User talk:JamesBWatson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk

  • If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) (I make only limited use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.)
  • If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page.
  • Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked.
Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message.
  • After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JamesBWatson. You have new messages at Silvanongetha's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for comments[edit]

ViperFace (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Thank you for your comments. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but as being an academic student I am also familiar with requirements of encyclopedic articles, as well as human nature being vulnerable for not being able to maintain complete neutrality. I honestly have tried to maintain as neutral tone as possible, while trying to be able to include all information of the subject I consider relevant. I will look into improving the issues you present. I am in no way expecting any compensation for my edits. I merely share the same views on certain issues with subject organizations of the articles. I am neither a member, nor employee of the organization. Again, thank you for your constructive criticism, I'll try to correct these issues within the article(s) in near future.

Page reverted[edit]


I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.

I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited.

I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.

My best,

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 06,20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious?[edit]

Do you think it's a coincidence that articles about "pop stars" and famous soccer players are created who all were born in 1992 and who are all from Salzburg, Austria and who have all the same name? You ridicule Wikipedia by declining the deletion. --Yoda1893 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You see that in this "source" nowhere appears this name? That's because that's a source he can't fake and he works very hard to fake another sources. --Yoda1893 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Yoda1893, and thanks for those messages. Many administrators (probably most administrators) would have simply declined the deletion request without even considering it, as there is a widespread view that speedy deletion because of creation by a blocked editor should never be used except in the case of creation by an account that has already been blocked as a sockpuppet. Even among those administrators who take a more liberal line, most would have simply dismissed the proposal, as no evidence of sockpuppetry was provided except for creation of pages with similar names. I, however, put some time and effort into checking the history. I found that there had been a couple of articles about a footballer, who at first glance did not appear to have anything to do with the musician that the current article was about. I am now told that there was other evidence, which you were aware of, and could presumably therefore have provided. Perhaps if I had happened to check the dates of birth in the articles I saw, I might have noticed the coincidence, and perhaps if I had happened to check one or two other details I might have found other coincidences. However, exactly how much time do you expect me to put into comparing every possible detail of every one of a group of articles? Do you think that it is constructive to accuse me of "ridiculing" Wikipedia, because I failed to find the evidence which you knew of, and presumably could have mentioned? I suggest that you may like to carefully consider how you expressed yourself, and whether there might have been a better way of dealing with the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Milton Berle[edit]

Good morning -- I seem to be bumping into an unusual number of unusual editors these days. User ChatNoir24 -- and possible sock (although that might have been an accidental forgot-to-sign=in thing) -- has repeatedly changed Milton Berle's birth name from Mendel to Milton, despite numerous sources for Mendel; I listed a half-dozen examples on my talk page in response to an anonymous note, presumably from this same editor. He/she has cited no sources, nor offered any edit-summary explanations. On my talk page he/she claims to have worked with Berle and "seen his birth certificate", which of course does not qualify as WP:RS. I'm at 2.5RR at the moment, and don't want to perpetuate this as an edit war, so I could use a bit of help, when you have a moment. Thanks, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: In going over his/her talk page more closely, I see that he/she has been warned multiple times for edit warring using different aliases -- though not recently. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: [1]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just to say I have responded to something of your comment...(not sure how to put this at the bottom of you talk page...)

Vaell / Vehicle and Equipment Leasing Limited[edit]

FYI: you speedy-deleted Vaell yesterday, now recreated as Vehicle and Equipment Leasing Limited. (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Sysoyenko[edit]

You deleted the article about Iryna Sysoyenko. I had originally tagged it for speedy deletion, as it appeared to be an article about an unremarkable Ukrainian lawyer. However, the original author (although improperly removing the speedy deletion tag) further clarified that Ms Sysosenko is a member of the Parliament of Ukraine, with a citation to her party's website (which I am unable to verify from my office computer -- darn firewalls!). This assertion should, at the very least, avoid speedy deletion, no? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I didn't notice that the author had added that statement to the article, but you are of course right in saying that it invalidates the speedy deletion, so I will restore the article. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I have looked at the page given as a reference for her membership of the Ukrainian parliament, and it makes no mention of that. I have also searched, and found no mention of it anywhere. For example, lists her accomplishments, including being a member of the Ukrainian bar, various academic qualifications, and chairman of a charity, and so on, but it makes no mention of her being a member of the parliament, which is a strange omission. (Google translation of the page: Likewise tells us she is a lawyer and a fund manager, but does not mention her membership of the parliament. However, it is clear that she is an active member of a political party, and she may have been elected in the recent election on 26 October, in which case since it is so recent the information may not be widely published. If that is so, she will actually become a member of the parliament on 1 December. As I said above, I will restore the article, but it needs a reliable source for the claim of being a member of parliament. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Upon further research (more possible from home than from my office computer), I have found no significant coverage of this individual, and have taken the article to AFD. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Name change Superuser-u -> Schnupperuser[edit]

Thank you for unblocking my name change. However I don't know how to proceed. How do I put the request into "Wikipedia:Changing username" to avoid reblocking?

