actress). Maybe you want to remove the redirection and rename the article? -- 6BL-A504 (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of protecting Sheena Bajaj was to prevent a disruptive editor from persistently re-creating an article in defiance of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheena Bajaj. The editor then created a sockpuppet account and evaded the article protection by re-creating it under a different title. That block-evading and protection-evading re-creation has now been deleted too. The decision taken at the deletion discussion was that this should be a redirect to Best of Luck Nikki. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Galatta Cinema

I want u to know that u deleted Galatta Cinema, even though it was properly sourced. In fact, User:Dravidianhero had created it long before he was blocked, and therefore the article should be restored. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing is irrelevant, since that was not the reason for the deletion. The article was created on 4 May 2013. The editor who created it has been blocked numerous times in a total of 20 accounts and I know not how many IP addresses, including an indefinite block on the account Kalarimaster and a ban from English Wikipedia dating from 11 January 2010, more than 3 years before this article was created. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, if anyone else recreates the article (albeit in a re-written form), is that allowed? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If someone else writes a completely new article on the same subject, there will be no problem at all. If someone else reposts the same, or very nearly the same article, then that is likely to look dubious, and may lead to suspicion of sockpuppetry, so it is probably safer to avoid that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No Source

Do you think the situation regarding the deletion of File:BatmanMobile.jpg is a joke ?

The user who uploaded that image has not provided the source from which it has been obtained from. The source line says "The image can or could be obtained from Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment."

Now, who knows that it is a copyright material or not ? If there will be specific source, then we can consider it.

@Sonicdrewdriver: Isn't it ?

Himanis Das  talk 10:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but all that is irrelevant, because the page was nominated for speedy deletion not for copyright reasons, but as "an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone", which is clearly complete nonsense. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Himanis called me here for support (apparently), and have to agree with you, James. Himanis: As I said at my talk page, and the talk page of the image's OP, there is no way you can apply a BLP guideline to an image that does not include a person in it. As with citation, sources do not have to contain a link that everyone can access, but point out where the content came from. As it happens, that source line gives all the information required for that image. Essentially then, you have two problems. Firstly, you can't speedy delete something as a defamatory BLP when it's neither a BLP nor defamatory. Secondly, there is no issue with the source line and, even if there were, it's not a speedy-deletable issue.  drewmunn  talk  10:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlee Kumar

I agree with your analysis but with a couple provisos: A block it is not exactly the same as as a WP:BAN and sources are available. But we do not reward the actions of blocked sockmasters, and the notability of Atlee Kumar does not quite meet the requisites of WP:FILMMAKER. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

On the matter of banned/blocked, I was basing what I said on the fact that two of the blocks on the sockmaster are logged with reasons that include the word "banned", as can be seen in the block log here. I have not checked why the two administrators who said that the user was banned thought so, and whether they were right or not. If they weren't, then reinstating the PROD would have been against policy, but it doesn't really make any difference, since, as I said in the AfD, I don't intend to do so anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Smoking Gun

Re: "While there is no unambiguous smoking gun", the checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman says Technically indistinguishable from KateGompert and KemRP. I would count that as a smoking gun, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't, especially as the checkuser who made that assessment stated that it was not to be regarded as  Confirmed, since the IP all three are on is extremely dynamic. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And all three edit the same article with the same style. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

All what three? At first, in the context of the above messages, I assumed you meant Tumbleman, KateGompert, and KemRP, but KemRP has never made any edit to Wikipedia. Do you mean Tumbleman, KateGompert, and Oh boy chicken again? KateGompert has never edited any article. The account has once posted a very brief comment on a talk page that Tumbleman has frequently edited, but in the few words of that comment I don't see anything which looks particularly like Tumbleman in style. On the contrary, if anything I would say its brief, terse, simple statement of the essential point the editor wishes to make is quite different from Tumbleman's long-winded incoherent posts, frequently full of off-the-point stuff. Oh boy chicken again, on the other hand, has edited (again, not in an article) in ways that look strikingly like Tumbleman; enough so, in my opinion, to create a strong suspicion of sockpuppetry. However, editing on the same talk page in a vaguely similar way and expressing similar opinions is not a "smoking gun". A "smoking gun" is a single piece of evidence that on its own gives the game away with virtual certainty. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this indefinite block was unwarranted. I'm trying to AGF but it appears like he was driven off of Wikipedia because of his disagreement with others, not his conduct. It's chilling to see how the system can be used. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Total crap. He is blocked because his behaviour was disruptive, in numerous ways. If you really think that "he was driven off of Wikipedia because of his disagreement with others", then you may like to ask yourself why you are not blocked, since you have the same disagreements. However, in my experience there is little likelihood that you will do that, because conspiracy theorists always see everything they don't like as confirmation of the existence of an evil conspiracy against them, and either will not or cannot see or hear the logic of anything at all that casts doubt on their paranoid view of the world. Probably you can think up some ingenious reason why it suits the malicious purposes of the evil conspirators to leave you unblocked for the time being. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be blocked because I have absolutely no opinion about the Sheldrake article. I've never edited it, I only read over comments on the Talk Page (which took a heck of a lot of time). What I did do was defend Tumbleman when I thought he was being bullied. I don't want to believe a reasonable Admin would block an Editor for saying another user's block was unwarranted.

There are Editors, skeptics, who do monitor all articles they label pseudoscience. That's not a conspiracy, they say as much on their User Pages that this is their interest on Wikipedia. I don't think they are evil, they are just quick to label any person who believes in alternate views of science as "fringe" or a "quack" and they don't want people with those views editing Wikipedia. I've visited their Talk Pages and seen them mock these Editors. But, they have Discretionary Sanctions on their side so they tend to win the big arguments. For example, I don't see any skeptic Editor getting sanctioned for edit warring against those they label "pseudoscience" believers. It's just the way things are on Wikipedia, they hold the cards. Not evil, not secret, just influential and skilled in presenting a case on AN/I.

The irony is that all of my degrees are in the social sciences (Economics and Sociology). That's my training. So, "morphic resonance" or whatever? I don't believe in it. But the strength I see in Wikipedia, why it was used in as an example in Wisdom of the crowds is because when you have a large group of people working on a project, it allows for a diversity of opinion. This diversity is why Wikipedia excels because all Editors bring some different knowledge and talent to the project. I didn't see Tumbleman as disruptive but I only read messages on the Sheldrake TP and his own TP. I didn't read all of his edits but in those I did, I saw him conversing with other Editors, some who fiercely disagreed with him. I saw him as bringing in a different perspective. That's why I defended him. I see you have a completely different opinion of him and, in the end, an Admins' opinion carries more weight than an Editor's. Like I said, it's just the way things are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

More and more elevators

See User:John of Reading/CSD log#October 2013 - at least three "contributions" from the same IP address, so this may be worth a block. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. How much good it will do, who knows. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to try an edit filter? I see you started to compile a list of the netblocks that the guy is using. If that is fairly accurate, it can be used to help setup an accurate edit filter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an edit filter would be set up for someone making only two or three edits a month. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be true. Since every edit filter is run on every edit to Wikipedia, each edit filter creates a significant extra server load, and general practice is therefore to create an edit filter only for purposes where there is pretty frequent vandalism. I don't know enough about edit filters to be able to judge how frequent that means, but back in May, I worked out that the average rate of edits from the elevator vandal was a little over one a week, as you can see at User talk:John of Reading/Archive 12#Elevator filter. I requested an edit filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#The elevator vandal, but in 5 months there has been no response to the request. I am inclined to think that John is right, and this vandal doesn't edit often enough to get an edit filter. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought it was more frequent than two or three edits a month. You are probably correct about him not editing frequently enough to warrant a filter. It is great if the two of you can keep up with the guy without a filter, but if you decide that his activity picks up and it warrants another look at a filter, feel free to drop me a note and I'll write it. With the data you collected and the guy's pattern, the filter should be fairly easy to write.

A narrowly written edit filter does not put much load on the system as false conditions on the filter will stop the filter fairly quickly. With this particular vandal, the filter can be very narrow. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Re your message: Sure, I'll write it. The next time he shows up, can you or John leave the edit live? It is easier to write filters with live edits instead of deleted ones. You can blank the Portal talk page to remove their edit from view. I'll delete it when I'm done with it.

The usual process is to write a filter, monitor it under a log-only mode, and then set it to block edits if the filter works without false positives. So we will need to leave his edits live for awhile so I can check them against the filter. You can blank them like I said. I've added your subpage to my watch list. I suggest we use the subpage to keep track of new edits and discuss any issues related to the edit filter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Business cards - spam link in reflist

Hi James.

There's a spam link in Business Cards reflist. I can't seem to edit it to get it out. It looks like that section has been locked down, by yourself?

^ "Standard Business Card Size - Business Card Information and Resources". - It's spam.

Can you help.

Thanks James.

Jim (zimmerjim) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmerjim (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean Business card, since Business cards is just a redirect, and has been for nearly 10 years. The article Business card is semi-protected, which prevents new users from editing, but you are by no means a new user, so you should be able to edit it. I found a reference which looked like a spam link, which I guess is the one you mean. I removed it using my alternative account, which does not have administrator status, to check that there is no problem editing with a non-admin account, as you can see in this edit. You should have been able to do the same. The only possible explanation I can think of is that you may have been trying to edit the section of the article headed "References". Although the references are shown there, because that's where the {{reflist}} tag is, the actual links for the references occur in the text of the article, where the little numbers like [3] are shown in he article, and that is where you have to edit. If you already know that, and that wasn't the cause of the problem, then I have no idea what it was. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

James - Thanks, I get it... I hadn'd seen that before. Thank you. Take care. Jim - zimmerjim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmerjim (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerardw

"An editor called Gerardw" — right, I remember that editor. Now called User: NE Ent. :-) (Good decline.) Bishonen | talk 21:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC).

Yes, I know that the editor has changed his username more than once, but I couldn't be bothered checking what the latest name was, since it was irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

At some point I essafied that into WP:NOJUSTICE, which might save you some typing time in the future (whatever my account name happens to be then). Gerardw / Nobody / Ent New User/ Entbot /Jester of the Court / NE Ent 20:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC) What's is name? That which we call a skunk...

Yes, I had seen that before. However, I still like the comment that I quoted, because it is short and direct and to the point. For what it's worth, when I wrote "I couldn't be bothered checking what the latest name was", I really meant "I didn't bother to check whether the latest username I've got for him (NE Ent) is still current, and if so quote it, or if not find what the latest one is and quote that". I have both the username under which you posted the original comment, and your current username, on file together with the quote itself, which I keep in store so that I can quote it when appropriate. I have done that a number of times, and I daresay I will again. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Langah

Hi mate i have moved the langah to langah(Clan) because i myself belong to that community and many factions amongst us claim to be afghan, jat, arain, baloch, pashtun. So i thought it would be better that article has all that info rather than the title as title gave final suggestion of who langah are. Also in the article there is clear mention of sources who support my move [[1]]

[[2]]

These are references regrading the article. I would appreciate if you can have a read over these article. i would have sourced the move but i thought i will post on your talk page first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know whether the move is justified or not, so unless someone else objects i will leave it as it is. However, you should be very careful in any editing about the community that you belong to, in case you appear to be acting from a non-neutral point of view. If you have not already done so, i suggest looking at the conflict of interest guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert N. Rooks

A declined speedy deletion isn't legitimate grounds to restore gross WP:BLP violations. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No, but I don't see this as "gross WP:BLP violations". I see it as content the essential substance of which is verified by unimpeachable sources. I also see it as an article about a subject which is not notable by Wikipedia standards, but that is not "gross WP:BLP violations". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. For more on this, see WP:BLPN: [4]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see that CSD:G10 requires the article to be both negative and unsourced. In this case, however, virtually none of the cited sources comply with reliable sourcing for BLP. There are multiple links to court documents, other links are to PR releases, and the only linked secondary sources are news reports that mention Rooks in passing, but do not support the statements made in the article. Hence my interpretation of this page as being "unsourced." Perhaps a better term would be "not reliably sourced." --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup: if the article is "not reliably sourced", one can only assume that (given the content) it violates WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not unsourced, and as for "poorly sourced", what does that mean? The only reasonable interpretation in the context is that it means lacking sources that are reliable enough to be considered as verifying the content. In this context, it is worth pointing out that the text you quote is accompanied by a reference to a page headed "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". This is not misleading or false information: it is accurate information, but it just happens to be about someone who is not very notable. Contrary to what an astonishing number of Wikipedia editors seem to think, evidence that a statement about a person is true and evidence that the person is notable are two utterly, completely, and totally different things. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

See ANI thread here: [5]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have thought about this at considerable length, and decided that I was mistaken in declining the speedy deletion nomination as an attack page. I intended to come back and delete the article, but by the time I had a chance to get back on line Drmies had already deleted it. I believe I was reading CSD G10 too narrowly. I also think that I was giving too much weight to some aspects of the BLP policy and too little to other aspects. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • James, your note on ANI is much appreciated, and let me just reiterate, in case that wasn't clear, that I think these things are judgement calls and in no way should my different judgement be taken as criticism. I agree with your comment on Andy's tone: Andy, you should know that your behavior and tone are criticized often enough by a lot of people, and here was one of the reasons why. Too much dramah. Thank you, though, for your continued vigilance in article space and, James, thank you again for all you do for the project and for your ANI comment. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Indefinite Block of Joefromrandb. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Child Marriage in Pakistan ‎

I am again attempting to post Child Marriages in Pakistan. Pls take out any portion that you discern to be amounting to advocacy. Hopefully, you will not delete the whole article. Thanks.AJillani (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity

