User talk:JBW/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

my topics has been deleted

dear sir: my topics has been deleted although i have refer to the main source (the main source is my website - www.itexpert.net) , i want to contribute in wikipedia , if there was another reason for deleting my topic please tell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorbagy10 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the reasons given in the deletion log? If not I suggest you do so. If you have, then perhaps you can clarify what you don't understand about them. In addition, saying "the main source is my website" confirms my impression that the article was intended as promotion, which I almost gave as a third reason for deletion and which, as you presumably know, I mentioned on your talk page. The conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about your own product. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Cowley

Your decision to A7 that surprised me a little; did you look at gnews hits?I was also wondering about their publications (scholar}).

Whilst I'm all in favour of taking a subjects views into account, it's a bit odd, in this case, that such a seemingly innocuous article caused such concern, especially as it has been on Wikipedia for years. I suspect they think it will similarly vanish from FaceBook because it has been deleted; in reality, it might have been more in-keeping with their objective to accept that they cannot choose if an article should exist, and help us work out some appropriately sourced article. Of course, one may end up being written, in the future.

I'm not too bothered, just slightly surprised; I suspect the person might be notable. But, no matter, what is done is done.  Chzz  ►  17:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

PicMango

Hello JBW, I see you've declined db-hoax on PicMango. It's true that the PicMango.com site exists, but I can't find a peep online about all the wild claims made in the article: "PictureKunt"(!), "...driving the price of mangos above $200...", "Furikake Gohan.... PicMango Love Story...number one single in Japan for 8 months". None of the JP singles charts in English mention a "Furikake Gohan". Etc. Just looks like viral marketing BS to me. Did you find something online that I missed? Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, but I just decided that the article was not a blatant hoax from start to finish, so that wasn't justification for deleting the whole thing. It would have been better if I had done further checking and cleaned up the article, and maybe I would have done so if I had had time. Anyway, thanks for your work on cleaning it up. It may well still qualify for speedy deletion under another criterion, as far as I can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hi James, thought I could use some third party opinion on this edit of mine, am I correct or not? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you right in thinking the article in its present form is not worth keeping? Without a doubt, yes. Are you right in tagging it for CSD A7? Unfortunately, no. A7 applies only to an article about an individual person or animal, an organisation, or web content, whereas this article is about a place. If the article had just been created in its present form you might argue for speedy deletion as promotion, but I think you would be on weak ground, and an AfD would be better. Even there, though, I think your chances of getting deletion would be slim. Generally speaking it is rarely possible to get a consensus for deletion of an article about a human settlement (town, village, etc) unless its very existence is unverifiable. However, all that is of little relevance, as the article has not just been created. In such cases you should always look back to see if there is a better version in the article's history before tagging for deletion, and if there is then revert back to it. I have looked back, and I have found that there has been unsuitable content in the article for a very long time, but there was a time when the article had no unsuitable content. (In fact it was a brief stub with little suitable content either, but that is not a reason for deletion.) I suggest reverting to something such as this version. You may be able to find something a little better than that somewhere in the article's history, but I doubt that it's worth spending much time searching. My impression is that that is about as good as any version. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your insightful opinion, much appreciated and I will revert to that version instead of tagging for AfD/CSD. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry

hey i'm sorry, but why did you revert my edit to the soy page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whommighter (talk • contribs) 08:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Because you are a vandal. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Khasskhass.com

Hi there- The Khasskhass.com site is a site to promote Nepali literature. It is a non-profit site that is out there to serve the Nepalese community in the USA and also to help nepalese poets publish their poems on the site. We do not take/make any money from the site, and contribution to the site is all voluntary.

So please let me know how I can put this wiki back on again. The wiki was not to promote but to tell people out there who might be interested to know that Khasskhass.com is about. The site was not intended to market anything but to provide information to Nepalese living in Nepal or abroad. I will really appreciate it if you could help me tweak the content rather than just plain deleting it. May be the message wasn't clear on the wiki content that the site is a non-profit and the wiki was to strictly provide information.

Any help in this matter will be GREATLY appreciated.

Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zingypisces (talk • contribs) 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the subject of the article is "non-profit" and "not intended to market anything" is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not exist to promote anything, whether a commercial company, a non-profit organisation, a person, a political point of view, a religion, or anything else. The article was clearly written as promotion, containing such language as, for example, "The current site continues to make significant contribution to Nepali culture and language" If you genuinely cannot see that the article was promotional then I can only assume that you are so closely involved in the organisation that you are unable to stand back and look at it from a distant enough perspective to see how your writing will look to an outsider. This is one of the main reasons why the guideline on conflict of interest discourages editing of articles on subjects in which you have a personal involvement. Your use of the word "we" in the above message confirms that you have a conflict of interest. As for telling you how you can restore the article, I have made a web search and found no evidence at all that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Unless there is evidence that the site satisfies the general notability guideline and the guideline on internet content then there is no way of writing an acceptable article on the subject. No amount of rewriting will make a non-notable subject notable. Finally, if the site is, despite appearances, notable enough for a Wikipedia article, probably sooner or later some objective outsider will write an article on it, avoiding the conflict of interest problems which arise when an involved person writes on the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This page

Hello James, I've semi-protected this page for three days due to excessive vandalism per a request at WP:RFPP. Hope you don't mind. (Request, my response - pardon the typo in the edit summary...) Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 05:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I had been thinking of doing just that myself, so no, I don't mind. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Shakur (musician)

Can you please take a look at the above mentioned article? It's gone through AfD at least three times, salted, and recreated under several different names. The current author is removing CSD tags and now another editor states that the G4 CSD doesn't apply, since the current article varies from the previous versions, but I don't have access to the earlier versions. Additionally, the current refs do not mention the subject. I appreciate your help. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I have deleted and salted the article. I would also have blocked the author as an obvious sockpuppet, but it's already been done. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! I appreciate the help. It was kinda frustrating to have the author keep deleting the CSD, only to have another editor come by and support the guy deleting the tag. Someone was having an off day, I suppose. Still, I wonder what name it's gonna come back as next. ; ) Thanks again, Cindamuse (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[1] I do believe that is a number 7. Is that the same as this person? Note the deleted contribution (a SPI on you). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Same naming pattern (captcha words then "er"), so possibly. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No "possibly" about it: it's a duck. Vandalism to Conic section amongst other signatures. I also see that this person has at last learnt the trick of making a vandalism edit which includes both your intended vandalism and a minor piece of vandalism which you intend then to revert so that your last edit to the page looks innocent. I wonder what kind of life these people must have, if they consider it worth their while putting so much time and effort into such pointless activities. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thank you for keeping watch and tidying vandalism off my talk page. Fæ (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mindlag Project

thanks for the heads up, care to offer an opinion? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Neurotic Outsiders (album)

I have only recently noticed that the article for the Neurotic Outsiders album was deleted for lack of notabilty and sources to back it. Though im not disagreeing with the decision, I have found two sources for the album (1 & 2) which I hope is enough. Could the article be restored or would there need to be more sources? I would be willing to work on expanding it further. Thanks. (HrZ (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

The links you give confirm the existence of the album, but do nothing to indicate notability. Since the existence was not in question, and the notability was, they don't seem to make much difference. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops!

