User talk:JBW/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

VIRREAL

WHO GAVE YOU THE AUTHORITY TO DICTATE WHAT INFORMATION IS TO BE PUBLISHED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virreal (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody. Wikipedia works by consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about edits

I just reverted an edit you made to Priestess. I'm not sure what you are seeing as a "promotion" here? I had attempted to collect some pages which refer to priestesses. The Egyptian and Hittite priestesses are well documented and should be included in this page.

The individuals are listed in an attempt to help people find the appropriate individual they may be looking for. My suspicion is that you object to the inclusion of the Wiccan priestesses? I should note that I have nothing whatsoever to do with that group, but included the individuals listed to facilitate a search by interested wiki users. But I can see that some might want to see less specialized information on a disambiguation page? Should that be on a general page for the Wiccan cult/faith (whatever you want to call it)?

Either way, I was trying to create a page that would help people find the information they are looking for and I did not agree with your edit. I figured that discussing it here with you would be the civil thing to do :-) Anneke --AnnekeBart (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "promotion" was not the right word. My main point of disagreement was that adding a list of information was missing the point of a disambiguation page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mister World 2010

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

Susfele (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for showing me how to get the little numbers that point to diffs. Your explanation was perfectly clear. I am relieved the page protection has been cleared up. Thanks! Susfele (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are so many details of how to do things in Wikiepdia, many of which are very simple once you know, but totally puzzling when you don't. There are still lots of things I am learning after several years, but you, having been editing for about three months, will be likely to still be encountering them quite often. Please feel welcome to ask if there's anything else you think I may be able to help with. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate knowing I am welcome to come here with questions. Thanks!--Susfele (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesBWatson

Hi JamesBWatson. I noticed you have an untranscluded RfA page under your name at the title Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesBWatson. Since you are actively answering the questions posed by other editors, I'm assuming you are interested in running for adminship. If that is the case, please transclude your RfA page at WP:RFA. If you need assistance doing this, please let me know and I can do it for you. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the offer of help. I have decided to wait for a day or two before transcluding it, as I have had limited time available for Wikipedia over the last couple of days, and I thought it best for it to go "live" when I was more available, so I could easily respond to points brought up. I should be transcluding it on Monday or perhaps early on Tuesday. I think I know how to do it, but if I have any problems with doing so I may come back to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems to be off to a smooth start. I just tweaked the formatting of your latest comment. GL. Peter 10:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for that tweak. I couldn't work out a proper way of adding a comment indented on a new line without messing up the count, so I used a kludge that sort of worked. Your superior knowledge came to the rescue. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Travel Foreman wiki Page

The cited information is fine but by your own rules the first two lines of the biography have no citations and are inaccurate so they shouldn't be allowed.

I realize I'm a semi-public figure and a wiki page is fair game, but I like my privacy and the fact that the page was put up without my knowledge seems presumptuous and annoys me.

I personally think 'Travel Foreman is an American comic artist' is enough information.

Although, the wikipedia staff seems obstinate from some of the posts I've read, and if you still need some kind of 'proof' of my identity I can get legal representation to contact Wikipedia to verify.

--Travelforeman (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)travel foreman

I have removed a couple of statements which had no references to support them. Proof of your identity is not really the point. Wikipedia's policy is that if a subject satisfies the notability guidelines and there are reliable sources to support the information then the article and its content should remain. Wikipedia aims to be independent of the subjects it reports on, so people and organisations can neither require nor forbid the inclusion of information about themselves. The main criterion for inclusion is appropriate coverage in suitable sources. I do have sympathy with you if you do not like the idea of an article being published about you. However, once information has been made public it becomes available for further publication, whether in newspapers, on television, in books, on Wikipedia, etc etc. I am not saying that means it must be right that it is so, but that is the reality of the situation. Personally I might well be willing to consider taking the view "Here is a perfectly decent person who doesn't want this much publicity. Maybe we could delete the article", if you could convince me you are who you say. However, knowing what I do of Wikipedia's policies and the way consensus tends to work I doubt that there would be much support for that.

Clearly this does not give you what you want, but at least I have removed the unsourced statements which you say are inaccurate. Please feel very welcome to contact me again if you have anything else to ask about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Franco Enna

Hello James, I'm Airplaneman. I don't think we've ever conversed before, but after racking my brain, I believe I've seen you around :). Before I go and !vote support in your RFA, I have a question about the article above, which I found through your RFA while reading the questions. Is there any specific reason that, in the "Writing" section, second sentence, that all of his pseudonyms are italicized? It's really trivial, but I've never encountered this before. I can't recall a policy regarding this, either. It'd be great if you could clear this up; thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 13:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any special reason. I marked the pseudonyms out from the rest of the text, a bit like putting them in quotes, but I felt a list of quoted names would look a bit cumbersome. I really don't feel strongly about it, and if you or anyone else doesn't like it and removes the italicisation I won't mind. Perhaps, on reflection, it would be better to remove it, as it is not usual formatting in Wikipeida. For what it's worth I don't think we've ever conversed before either, as far as I remember, but I too have a feeling I have seen you around. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll remove them on the grounds that they aren't standard formatting. It doesn't bug me, but it did stand out at first glance (that was your intention). Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 14:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Comhar Dún Chaocháin Teo