Did you really mean to block 198.168.27.221 until 2019? Peridon (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

James, for the record, because I know you can decide for yourself, I felt that an anon-block of this length for an IP with this amount of history was wholly reasonable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, and believe Peridon will as well; upon seeing JamesBWatson's congruent rationale, given below.—John Cline (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I certainly meant to block the IP address for several years, though I wouldn't regard the exact number as sacrosanct. When an IP address has been in use for 7 years, and in that time has made hundreds of edits, almost all of which are vandalism or other disruptive editing, and has received a number of short blocks which have not put a stop to the problem, in my opinion it makes perfect sense to block for a long time. Yes, I am fully aware of the argument "but it is likely to be a different person this time". In fact, just a week ago I had a real-life conversation with an administrator who used this argument in connection with school blocks. "But it's likely to be a different kid next time", he said. Yes, and so what? That is relevant only if you think that blocks are intended to be punitive: you don't want to punish someone for what another person has done. However, if blocks are intended to be preventive, then it doesn't matter in the least whether it's the same person: if experience over many years indicates that this IP address is virtually certain to be the source of tons of vandalism and little if anything else, then blocking the IP address will help to prevent that vandalism, whether it is from one person or from 200 people. There is, in my opinion, no case at all for yet another block for 31 hours, or one month, which will be followed by many months of vandalism when the block expires, until someone eventually gets round to making a report at AIV, and the IP address gets blocked for another 2 weeks. That way, 90% of the vandalism which would have happened still does happen, so we might as well not bother blocking at all. There would be a good case for blocking for a year or two, on the distant and improbable chance that in that time the IP address might be reallocated, if it weren't for the fact that it's more than a 90% probability that the result would be a return to vandalism at the end of that time, followed by another paltry block for 72 hours or some such ridiculous time. One more thought on this is based on my own experience. I used to edit anonymously, as an IP editor, until one day in 2006 I found that I couldn't edit at the local library, because the IP was blocked. I created an account for myself, and I have never looked back. Anyone who is serious about making significant contributions is likely to do the same, while casual vandals are more likely to just think "'Oh, well, so I can't change this Wikipedia article to say "Barack Obama is a cheese pie", never mind, I'll find some other way to mess around." JamesBWatson (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to be sure it wasn't a slip. I've told several IP requesters to sign up if they want to avoid the library/workplace block. And take responsibility... Peridon (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

brief note per instructions

Guess I already put it all in the subject line ... 210.22.142.82 (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Copy Request

I am requesting a copy of the article I created for Manoj Saxena. I will create a draft of a proposed new article, fully supported with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject including wiki sources such as Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas San Antonio Branch, List of BITS alumni, and Watson (computer). After I write the article, I will make a request at DRV requesting the community to take a look at my new draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halenorma (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have userfied the article at User:Halenorma/Manoj Saxena, as a temporary measure to allow you a chance to improve it. However, you will need to make sure that the article is not written in a promotional way, and you need to be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have revised the Saxena wikipage Manoj Saxena. Should I now submit or will you first review? Please provide the process. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halenorma (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC) James, do I ask you to review the article that I have re-edit to comply with the policies that you recommended and comment; or do I go directly to the DRV process. Sorry this is my first time at re-reviews. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halenorma (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't reply immediately the first time you asked, because I didn't have a lot of time available, and I didn't want to give a rushed answer before I had had time to look at the revised draft properly. I now have had a look at it, and it is nowhere near as promotional is tone as it was previously, so I have moved it back as an article at Manoj Saxena. There is no need for a deletion review, since I am happy to accept your changes. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, to avoid any risk of misunderstanding, I should specify that I simply mean that I think the changes you have made are sufficient to put it out of reach of speedy deletion as blatantly promotional. I am making no judgement at all on whether it may or may not be deleted for other reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

James, thank you for your response and appreciate you taking your time to review the article. I see on Mr. Saxena's wiki page that there is now a proposed for speedy deletion from Justlettersandnumbers today. I followed the guidelines and policies and not sure what else that I can do. I have kept it very basic. Please advise. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.3.175 (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I can sympathise with how you are probably feeling. You put some effort into writing an article, and saw it deleted because it was too promotional, so you cut out most of the promotional content, only to see it nominated for deletion because of a lack of indication of notability. I can well imagine that this must be frustrating. Unfortunately, this sort of experience is all too common among people coming to Wikipedia to write about themselves, their clients, their businesses, their business associates, or anything else they have a close personal involvement in. To people who seem to have come here because of a wish to contribute in general ways to the encyclopaedia, my advice is always to start by making small improvements to existing articles, and not to try writing any brand new article until they have built up enough experience of Wikipedia to know what sort of thing will be likely to be accepted. However, that advice is probably not much help to you, since you seem to be here to add an article on a particular subject, rather than just to help out wherever you can. In this situation I have seen experienced Wikipedia editors give lots of help and advice on how to write an article, and to avoid the various problems which led to deletion. The newcomer then works hard at trying to apply what they have been told, only to see the article they write deleted again, this time for a different reason. I honestly think that it is more helpful to state quite bluntly that it looks to me as though Mr Saxena does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. If that is the case, then any time spent in trying to save the article about him will be likely to be wasted. Many problems with how an article is written can be put right by rewriting it, but no amount of rewriting an article will change the notability of the subject of the article. My advice, therefore, is that your time would be more effectively employed publicising Mr Saxena's career somewhere else, rather than on Wikipedia. That may seem unfriendly, but my sincere belief is that it would in fact be much much more unfriendly to encourage you to send time on what is likely to be a fruitless endeavour. However, that is just my advice, and it is, of course, up to you whether you follow it or not. If you do choose, despite my advice, to persist with trying to save the article, then I recommend looking first at Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, the specific guideline on notability of people, and the guideline on editing where you may have a conflict of interest. When you have done that, if it seems to you that Manoj Saxena does satisfy the notability guidelines, you can explain why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Saxena (2nd nomination), and if you can make a convincing case then you may manage to save the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan Lipman

Hi,

I made the edit of cite to "Alan Lipman" and have left you a message on his page!

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.206.2 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

One of my favourite aspects of Wikipedia is the detailing that some bring to the editing.

However, it is a true statement that Alan Lipman is the psychologist in WDC known for his expertise on large scale shootings. The fact is that he is one of the principal figures who works against gun violence here in the States. This description would be known to anyone in the States who has had any familiarity with these episodes. As he has been a leading commentator in each of these episodes for at least a decade, and basically has served as a national "voice" on preventing such shootings, the statement that he is the psychologist in DC known for this expertise does appear quite accurate. That the article did not appear to be saying that he is the only psychologist in WDC seems rather clear, yes? Esp. as it then describes that exact expertise in large scale shootings thru the whole of the article. Tho' I am not a fine-parsing grammarian by trade, they did manage to propel my sorry mind thru Cambridge, and this does appear quite reasonably clear, yes?

Myself, I often find myself torn between Hugo's "Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life" and Bertrand Russell's "I do not pretend to start with precise questions. I do not think you can start with anything precise. You have to achieve such precision as you can, as one may hope, as you go along." Here, the fact and the statement that Lipman is the psychologist in WDC known for his expertise on large scale shootings seem rather equivalent--the "the" as neutral as the rest of the article's facts and citations. It seems certainly ambitious but perhaps a bit of "the" conclusory to place a warning that would, however unintentionally, insinuate otherwise. All kindnesses.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.40.29 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Read and understood. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

grammer mistake.

haha whats wrong? (Mathgenious989 (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC))

• I thought it was funny too. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Errm, I'm not sure what to think of this message from you, Mathgenious989. If you hadn't put "haha" in it, I would have thought it meant that you really didn't know what's wrong with "grammer". "Haha" makes me think that perhaps you do know, and find it funny too. However, if by any chance you really don't know, and your message here isn't a joke, then just compare the heading of this section with the heading of the section I made about it on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I realized what was wrong after i posted it wrong its spelled grammar not grammer haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Check

your email please. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've no time for people like this (or rather they waste my time), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atif Ali Khan (2nd nomination). Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

SACFaustonedb (talk · contribs)

Just an FYI, I blocked this account as a spambot. Even though their edit didn't make it live, it obvious that it one of the spambot accounts going around. Another example would be RamonaDoss (talk · contribs) or Chiquita30H (talk · contribs). I and a few other admins have been blocking all these accounts if their edit goes live or not. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you know, I naively took "Stop by my weblog" at its word, and didn't check where the link actually went to. Looking at it now, I see it is nothing of the sort, but a download link. I will look more carefully at any similar accounts I see in future. Thanks for calling my attention to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan Lipman deux

Hello James!

I'm not sure if you read my note above (NinaVia) but would you please be so kind as to remove the warning at the top of Mr. Alan Lipman's page that I created thru my grammatical foibles & cites!

As a graduate student who also spends far too much of her time combing data of others for errors, I know and respect it is noble work! It also leads to a sort of grad student OCD that makes the idea of causing harm or mistake to another so painful that I wind up picking up spiders to put them outside in between parsing data (tho' I can hardly stand it!)

Mr. Lipman's works on the determinants & deterrence of firearm violence are very recognized & familiar, decidedly among those who study mass homicide (like I am now too late!), which is all I intended by my the and cites!

I would appreciate and respect if you would Please be so kind as to remove the warning so I can sleep at night. I do not know him and I value your efforts. I shall not make such edits again and will persevere by lifting spiders! Many thanks for all you do.

Sincerely,

Nina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3C80:AA:3152:E786:6137:CDC4 (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought that my very brief response to your messages above would make it clear that I had indeed read them, but that I did not consider the issues involved to be either important or interesting enough to respond to at greater length. However, your latest message has prompted me to look at the matter in greater depth, and I have found that there is a far more serious issue involved than I realised.

1. Concerns about a conflict of interest in editing the article Alan Lipman were expressed at least as far back as February 2010, and the editing history proides extensive evidence of such a conflict of interest going back way before then.
2. It is certain that you personally, using several IP addresses and at least two registered accounts, have edited the article, and posting to talk pages in connection with Alan Lipman, at least since March 2012. There are further edits to the article which are almost certainly made by you, and certainly either by you or by someone you have been working with, at least since August 2010. There are other edits which are very probably either by you or by someone you have been working with at least since February 2010. Some IP edits which appear to have been made by you, and which are certainly either by you or by someone you have been working with, claim to be from the author of the article, in which case either you individually or a group of two or more people including you have been editing the article since January 2007. Various aspects of such things as style of writing and ways of expressing oneself make it look to me as though you personally have been responsible for much, perhaps all, of the relevant editing, over a period of many years. However, it is actually immaterial whether all the editing in question has been done by one person or by a group of people working together, because Wikipedia treats both cases exactly the same: you may find it instructive to read WP:MEAT. From now on, to avoid such clumsy expressions as "you or someone you have been working with", I shall simply use the word "you", without committal as to whether that is a singular or a plural "you".
3. Over the years you have continued a persistent campaign to include in the article extensive lists of work by Alan Lipman, even though it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that they have no legitimate place there. When it was made clear to you that including a long bibliography section in the article would not be acceptable, you switched to posting numerous references of little relevance to the contents of the article, and adding trivial content to the article which evidently exists purely to serve as a pretext for adding such references. You have been told that this is inappropriate, but have chosen to ignore that. It is abundantly clear that your purpose is to use the Wikipedia article to publicise Lipman's works. Using any Wikipedia page for any kind of promotion is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Posting references for such purposes is known as refspam, and is considered disruptive.
4. The article was once protected for a short period because of persistent disruptive editing. At least one IP address that you used has been blocked for a short period to stop your disruptive editing.
5. Considering the persistence of the disruptive editing you have been doing, and the numer of messages you have received, by now you could well have received extended bloxks from editing. It seems very likely that the only reason that hasn't happened is that fragmentation of the history across numeroos IP addresses and several accounts has meant that, until now, nobody has realised the total extent of the problem.
6. All, or virtually all, of what I have just written is already known to you. I have recorded it here partly for my own benefit, so that I have a reminder of the essential points of the case to refer to if and when I have any reason to refer back to it, partly to collect the information in one place for the convenience of anyone else if and when they have need to review the history of the case, and partly so that it is documented that you have been informed of what the situation is.
7. As I stated above, using Wikipedia for promotion of anything is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Editors who persist in doing so after being informed of that fact may be blocked from editing. You have been informed of the relevant facts repeatedly over the course of several years. I am now informing you that continuing to do the same may lead to blocks on any and every IP address and/or account that appear to be used for that purpose, and that if any such block is imposed during the duration of that block you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia, except to request an unblock, including editing from any other IP address or account. Please note that not editing for promotional purposes is a requirement under Wikipedia policy, it is not just a request, suggestion, or guideline.
8. Considering that some recent edits that you have made are at least in part repetition of edits made long ago, this must rank as one of the longest running edit wars I have ever seen on Wikipedia. If you don't know what an edit war is, or do but are unaware of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, then I very strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Edit warring before you even consider editing the article again. You will find that edit warring is in itself sufficient reason for being blocked from editing Wikipedia, irrespective of any other issues that there may or may not be with an editor's editing. I also suggest that you don't bother taking too much notice of the "three revert rule", because your long-term history of edit warring is sufficient, without any breaches of that rule.
9. There is no question of acceding to your request to remove the conflict of interest notice from the article, since there is abundant evidence to suggest that the article has been heavily edited, and very probably created, by one or more persons with a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As previous contributor to the article (or perhaps more like a janitor - WP:MOS style) I agree with many of the points James has made, particularly regarding the conflict of interest and Ref Spam and I don't have much other to contribute. From my own point of view as an editor I found much of the content trivial and it often read like a WP:Resume. Listing every single instance of where he has appeared as a talking head on a news program does not contribute much to the article and is sufficiently summarized, as it is currently, in a single sentence. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Atif Ali Khan

I don't understand why you undid the history merge of Atif Ali Khan. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you didn't undo the merge, you just cleaned it up. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#History merge of Atif Ali Khan. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus Issue

Hi JamesBWatson!