I see you got to that image before me, but I was edit-conflicted and couldn't see it till too late! Sorry, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we both tripped over one another's toes trying to deal with it. However, all that matters is that it got sorted out in the end. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeedy! And someone else has come along and tidied it all up a bit further ... good stuff. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sheet Retainer

i hope you read the comment i left in the field (i was about to edit the stuff and you just snapped the editing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brais (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume that this refers to the deletion of Three Ring Binder Sheet Retainer, and the message you posted at Talk:Three Ring Binder Sheet Retainer. If you had followed the instructions by adding a "hangon" tag, instead of ignoring them and removing the speedy deletion tag, then I would have seen your comment and held back from deletion. I have taken the comment above as a request to undelete the article, and have done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have also added a "hangon" tag for you, since presumably that reflects your intention. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, please add new talk page sections to the bottom of pages. It makes it much easier to keep track of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of CompleteThisEncyclopedia

Hello JamesBWatson. CompleteThisEncyclopedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  17:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock has since been declined by Sandstein HalfShadow 20:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Aloha!

Aloha James Watson,

I am contacting you because I need to know how I can create new pages of information that have no "reliable" sources, BECAUSE I am an "ORIGINAL SEARCHER" not a REsearcher who REpeats. I have discovered things that make the Da Vinci Code look like a child's play toy! James, to be honest, you have never met anyone like myself. First, before you think I am crazy, don't ASSume, and FYI my grandfather and my father are both 32º Freemason's of the Scottish Rite, Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret.

So, if YOU held thousands of new answers to questions no one knows the answer to, what would you do with this information? HOW CAN I get credit for discovering this MIND BLOWING info and share it with the world? I need to date it and have proof before someone else takes my info and claims it. We all are born with special talents, perhaps yours can help me, and in return, I can help you. I have thousands of these astonishing discoveries I have waited to RElease this info for over 10 years.

Aloha! Peace, Love & Wisdom,

Christopher Clay Lord Sommelier (wine) Wine Vogue Collection (Owner) Professor of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu Gracie Barra Jiu-Jitsu School (owner) Fine Art Master Graphic Artist Truthiracy (owner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthiracy (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

174.22.231.9 at AIV

Howdy, I'm afraid I respectfully disagree about the IP. I think it was pretty clear vandalism and violation of BLP. The IP was changing vital stats of the subject to make him match a criminal, then adding that the subject was a criminal. That seems to be a bit more than an edit war. If you really disagree, I'd be happy to take it to discuss it further, but I really think a block is appropriate here. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that the vital stats were being forged. If that is the case then obviously the block is right. Thanks for correcting my error. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Stabilisation Unit

Hi,
On 12 August, you CSD'd Stabilisation Unit. Articles by that name have now been CSD'd a total of 3 times - presumably because the content was mostly a cut & paste job from the SU's website. However, aside from the prior CSD stigma, I think there's plenty of potential for a decent article - it's a government agency, various reliable independent sources discuss the SU and its people and its work, &c. I'd like to take on the challenge and create a properly sourced, carefully written article on the subject - would you have any objections / suggestions / complaints?
bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that the article has been deleted three times, each time because of copyright infringement. There is no reason on earth why that should have any effect at all on a new article on the same topic which does not infringe copyright. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Groovy; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

General Electric H80

Yes, the move you made is the correct one. Thanks for figuring out my mistake. - BilCat (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Two things

Hi James. 1 - thanks for the block of 195.70.115.254 (talk · contribs) hopefully they might finally get the message. 2. Could you possibly userfy EPiServer that you deleted earlier as spam? It looks as if it is notable and I'll work with KrisRandal (talk · contribs) to make sure it isn't promotional before it's reposted. Thanks Smartse (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

1. You are more optimistic than I am. I will be pleasantly surprised if they get the message. However, we'll see.
2. EPiServer was deleted following an AfD, which makes me a little hesitant to userfy it. However, the latest version was noticeably different from the AfD version, and I am confident that you can be relied on to edit it constructively, so OK. User:Smartse/EPiServer should spring into existence in a minute or two. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, agree that it was right to G11 it, but I think there are some sources here amongst the press releases which demonstrate notability. Smartse (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Otara_Gunewardene

Hello James. I've noted your re-tagging of this article. Gunewardene seems to be quite well-known female entrepreneur in Sri Lanka. I think this is more complicated question than {{db-person}}. Please, give the article a little more time or take it to AfD if you question notability of the subject. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Help

Sorry for the wires being crossed. When the article was purged, I was flustered because the amount of material I had just completed. Then, when I saw the reason was the item was Fake - I was a bit insulted. I do hope we can work all this out

Walterjack (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, it's easy to understand your feelings under the circumstances. And please accept my apology for thinking the article was a hoax, when it wasn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Walterjack (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ridgeford Properties

Could you look at the above - I'm worried about pointy additions that may be true but equally may be libellous. One source given is to my mind not reliable, being the newsletter or newspaper of a pressure group. The user making these additions has a rather pointy name, too. If you can't look at it, can you pass it to another admin who can? Ta. Peridon (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns. I have posted a message on the user's talk page, and reverted the latest edit. We will have to see where it goes after that. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User requesting unprotection (unsalting) of Naveen

A user has requested in my Talk page to unprotect Naveen (as the deleting admin). I referred him here instead of RFPP as you are the salting admin, so we can discuss the issue and come to a decision. Of course, the editor has to understand that - if unprotected - he will still have to assert notability of the subject. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection on the Naveen page please, to start a name page with bearers of the name. John Cengiz talk 13:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you indicate what you would put in the article? I will be willing to unprotect the article if you can clearly indicate that you have a suitable article in mind, with evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A list of people who have wikipedia articles with the given name and surname Naveen. And putting the page in the correct name categories. John Cengiz talk 20:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will unprotect the article on that basis. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Read. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Freeze Time

I did some history merging and renaming after your restoration. You had restored a version of the article created by Wiki-11233, an indefinitely blocked editor that has been a real problem in the Jay Sean arena.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Eagles247's talk page.
Message added 22:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Read. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry semi-protection

I may not be one of these several IPs that would usually submit any type vandalism into these pages any of these pages, but I have noticed that you has semi-protected all Tom and Jerry cartoon articles, except for the article of the series itself and The Mansion Cat. Could you do the same to those two pages? --98.254.83.35 (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of vandalism to these articles? If not I would rather not semi-protect them, which would result in collateral inconvenience to innocent users. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert