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superuser-u (talkcontribs) 19:37, 25 November 2014

@Superuser-u: Go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. Have a quick read through the section headed "Instructions". In point number 5 of that section, thee is a link that say "Click here to place your request". Click on it. In the editing space that will open, after "CURRENT=" put your current username (Superuser-u) and after "NEW=" put the new name (Schnupperuser). After "REASON=" put a brief reason: it should be enough to say that an administrator has told you your name violates the username policy. Don't put anything in the "Subject/headline" box. (If you are wondering why it's there if you aren't supposed to use it, then you are not the only one.) Save the page, and wait for a bureaucrat to get round to dealing with the request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User: ChatNoir24[edit]

Hello James, The above user, having just come-out of the three-day block you initiated is again trying to use the same "information" on the Anna Anderson Talk page. I have commented on this, but feel that this user is not going to listen to reason. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: Yes, I see what you mean. However, at present it is just a disagreement about content, concerning an issue I know little about. If and when ChatNoir24 starts any sort of disruptive editing again, such as edit warring, persistently adding unsourced content, etc, I will be willing to consider possible further administrative action, but as long as it's just a content dispute, I am not going to get involved. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and advice. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party[edit]

Hi James, I see you in the deletion log, would you mind taking a look at the IPs editing at a fast pace in Aam Aadmi Party and consider a semi-pp, please? Best, Sam Sing! 11:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've semi-protected the article for 3 days, Sam. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Sam Sing! 11:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party Protection Needed[edit]

Hello James,

Editing needs to be disabled on this page for next 24 hours - The correct content is - (2 Day Old). From the morning BJP's (Rival Party) Social Media team is spamming page of Aam Aadmi Party. Please protect it with the correct revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitbjain (talkcontribs) 11:13, 26 November 2014‎ (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Check WP:WRONGVERSION. He cannot restore to any version. Except under some special circumstances. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for Protection Ankitbjain (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
(edit conflict) @Ankitbjain: To protect the article to preserve what I decided was the "correct" version would be an abuse of administrative power: see the page "The Wrong Version" that OccultZone has linked to. If the article is fully protected, it is more likely than not to be at a version other than the one you call "the correct revision". I have already protected the article from editing by unregistered or newly registered editors for longer than the 24 hours you suggest, and if one or more registered editors edit war on the article, those editors can be individually blocked from editing, so there is no foreseeable need at present for full protection. If you are not already acquainted with Wikipedia:Edit warring, then I suggest you read it now. (If you do so, don't take too much notice of all the stuff about the so-called "three revert rule", as I will block any edit-warring editor whether or not they have broken that "rule".) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The current version is pretty much identical to the last version by Sitush, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm not concerned. Sam Sing! 11:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @James. I understood your point. The current version seems to be correct. Since I never do any edits, it is really difficult to understand how things go here. Ankitbjain (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ankitbjain:, we all have to learn when we start editing here and people do realise that. JamesBWatson is a great guy and has given you some good advice; if you follow it, you'll come to no harm. I am off out shortly but I will take a look at the article when I get back. I'm guessing that perhaps a president's rule thing is coming to an end and a new election in Delhi is imminent, causing BJP to go into attack mode but I want to dig around the newspapers etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I've just noticed that you were warned about something else relating to the article. Please do read our policy regarding verifiability for info that you add to articles. It probably would also be a good idea if you do not actually edit the article yourself if you are, for example, a member of the AAP: you may have a conflict of interest and in such circumstances you should really limit yourself to making sensible comments at Talk:Aam Aadmi Party. There are plenty of people watching that thing and so your voice should not go unheard. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Nothing serious Sitush. I just replaced the page with the previous one - But later I found that this page was also edited this morning. Almost 50 revisions were made so it was very tough to find the non-biased revision. Anyway issue got resolved now. I put the 25th November revision which was fair. Ankitbjain (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[edit]