It's been a while! I hope all things are going well. I had a question regarding consensus. A page I had worked on in the past has experienced a bit of back and forth between editors that I initially stayed out of. One new editor insists on labeling the subject of the page in a particular way against a consensus of past and present editors who agree that the label is not appropriate. To me, the new editor's reasons for the label is borderline "I don't like it and I don't agree with you so therefore it should be this way" while the literature cited is clearly against him. I myself had done quite a bit of research and am familiar with where the new editor is coming from and to me it is obvious that he has not done his homework on the subject matter. His statements also reveal a personal dislike toward the subject. What should I do?

Thanks as always! —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 03:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

I guess that you are referring to the disagreement over the article Witness Lee. If so, I think two facts about the handling of the dispute are significant. Firstly, although Chuckd83 evidently disagrees with others in the talk page discussion, he/she has attempted to compromise, by not insisting on the word "denomination", but instead switching to "affiliation". Such a willingness to compromise is an encouraging sign, and perhaps all the participants in the debate could try discussing the possibility of finding a compromise that all could accept, rather than repeatedly arguing about what is not agreed. Secondly, I see that much of the discussion has centred on the issue of what the members of the relevant churches say about themselves. However, Wikipedia does not necessarily reflect what people say of themselves, and the question should be not "how do they describe themselves?" but rather "how do independent, third party sources typically describe them?" Has anyone tried to find an answer to that? I don't know whether either of those suggestions will be helpful at all. If not, you could look at Wikipedia:dispute resolution for suggestions. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Romeo Hendrix

You deleted Romeo Hendrix, however it has recently been recreated. Might want to delete and salt this time, as the new article, like the old, has no references. Jinkinson talk to me 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It had already been deleted again by someone else by the time I saw your message, but if I notice it has reappeared again I will consider salting. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

I copied your response to me on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#David Z to Talk:David Z#Regarding my deletion concern in the above section. I did that to make sure that the answer to my concern raised in Talk:David Z#Requested move was addressed and viewable on Talk:David Z. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems a pretty good thing to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Vin Cipolla Wikipedia article

I do not understand why this article was deleted... I had help from a Wiki editor who crafted it according to Wikipedia rules... please advise how I can get this article reinstated... 67.86.14.24 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering why you deleted the Vin Cipolla article that WikiDan61 edited for me... please advise... Letterscd (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I was advised to ask you to review your decision to delete the Vin Cipolla article.... I think Cipolla is a significant figure meriting a Wikipedia article... Letterscd (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Letters; I had originally tagged his article for deletion, but then, upon review, decided to edit the article into something I thought was a fairly neutral representation of his accomplishments based on available sources. The guy appears to be a fairly significant figure in the historic site preservation community. I don't have the time at the moment to fully work on this article, but if Letters can work on it in his user space, I can give the time to review the article before reintroduction to main space. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Having looked back at the article, I accept that, while the original version was highly promotional, the final version was much better, so I have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Why thank you I have tried to make more contributive edits to the sit. (Mathgenious989 (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC))

I've mentioned you at

WP:ANI#3 more paid editors?. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested.
Message added 07:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Unforgettableid (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

About "Romeo Hendrix" page should not be deleted

I personally think that you should reactivated the Romeo Hendrix page because it is not violence page, romeo is a teen whos trying to share his talent with the world and how can he do it without your help? please open it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramicswagg (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia does not exist to help people "share [their] talent with the world", otherwise known as helping them to promote their work. In fact, persistently using Wikipedia for promotion purposes can lead to being blocked from editing. As for not being a "violence page", that is irrelevant, as that was not the reason for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ZS Associates

I am an employee of a company called Sikich LLP. We work on behalf of ZS Associates,and are trying to understand what violations occurred when the ZS Associates page was deleted. It appears the ZS Associates page was deleted in 2009 and again in 2013. At this time, we are requesting to view archived content from both the 2009 and 2013 deleted pages. Please send these archived pages to the email address associated with my account (sarp_14@yahoo.com). Thank you! - Sarp14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarp14 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Retartist's talk page.
Message added 23:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Retartist (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick Favor

JamesBWatson,

I saw that you deleted my sandbox because it was "unchanged promotional content." I have recreated the page and tried to remove all of the promotion that I could find and make it sound as neutral as possible. Would you mind taking a look at it and tell me if I am going in the right direction to abide by Wikipedia's regulations.

Thank you for all that you do to keep Wikipedia in top condition.

Gmninja97 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks distinctly better now. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Bio-warn-deletion

I don't understand the more complex template syntax, so I come to check that what I have just done is right. I have been having trouble with {{Bio-warn-deletion}} mucking up a following signature like this:

JohnCD (talk) 20

30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

and have traced it to a trailing semi-colon which was introduced in this edit. So I have removed the semi-colon, and all seems to be well; but I invite you to check that I have not screwed up something else.

There is another improvement I could suggest: it seems that the code generated ends with a newline, which means that if the person adding the template follows it with a space and then a signature, in the usual way, the result is:

JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

One can go back and fix that, or learn to avoid it by omitting any space before signature, but it's a mild nuisance and not consistent with most other templates (though some others, particularly the {{subst:contrib-es1}} series, do also behave like that). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these problems out to me. It's embarrassing to realise that I left such glaring problems in the template, indicating that I didn't check the effects of the change as carefully as I should have done. I included the semicolon because that's how it's shown in the documentation at Template:Z number doc. However, I now see that there is a semicolon at the end of each numbered instruction in the "Creation and usage" section of that page, and evidently they are intended as part of the syntax of the writing of those instructions, rather than part of the syntax of the text to copy, so I was wrong to include the semicolon, and you were right to remove it. I am inclined to edit the documentation to remove the semicolons, to remove the risk of anyone else making the same misreading. As for the stray newline, it was easy to remove that. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for rapid response and, yes, I agree with removing the semicolons from the documentation page. It has always seemed to me that coding has a strong resemblance to magic: get it exactly right, and the effects are extremely powerful, but one false step and you turn into a toad. I don't know whether the other half-dozen variants like nn-warn-deletion need attention, I didn't check them. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I like the magic and toad analogy: very apt. It's unlikely that the other related templates have the same problems, since the problems stem from an edit of mine, which I have not done to the others, although of course it's possible that someone else has made the same mistake. I'll have a quick look at them. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had that quick look. None of the others has either of the same two problems, and I didn't see any other problems either. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Point Inside Page

Hi!

I'm an employee at Point Inside and was wondering why our page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Point_Inside was deleted? I wasn't aware of any violations.

Crystalleaver (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Crystal

Presumably you have asked me because my name is one of those which appears in the block log for the article. However, my own involvement was merely deleting debris remaining where there had been an article which had been moved into userspace. That is to say it had been moved from the publicly visible face of Wikipedia into a temporary holding page for a user to work on it. Usually, when a page is moved from one place to another, a "redirect" is automatically created, which means that the original page is replaced by a pointer to the new page, so that anyone trying to access the old page will be redirected to the new one, rather than just getting nothing. However, when the move is from article space to userspace it is Wikipedia policy that there should not normally be a redirect, and all I did was delete such an unwanted redirect. I had no involvement in anything to do with the article itself, as opposed to that redirect. However, in order to be able to give you as helpful an answer to your question as I can, I have spent some time looking into the history of the article, and as far as I can see the situation is as follows.

The article, as originally created, was substantially promotional, looking much like an advertisement, which is totally unacceptable, as Wikipedia is not a free advertising service or a medium for promotion of businesses (nor indeed for promotion of anything). For some reason (I have no idea what) the person who created it repeatedly moved it back and forth between main article space and userspace. It became evident that the account used to do that was one of a large number of accounts that were used collectively to abuse Wikipedia by using it to post vast numbers of spam articles. It is likely that many of these accounts were duplicate accounts, with one person using multiple accounts for the purpose of appearing to be several people (known as sockpuppets), but there may also have been numerous accounts actually used by different people acting together to evade Wikipedia policy (known as meatpuppets). Either way, it was decided that the article was created by someone using a new account to evade a block on one or more existing accounts, and that is the reason that it was deleted. However, even if that had not been the case, it is highly likely that it would have been deleted for other reasons, such as that it was promotional.

Your use of the expression "our page" suggests that you may have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not exist to hold pages on behalf of companies, other organisations, or individual people, to publish information about them on their behalf. That is the function of a company's own web site, or of advertising sites or business promotion sites, not of an encyclopaedia. A Wikipedia article needs to be a neutral, third party, account, and Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy strongly discourages anyone involved with a company or other organisation writing about it. This includes owners of a company, employees of a company, people paid by a company to use Wikipedia to host promotional content about the company, and anyone else connected with the company. You may find it helpful to look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which gives advice and information on many issues relating to articles about businesses and other organisations. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have now read considerably more about this case than I knew when I wrote the above response to your query. It turns out that this involves a company which has been soliciting custom from enormous numbers of businesses and people to write promotional pieces about them on Wikipedia. The company has been deliberately dishonest about its work, going to considerable lengths to hide the nature of what it has been doing from Wikipedians, and also making false or at best misleading statements to its "clients" about various issues, such as giving false statements to clients who have asked why articles about them have been deleted. It is a huge and complex case, and what I know about it appears to be a small fragment of the whole story, but it seems that there have been highly unethical practices involved. Hundreds of articles created by this group of people who have made a business out of misusing Wikipedia have been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

CSD

I tagged Make Up For Ever for deletion per A7, but on this discussion on my tp I would lke a second set of eyes on it. I won't be in the slightest offended if you decline it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Suriname‎

Last July you removed (I think by mitake) the move-protection (sysop) of the article Suriname‎. Considering it is a highly-visible page that doesn't need to be moved and that has been move-vandalized, can you restore it? Thank you. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right in thinking that the reduction in level of move protection from sysop to autoconfirmed was a mistake. However, the article has been subject to page move vandalism only once, and that was more than seven years ago, so I don't see any need for restoring the protection. It is not a highly visible page in the sense that the Administrators' noticeboard and articles selected as "Today's featured article" on the main page are: it is just an article. Since we don't normally protect pages preemptively, unless there are specific reasons to think that the page is particularly at risk, I don't see that restoring the protection to its former level is justifiable. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Rather than accept your mistake, you took your decision to not re-protect. Fine, would you like to make more "mistakes" to any other of the countries that are move-protected? Go ahead. Don't waste your time with a reply I won't read. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Rather than accept your mistake". I did accept that I had made a mistake. However, granted that the protection is not currently there, and that there has been no recent page move vandalism, I can see no justification in line with Wikipedia policy and accepted practice for imposing it now. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect all the 205 articles that you left then. Most of them, if not all, are not "highly visible page in the sense that the Administrators' noticeboard" or "articles selected as 'Today's featured article' on the main page", and all of them are "just articles". As pages are not "protected preemptively", there's no reason why they should continue to have move-protection. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RRNB report you may be interested in

Please see here... Zad68 20:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Talk archive navigation

Template:Talk archive navigation has been nominated for merging with Template:Automatic archive navigator. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Genital modification and mutilation

IN REGARDS TO YOUR TALK TO ME NOVEMBER 2013:Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Genital modification and mutilation. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Doing this from a registered account is no more acceptable than doing it anonymously. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE: It is objective truth that genital modification is different than genital mutilation. The difference lies predominantly in consent. That is what I was clarifying with a more accurate and neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Mutilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mutilation‎ Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body...

Modification is consensual. Mutilation is not.

Any physical injury inflicted on another person is a violation of their human right to safety and their natural body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy apply to the issue of genital integrity? Does Wikipedia present a balanced perspective on genital modifications versus genital mutilations? Do Wikipedia articles present balanced perspectives of male circumcision versus female circumcision?

Currently, Wikipedia has a page “Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision.” In contrast, a search for male genital mutilation redirects to “Genital modification and mutilation.” The page on “Circumcision” addresses only male circumcision. And “Genital Integrity” links to “circumcision controversies.”

It is common sense that genital integrity is a human right. Not a controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 12:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, but common sense has no place in articles. We only include things from reliable sources. Your opinion has no bearing. ES&L 13:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It is an opinion. Whether you and I, or any other Wikipedia editors, agree or disagree with that opinion or not, and whether we regard it as "common sense" or not, it is still an opinion. It is also factually incorrect to state that the opinion is "not a controversy", as there are many people who regard imposing circumcision on children as totally unacceptable, and many others who regard it as acceptable, and even morally required. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I AM PROMOTING TRUTH. THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN MUTILATION AND MODIFICATIONTHAT THIS ARTICLE MUST ADDRESS TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Tell me what is the difference between MODIFICATION and MUTILATION?!?