How come you reverted the edit to Villanova College? We do call Mr Harvey "The Hardman". He knows this too, so it's not as if it's offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Che burger 1 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 22 October 2010

For one thing it is scarcely encyclopaedic content, and for another it is completely unsourced. It is also worth mentioning that in this edit, as in several others, you used a totally inaccurate edit summary, apparently intended to hide the nature of the edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Forget about the other edits for a moment. I think it's an appropriate addition to the page, considering that Sir likes the name, and the the way in which it reflects his strict (albeit fair) policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Che burger 1 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 22 October 2010

I have no intention of forgetting about your other edits: vandalism to Wikipedia is not acceptable, and does not become acceptable because a vandal asks us to "forget about it". As for the edit you are referring to, whether the person it refers to minds or not is irrelevant, what matters is whether it satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and it doesn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2010

Those other edits were far from vandalism. Although they weren't referenced at the time, they were definitely true, and I believed them to be appropriate for use on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Che burger 1 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 October 2010

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds of Swami

Hello, I noticed your deletion proposal at Sounds of Swami and their future album Flee the Flock. You're definitely right about the future album, but for the band I'm undecided so I'll stay out of the deletion debate. However, you should also take a look at their other releases All Work And No Play Makes Jack A Dull Boy (single), Halcyon Days EP, and Vent EP. If the band article gets deleted for non-notability then so should the articles for all these releases. But the EP's have gotten some reviews that might complicate the issue a bit. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: After I made the above comment, some anonymous editor removed your PROD's without explanation. Consider taken the articles to AfD. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

new energy foundation article

dr. watson, before i post advise if this shall pass and or how i may modify this first work in progress. fdm999Fdm999 (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

New Energies Foundation - NEF founded by Dr. Eugene (Gene) Mallove as a non-profit corporation, drafted by Sean Cavanaugh and Gene Mallove in 1999,legally established 2002 in New Hampshire as a 501(c)3 non-profit public tax deductible charity.

Background: In 1999 during the planning of the SF Investors Conference- SFIC, dedicated to the advancement of new energy projects, Gene Mallove and Sean Cavanaugh formed New Energies Organization- NEO and held the first international investors conference on New Energies at the Romberg Tiburon Center, Tiburon, CA August 1999. Sean organized alternative bankers and green money investors to create a not for profit organization to keep Gene's new energy work ongoing. As of 1998, Gene Mallove's Chapter C for-profit predecessor corporation called, Cold Fusion Technology was planning closure. NEO's legal team organized a non profit corporation successful, and went on to establish projects in India, Oceania, Asia, Europe and Scandinavia. Gene stayed in the US and led a New Energies Foundation. Both NEF and NEO continued after Dr. Eugene Mallove's death in 2004.

The NEF provides publication forums for new energy researchers and experimentalists in Infinite Energy Magazine, its bi-monthly publication. And provides assessments, of new energy work to assist researchers in the field of new energies and funding. As of September 2009 over $650,000 in grants to over 30 researchers and organizations have been awarded with primary focus on non lethal energy reactions, and internet archives of cold fusion material, publications specific to cold fusion, and cold fusion conferences. Including the Oral History Project, which interviews and archives much of the primary researchers and proponents of cold fusion.

The NEO has centers in Europe, Scandinavia, Oceania, Asia and India for practical grass roots projects since 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdm999 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 October 2010

Assuming that you mean that this is a draft for an article, the most obvious problem is a lack of sources, and no evidence of notability. It may also be considered to be somewhat promotional in tone. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Teambox page

James,

I created the page. It was not intended as an advert but only a listing of the company. There are a few reasons I did this.

1. There is a wikipedia page comparing collaboration tools, the only way to be listed on this page is to have a page.

2. Our project is open source and many of our users would like to build on a teambox page and add their contributions on the page.

3. Many of the other companies in our space have a page, see Basecamp, 37 signals, Jive Software, Yammer, and 100 others.

4. We are unique in our manner of communicating with our users.

5. We are about to launch a huge philanthropic project that will help charities globally. We want to use a wikipeida page for the project and then connect it to out page.

Please help me understand how I can make the page simply informative and not something you consider an advert. It was not my intent.

Karlgoldfield (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you are making a fairly common mistake. It is not the case that having an article is the way to get onto a list. It is the case that a subject which does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria may not be suitable for inclusion in a list, and it is convenient to take having an article as suggesting that the subject may be notable enough for inclusion in a list. However this is because if the subject is not notable then any article on it is likely to have been deleted, not because having an article somehow creates notability. Next, you should look at the notability guidelines to see what sort of coverage indicates sufficient notability for inclusion. Next, "We want to use a wikipeida page for the project and then connect it to out page" reads very much like a declaration that you wish to use Wikipedia to promote your product, which is against Wikipedia policy. "We are unique in our manner of communicating with our users" also reads like promotion. Next, it is clear that you have a conflict of interest, and probably should not be editing on this topic at all. It is almost impossible for someone involved in a subject to stand back and see it from an objective enough perspective to write on it in a neutral way, even if they sincerely intend to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Robanukah page

If you are suffering from reading comprehesion problems - that is not a good enough reason to delete pages. Try to read the links next time. Maybe you should go and delete Futurama as well? Aw23FG (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you are kind enough to suggest further reading for me, I will return the complement. You may like to read WP:CIVIL. To write an article on a fictitious topic, presenting it as fact, with no mention that it is fiction, is in effect to create a hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

CHROMuLAN

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

After months of your silence to provider some resolution after I have replied to your question about legal aspect of sources used for CHROMuLAN page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppisa (talk • contribs) 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, I know that this isn't particularly important, but how do I customise my signature? -Est.r (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CUSTOMSIG. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How's this?-ESTR + 11:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! That's fine. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you know how to use the word count script thing for the copy editing process?-ESTR + 11:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

About Creating the Page Name "Ayushmaan"

Dear sir,

I need to create a page or an article name "AYUSHMAAN" i had created this page in September but it has being deleted saying some policies should be maintained and all. i have gone through the policies and procedure to create an page but yet i don't understand what are the things really needed to create page. so kindly with your precious time i need some help and assistances in creating this page. This page is actually built for the some organization which help the orphanage, poor people, and help in blood donation camps. as it is a small organization i need to create this page for the social awareness among the society, as u know Wikipedia has been most popular network which can spread our words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surinmr3000 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was proposed for deletion by User:Pdcook because of a lack of any evidence of notability. When an article is proposed for deletion, if nobody disputes the proposal within a week it is normally deleted, and this is what happened on this occasion. I can, if you like, restore the article for you, since your query could be taken as a belated dispute of the proposal for deletion. However, I think it is only fair to warn you that I am by no means sure that there would be any point in doing so, as I think it would be very likely to be deleted again. I do not think that encouraging you to spend more time and effort on an article which is inevitably doomed to deletion would be doing you a favour. Apart from the lack of evidence of notability, the article looked to me like pure promotion of the organisation, and your comments above reinforce the impression that that was the intention. For example, "Wikipedia has been most popular network which can spread our words" indicates that you are intending to use Wikipedia to publicise the organisation. Such use is against Wikipedia policy. I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations before considering whetehr it is worth requesting restoration of the article. WP:GNG WP:ORG WP:COI and WP:SOAP are also relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Magnequench International