IP address user is deleting a lot of info from many pages with no reason given[2], but doesn't seem to care at all[3]. (talk)

Is this an ad?[edit]

Brian Boxer Wachler

I think it is. They disguise references by using papers that he published. Many professors and even obscure junior faculty have publications. Even a clown like me has publications and I am not even a faculty member of any university. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I will nominate it for AFD in December. That will give me time to think about it but I think it is AFD material. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I particularly like the "awards" -- and the numerous links to his own website. A skilled self-promoter, I'll give him that. Why wait until December? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


Many thanks for that, I replied on my talk page OsizUrUnkle (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Tsogo Sun[edit]

Hello James,

This summer you participated in the AFD discussion and invited anyone who is interested, to take part in extensive searches for information about Tsogo Sun that would allow to restore the page.

I used a draft article (that you saved), made it more neutral and added corresponding references to support almost every fact in the text. I can expand the list with other independent news media and printed books, if necessary.

Please let me know whether I can restore the page using this corrected version of the article in my sandbox. — Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 14:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that I "invited anyone who is interested, to take part in extensive searches for information". I did, however, invite anyone interested to read my fairly long explanation to the author of the article why it wasn't suitable.
I have checked all of the references in your draft. Two are books which don't appear to mention Tsogo Sun, and the others are largely just reports of individual business deals. None of them is substantial coverage of Tsogo Sun. A couple of them look to me as though they are on websites that exist to help promote businesses. I still see no evidence (either in your references or in anything I have been able to find) which indicates that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt reply. Of course, I read your explanations before starting my work on this article:
1) The books in the list did mention Tsogo Sun (I indicated the pages with supporting info), moreover, this company became the subject of authors' attention as a game changer on this market:
1. The Social Impact of Gambling in South Africa (see pages 20, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 127, 147)
The author studied Tsogo Sun's clientele, classifying them by gender, nationality and other factors, trying to identify the social impact of this company. He also interviewed all representatives of the most influential casino chains in South Africa, including Tsogo Sun.
The book can be considered as independent, because it was not sponsored or somehow supported by casino owners. It is devoted to social issues and problems of this business.
2. Johannesburg: The Elusive Metropolis (see pages 56, 66)
The author writes about legalisation of gambling in South Africa and about licenses held by Tsogo Sun. These facts support the info in the article.
2) Let's consider your other comments (individual business deals / no substantial coverage / promotional websites).
According to WP:ORG, an company is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. If multiple journalists at multiple newspapers separately and independently write about the same subject, then each of these unrelated articles should be considered separate sources, even if they are writing about the same event or "story".
I will try to expand the list of sources, it will be not hard as Tsogo Sun is the largest hotel and tourism company in South Africa. I was surprised to know that it doesn't have its page in Wikipedia. Then I found your comments on AFD page and decided to consult with you before the publication. And I am still confused that you consider the company as not notable. CNBC Africa, The Daily Telegraph (they devoted a significant portion of the article to Tsogo), BBC News Online, Business Day (South Africa), The New York Times... I consider these media as reliable and independent. Am I right? — Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 15:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
For the books, you gave links to Google books. The Google books search facility failed to find any mention of "Tsogo Sun" in either of them, which is why I said "don't appear to mention Tsogo Sun". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
Sorry, James. I did not know that English version of Google books search does not show the results. Please try to open them here: 1, 2 (they are in Russian, but the book pages are in English). —Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 16:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
James, I have extended the list of references: IOL, Reuters, Arabian Business, Mail & Guardian and other media that are usually considered as notable and independent. There are about 658 results for "Tsogo Sun" in Google books and about 7300 in Google News. Of course, these bare numbers do not count as arguments in favor of the publication of the article. I just want to show you that there are plenty of articles about this company (including third-party materials that are 100% devoted to its activity). I'll be grateful to you if you review my updated sandbox and express your opinion. In any case, thank you for your participation. We both spent a lot of time discussing this subject. So it would be nice to come to some conclusion. —Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 18:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Need copies of deleted articles[edit]

Would you provide the copies of at least 3 deleted articles? They weren't deleted because of the issues with notability or copyvio, but only because they were created by sock puppets. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If that was the only reason for deletion, I should be able to let you have copies. Probably the best way would be by email. Let me know which articles they are. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Emailed. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)