That is the topic of the article, but it is not addressed at all in the version that you keep reverting back to. Please be objective as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

THE DIFFERENCE IS CONSENT AND INTENT. THIS IS A FACT, NOT MY PERSONAL OPINION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

1. You are mistaken in saying that I "keep reverting back to" a version of an article. If you check the edit history of the articles in question, you will see that I have made one revert at Circumcision and law and one at Genital modification and mutilation, and I have never made any other edit to either of those articles.
2. I evidently had not expressed myself as clearly as I thought I had, because I thought that, in a post on your talk page, I had made it clear that promotion is unacceptable on Wikipedia even if you are convinced that what you are promoting is THE TRUTH, but it is clear from your comments that I have not managed to convey that message.
3. Almost everybody promoting a view believes that the view they are promoting is the truth, so if, rather than having a policy "you may not use Wikipedia to promote a point of view", Wikipedia had a policy "you may not use Wikipedia to promote a point of view unless you are convinced that that policy is he truth", then the policy would be completely pointless. However, whether you agree with that or not, the policy is that you may not use Wikipedia to promote a point of view even if you believe it is the truth.
4. The view you express certainly is an opinion, and it is by no means universally held. Indeed, there are many millions of people who believe that forcibly removing parts of children's genitals, without their consent, is the will of god.
5. You ask me what the difference is between "modification" and "mutilation". I could easily give you my personal opinion on that question, but to do so would be to completely miss the point, because the whole point is that my opinion is every bit as irrelevant to what goes into a Wikipedia article as your opinion or any other Wikipedia editor's opinion. A Wikipedia article should not express the opinions of those who wrote it: it should impartially report what existing published reliable sources say, without giving any greater weight to a view because those who edited the article agree with the view.
6. It is a very common mistake to think that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means that anyone can use Wikipedia to publish anything they like. As a consequence, we get huge numbers of people coming here because they think Wikipedia is an ideal medium for publicising something, whether it be a business, a start-up band, a new game, a religious or political opinion, a great injustice in the which needs to be put right, or whatever else it may be. I have every sympathy with such people, who come here in good faith, and in some cases put a significant amount of time and effort in, only to see all their work thrown away. However, no matter how much I sympathise with such people, the fact remains that their starting point is a misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" means not that anyone can use Wikipedia for any purpose that they think is a good and noble one, but rather that anyone is welcome to help contribute to the project to build an encyclopaedia, within the limitations of the project's guidelines and policies. Note that the emphasis is "you are welcome to help us achieve our goal if you would like to", not "we will help you achieve your goal".
7. Whether you are happy with the fact or not, Wikipedia policy is that we do not use Wikipedia to promote our beliefs of what is the truth. There are plenty of websites that let you do exactly that, and you are perfectly free to go to one of those to campaign for the view that surgical modification of people's genitals without their consent is unacceptable, or for any other view that you believe is true and should be propagated and publicised. However, that is not what Wikipedia is for, and if that is your purpose then unfortunately you made a mistake coming to Wikipedia to do it. If, on the other hand, you are willing to make contributions to the encyclopaedia, from a neutral point of view, and keep clear of putting statements into articles because you believe they are true, then you are, of course, very welcome indeed to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, I will remember it from now on.--Jockzain (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Cosplay photos

Are Cosplay photos allowed on wiki?[6] It seems that only certain people are being picked to being shown. What prevents someone else from putting a picture of someone else or themselves? Why does this user get to pick which cosplay photo gets to be used?108.82.14.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Before I say anything else about this, I have a few words of advice. Try to give explanations that make it clear what you have in mind. The last time you asked me about this, I read your query as meaning that you thought for some reason that photographs of people in fancy dress of the kind known as "cosplay" were offensive, and should not be allowed. When I read your latest message to me, at first I took it that way too. However, having looked at your editing history, including talk page posts and edit summaries, I now see a different interpretation is possible. Perhaps you mean that one or more people are putting "cosplay" photographs of themselves into articles where there is little relevance to the article, and the purpose is more to do with getting themselves seen than to do with enhancing the coverage of the subject of the article. Is that what you mean, or something like it? If so, both in talk page posts and in edit summaries, you could have made it much clearer. For example, if you remove a picture from an article with the edit summary "Again with the cosplay photos?" or worse still with no edit summary at all, anyone who sees that will have no idea why you object to the picture, and may well see it simply as vandalism. Likewise, asking "Are Cosplay photos allowed here on Wikipedia?" looks as though you simply object to photographs of people in silly fancy dress, even in cases where having such a photograph is perfectly relevant to an article. Maybe that is what you mean, maybe it isn't, I am trying to make a best guess on the basis of what I have seen of your editing, but it would be much easier if you actually stated in clearer terms exactly what it is that you object to, so that I wouldn't have to guess.

If you really did just mean that you regard "cosplay" photographs as objectionable, and that you think they shouldn't be allowed, then I have nothing to add to the answers I gave you last time you asked me about this. You can see those answers at User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 55#Cosplay photos and User talk:68.75.28.196.

If, however, you mean that people are putting irrelevant "cosplay" photographs of themselves into articles as a way of using Wikipedia for self-publicity, then you may well have a point. In that case:

1. When you remove such an image, always give an edit summary which briefly indicates your reason for removing it.
2. If you are dealing with an editor who repeatedly does this, post to their talk page explaining your concerns. Be prepared to discuss the issues on user talk pages and/or the talk pages of the articles in question. Doing this has at least four advantages: (1) you may be able to persuade the other editor to stop; (2) the other editor may be able to make it clear to you that they do in fact have a good reason for what they have done after all; (3) if the discussion doesn't lead to an agreement, and you need to take the matter further, you will get a much more sympathetic hearing from others if it is clear that you made a good attempt to resolve the issues; (4) if the matter ever is taken further, other editors can easily see the history of what happened in the discussion, rather than having to search through editing history of various articles.
3. If attempts at resolving the matter by discussion have failed, you may need to bring other peoploe in to help. There are various ways of doing this, as you can see at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution perhaps the simplest being a friendly request for a third opinion from another editor.
4. If you believe another editor has been acting disruptively (perhaps, for example, by edit warring, or by persistently using Wikipedia for promotional purposes) then you can request administrative intervention. You can do this by means of a report at whichever of the administrators' noticeboards is most relevant (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), but very often a quicker and simpler method is to ask an individual administrator for help. You are welcome to ask me for such help, but I am unlikely to take any action unless you have clearly made constructive attempts to resolve the issues by discussion. I am also unlikely to take action unless you make it clear which other editor(s) is/are involved, and when and where they have made the questionable edits: I don't want to have to search through hundreds of edits to try to find who added the cosplay pictures to the articles in question.

Finally, I strongly recommend getting a Wikipedia account. There are several advantages in doing so, and in this case it will make it much easier to keep track of what is going on. I have managed to find one other IP address you used some months ago, and putting together what I have seen from that IP address and this one gives me a clearer idea of what you have in mind, but I have no idea whether you have made other edits from yet other IP addresses that might be relevant and might help to make your case clearer. It is also an unfortunate fact that a large number of editors take less notice of anything said by an editor without an account, so having an account may help to get your points taken more seriously by some editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Hi, can you please semi-protect Alice (Avril Lavigne song) with expires two years, 2015, because "long-term disruptive editing on a number of related articles by an IP-hopping vandal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.179.2 (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention whatever in taking sides in any case of the infantile process known as "genre warring". I could protect the article, not for the one-sided reason you suggest, but for the more symmetrical reason of edit warring, but what would be the point? "Genre warring" is a complete waste of the time of the people who choose to do it, but it does no harm to anyone else. If people choose to spend their time quarreling over the exact wording which best describes in a one or two word summary the style of popular music made by some musician or group of musicians, then that is their choice. Alternatively, I could block the IP ranges that have been used, and I may consider doing that if I find that, as you suggest, the IP editors in question have been troublesome on a number of articles. However, if I do so then I will consider blocking both sides. As I said above, I have no intention of taking sides in this childish game. I would also be unlikely to block a lot of individual IP addresses each with a very small number of edits, with no evident reason to suppose they have all been used by one person. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Since writing the above comment, I have discovered that you have a history of requesting semi-protection of articles, in what looks rather like attempts to use semi-protection to protect your preferred version in articles subject to content disputes. If that is so, then it is a disruptive abuse of semi-protection, and may lead to your being blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Image Question (Part 2)

Previous Discussion: User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_53#Image_Question

You may remember back in May that we discussed a matchbook cover for the WKEY page. There wasn't a copyright for the image or the matchbook, so we kinda just winged it. Well, it's up for discussion on the WP:PUF board here. The image was kinda part of what made the article a GA, so I don't want to lose that, but I'm not sure what to do. Any help you can give would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've expressed an opinion in the discussion, and we'll have to see how it goes. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Need Your support for adding content for women care

Please note that we are from digital agency and Stayfree India given us instruction to create the page for the stayfreewomenforindia and it is not for the promotion of the product but it is for the good cause of the women in India . I really don't know who on the Stayfree page in the wiki , the wiki user is promotion. We can send you the content for the approval . It is genuine and original content for the periods , how to cure on those days . We would like to make awareness to women to use sanitary pads because it is very safe for the health.

Please let us know how we can add the content for women care in wiki . If you need we can use the J&J official id for this page . Hope to get the positive answer from your end — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getdpg (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I normally prefer to answer a message on the page where it was posted, on this occasion I have judged it more helpful to reply on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your detailed reply .I am mostly writing for the social cause and my motive is really very true for women in India . I would like most of the ladies aware the problems sue to the period cycle and how to handle these problems in later age . I am very open and true person and i am working for the noble world women cause . Can i send the content for the approval and review . If you get time please review it and can we add some content in the current stayfree page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getdpg (talk • contribs) 09:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly you can send me any draft content, and I will have a look at it. However, you really do need to bear in mind all the issues that I have mentioned on your talk page. You may also like to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. In view of the title of that page, it is especially striking that you actually used both the words "noble" and "cause" in referring to the campaign you are trying to promote. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

James i have small query , you have allowed user to create the wiki page for Splenda ,etc brands . When We were publishing the Stayfree wiki page for women cause, you have rejected the content . Please can you tell me the reason behind that . There should be a specific reason to reject the Stayfree brand wiki pages .Please can you help us to live the content for Stayfree page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getdpg (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

1. It is natural for anyone with a limited amount of experience of editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable. Unfortunately, however, it is not a reliable guide, for reasons you can see if you read WP:OTHERSTUFF.
2. As has been explained to you, the "specific reason" for deletion of the article StayfreeIndia was that it was promotional, not that it was about a brand.
3. I had never heard of "Splenda" before I saw this message from you, let alone seen the Wikipedia article about it. However, glancing quickly at the article Splenda, I see no immediately obvious problem with it, and it is certainly not blatant advertising, in the way that much of your editing has been. If you sincerely cannot see the difference, then I can only assume that you work in marketing/PR/advertising/etc and are so used to writing and reading marketing speak all the time that you have become desensitised to it and cannot see it when it is right in front of you.
4. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything, as has been explained to you repeatedly. That is a matter of Wikipedia policy, and is compliance with the policy is not optional. There is no question of my helping anyone to use Wikipedia for promotion. As has already been explained to you, that applies no matter what is being promoted, and no matter whether it is a worthwhile and deserving cause. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI closure

Perhaps there was an edit conflict, but your close was just undone... --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Thanks anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hope you don't mind but my mentor User:Nick-D is away and you are familiar with past problems with User:Gaba p. I saw he had opened a thread at WP:ANI regarding a dispute with another editor. WP:ANI#Please comment on vandalism accusation It seems very similar behaviour to what I remember, with him being unable to drop the WP:STICK over what he sees as a slight. Do you think I should comment or stay out of it? Personally keen to stay well away but hate to see the same thing repeated to someone else. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, but surely I'm the one who hounds him and bullies him and won't leave him alone. Do as you will Wee. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have just gone through by far the most frustrating piece of Wikipedia editing I have ever known. I have experienced to an almost endless string of (1) edit conflicts (2) internet connection problems (3) delays over problems with loading and running scripts (whether that problem was at my internet browser or at the Wikimedia servers I know not) and one case of (4) an editor reverting my edit apparently by mistake. These problems have all interacted with one another, so that, for example, my attempts to correct problem (4) were frustrated by further examples of (2) and (3). The result has been that one edit that should have taken me about two minutes at the most instead took, at a guess, probably over half an hour. However, the end result can be seen here. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

James, I thank you for your patience and your timely intervention. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering how things were going I certainly think the result was a bit much. Anyway, regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

my recent request for help

Dear James, I received your comments to my inquiry for help

. Could you please delete my submission altogether? Or, tell me how to do this? Thank you and sorry for wasting your time. Best, T. 98.219.80.193 (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing that you are the editor who has edited under the username Tinacornely. If so, just log into your account, and drop a note here confirming that you want the page you created deleted, and I will delete it. I can't take your word for it that you are the same person if you edit anonymously without logging in (even though I think you probably are) because we do sometimes get impostors pretending to be another editor. (By the way, you don't need a "help me" tag to ask me for help on my talk page, as I will see anything you post here anyway. "Help me" is for attracting other editors to a page, who otherwise would have no reason to look here, and wouldn't see your message.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Appeal for removal of my page

I wrote everything with reference and evidence. But why did you always removed my reference and finally the page?? Am i jobless? You wasted my time. We extracted the information from a university's website. He doesn't wrote it itself. It is from 3rd party. Don't you know that Colorado State University can't publish anonymous/fake contents?? That is 100% true

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Shenthuran_Maheswaran

Send me email to: rajniroshan24@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.163.44 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to an article about a person who, the article tells us, has been a research student, and has then gone on to have a job at Microsoft. The article describes him as "educator, engineer and writer". It also tells us a few other things about him, such as that he is "contributing as a member of United Nations Public Administration Network", which, on following the provided link, I discover means that he has signed up to a site where (as far as I can see) anyone can create an account. It also tells us various things which are only tangentially related to the person who is the subject of the article, such as that Colorado State University is the state's land grant university, and that he has a sister who is a medical researcher and that his father is a bank manager. Where among that lot is anything that suggests that this person is significant enough to be the subject of an article in an encyclopaedia? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Brightify

Hi JBW, I think this guy is active again as Brightify3. I've re-opened the FanforClarl SPI, just thought I'd mention it to you since you were active on it. I can't remember if it was ever confirmed that Brightify was the same idiot. I'm also confused because FanforClarl's User page says that he's a sock of Brightify, but I couldn't find an SPI for Brightify. Anyhow, I'll stop rambling. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

From Old to New

Hi JamesBWatson, I'm so happy to hear this from you: "move the old page to here, and merge the histories of the two page." That's how I see it too, but you're the admin so you're the man! It's all yours commander! :P Timlightrn (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work, Sir JamesBWatson! Thank you so much for your great help. Timlightrn (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss a remark you made

In [7] you believe that I am "trolling or not far short of trolling" by posting the question on your talkpage.