I am going to put more reference information for supporting the article. Please advise if I can create new page again or let me know if I can use existing page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrattanachaisit (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly you can recreate the article with the same title, if that is what you mean. However, bear in mind that the previous article was deleted because it was promotional, so you will need to avoid making the same mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Supercarrier

You recently reverted a edit by an IP editor on the article Supercarrier, just to let you know the IP editor was correct when they changed the tonnage of the QE class carriers from 100,000 to 65,600 tons and no further action is required. Thanks. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted unexplained removal of content, as explained in my edit summary. Since the editor in question had also made another unexplained change which, by your account was valid, it got reverted too. This sort of problem is avoided very easily by always including explanatory edit summaries. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You're quite correct, I appreciate you were simply helping out. I do wish IP editors would tend to explain more but what can be done. Good luck and goodbye. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and a little help please

thanks for the encouragement on closing my rfA yesterday, I'll make sure too work harder before re applying. Also I think my user talkpage may need archiving, its huge! (is almost 60 separate sections huge, i've seen some users archive sooner), can you get some one to archive it, as i don't know how to do that (never bothered, sigh...) --Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Archived, and replied at User talk:Lerdthenerd. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and guidance with MARA

Thank you. So, what it needed was manual editing - thanks to your guidance, next time I'll be able to do it myself. Very much appreciated!--Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

G11 on Inatel

This one seemed worth saving. Please userfy it for me. Thanks, --Stepheng3 (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Userfied, and replied at User talk:Stepheng3. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Revised, and replied at User talk:Stepheng3. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Liquid Metal

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Kandi111777's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Kandi111777's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dipp and Westphal

Hi James - the modifications to Dipp and Westphal's pages are due to the update of the Luke Timmerman Xconomy article where it states that GSK did not order the HLI to stop selling resveratrol. Neither Dipp nor Westphal are associated with the HLI and so those associations were removed. Ging3rkick3r (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

PS Business Parks speedy deletion candidacy

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

Hi James,

I contested the proposed speedy deletion of userspace page PS Business Parks. Details on its talk page as well as my own. Thanks!Jmorganferry (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for the revert on my user page. Cmichael (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BLue Stone

Why did you delete the Blue Stone Bar and Grill page I wrote? I would like to know what was exactly wrong with it. Please be specific. Thank you!

(Ithacarc (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

The page was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Peridon as unambiguous promotion. Looking at it, I found that it did indeed read like an attempt to promote the restaurant. It is worth mentioning, though, that even if it were rewritten in less promotional terms, it might well be deleted sooner or later, as it gave little indication that its subject satisfied Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Since it was a user page rather than an article you would have been given time to work on it and prepare it for release as an article, but this would be only a temporary measure: user-space pages are not for long-term retention of material not suitable as articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of content

Hi James,

You may remember deleting a page under the title International Marketing Reports (IMR) last week. I edited the page to make it as neutral as possible and can only think of a lack of references as justification for deleting the page. Can I ask why a page like the following is permitted to stay while the one I created is not? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Octagon_Worldwide.

Sport sponsorships are a grey area in terms of scientific measurement and evaluation - perhaps if our page addressed this point in more depth and how IMR tackles this global issue then that would be seen as more appropriate? If its not too much trouble, please respond to gary@imrpublications.com.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GR60 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. You are welcome to propose Octagon Worldwide for deletion if you think it does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I see that the article claims it is "the world’s largest sports and entertainment sponsorship consulting practice", which is certainly a claim of significance, but I do not know how valid a claim it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
Message added 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

Just out of curiosity, would you consider throwing your hat in the ring for the ArbCom election? I think you would be a tremendous asset to the committee. Cindamuse (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It hadn't even crossed my mind. Thanks very much for the show of faith, but I think not just now. Feel free to ask again next time round, and I may consider it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No More Love hoaxer block

Thank you for taking action against this hoaxer; I had asked for a block on a previous AfD but was rebuffed. Can you also block an associated IP, 99.88.40.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who seems to be the sneaker IP ClapBoy uses to get more subtle changes for a month? I reverted their changes already. Nate • (chatter) 11:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sapphire Steel

thanks for the reverts -- whole sockpuppet investigation happened pretty damn quickly too ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like hes back: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted

Why was the page deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FolkKänndom (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was what page deleted? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Parade High School All-Americans

Please read comment at Category talk:Parade High School All-Americans (girls' basketball). The spelling issue needs to be resolved. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I did read the comment, but it did not in any way negate the fact that it was a talk page of a non-existent page, which was the reason for deletion. Why did you think I didn't read it? If you wish to put a comment on the talk page of an existing page suggesting moving it then that is fine, but putting a comment on a talk page for a page which does not even exist is very unlikely to serve any useful purpose, as nobody is likely to find it (except such situations as an admin coming to the page because it is tagged for speedy deletion, of course.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