Since it seems you really perceive talk (started by me) about that remark you made as trolling, I do not see how I could get anywhere by questioning that remark without a third opinion.

I don't feel it's possible to argue against your accusation, that raising the issue "not far short of trolling," without a third opinion, because doing so will make you feel I'm trolling even more.

Thus, I raised this issue in Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you know, a major contribution to my decision that your comment was not meant constructively was the fact that you phrased it ostensibly as a request for information about whether the edit was of a common kind or not, but I got the impression that you actually didn't want to know that, and that your question, phrased in semi-ironic terms, was in fact meant to be a veiled criticism of my edit. The impression that you were not really interested in knowing how common such edits are, but were really using the ostensible question about that as an indirect comment on my edit is amply confirmed by this post. For a start, look at the section heading: "Refusal to discuss a remark you made". You have never asked me to discuss a remark I have made. If you have any question about any "remark" I have made, then ask it directly, without beating about the bush, and you never know, I may even answer it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

People should be able to see that I was pretty surprised to read your comment in Wikipedia, and I clearly intended to raise an issue with it if you do not succeed in producing argument that it is commonplace and accepted in Wikipedia (i.e. many administrators make similar or stronger/worse remarks). 135.0.167.2 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) What do you mean by "raise an issue with it"? (2) That what is "commonplace and accepted"? (3) What do you mean by "Worse remarks?" You have given no indication at all what aspect of my comment you regard as "bad". For example, for all I know you may for some reason think that informing someone that name-calling is out of line with the way Wikipedia works is bad (though I can't think why, as it certainly is), or you may perhaps for some reason think that describing name-calling as "infantile" is contentious (though again I can't think why, as I should have thought that any rational adult would have agreed with that). JamesBWatson (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Third Opinion request made in regard to this matter has been removed. Per its terms, 3O does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct matters (and the indicator in Template:Dispute-resolution about that was obsolete and has now been corrected). For conduct disputes, consider RFC/U, ANI, or ARBCOM. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Raise an issues = discuss it, and if the discussion leads to no agreement, report it to some noticeboard.
2. Commonplace and accepted = something you can repeatedly do without being blocked or warned
3. stronger/worse remarks = you know: Sometimes in situations you really can defend your actions by saying, "everyone else does this without a problem, so how am I getting accused for [...]?"

Since no one's going to call an expert on name calling about whether it's possible you were also name calling, you can always say you didn't. But in case you admit "infantile" is name calling, I have to say that name calling offends people. And what's unfortunately not obvious to people is that how much name calling offends people has no pos correlation with the bad connotation of the words used. If someone on the street called me a madman, I wouldn't be any less offended if the person called me a SoB.

135.0.167.2 (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So now I have properly defined what "stronger/worse" remarks is,, can you understand the question of whether there are common stronger/worse remarks (which don't result in warnings),, or still no? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, let me point out that when I asked "That what is 'commonplace and accepted'?" I went to the trouble to put the word "what" in italics, to emphasise that that was the bit I was asking about: you had referred to something as "commonplace and accepted", and I was asking what you were referring to as "commonplace and accepted". Unfortunately, however, I evidently failed to make what I meant as clear as I thought I had, since you still managed to interpret my question as being a request for a definition of what "commonplace and accepted" means.

You still haven't justified your use of the word "worse". "Worse" only applies if there is something bad.

We are now somewhat nearer to your saying plainly what you mean, though we are not quite there. At least a couple of things are now clearer. In particular, you have confirmed that (as I suspected) your earlier remarks were intended as a veiled threat to take this to one of the drama boards, and you have made it clear that the issue you are interested in is that you think referring to persistent name-calling as "infantile" is, as you put it, "name-calling".

I have seen your modus operandi elsewhere. For example, I have seen your persistent harassing of Beyond My Ken, and I have seen how, when he eventually got through to you that he wasn't going to play any more, you took to making completely pointless edits to his talk page just so that you could throw remarks in edit summaries. I do not intend to get into a similar saga with you, and I sincerely hope that this will be the last time I have to address you. I may also point out that if you continue to pester other editors in the same way, you may well be blocked from editing.

The edit you take exception to was a block notice for an editor who had received numerous messages about the problems with his or her editing. I wished to emphasise one or two points, in order to clarify further the factors which had led to the block, so that the editor would be better placed to avoid similar mistakes in future. One of the issues was persistent name-calling. I pointed out that name-calling is infantile, and is inconsistent with the way that Wikipedia operates. Name-calling is infantile: it is something which children do all the time, but which most adults don't. It is also commonly felt that those adults who do so are showing signs of immaturity. Calling the editor's attention to the fact that his/her behaviour was such as to be seen as infantile stood to help clarify the reasons for the block. It is possible that he or she had not thought about the childish nature of what he or she had been doing, or had not realised that such behaviour was considered unacceptable,and in either of those two cases pointing it out stood to help him or her to reconsider, and avoid doing the same again. (I have seen no similar name-calling in recent edits by the editor, so my comment may indeed have helped, but whether it has or not, that was the hope.)

Since the block, the editor in question has made over 400 edits. If he or she wished to object to my use of the word "infantile" then he would no doubt have done so by now.

I strongly suggest that you now find something more constructive to do with your time. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

JBW, first I want to make it clear to you I'm not harrassing you on the talk page. I only raised one issue, and then asked why you closed it thinking I was maybe "trolling." That was fully unwarranted, and you did not elaborate on that, and you're arguing that you repeatedly can't understand / misunderstood me, so there's a lot to talk about. I'm not saying you are doing this, but make sure you're not asking others questions while warning them to avoid replying. Beyond My Ken refused to reply me but he certainly did not ask me a good question when doing so.

You are calling [8] a "veiled threat." Me reading it, I cannot see how it could not be interpreted as a warning to raise the issue with what you refer to as "drama boards." But if you really must take everything literally as your philosophy, I don't mind a misunderstanding. After all, I did say "I don't think is is the common norm in Wikipedia. But maybe I just don't know about Wikipedia" (the first "is" was a typo of "this"). However, what I have trouble with is that you are also talking as if you only realized this now. In [9] I already went though this with you. Even if you weren't crystal clear of the meaning with that comment, the basic message could not be missed: I intended talk about it with others unless you succeed in arguing that it's nothing much in Wikipedia.

Now, let me get to all this curiosity of what precisely I meant. "Stronger/worse" really is a complicated concept and I knew it was a far-shot for anyone to interpret it right. It of course reads "stronger or worse". I use or because I'm not sure if you'll point out comments more strongly worded but still acceptable, or if those comments are all bad and you find worse ones. I could ask a stuntman, "have you even seen anyone make a braver/stupider stunt than that?" The purpose is that if I were wrong about the stunt being stupid, that sentence would still make sense. If I asked "have you even seen anyone make a stupider stunt than that?" then he won't reply to it if he disagrees, as it's like replying to "do you still beat your wife." There are stuntmen, however, who admit some stunts are essentially stupid.

And to answer that other question I failed to last time: I was asking whether saying "Your perpetual infantile name-calling and [...] are completely out of line with the way Wikipedia works." was commonplace and acceptable.

Lastly, I do not care if the person you banned is an angel or demon. How you wrote your sentence was the problem. If you earnestly believe name-calling is infantile, I'm fine with that. But you looked like you were in a bad mood while writing that sentence. I mean a really bad mood. In other words, the sentence just looks to me as if it's crafted to offend, and to provoke, knowing the recipient cannot retaliate. You're actually strongly implying that not all meaningless name-calling is "infantile," but that temporarily banned (or blocked, or harmonized or whatever you call it) person is infantile. If you really believed meaningless name calling was infantile, that natural straightforward way to word it would be "Your name-calling and [...] are cannot be accepted given the way Wikipedia works. Only children can be expected to use name calling." Even that is too offensive for my tastes, but I've seen many admins do it. It doesn't look like a lot of effort was made to double check if what you said was OK. I'm pretty sure you share my suspicion that the only reason that temporarily banned editor hasn't replied is because he/she doesn't want more drama, not because he/she found it acceptable. If you got away with it then, chances are you still would later.

I used to post things right off the bat in YouTube, but learned that sometimes that makes me an asshole and always reread now.

If everyone on Earth who behaved like the person you addressed was also called infantile while they can't reply, the civility of people will start to drop. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Too many images

Is the Medusa page getting too many images? I mean are those images really necessary? 99.159.253.3 (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• [10]

Obviously, what is "too many" is a matter of opinion, but I have no problem with them. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre long term Kennedy assassination vandalism

Hello, you have protected various articles that this IP vandal has used to connect a singer to the Kennedy assassination. The user has been doing this for years. A few months ago you protected this article. After a break the IP has recently continued. I submitted an AIV last time but there was no block on the IP. I was wondering if you could block. Thank you again for your work. See [11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24] --CutOffTies (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to go off line now, and don't have time to deal with this. I will try to look into it when I can, but it may not be for quite a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks, take your time. I just wanted to go to you instead of AIV since you are familiar with situation. Thanks! --CutOffTies (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when I next logged in I completely forgot about this, and it has taken a few days for me to remember it. I have now blocked the latest IP address, but I don't know how effective that will be, since the vandal has used other IP addresses. I didn't block last time because there were multiple IP addresses used, and it seems that I only knew of one article affected, judging from the fact that the AIV report mentioned only one, and my comment said I had semi-protected "the article". With one article and several IP addresses, article protection makes more sense than IP-blocking. However, I now see that the situation is more complex, with both multiple IP addresses and multiple articles, and with the problem continuing over a long period. In this situation, unfortunately there is no complete solution to the problem, but revert and block each time the edits are seen can help. At the least, that can somewhat reduce the problem, and sometimes it can eventually stop the problem, as the vandal finally gets tired of having to keep evading block after block, and gives up. So please do let me know if and when you see the same again. I will also have a look at the history of the articles, and decide whether more semi-protection is worth considering. However, very often it is better not to protect articles, because it encourages the vandal to move onto other articles, rather than sticking to the same few, and that can make it harder to spot further edits by the vandal. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now looked at all the edits you listed, both here and at AIV, and at all the other edits by the same IP addresses. It seems to me that there is no point in article protection, and in fact, for the reason I mentioned above, that might even be counter-productive. However, I see that many of the other edits by the same IP addresses are unrelated vandalism, which makes blocking any IP address that comes up even more attractive. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! --CutOffTies (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Functional notation for polynomials

I have reverted your edit in Properties of polynomial roots‎‎, to remove functional notation. The main reason of the removal is the following: IMO, most non specialist readers are either students of elementary courses or users of computer algebra systems (these populations are not necessary distinct). One of the most frequent mistake of the beginners in computer algebra is to use functional notation to denote polynomials and, more generally expressions. For this population, it is therefore much better to avoid, when possible, functional notation. For students of elementary courses, this should not be harmful, if the fact that both notations are possible has been clarified. This is the reason of my recent edit of Polynomial to add a section Notation. By the way, the use of functional notation for the substitution of the variable by something else is frequently used in WP (for example in algebraic field extension and Cayley–Hamilton theorem), but, apparently, was not defined, in an accessible way, before my edit. D.Lazard (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of J8ded

I strongly object to your reasoning for and summary removal of the article at J8ded. The article was proposed for deletion previously. The result was a tie, and thus the page stayed. You went in and summarily removed it without any additional discussion. I reject your reasoning, and before submitting for an official deletion review I am asking you directly to restore it and properly open it to discussion. On a personal note, you really ought to have known better than to make such a sweeping gesture/decision on an article originated by a five year contributor... if nothing else, it was a pretty tacky thing to do. CouplandForever (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "tacky", apart from the fact that it is evidently intended to indicate disapproval. There is no such thing as a "tie" in deletion discussions, as they are not decided by a vote. I find the suggestion that an article created by someone who has been editing for five years should for some reason be treated differently from one created by someone else strange, to say the least. However, since you have asked so nicely, I will restore the article, and consider whether or not to nominate it for a new deletion discussion. As you will have seen in my closing statement, I did wonder about changing the result after such a long time without a new discussion, and i was ready to reconsider if anyone questioned my decision on that. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Mario's Super Picross.jpg

Shall I re-create this image if you don't want to undelete it? --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 03:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Glary Utilities

On 24 June 2013 @ 11:07 you deleted Glary Utilities. Maybe the page was perceived as too promotional. Even so, that would not be grounds for deletion, maybe moderation and rewriting. I cannot see what was deleted, so I speculate. However, Glary Utilities is a well respected utility to audit a personal computer and to fix a wide range of issues. It is also linked to the list of computer utilities here: Disk cleaner.

See reputable third party reviews here:

• Glary Utilities CNET Editors' review (2012-08-29)
• Glary Utilities 4 Review Softpedia (2013-11-22)
• Glarysoft Glary Utilities Spiceworks

There are many more. This is not a popular mainstream utility on the high street, but for people familiar with how to clean-up computers, it is popular. I think it deserves a page, although I have no idea what the page looked like prior to deletion. Please can you advise?
Enquire (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As you probably know, Wikipedia policy is that pages that seems to be purely promotional are speedily deleted, whether you agree with that policy or not. However, if you have seen the deletion log entry for the article (which I guess you have, as otherwise I don't know how you would know that I deleted it) you will have seen that it was also a copyright infringement, and removing copyright infringing content is not only Wikipedia policy, but is required by law. As for what the deleted article was like, it had three parts (1) 2 brief sentences telling us that the subject of the article was utility software for maintenance of Windows systems, and giving the name of the company producing it. (2) A long list of the utilities included, with a little commentary, more in the spirit of a sales brochure than of an encyclopaedia article, such as assuring us how that the software is "quick and effective". (3) A section telling us what high opinions some people have of the software, calling it "excellent", "powerful", etc. Very little of the content of the article was suitable for a Wikipedia article, and any attempt to make it acceptable would amount virtually to rewriting it from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with vandalizing user

A user that you had previously warned User:Vanew12 about vandalism seems to be at it again. Repeatedly inserting possibly their name (and maybe a friend's) into a few articles on English soccer.

I don't know what the protocol is for dealing with such vandalism, but it looks like you may have the rights and ability to deal with it. Toasterb (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the account. As far as the "protocol" for dealing with such cases is concerned, you could have made a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but in my opinion very often contacting an administrator who has already had contact with the vandal, as you did, is often a better way of dealing with it, as that way you get someone who already has knowledge of the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:DiscoTech Apps

I can't see what was on User:DiscoTech Apps/sandbox before you deleted it, but I think a username block for the user may be warranted. Can you take a look? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A username block would certainly be possible, and consistent with policy, but personally I'm not in favour of one, for several reasons. Firstly, there is a disliking for immediate blocking without warning of a good faith editor who has simply been unaware of relevant policies. Secondly, a username block is an invitation to continue editing with a new username, but I don't see that making exactly the same kind of edits, but using a different username, is any better. Thirdly, switching to a new username makes it harder to keep an eye on the user's editing to see whether promotional editing continues. Fourthly, if we do see similar but not identical editing from a new account, it is difficult to be sure whether it is the same editor, who has already been warned, or a new editor, who hasn't, whereas if similar editing comes from the same account, there is no doubt. My own preference, therefore, is to make sure that the user has been told that promotional editing is unacceptable, and just keep an eye on things, ready to give a spamusername block if and when further promotional editing takes place. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

you never answered my question

You left a non templated warning on edit warring on my talkpage a week or so back, I asked you for clarification as to the reviewer user right and how I should proceed in the future to avoid the perception of an edit war as I do not desire a block and I want to make sure that I am in complaiance with that user-right. I welcome talkpage stalker responses too. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA – Contentious?

Hello, James

I read your edit summary and, if I am understanding you correctly, apparent you consider the follow "contentious":

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

— Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Please correct me if I am wrong but are policies not representative of the whole community's consensus? More specifically, what do you find contentious about this policy?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I am somewhat bewildered by this message. The only edit summary of mine in the last two months (I have checked no further back than that) containing the word "contentious" is the edit summary to this edit, but I don't see any way that anyone could possibly take that as referring to the passage you quote: it referred to the content which that edit reverted. I have re-read the edit summary several times, and cannot fathom how anyone could have take it as meaning anything else. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I can offer a spot of clarification (or possibly obfuscation; it could go either way...) I think what Lisa's saying is that she thinks terms such as "edit war", "edit warrior" and so on refer to the contributor, not the content, and are therefore a violation of WP:NPA. Your revert, to her mind, therefore indicates a disapproval of WP:NPA itself, rather than her interpretation of it. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If that is what was meant, then it would have been much more helpful to have said so. However, even if it was, I disagree, for several reasons. If and when Codename Lisa confirms that that is what he or she meant, I will consider whether to spend time spelling out why. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Hello, edit warrior!"

Hi, James. Did the quotation above strike you as a compliment? I doubt so. But one will more likely run into "As I said during User:X's edit warring in October 2006..." which is very hurtful, especially if User:X did not anything in the way of edit warring. But that was incivility for the sake of incivility. The worst case is a WP:DRN case getting shut because initiator says "6 hours after I made the change, User:X started an edit warring" where in reality there was no more than one revert and a discussion. Good faith accusation of edit warring hurts a lot.

"Edit war" and "Edit warring" are terms that should not be used directly about a person. Some people don't know it because they think it is a technical term.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks: I now have some idea what you have in mind, and I do agree with some of what you say. However, I am still at a loss as to why you thought that my comment about contentious editing referred to the passage that you quote from the personal attack policy. Was it something along the lines of what Yunshui said? Or was it something completely different?

You raise a number of points. I shall try to deal with some of them.

1. You are totally right in saying that some people don't know what "edit warring" means, and I have seen cases where inexperienced editors have misunderstood comments using that expression without explanation. For that reason, I do not normally use the templated edit warring warning for new users, and instead go to the trouble to write a custom message, explaining in what I hope is a friendly reasonably way that repeatedly making the same edit is considered unhelpful, and in the course of doing so I make a point of mentioning that that is referred to as "edit warring", so that they will understand the expression if they come across it again. A note in the edit warring policy recommending something of the sort would perhaps be helpful, and when I have finished this message I will think about possible wording for such a note. However, there is a huge jump from saying that some people don't understand the expression to saying that it shouldn't be used, even when the editors involved clearly do understand it.
2. Whether I regard "Hello, edit warrior!" as "a compliment" or not is irrelevant, because the edit you made suggested that we should avoid such expressions as "edit war" in discussions at all, not just that we should not post them in fatuous and deliberately provocative messages. Of course you can give examples where use of the expression "edit warrior" is inappropriate, but that doesn't mean that we should never use the expression. Likewise, I could easily give you some examples of situations where the word "table" is inappropriate, but it would be nonsense to suggest that for that reason we should never use the word.
3. Frankly, anyone who finds "As I said during User:X's edit warring in October 2006..." "very hurtful" is hypersensitive, and will probably never fit very well into a collaborative project where it is in the nature of things that critical remarks are sometimes made. You go on to say "especially if User:X did not anything in the way of edit warring", but that is a completely different matter. Using the expression "edit warring" to refer to something which is not edit warring is of course unhelpful, but that is no justification at all for saying that one should avoid using the expression when there has been edit warring. Likewise, the situation you refer to in your sentence beginning "The worst case is a WP:DRN case..." is one where the expression was used when there was no edit warring, and such a case has no relevance at all to the question of whether we should use the expression when there has been edit warring. Use of any word or expression where it does not apply is to be discouraged, and "edit warring" is no different in that respect from any other word or expression.
4. While, as I have explained above, unexplained use of the expression "edit war" with a new user who may have been unacquainted with the expression is unhelpful, when one is dealing with a long-established editor who has a history of frequently edit warring, who has had the edit warring policy pointed out more than once, and has made it abundantly clear that he or she has no intention of following the policy, we are in a very different situation. Why the hell should we be obliged in such a case to forego the use of such a convenient shorthand, and be obliged to write out a more long-winded account of what the user is doing wrong every time we wish to refer to it, just because for some other editors, in some other situations, the shorthand would be inappropriate?
5. In the situation I have just described, I don't believe that the editor in question would be likely to find the expression "edit war" "hurtful", but if I am wrong then that is even more reason to use it. Anyone who persistently and deliberately flouts policy and consensus, and shows that they have no intention of doing otherwise, needs to be told in no uncertain terms that what they are doing is unacceptable, and to refrain from doing that because the poor little darling might find it a little upsetting would be absurd.
6. It is very difficult to believe that you imagined that changing the edit warring policy in the way you tried to would be uncontroversial. For goodness sake, there wouldn't be a policy on "edit warring" if there were a consensus that using the expression is unacceptable. Surely you must have known that you were trying to make a substantive change to a policy, out of line with existing practice and consensus. Attempting to introduce such a major change to a major policy without any discussion is totally inappropriate.
7. If you really do think that it would be helpful to get a policy that the expression "edit war" should be avoided, then I suggest that your first step should be to propose for deletion the pages Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Template:Uw-ew,Template:Uw-ewblock, and all the other official pages which use the expression. I think that you wouldn't have a cat's chance in hell of succeeding, but you are free to try. However, as long as such pages exist, it is abundantly clear that there is a wide consensus among editors that there are constructive uses for the expression "edit war", and trying to unilaterally change a policy to falsely claim that consensus is against the use of such expressions is contentious and disruptive. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

I read your entire message and it appears (especially from item #1) that we have more agreement on this matter than disagreement. So, the best way to resolve this is to work together on the wording of that message which you said.

One comment, however, that I initially decided to overlook was you asking "I am still at a loss as to why you thought" what I thought; but now, I think third time is the charm. I thought what I thought because from my end, it was the only possible interpretation. (The day that we have no trouble understanding what others thinks is the day in which talk namespaces are decommissioned.) You see, this certain edit that you reverted is not to be taken alone, but as part of a whole, trying to address the issue you introduced in #1. Like I said, we seem to share a concern but we're standing at different points of view overlooking the entire scenery.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Elevator vandal

The edit filter for the elevator vandal seems to be working well. It has already disallowed him several times. Have you or @John of Reading seen him get past the filter? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I've not seen anything. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nor have I. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! I noticed that there is an interesting pattern on his preferred time of day to post his things. Nothing useful can be done with it, but it very noticeable from the log. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sock tip

Hi, I see you were the one who (correctly) declined the final unblock request on the User:Roma-borisov account. If he pulls the same shenanigans again (he probably will) and you happen to arrive on the scene, you should know that I quite clearly explained things for him in his native Russian and he explicitly indicated his understanding (see here and here). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

NITHM

The content consisted of a location, an in-text link to the university website and a list of courses. A bit like the "company" articles which consist entirely of a list of products. I've seen worse, so if you think it should be restored, I'm happy for you to do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspected mutliple sock puppets accounts of original user Rajputbhatti vandalizing the albanian article

Hello there i do suspect , that the albanian article is being vandalized by the same person with multiple sock pupet account .

Can you please verify this ? To be more precise user Euglina , user Alparica , ip adress of 203.124.30.134 ( which by geo ip shows Pakistan as place of origin ) making edits , and almost all other persons editing starting as of 02:22, 17 December 2013‎ , are sock puppets accounts .

All these accounts are either from Asia ( pakistan ) as shown by their contributions & ip , or exclusively have started editing the albanian articles as of today .

I do suspect that is the same person using multiple accounts , and pretending to be different users .

They are ruthlesly vandalizing the main article about Albania , and his aim is for religious purposes , or whatever . It must be user Rajputbhatti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.40 (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Check this anonymous user also. He/she knows every thing. regardsEuglina (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I see a good deal of unconstructive editing of the article. I also see "new" editors who don't look remotely like new editors, and at least one of them looks very much like Rajputbhatti. The trick of creating two sockpuppets and trying to make them look like two different editors who disagree with one another to try to hide what one is doing is very common among editors who have a history of many sockpuppets that have been found out. However, at present I don't have time to check more thoroughly. I have fully protected the article for a while. If all the accounts and IPs involved are genuine independent editors who all wish to edit constructively, no doubt they will choose to discuss the issues on the article's talk page, and by the time the protection ends, maybe they will have a consensus version. However, before then I hope to do some more checking, and I will take further action if the evidence seems to justify doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

admin James, check the article history of Albania,may be you find some clues.User:Krisxlowry changed the photo of demographics of albania after which an ip adress came and reverted it and made other changes. I think it was the root cause of whole conflict. pay attention, there is clear link between Krisxlowry]] and 94.234.170.40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euglina (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

he has complete info of rajpetbhati when there is not even a single mention of rajputbhatti. check him too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euglina (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Greatly apreciated James :) . That will be more than fine for now . When you will have some time in the future please do take some time , to check the revisions . You will most probably find out that is the same person , making pointless revisions ( per example population ). Furthemore , all those users started pretending to edit at the same time , and all the ip's and also contributions history shows as a country of origin Pakistan .

I managed to restore the photos , and most of what had been edited , prior to you protecting the article . I just restored everything that was edited by these people , or at least most of it , so that it was exactly as the last revision of yours ( 15th December if i do remember corectly ) .

Being an albanian i tend to keep a close eye , to the main albanian article , thus i regularly see every edit that other users do . I truly fail to see why a person from Pakistan would consume his life and orchestrate all this plan , just to make albania look like a muslim country . Is truly beyond me .