James, why would you just delete the talk page, rather than correcting the spelling of the actual category and moving it? Otherwise, we are simply ignoring the real problem; that's why I thought you did not read it. May we solve the real problem, by moving all of these Parade High School All-American subcategories to their proper spellings? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I read the comment, but thought it was a comment left from before an earlier moving of the category page, so I deleted it. The comment looked to me as though it had been written on the talk page of the category without the apostrophe, asking for it to be moved to the title with one. I assumed therefore that the category had been moved, and had subsequently been moved again or deleted, the talk page being left behind. Could I have worked out the true situation if I had searched more extensively? Probably yes. However, there are always far more admin tasks waiting to be done than I can do, and I spend a lot of time doing background checking on ones which seem complicated, but when I find something which looks perfectly straightforward it seems a better use of my time to just deal with it and move on to another task. If I had found the message on the talk page of the apostrophe-free version of the page I certainly would have moved it, as you were, of course, perfectly right. Unfortunately putting the request on the moved talk page, rather than a new talk page for the old page, misled me. Sorry about the mistake, but perhaps you can forgive me now I have explained how it happened. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL Oh, boy. When do the clowns start climbing out of the little car? Sorry, James, I'm not angry, but I am a slightly frustrated. I had asked another admin to fix this, and he was working on the problem. Someone put a CSD tag on these pages, and they popped up on my watchlist. No fewer than three different admins attempted to delete them while I was literally adding the "hang on" tags, with the usual "edit conflict" difficulties. One other admin, Orange Mike, may be joining us on your talk page shortly to discuss the solution. Thanks for trying to help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, I think we're all working toward the same goal (most days, anyway). Admin Orange Mike seems to think there is no way to "move" a category page, thereby creating a redirect, and thus requiring the creation of a new category page at the correct spelling, and the manual editing of each of the existing links at the bottom of each article page. What's your take? BTW, no need to respond or place talk-backs on my page; I'm watching yours. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have very little experience with working on categories, so I don't know. It is certainly true that there is no "move" link when I look at a category page, so Orange Mike is probably right. He is very knowledgeable, and has been an admin far longer than I have. Manually changing all the links could be an enormous task for some categories, though this category, with only 17 members, shouldn't be too bad. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is actually one of five separate subcategories (football, boys' basketball, girls' basketball, boys' soccer and girls' soccer). I created the original parent category for football, and another hard-working editor created the subcategories and added 200+ articles to the new subcats. Can't fault the other editor for his work ethic (just his spelling). Anyway, like the darned fool I am, I volunteered to deal with getting the subcats fixed. So, here I am. Let's see what Mike has to say on further elaboration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you know I am a great believer in apostrophes where appropriate, and it really grates on me to see their absence from such expressions as "The Kings Arms", yet even I wonder if in this case the best thing would have been to have left things as they were. 200+ articles to manually change is a hell of a lot. I have some idea what it is like, because a while ago I individually semiprotected almost all of the Tom and Jerry cartoon articles because of persistent vandalism. I don't remember how many there were, probably fewer than 200, but I can tell you I was pretty sick of the task by the time I reached the end. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, English language spelling and grammar are a curse upon a great civilization, and even more so to those of us who thanklessly try to follow those rules whenever possible and are spat upon by our fellows for it. I gather from the use of the abbreviation "Dr" without the period that you are English or other Commonwealth nationality. If so, we can argue about whether the punctuation should be placed inside or outside the quotation marks. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

JBW, with some help from others, I have figured out the process to resolve this cock-up. While I have manually depopulated the less populous of the incorrectly spelled subcategories and requested their speedy deletion, the incorrectly spelled "boys basketball" subcategory includes over 500 articles. I have requested this category's speedy renaming through the CfD page, and once the renaming is effectuated with the correct spelling, there is an available bot to change the category on the individual article pages. I thank you for your assistance in this matter. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Din Draithou COI?

I noticed you added a COI-template at user talk:DinDraithou, was this done by accident? If it was deliberate, I'd like to know what in DD's edits/ article creations point towards a COI. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is probably as good an example as any. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What a ridiculous thing to add to my talk page, when everyone already knows the story about those arms, that I am happy to support Xander because he kindly drew them when I asked, and that, since I am anonymous, I sometimes enjoy sounding a certain "entitled" way. Who cares? Because I don't go around and mess up Wikipedia, so stay out of my space with your ridiculous templates, James. DinDraithou (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I posted the message in good faith, because I had seen some edits that made it look as though you might have a conflict of interest, and might not realise the position on that in Wikipedia, so I thought it would help to clarify things for you. I see that you didn't like my attempt to help you. For that I am sorry. You are mistaken in thinking that "everyone already knows the story about those arms": I don't for example. I didn't suggest that you "go around and mess up Wikipedia", and I am not at all sure how that is relevant to a warning about possible conflict of interest. I don't know what you mean by "stay out of my space": if it means that I should not post messages on your user talk page then the answer is that I will do so if and only if there seems to be a good reason to do so. If you can clarify what you meant then please feel welcome to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you obviously did not have a good reason to do so, had not investigated, but went ahead with that nice template anyway. I didn't like it, and since I'm not doing anything wrong you shouldn't be on my talk page. I have nothing to do with the war Xander is in and only offered him local support because he kindly drew those arms as I requested. It was local support only, limited to five articles sharing a common image, and I don't care about all the rest of it. Discussion over. (I'm unwatching it.) DinDraithou (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that my posting the conflict of interest message was related to an issue with another editor and some pictures of coats of arms. It had nothing to do with that. It was based purely on your statement that you had a connection with a family and that that gave you a right to decide what information about the family should be included in Wikipedia. I also find your idea that nobody should post messages to your talk page unless you have done wrong an odd one. Finally, if by "Discussion over" you mean that you will ignore any response I make to what you have written, then that is up to you, but it does not seem to be a constructive approach. One word of advice: try not to see everything in confrontational terms. As I have already explained, I was making a good faith attempt to help you, and I have not accused you of any wrongdoing. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am only their de facto "representative" because I'm a distant cousin and the only person on Wikipedia who knows anything about them. Families don't have Wikipedia "representatives" so it was not meant in that sense, which I thought would be obvious. The passage referred to one other editor and then an admin who had convinced themselves the image needed to be in three O'Donovan biographies simply because Xander had added them. I never thought it belonged anywhere but in the main article. But when I removed them there was a little edit war and FisherQueen even threatened to block me for removing the image from the articles in which it should not have been in the first place. Really they were fighting Xander and my attempt to be nice got me attacked by his enemies. Again, discussion over. DinDraithou (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The notion that Xanderlip has "enemies" here says a lot about both Xander and the above editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if my "intervention" when I first saw your message helped make this a larger storm in a teacup than it should have been, instead of the other way around. I certainly accept that your edit was done in good faith, although a message instead of a template might have had a better chance of getting the effect you intended. {{Don't template the regulars}} comes to mind... ;) Best regards, and happy editing, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You shudder now

Boo! Anna Lincoln 15:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is already a thread for this so I'm deleting the question Greenshinobi (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Greenshinobi

Catherine Reynolds

In response to this, the page was created in June 2010, well after the creator, User:ChildofMidnight operating under a sockpuppet account, was banned. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That completely changes everything. I had no idea it was ChildofMidnight. I will delete forthwith. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How did you have no idea that it was ChildofMidnight, when User:Freakshownerd clearly says that it it was? Admins are expected to do better than this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Very easy. I spent some time checking the user's talk page, talk page history, edit history, block log, etc, and in the course of doing so managed to overlook their user page. If by "admins are expected to do better than this" you mean expected to usually do better, then you are of course right, and I hope I do so. If, however, you mean that nobody should be an admin if they are capable of sometimes making a slip, then I wonder who you think would be an admin. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Help Deleting

Can you help me delete the redirect page Dauphine of France? I need to move Dauphine and First Princess of France to it. Thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Shame you deleted an article on such a role model for british asian women in the uk

You deleted an article on EX1 Cosmetics. If you check the refernces you will see the massive contributions this girl made to the cosmetics industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super sara 2007 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't need to check the references in order to see that the article was unambiguous advertising. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:195.194.185.53