Anywayz , thank you so much . Best regards , Marsel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.40 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear albania

while writing this my eyes are full of tears(for God's sake believe me). dear james i am sorry but i am the same rajputbhatti. Look at the revesion history of albania that anonymous user,alparica,euglina are same. you whould think that i have just gone mad but its my love for albania that made me to do so. i can compromise on anything(my every edit that u revert) but i can't compromise on albania. i hope that 94.234.170.40 would also read it. i want to give him answers. I am a british pakistani(no one know about albania in pakistan) living in pakistan for two years(with grandma and grandpa).,I am always concious about what is happening in albania. that's from that time when i came to know that albania is the only muslim majority nation in europe. But there was no actual info was i was confused weather albania was atheist after communism. there came 2011 census. u would not believe that i visited internet every and wiki to know what are the census results about religion.(but at that time i donot even knew that someone can edit wiki). after one year there came a statement that albania is 70% atheist. my heart was just broken.because i realy love european islam.(pakistanis are too radical). in those day i accidently came to know that wiki can be edited. u cant imagine how blessed i felt at that time. some days later a statement came on albania showing the religious composition of albania and muslims were majority. i just got a heart attack.(70%atheist statement was incorrect,so sad). I reshaped the whole section of religion on albania. i was the one who placed the image of church above mosque.(i don't wanna made it look like too muslim). it remained there for several months but recently i realized that it was looking too odd soo i changed the sequence. along with this i made some other profound changes.(they all were neutral and sourced) when my sock was blocked(for other reasons u know).u reverted my edits.(that was the root cause. soon i made other sock(that is easy for me) and what happened u know can know by checking the revesion history. Allah knows(I am Muslim) i have done done nothing wrong with albania. Few minutes ago when u reverted my whole edits age that was the time when tears came out of my eyes. I am totally mad and completely tired now. please forgive me.plz read atleat one time the edits that i have made to albania, there is nothing wrong with them. since i am block evading sock, i want u to make these edits on my behalf. please.if u refused or make any other excuse(as u make every time) then i will just kill myself(there is no other way for me).i have just gone mad.for god sake please.please if u made these edits i will not touch wiki again.i am totally tired now.while writing all this there are tears in my eyes and i am felling suffocation. just see the revision history of albania and u will be convinced how mad it am. just block my sock but please restore that whole article.Euglina (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

i have been always curious about albania. i wanna ask dear marsel if he is muslim or there are any muslims around him in albania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euglina (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you for saving me some trouble. I thought that this account looked so much like Rajputbhatti that I was on the verge of blocking, but I decided to wait until I could do more checking. Wikipedia is not a place for people to promote their opinions of anything at all, including religion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Euglina , there is no need for you to react like this . I understand that you might be a religious person , and you might falsely think that albania is muslim , BUT is not . Albania is a multireligious mostly agnostic / atheist country ( and yes there are muslims as well that live / marry / laugh with other non muslim albanians as well ) , and instead of you threatening to kill yourself , since you love albania that much , why dont you go for some vacations there ?? I can even arange a place for you completely free of charge . I understand that religion must mean a lot to you , but reality is not formed by our wishes . Cherish life , because is a gift . If your god does exist then i am sure that he/she/it would never aprove you comiting a suicide , and since you love your god that much , do you want to let him down ? And especialy , for such a minor issue like this ? Come on !!! Cheer up buddy :)) , take some fresh air and be sure that life will get better and better , pray to your god , and i am sure he will answer . Because you know what ? God does exist and some call him Budha , some Allah , some Holy trinity , some Jehova , and they are all right , is the same being , and i am sure he loves each and every one of us . So cheer up , and dont be foolish :)) . As for the wikipedia article you should understand that is not a product of our own desires . So please reflect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.40 (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Allah that you responded to me. although u have just broken my heart by stating that albania is irreligious but albanians proved at census that they are majority Muslims but i am happy that u know some thing about Islam(suicide is not allowed in Islam).when it comes to vacation then i will surely visit albania soon with my whole family. i don't know what problem did u have with my edits. they were all neutral. i added the info that albania is pretty much prosperous and look at tourism section read my edits, i just wanted show people that albania is very beautifull. i chosed the best pictues. i don't know what problem u have with me dear. and u james u are very bad.Alparica (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The photos that you did choose , were outdated ( that was my problem ) . Albania is a lot more beautiful than that , and more economicaly advanced . You chose the worst photos possible :) , but thats a good thing because albania is even more beautiful than what you imagine . You should not feel like that because there are muslims as well in albania . Is just that we albanians are really sensitive about this issue , because we were from the first nations to accept christianity , and later being conquered by the turks for 500 years some were forcibly converted to islam . However past is past , and now albania is a country , that respects all religions , and all people from different religious backrounds live in perfect harmony . No one is being discriminated , so i think that it is a very good thing . I do believe that this great desire of yours to see albania as muslim , is because you were grown up in a country that you were different and maybe not feeling accepted due to having a different religion , thus the idea that in europe there is a country , that does have a percentage of its population as muslim makes you happy . Isn't so ? ;)

As i said though , you should try to understand albania , in a different manner than what you have been raised to . A country that is multireligious and agnostic at the same time , where there are muslims and christians living side by side , and no one is being discriminated at all .

A more correct percentage would have been 30 % muslim 30 % christina 40 % non practicant/atheist/agnostic . However the census did show more muslims because a) many people declare religion as a tradition , par example they are not muslim , but their grand grand parents had been muslim , thus in the census they did declare as such purely as a tradition - b) It did not include the albanians living abroad ( which the vast majority of them are non muslims , and now they are getting back to albania , and this changes the demographic ) .

However the muslim religion will always be respected in albania , the same way as every other religion . And it will be always a part of albania . Each country is unique , so dont try to understand it by what you already know . Instead have an open mind , and get to know a country that all religions live in pure harmony , literally . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.40 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal on Origami

Hello. Yesterday's IP-hopping vandal is back, with new IPs, so a new, and longer, protection of the article is needed. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. Before I got here, Mark Arsten had already semi-protected it for a week. If it turns out that isn't enough, I'll be happy to make it longer. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Team Fortress 2

Hi JamesBWatson,

I noticed this edit on Team Fortress 2, which I thought was finally an indefinite protection. Thank God, because that has been going for so long! But to my surprise, two IPs have been able to edit since! One was constructive, the other blanked the page. Maybe it's a glitch or something, I don't know. Could you take another look? Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 05:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that by mistake I only put page-move protection in place, not edit protection. I've put it right now. Thanks a lot for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't mention it! I'm glad I don't have to waste time glancing over the TF2 article as much. Thanks! --Soetermans. T / C 09:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Mary Cummins

I figured I would bring this to you personally as the admin who unblocked User:Mary Cummins a couple months ago. Although she is not editing the Bat World Sanctuary page anymore, she is up to her old tricks of pushing a biased POV on the page of an individual that she has a personal problem with. If you have time and are interested, can you please take a look at her recent edits at Gary K. Michelson?

There has been some interaction between us at my talk page and on hers, but judging by our interactions, and by the fact that she ignores me until I revert her at the Gary K. Michelson page and then responds immediately, I don't think I'm going to get anywhere. I think she'll just continue to ignore me unless I edit war with her.

A Google search for Mary Cummins Gary Michelson will return plenty of evidence that she has a clear COI.

Like I said, I'm coming to you as a more experienced editor and as the unblocking admin, but if you're not interested in working with her please let me know and I'll take this through the proper channels. Thanks MisterUnit (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about Article Deletion

Please refer to the questions on my "talk page" about an article you deleted for alleged copyright infringement. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I hope this is the correct way to communicate with you. Thanks!

Jwoodward.scoe (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI: New sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DjMlindos#13_December_2013. HelenOnline 08:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRV

Okay, I'm clearly being misunderstood here. I want to have a new AFD on the article I brought to DRV. Is that not what the process is for? Isn't that called "relisting" an AFD which is one of the things DRV is for?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A deletion review of a deletion discussion is for challenging a deletion closure, and asking for attempting to get the closure overturned. Normally this is done because it is felt that the closing admin closed it wrongly; there are situations where it can be used to try to overturn a closure which was done correctly, such as "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", but clearly that doesn't apply in this case. The way to try to get a new deletion discussion for an article that has not been deleted is to open a new deletion discussion. (That might be considered disruptive in some circumstances, but so might stating a deletion review.)

However, even if you can manage to find an interpretation which makes using deletion review to ask for a new deletion discussion acceptable, the fact remains that in this particular deletion review consensus was so overwhelmingly clear that there was no point in wasting people's time by letting it run for a week. Consensus at AfD was clear, and consensus at DRV was clear. There comes a time when it is best to accept consensus, no matter how strongly one feels that the consensus is wrong. (And, for what it is worth, I have no idea whether the article should have been deleted or not: I have seen what the consensus of editors taking part in discussion was, and have made no attempt to check the sources and decide whether I would agree or disagree with that consensus.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

I am befuddled by your recent decision to delete an article that provided information on the company with the trademark Gander Mountain. If there were parts of the article that were judged advertorial, it would be better for the community for those to be addressed rather than the action of complete removal. As a paid advocate, I have respected the conflict of interest possibilities I represent if I were to edit the page; however, I am not sure that a consensus would have backed your interest for article deletion. I do have a different user name as an active editor of pages on Wikipedia, but I did not work for Gander Mountain, nor make edits on the page prior or after my recent employment here. I now am distressed by my inability to look backward at your basis for decision and my ability to protect our larger community from what seems to me an illegitimate censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T. Kidder (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you may like to consider carefully whether, when you are trying to persuade someone to your point of view, the most effective way is to throw such accusations as "illegitimate censorship" at the person you are trying to persuade. Secondly, despite my total contempt for professional spammers who abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes (or "paid advocates", to use your preferred euphemism), I have seriously considered your request to reconsider the deletion (at least, I assume that is what it was meant to be, even though it was phrased as an angry protestation). Although there is some unambiguously promotional text in the article, I see that the article is not totally promotional, and I evidently made a mistake in deleting it, so I will restore it. Thank you for calling my attention to the matter, so that I can make this change. Thirdly, I am intrigued by the fact that you state that you use another account "as an active editor of pages on Wikipedia", and yet choose to create a single purpose account to make this request. Why is that? Why do you wish to keep it secret what account you edit from? I should be very interested to know. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Objection for the Deletion of " User:Raghusri/articles created "

Hello Sir,

Can you tell me how it comes under G5 because i didn't created it when i was Blocked by you a 1 and half year ago.

Please check this Block log : Raghusri Block Log

Previously admin " DMacks " also mistakenly Deleted it per G3. He realized immediately and restored all the Revisions within a Minute of Deletion.

You can see that here : User:Raghusri/articles created

So, you also mistakenly deleted this.

My humble request is :

Please restore all the Revisions.

I am hoping a Positive response from you soon Sir.

Regards,

Raghusri (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no point in checking the block log for your current account, because you couldn't possibly have created it from a blocked account: evidently I thought that at the time you were evading a block on another account. However, I can't now find what other account that was, so maybe I made a mistake. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and undelete the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Restore Sir :) Regards, Raghusri (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please unsalt

Hi, James,
Category:Cody Simpson was deleted twice because the editor who created the category was blocked. But it's a valid category and similar musicians have categories that hold articles on songs, albums, tours, collaborations, etc. Could you unsalt it, please? Thanks for considering this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, James. Is there a lag period before it takes effect because I've tried several times to save this category page and it doesn't "take". It brings me back to the original, deleted category page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Still can't create category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you couldn't create the category page: I have checked that the create-protection really was removed, and there should have been no problem. I have created the page for you. I have just put the text "Category:Cody Simpson" in the category page, so please remove that and put whatever you think is appropriate in there. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, James! Now I can move on to other topics besides teen heartthrobs. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thank you for the response on the username thing. I do have a request (based on a userbox you have), can you take a look at an edit i noticed that does not seem valid, but is out of range of my knowledge base, 30(number) "30 radian cube is the volume of a sphere when the diameter equals to one."--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It looked like total nonsense to me, but just on the very unlikely off-chance that it might be a garbled version of something valid, I did a few Google searches. It seems to come from a blog-like post on http://wiki.verkata.com, written by someone with extremely confused ideas about mathematics, and a poor command of English too, and those two facts together make most of what he or she writes petty incomprehensible. I have reverted the edit that you mentioned, and also another, equally nonsensical, edit by the same IP editor on another article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Meineke Car Care Center

I cleaned it up a bit, removed copyvios, stubbified it, and lastly, removed your proposed deletion request. You may take this case to WP:AfD, but your main argument is WP:TNT, as this is clearly a large and notable franchise. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I am still not sure that delete-and-start-again wouldn't have been better, for several reasons, but you have certainly improved it, and I'll settle for that. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Silent Hill 4

The Silent Hill 4 page[25] is being vandalized by IP address user 96.49.242.89[26] and it's clear that this person is not going to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.159.250.114 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Are you sure...

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at DUCKISJAMMMY's talk page.
Message added 11:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Je cours

Hello! What with inks in articles? Shouldn't be red?--Basshuntersw (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out what you meant by that, but I assume you mean that, since there is no article Je cours, it would be better to have a red link in the navigation template {{Stromae}}. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you can try to clarify your comment. If that is what you meant, then you can take the redirect to WP:RfD (if you think it's important enough to be worth doing so), but it does not satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think the benefit of taking anyone searching for the song "Je Cours" to an article about the relevant album, rather than just getting a blank, far outweighs any slight advantage of having a red link, and I wouldn't bet on getting a consensus against that view at RfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Tupton Hall School Page

Hi James

I am a member of staff at Tupton Hall School and would like to update the school page. I appreciate the school ip address has been blocked due to vandalism from other users. Would it be possible to remove the semi protection on the page so I can edit and update.

Please advise on the most suitable way forward. Thanks

adams178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adams178 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Answered at User talk:Adams178. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting pages... in general

As your talk page suggests, "drop me a brief note here," I have intended to write a short message telling you that, really, it is not an extremely good behavior to revert edited pages. A moderate behavior. Speling12345 (talk) 9:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all sure what you mean. However, you seem to be saying that reverting any edit, under any circumstance, is unacceptable. If so, not only is that a quite odd view, for which I cannot conceive any justification, but it also fits ill with your own editing, a remarkably large proportion of which consists of reverting edits that you don't agree with. I can therefore only assume that that is not what you mean, in which case perhaps you would like to clarify what you do mean. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You admit that you are not sure. Ok. Remarkably large... A public comment. Speling12345 (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What on earth is that supposed to mean? I am beginning to wonder if you are just trolling. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Martha Nell Smith

Please read the references of Martha Nell Smith before summarily dismissing them. Also, you are not supposed to erase talk pages. Also, there cannot be a "personal" attack against an anonymous person, since the person (Bbb23) is anonymous. Students everywhere read Martha Nell Smith's scholarship. Please do not abuse her with your editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.6.23.105 (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

References are beside the point: the content has been removed by four different editors, none of whom have given inadequate referencing as a reason. If by "you are not supposed to erase talk pages" you mean that I should not remove a personal attack from an article talk page, then you are mistaken. Wikipedia policy is that personal attacks are not tolerated anywhere, and editors who persist in making attacks can be blocked from editing, let alone their attacks being removed. The fact that someone has not publicly stated what their name is does not in any way make it impossible to make a personal attack on them. What is the relevance of the fact that "Students everywhere read Martha Nell Smith's scholarship"? Do you mean that you want the content included in the article to enable more students to find her work? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I just added FACTS that have been verified. I did not create this page about myself. Why are you removing things that are facts, have been verified? I don't get it. Several other people brought this to my attention. I rarely look at this page. --mn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnellsmith (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, I will not make any edits to the entry about me, but I don't understand why you're undoing factual information about my public self. Makes not sense to me. Again, I did not create this page if you're trying to imply that in any way. Oh well, others who had the information will undoubtedly try to add it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnellsmith (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Being "factual" is not, ipso facto, a justification for inclusion of content in a Wikipedia article. It is a fact that I am wearing a pair of socks at this moment, but it does not belong in any Wikipedia article. Have you read the various messages that have been posted about this, and the edit summaries? If so, you will have an idea of why it has been repeatedly removed. The content in question is an excessive list, suitable for a directory of academic work or something of the sort, but not for a prose account for the general reader. It is also unclear that it serves much purpose beyond promotion of your work. I hope you are wrong in thinking that other people will add the unsuitable content back, as if they do so it may become necessary to fully protect the article from editing, which would have the extremely unfortunate effect of making it difficult to make legitimate edits to the article. (There is a mechanism for requesting that an administrator make an edit in such a case, so all would not be lost, but it would be much less convenient than just letting people edit the article directly.) The article has already had to be semi-protected, restricting who can edit it, because of disruption caused by one editor. That is most unfortunate, and I do hope that it does not become necessary to impose yet further restrictions. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to answer one of your points. I have no idea why you think I am "trying to imply" that you created the article. I have certainly never said anything that was intended to suggest that. however, you certainly have edited it, and done so in ways that clearly conflict with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Smith article was created by on November 1, 2008, by User:Marimolin. A few days later, the same user created Dickinson Electronic Archives, an article related to Smith that is wholly unsourced. Marimolin made only a handful of edits (all in the same subject area) in 2008 and 2009 and hasn't been seen since. Two days after Marimolin created the Smith article Smith herself edited the article. The same thing occurred with the archives article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia the past few months is that users such as Bbb23 cut without reading. Whoever created the Martha Nell Smith page, it is clear from subsequent editors that she is newsworthy and her page needed some sourcing. However, Bbb23 spend more time on Checkuser and history than on making articles helpful for readers. Read the edits on Martha Nell Smith. Thanks Ruby Murray for helping out and getting around whatever Bbb23 and friends are doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.6.59.199 (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No, the problem with Wikipedia is that some editors don't seem to understand that it is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook, MySpace or LinkedIn, and because of that repeatedly try to turn what should be encyclopaedic biographies into CVs and/or general promo pieces. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well no, the problem is editors such as Bbb23 who summarily cut off debate, block users, and keep editors from talking. Obviously this place is an encyclopedia but serious debate ought not to be shut off by admins such as Bbb23. He is driving many people away from good editing. Look how much good came out of this debate but it required conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.6.23.75 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun (video game) Sequel

• User Silver Wolf Voki[27] is pretty much stating that a sequel to the video game Gun has been announced but the source link to it is dead[28] and he or she is not doing anything to correct it.108.82.5.224 (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cold?

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	FOR BEING THE BEST ADMIN ON THE WIKI. HTF4Ever456IsBack (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

JBW, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Nike Hyperdunk

Since you were involved in the original deal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 26 December 2013 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

IP editor has returned after range block

Hi. Previously you out up a range block for an IP after discussion on User talk:Add92#Administrator intervention against vandalism. Now this IP editor has returned (on several IP all in the range you blocked). He is not vandalizing but he is making a whole lot of unsourced edits where is is adding managers to teams and so on. Not sure if it enough for a new block but thought I should inform you.

Example of the edits are [29], [30] and [31](2602:30A:2CA3:8290:9D8C:52C0:4F0F:5CB5),[32], [33] (2602:30A:2CA3:8290:A808:48AA:1F90:4BF1)

And I am sure there are more. Not vandalism but unsourced and I am not sure if it should lead to any action but wanted to at least inform you. QED237 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

One of them has now been blocked for disruptive editing which can be seen at User talk:2602:30A:2CA3:8290:9D8C:52C0:4F0F:5CB5‎. QED237 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It is getting worse and worse, the same range has started vandalizing the now sacked tottenham coach (page protected now), User talk:2602:30A:2CA3:8290:892A:9FF6:7B73:2282, you can see edit here [34] and an other [35].

He returned with a new IP later (3 hours later) to keep destroying that page [36] (he keeps insisting it was mutual) and he got frustrated [37]. This with IP User talk:2602:30A:2CA3:8290:BD99:7969:5A2A:99E4.

These IP has been around on many pages of managers, many the same I told you about last night. And also been part of crazy edit warring on manager part of 2013–14 Premier League. Consider to ask for RFPP on that page, matchday today so it will be worse. QED237 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspect this IP is the same as the user Klpz16 (blocked for sisruptive editing currently) that seems to have that IP range according to this diff. QED237 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, clearly the same person. I have increased the block length on the account, and re-blocked the IP range for a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi there Watson please allow us to create the page Spidersweb.

Hlokomelo Lesabe (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Watson please allow us to create the page Spidersweb.

A kitten for you!

Hi there B Watson please allow us to talk at the kagiso Gauteng page.

Nonhlanhla Khumalo (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/94.41.219.134

Can you block Special:Contributions/94.41.219.134 for one month, he/she did edit-warring again on Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.91 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Right you are squire...

Yes, you are right. I am sorry. Thankyou for the release. I reward you with the recommendation that you improve your life-satisfaction with Tears for Fears! Fuckwitt (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This guy...

James, time to check back in on this guy? They were unblocked for the express purpose of changing the username, which they failed to do, and looks to still be editing with that username and also the same IP you identified in the unblock you wrote up. That IP's contribs includes this edit. In my opinion the named account should be indef'd and the IP blocked for a bit, Wikipedia would be better off without. Zad68 14:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I was keeping a watch on the account's edits, and would have blocked anyway if no username change had been requested in another day or two, but I had forgotten about the IP edits. Thanks for reminding me. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

O2 range block

Hi. At User talk:82.132.217.233#January 2014 you wrote:

"Decline reason: Your unblock reason amounts, in effect, to "it's unfair to innocent users who will be inconvenienced by the block, while it won't stop me, because I will keep evading the block anyway." (1) I have never yet known any Wikipedia administrator unblock a user who is threatening to evade the block if they are not unblocked. (2) If you really sincerely think that, then how about thinking about whether your actions are unfair, since they cause blocks to be made, which inconvenience innocent users. (3) Every administrator knows that the blocking tools we have are far from perfect, but they are the best we have. Blocking IP ranges used by persistent disruptive editors does reduce the amount of disruption to some extent."

I would like to clarify a few things.

I do sympathise with those who work to reduce the disruption caused by persistent disruptive editors, and I understand that it's difficult.

I most certainly did NOT make any threat, I simply pointed out a counter-productive range block and explained why, in this case, it was futile.

I was not behaving unfairly toward other innocent users - I was going out of my way to try to prevent them from being needlessly inconvenienced. I have made similar requests in the past and some have been successful.

I do have a (somewhat rhetorical) question: are you suggesting that I was evading the block by switching IPs even though the block wasn't intended to prevent me personally from editing? Likewise, I have a second alternative cellular data network connection, and access to a third, as well as two fixed-line connections during the course of the day - if I find one has been blocked in order to prevent someone else from editing, am I guilty of block evasion if I switch to another connection?

Thanks for reading. No need for any action to be taken as far as I personally am concerned, I can edit freely regardless. And no need to reply, but if you do, kindly do so here. Thanks again. 92.40.248.104 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If, as you seem to be claiming, you are not the person who edited disruptively, necessitating a block, then my point is made even more clearly: the block, as you point out, is not preventing you from editing, but may well inconvenience whoever it was who edited disruptively. Whatever may seem likely to you, I can assure you that in practice range blocks very often are effective: while some blocked troublemakers evade such blocks, many don't, for whatever reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism

This, if I'm not mistaken, violates Wikipedia:Vandalism#Edit summary vandalism. Somebody else already sent him a notice, but shouldn't the summary be deleted? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary is somewhat intemperate, and it would have been better to have expressed it more moderately. However, I see it more as a case of an editor expressing his or her irritation a little more strongly than might be ideal, rather than as vandalism, and I certainly don't see it as satisfying the criteria for revision deletion, which is reserved for "grossly offensive" content. The policy on revision deletion says "RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Elevator vandal edit filter

Just a note to you and @John of Reading: Reaper Eternal disabled the filter a couple of days ago. While it has been a couple of weeks since the filter blocked anything, I have seen the guy has taken fairly long breaks before. Please be on the lookout for him returning. If he does, re-enabling the filter might be a good idea. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi JamesBWatson... could OnlyWikki be yet another instance of Princeneil? Compare this with this. Looks ducky to me. Anyway, cheers and happy 2014! - DVdm (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

About as ducky as any I have seen for a long time. Blocked, pages created deleted, edits reverted. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Question?

Hi. You left a dummy edit on the applied psychology article, re: my neuropsychology addition? Please tell me Wikipedia's formal policy on my addition? Anything wrong? Comments can be left on my talk page. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I could see, your edit copied content from another article, without saying so. (If I have misunderstood, please let me know, but that's how it looked to me.) The writer of any content of any Wikipedia page licenses that content for reuse under free licensing terms subject to attribution. Basically, that means that anyone can copy the content, either on Wikipedia or anywhere else, provided they give a link saying where it is copied from, but copying content without indicating where it is copied from is a breach of the author's copyright. I just added a note filling in the omission. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Does that apply to the same article? It was neuropsychology to neuropsychology? I can't see in the wikipedia rules how copyright applies in this instance? Maybe I'm wrong? Can you clearly show in the Wikipedia rules what you are referring to to make that type of note as you did? thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am a little confused, as you appear to be saying that you copied content from the article Neuropsychology to the same article, but that must be some sort of misunderstanding, as I am referring to an edit to the article Applied psychology, not Neuropsychology. You added content to Applied psychology which already existed in the article Neuropsychology, and I assumed that you copied it from there, but perhaps you copied it from somewhere else. However, wherever in Wikipedia it was copied from, whether from Applied psychology, from Neuropsychology, or from some other page that I have not seen, the licensing terms under which Wikipedia's content is issued require an acknowledgement that it is copied, so that the origianl author of the text can be identified.

The requirement for attribution of any copied content is included in the two licenses under which Wikipedia content is released, which you can see at Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, and in Wikipedia's terms of use, which you can see at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use. In particular, the terms of use require that copying of any editor's contributions will be acknowledged "Through hyperlink ... or URL to the article to which [the editor] contributed ... or ... to an alternative, stable online copy that is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project website; or through a list of all authors." A more readable summary of the main points concerning how copyright issues apply to copying within Wikipedia can be seen at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism after Ban

Hi there James-- I saw that you had handled a vandalizing user, 86.20.127.170. Their block expired, and they vandalized again (removed content here and here). Please consider taking further action.

Thanks, Newyorkadam (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Blocked, for a much longer time than the previous blocks. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

A Chilham effect...

Have a look at User talk:Chilhamunited, and then look who actually gave Sassy K that barnstar. I think this sock farm is a bit bigger than just the five accounts, and may start at Chilhamunited, who DID edit that article. They all seem to be blocked, but it might be as well to link them. Peridon (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pinging User:DoRD too. (I can never remember the template for that...) Peridon (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw this, so I ran a check and found that Chilhamunited and these accounts were the same as SassyKhruschev, et al. There may be more, but those are all that turned up in this sweep. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. You can use {{ping}} or {{u}}, depending on how you want it formatted. ;)

OK, thanks for taht information. I have two questions. Why did you delete the page in the first link you give? Is there any objection to tagging the user pages? In cases like this, where there is an indication of sockpuppetry, but nothing on the relevant user pages, talk pages, or block log entries to show what accounts are involve, I often waste a lot of time searching for evidence which would be readily available if accounts were tagged. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec):::That looks like Limbojazz is the earliest, then. Peridon (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the page because it was just a comment from a sock, and not a proper SPI, but sure, feel free to tag them. Sometimes I tag, sometimes I don't - I've sort of fallen out of the habit, but I remember my frustration before I had CU, trying to figure out who was who, so I'll try to tag them when the connections aren't obvious. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)