Would an IP like 195.194.185.53 be appropriate for Admin intervention against vandalism? (Recent vandalism to Lee Evans (comedian))? 173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Borderline. Certainly much more appropriate than the couple of reports I mentioned to you. There is effectively only one recent edit (3 edits, but in immediate succession one after another) and no editing after the last warning. Normally I would say that warnings from 10 days and more ago are not very relevant, as it is entirely likely that they were to different users. However, in this case all the edits are within a fairly short period, which encourages me to think it is likely to be the same user. However, the banner on the talk page indicating it is a college IP goes against that. On balance I think the answer is "no": warn the user and see if the problem continues rather than reporting at this stage. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (Ppisa)

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

16:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of magical negro archetypes in fiction into Magical negro

Hi,

As you have recently edited one of the two articles mentioned, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro#Proposing a merger. Thank you, Bigger digger (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User 86.157.79.10

I'm having a problem with this IP that keeps submitting speculation info to Spike and Tyke (characters). Could you please send him a warning to stop adding unverifiable info on that page? If he continues to do so, block him from editing. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the user, but you could have done that yourself. Let me know if it continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the unblock. My apologies for any difficulties I may have caused. I don't react well when embattled, though that reaction is my sole responsibility. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

James, I just tried to "revoew a P-C change here, and it was not autoconfirmed. I'm thinking this might be something to do with new P-C updates, but can you double check to see if my permissions are correct? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what went wrong. You certainly have the right user rights, including reviewer. My first attempt to accept your edit failed too, and I should certainly be able to do it, as an admin. However, I tried a second time and it worked, so maybe it was just a temporary problem with the software. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just wanted to rule out the possibilty it had something to do with a residual effect from my block. - BilCat (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Pacifists At War

You just deleted my bands page saying it was irrelevant... How so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.211.6 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about irrelevancy. However, Wikipedia:CSD#A7 will tell you about the speedy deletion criterion that was used, WP:GNG and WP:BAND will tell you about the relevant notability criteria, and User talk:Melaen is the user talk page of the user who nominated the article for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you deleted my page for my friends band. i can understand why seeing as there wasnt much content but thats cuz i was waiting for matt cooper of the band to edit alot more information onto the page, which he then did for 2 hours, then you deleted it all. we're both pretty mad at you. i was wondering if you could please reopen the page so that we may recover the text or if you could somehow send me all of the text that was on the page, it would be very nice of you.

thanks John —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAGibbs (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just because your band exists doesn't mean it has a place here. Why is your band significant? What has it done to make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? HalfShadow 19:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I can email the text of the article to you if you like. If you don't want to publicly announce your email address you can enable email on your Wikipedia preferences page. That way I can send you an email via Wikipedia without knowing your email address. Of course there's nothing to stop you just posting your email address here if you want to, but I wouldn't encourage you to do that. However, I should warn you that before considering re-creating the article you should have a look at Wikipedia:Yet another MySpace band. A rather more hostile version is at Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. I don't personally go along 100% with the views expressed in the second of those, but it does act as a caution against thinking that Wikipedia is the place to get publicity for a little-known band. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion or publicity. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

i have enabled my email and can you please send me the text it would be nice to have. thank you john —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAGibbs (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied via email. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Account

Why is User:Macy emerald blocked? She's my sister and came complaining to me that Wikipedia wouldn't let her edit anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.247.252 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the only way you can can know that I was the one who did the blocking is that you have seen either the block log entry or the block notice on her user talk page. In either case you know why she was blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

re Unblock request from Red Hot Org

Sorry, but would be opposed to an unblock, due to violation of WP:Role account, which does not magically get fixed with username change. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

EAR: maths

Hi James, if you have a moment could you chime in here. It looks as if it needs a mathematician and might not even be a case for us at EAR. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi James,

I am trying to create a page with the title "Kairos Palestine" which is a project that I am currently responsible for. The page has been deleted a couple of times to copyright issues. The text I added on the Wikipedia page is the same text I used on the website and have no intention to changing it. Would it be possible to keep the text as it is on the Wikipedia page even though it has been copied from the main website? Thanks

Best, Roula Handal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roulahandal (talk • contribs) 09:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Integrity Watch Afghanistan/Integrity Watch Afghanistan

Hi. I hesitate to revert a fellow admin, but I have declined your db-spam on this because, despite the author's obvious COI and user-name problems, it seems to me a neutrally-written and adequately-referenced article. In fact, though I shall read it again and check more of the refs first, I am inclined to move it into the main space. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was not sure myself, which is why I tagged it, rather than simply deleting. I wanted a second opinion, which you have now given me, and I am happy to accept it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It isn't in any of the instructions, and I hadn't understood it before I became an admin, but I soon realised that there are two classes of speedy candidates: those like blatant attacks which are so certainly deletable that one pair of eyes is enough, and the much larger number which should have two pairs so that an admin, coming upon one untagged, should tag it and leave for another to check. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made it live. Further to that, is it OK with you if I unblock the author to change his username? Looking at the history, he seems to have gone about things exactly as we would wish a COI contributor to do, making a draft in userspace, asking at WP:FEED for comment, and not contesting the deletions someone there suggested. JohnCD (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I will leave the decision to you. I certainly won't wheel war over it. However, I would be inclined to first seek an assurance that the account is to be used only by one person. I am very far from happy with the repeated use of the word "we" in the unblock request, strongly suggesting a violation of WP:ROLE. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, which I have emphasised in my unblock message. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Lex3191's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

POV content fork at MultiCharts

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

I have addressed your reason for speedy deletion

No you haven't, as I have explained on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have explained my position on my page. Sorry for any confusion.

[User:sbokov|sbokov]] (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, responded

Sbokov (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Anne_Seisen_Saunders biography stub deleted.

You proposed deletion of a biography I wrote for Anne Seisen Saunders. I added references within a week's time, before November 2nd. Please let me know why it was still deleted after I added the necessary references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhisattvajr (talk • contribs) 17:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I restored this article due to a request on WP:REFUND. It had at least one reference which covered the subject prior to deletion. No comment on whether or not it is likely to survive AfD. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't propose deletion, but I did delete it. Why, I am not sure: probably it was just a mistake. Two of the three sources do not appear to mention Saunders, and I am not sure that the other is a reliable source, but it is enough to prevent deletion on PRODBLP grounds. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I agree that 2 of the three cited sources (I didn't google to see if there were more) don't mention Saunders in any depth though I think sign on san diego is the web page for the local paper (reliable enough)--they took the common but confounding step of creating a web presence with a different name from their paper. Consequently it is hard to tell at a glance that the two are the same organization. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

edition

I would suggest that edit warring with regard to the content of these articles on your part is irresponsible - several other articles of the same type by the same user with the same basic problems were deleted at AfD by the user (several more than once, as the user tried a few times to sneakily recreate the articles, and got blocked for it ultimately). There were also noticeboard discussions supporting the conclusion the AfDs reached, and AN/Is involving neutral, non-Australian admins agreeing that James's behaviour was disruptive. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I think Caesia's actions in redirecting were entirely reasonable given that existing gauging of consensus. If it is so much of a problem I will nominate the five articles for deletion in their own right, but I'm disappointed that you think it's acceptable or even appropriate to re-add hysterical, unsupportable OR to the encyclopaedia without any sense of responsibility.

What will you do to change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandtrenda (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the remotest idea what you are talking about. If you actually do have some articles in mind then please say what articles. On the face of it this looks like trolling. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you do, without any doubt. There are a lot of other admins, who shall not be named, who are keeping an eye on the sitation therefore I suggest you act accordingly and be prepared to justify your actions next time in a professional manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandtrenda (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No you are mistaken, this isn't vandalism or trolling. Please refain from making further false accusations as this puts your reputation in further jeopardy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandtrenda (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Who is this and why is he posting on my page? HalfShadow 21:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I was intending to ask you if you knew anything about it. I shall ignore it unless and until the user posts again. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand

I added a source for what i was saying, and it's the truth, so why are you reverting me? It factual, and it has sources. Your all a bunch of jerks! Catlover324 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I explained at Catlover324's talk page: if the user would rewrite the content in an encyclopedic way, we could include it. But this user's actions are merely disruptive. Nimur (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for deletion reconsideration

I would like to ask to have the deletion of the page ANA SANTIAGO be reconsidered on the following grounds:

A. This person has founded and heads the only Impact Evaluation Network in Latin America and the Caribbean. This network is part of LACEA (http://www.lacea.org/portal/index.php), the most important international association of economists interested in doing research in the region. She is a permanent Honorary Member of LACEA, award given by her contribution to impact evlauation reserach and policy relevance for the region ( http://www.lacea.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&phpMyAdmin=b883a10db6c19d415348047740f5c4b0&phpMyAdmin=f18f79e76e8f09c4b5c658d1db20ad3f).The contribution of founding the network is is widely referred to and attended by policymakers, governments, NGOs, and academics in the field. This contribution falls into the category "creative professionals" of the notability criteria, mostly 2 and 3 with c) of number 4:

"Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: 1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

B. Further, this person is part of the very small team of persons that have been given the mandate from the Haitian government to redesign a major reform and reconstruction of Haiti's education system following the 2010 earthquake. This has been cited in other pages such as MARCELO CABROL

"Reconstructing Haiti's Education system after the 2010 earthquake: President Preval gave the Inter-American Development Bank, IDB the mandate to work with the Education Ministry and the National Commission preparing a major reform of the Education System in a 5 year plan. New Schools for Haiti (in French) 5year plan to reconstruct"

and PAUL VALLAS "After Haiti's 2010 earthquake, President Preval gave the Inter-American Development Bank, IDB the mandate to work with the Education Ministry and the National Commission preparing a major reform of the Education System in a . [New Schools for Haiti (in French)] [5year plan to reconstruct] 5 year plan]]; Mr. Vallas has been working with the Bank in this effort. For more information: Education Division Chief Marcelo Cabrol"

C. Finally, she leads the all the research and evaluation of one of the main Multilaterals (IDB) on Education topics, directly responsible for ongoing pilots and evaluations for over 200 million dollars. Part of this work has been taking the implementation and designing the impact evaluation of the Teach for America (national teaching corps) model to the region currently in place in Chile, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia. The evaluation design improves on the US evaluations so far, fac that has been recognized and cited in the region and outside (including the US and Europe) by Wendy Kopp, founder of TFA.

My username: uctpasa Uctpasa (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Ana Santiago (article titles are case sensitive), there are two points: (1) no persuasion was needed. If you contest a deletion by PROD the article will normally be restored. (2) The article has already been restored. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Windsor Hall page.

I think that the situation has changed, as this halls of residence was subject to a £13 million expansion, creating new facilities that are currently used by over 1000 students living on campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APB706 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Tks for your kind words. Cheers! • Ling.Nut (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

2:37, 4 November 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Marco Scotini"

Hello James, I'm Cristina Simone and working for NABA. I'm trying to update the profile into wikipedia, also inserting new info as such as teachers' biography. But you deleted my articles because :

12:37, 4 November 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Marco Scotini" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.italstudio.nl/pdf/NABA_Brochure.pdf)

Please, that's our brochure, from NABA. SO what could I do? I don't want to create new artcle that you'll delete for this reason. let me know, thanks a lot cristina simoen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristinasimone (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit

Your edit here. I removed the strike is that ok? Ohlly (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD for Qantas Flight 32

Please note that MMN and I are both editing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32. I'm not going to engage him directly, even if he queries me. I'd appreciate some extra eyes to be sure no baiting occurs. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider deletion

Hello Sir,

Feels nice to be a part of Wikipedia here. Nevertheless, the first article I posted, on Kolkata Little Magazine Mela (meaning "fair") was considered for deletion, on the ground of promotional spamming. Well, that fair is organized by a Govt. of West Bengal undertaking organization, Paschimbanga Bangla Akademi so I have nothing to gain or lose there. I also gave the names of a few magazines I bought there last year. I have been working as a content writer of four-five websites and am myself the webmaster of two. I know quite well what spamming is, and precisely, we hate it.

Perhaps the resource was too short, I will feel glad if someone expands it and makes it ready for approval. I mostly write under this pen-name, Shree Yaksha; I regret I cannot reveal my true name.

Thanks in anticipation for your precious time.

Regards, Shree Yaksha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shree Yaksha (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page revert

Cheers for that James, don't no where that editors... passion? came from! --NorthernCounties (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

New ambitious editor with a maverick streak requests consultation on how to improve his conduct in order his ability to contribute to the project

Hi, I would like to request some Good faith on your part, as you seem to be accusing me of vandalism, which I assure you I had no part in. In the interests of good faith I would like you to explain to me how precisely my actions warrant vandalism since I can link a host of faithful scholars equally willing to condemn the woman in question and I cannot think of one single reason to explain your profound rudeness to me, a well meaning good faith new editor who seeks only joy and great feelings for this project. 86.47.30.250 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that your comments at User talk:NorthernCounties were obvious personal attacks, which are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I was unaware of the incident in question besides me and Northern Counties are now best buds, I may regret his Derry upbringing but I shall learn to live with it. 86.47.30.250 (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

When the author of this edit comments on "profound rudeness" are we to take it seriously? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Further personal attacks seen here. --NorthernCounties (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? Granted I may be more intelligent the casual slobs who pass for intellect in your part of Ulster but I thought good old fashioned Ulster Wit was still alive and well, clearly no. A son of Heany you most certainly are not. 86.47.30.250 (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If offence is sought, it shall certainly not be achieved :-) --NorthernCounties (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not feeding the trolls. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, I learn't from past mistakes =] --NorthernCounties (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe Small

I appreciate what you do, but deleting my page repeatedly without giving me any suggestions on how to make it acceptable is not as helpful as you may think. Also, I do not appreciate your sarcasm about being on a soap box when I am trying to honestly put up a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revwhitemamba (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. By the way, JamesBWatson, sorry for repeatedly writing on your talk. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No apology needed. I am grateful for your help. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you took it as sarcasm, it certainly wasn't intended as such. Using Wikipedia for promotion is not permitted. As for "how to make it acceptable", you need to produce evidence that the subject of the article satisfies no evidence that the subject of the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. the ones most relevant in this case are outlined in general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people. However, it looks to me as though the person in question may not satisfy those guidelines, in which case it is not possible to "make it acceptable". You also appear to have a conflict of interest, in which case you should not be writing an article on the subject at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC

Forget it, you have successfully turned me away from wikipedia. Thank you for your "help".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Revwhitemamba (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 November 2010

ATs with the Gs

Egads Man! You must not stop the propagation of knowledge; pity all the Novocastrians searching for the meaning of ATs with the Gs at this very instant, only to be turned away by the free encyclopedia.Miczilla (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pilbara rail network

Many thanks for your efforts, great work! Calistemon (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for dealling with the troll

thanks for deleting that message, unfortunately it edit conflicted with my reply, i have restored the rude message and my reply because it doesnt bother me and think the conversation is hilarious, feel free to monitor any more messages from our persistant troll--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To-Shin Do

What kind of independent resources are you looking for to speak of To-Shin Do? It is a martial art. I know I made an edit to it previously but I think i changed it back if I recall and just added the http://www.skhquest.com/ URL to the page. I'm just unsure as to what you are looking for as an outside citation. There are tons of Martial Arts authorities out there, but who amongst them would vouch for anything but what they are teaching themselves? I'd like to Rebuild a To-Shin Do page, but I'm not going to bother if I know you will delete it because it's not talked about in the UFC or any of the other mainstream fighting circles.

Keao22 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Keao22

1. The article was proposed for deletion by User:Astudent0, who said that it was unreferenced.
2. I can confirm that it was unreferenced at the time of the proposal, and was still unreferenced a week later, after time had been allowed for references to be found, or the proposal challenged. That is why it was deleted.
3. Look at the guidelines on notability and reliable sources to see what is required.
4. If there are no references to it other than those from the people who run it then the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and there can be no article on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

James it strikes me as curious that you would delete the page after waiting only a week for people to add references. If you put it back we will gladly add the references you seek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russnem (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That is how deletion proposals are dealt with on English Wikipedia. You are free to suggest a change in the procedure if you like. It would be a very dramatic change in a well-established procedure, but you could raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The creator of the martial art of To-Shin Do, Stephen K. Hayes, would like to restore the Wikipedia page for his martial art and I work for him in a technical capacity.

Thousands of people practice To-Shin Do and it means a great deal to us. Could you please either restore the page or elaborate more on why you deleted it?

Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russnem (talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Now it sounds like you're trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion and that's not what it's here for. HalfShadow 04:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree with you more. We have many other avenues for promotion. We want a page on Wikipedia because To-Shin Do is a real martial art. But thanks for your comment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russnem (talk • contribs) 05:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also the fact that you're involved with the creator of this so-called 'martial art' (I note that the site this refers to offers "Authentic ninja training". Please. Next you'll be offering "real ninja swords" to the next 20 people who sign up.) means you automatically shouldn't be editing the page. Nor should he. HalfShadow 05:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your real name is, I understand your hostility even though I don't agree with it. You clearly already have your opinion and adhere to it quite strongly, and we understand that. Please have the courtesy to allow others to form their own opinion by finding To-Shin Do on Wikipedia for themselves, and checking the references that we'll make sure are present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.69.123 (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that HalfShadow was being hostile. They were just trying to clarify the position in relation to the way Wikipedia works. "Allow others to form their own opinion by finding To-Shin Do on Wikipedia for themselves" appears to be written in the belief that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information, but it is not. There are plenty of social networking sites, open forums, etc, which allow posting of almost anything, but Wikipedia is different, and requires that topics satisfy certain standards for inclusion. "We want a page on Wikipedia because To-Shin Do is a real martial art" is not a reason for having an article on the topic. My wife's pet cat is a real animal, but does not warrant an article. You may like to have a look at Wikipedia:But it's true! or Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Likewise "it means a great deal to us" is not a reason for an article. Lots of things mean a lot to me, but I know they don't have the kind of notability that Wikipedia requires a topic to have to justify inclusion. The subjective view of a group of people (even a large group of people) not backed up by independent coverage does not constitute satisfying Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You say that you will be able to provide suitable references. That is fine: in that case show us those references, and if they do indeed satisfy the relevant Wikipedia guidelines then there will be no problem at all with having an article on the subject. You ask me to "elaborate more on why [I] deleted it". What exactly do you want clarified? I have given the reason, together with links to the relevant guidelines. If there are specific details of those guidelines you don't understand, or specific questions about how they applied in this particular case, then I will happily try to help. However, I really don't at present know what is unclear to you or what needs elaboration. Finally, it is clear from what you say that you have a conflict of interest, and probably should not be editing on this subject at all, as HalfShadow has already suggested. If the subject really is notable by Wikipedia standards then almost certainly someone who is not involved and can take an objective view will sooner or later write about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There. He gets it. ("Authentic ninja training". I think that's going to make me laugh all weekend. "Be a ninja in eight easy steps!" Oh shit, now I've started giggling...) HalfShadow 17:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Keeping vanity, promotion, and fringe elements out of Wikipedia is an important, and thankless task. In cases like this, we need to determine the specifics as to why the To-Shin Do page was deleted and either a) remedy them or b) leave the page deleted. From a precedent standpoint, there are other martial arts that have pages and seem to meet the "notable" threshold. For example, Jeet Kune Do was a style developed by Bruce Lee. I am not sure it has the worldwide base that To-Shin Do does. I'm not sure it even has licensed schools and other institutionalized structures, yet it meets or exceeds the threshold for "notable," and has its own Wikipedia page.

Simply put, the threshold for a notable martial art needs to be a bright line so we can evaluate whether something meets or exceeds that level. Authors who can meet this standard can provide information, or they can't. This should be purely an intellectual discussion. I fail to see how the process is improved by any of HalfShadow's trolling. Simply answer the questions in a direct, professional manner. At that point, the page will be corrected or stay deleted. Thank you Greenshinobi (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Greenshinobi.

I've started a skeleton on my personal user page. Once its ready to be moved to live Wiki we can do that. I don't want to submit until there are verifiable citations.Greenshinobi (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Greenshinobi