Although you do not appear to have left any message on the discussion board of this article, I think you may be responsible for recommending it be deleted. Can you please explain why? Does it offend you in some way? What do you know about the locality to which it applies? I think that in the context of the area to which this article relates, that it is indeed notable. If you are not aware of the circumstances in North Mayo or do not live in or know about the area of North Mayo, then why are you interfering in articles to do with North Mayo in Ireland? This article is informative, constructive, does not break any Wikipedia rules etc...etc... Please explain to me in full detail what is is that you find offensive about it? What articles have you written? What if I decide I don't like them? I would like you to reply to these questions or else remove your deletion thing immediately? Can I take off your deletion request? I think it is very inappropriate unless you have an extremely good reason for requesting speedy deletion of my article. As I have not been on Wikipedia for years and years and this is the first time this has happened to me I don't fully understand why you would do this. Unless you can give me a very excellent explanation immediately I think that I should remove the deletion thing from my article. Comhar (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have just scrolled down your page - I see you are very unlikely to be any good at answering people's questions due to the amount of new messages you have lined up that you obviously havn't bothered to answer. So, how long do I wait for your reply as I suspect that you make a habit of interfering with the work of others and then ignoring them - this is the only inference that I can draw from the sheer weight of your unanswered questions.

I can assure you that in trawling through Wikipedia there's a hell of a lot more articles deserve to be deleted before my one on Comhar Dún Chaocháin Teo? Is it that you don't understand what this means because the organisation happens to have a name that is in Gaelic or what? For your information it means - and I'll translate it into english as best as I can - like the writers of the 19th century - Doon kweekin Community Development Association. Up to you to remove your tag - if you fail to respond I may do it myself because I don't know what else to do to stop you vandalising my work Comhar (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did at one time tag this for speedy deletion because I thought the article did not indicate enough importance to justify the article. That proposal was declined, and I thought about it again, and decided I had perhaps been mistaken, so I left it at that. The current deletion proposal is due to Ben MacDui, and you may ask him about it on his talk page if you like. However, it is only fair to tell you that you are free to remove the deletion proposal yourself, as you clearly disagree with it. That does not mean that the article cannot then be deleted, but it will mean that it cannot be deleted without an "articles for deletion" discussion, which would give you a chance to explain your point of view. If this happens and you want help in understanding how the process works, you will be very welcome to ask me here, and I will give you what help I can. For the moment, since you evidently don't agree with the proposed deletion, I would encourage you to remove the deletion proposal template from the article and see whether any further steps are taken. (Remove from "{{dated prod..." at the top of the article to "subst:prod|reason" --> a few lines down.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Links

It's just a smithsonian video on the settlements. It happens to be posted on Facebook (don't ask why) --92.8.202.26 (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the REDIRECT

--Paramecio (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Prego. (You're welcome) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You (2)

Thank you also for the welcome!

--Paramecio (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Prego (due). (You're welcome (two).) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Westminster Kingsway College

We recently tried to update the Westminster Kingsway College page. However, the information was reverted back to the old version. Unfortunately this information is out of date and in some cases factually incorrect, which we do not think is fair to users. I can assure you we do not wish to include 'promotional' info but we would like to put the accurate information on without deleting the page altogether Wkcannawillis (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

By all means replacing out of date material with up to date material is good, but it is necessary to think carefully how it will look to someone else. Very often a person who is involved in an organisation will fail to see how promotional their writing looks to an outsider. This is part of the reason for Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. It is necessary to be very careful, and try to stand back and see it from an objective perspective. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we are new to Wiki and really just want to make the Westminster Kingsway page accurate. In recent months we have had students, staff and the press asking us about info provided on this page that isn't true any more and had alumni questionning why we were promoting them on here. Obviously we were not but to keep everyone happy and ensure the facts were right we thought we should change this page. Unfortunately everything that is on there at the moment is so incorrect that it wasn't possible to just amend the details but instead change completely. We are not trying to promote but really do want the facts included. Wkcannawillis (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I will try to remember to go through your edits and see if I can write much of the same material in a more objective way. However, I don't have time to do this now. If I haven't done it in a couple of days please feel free to remind me. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that needed? We have edited it with pure fact and I do not work in the promotions department. I have looked at other College's pages and they have written the same type of thing as us so think it is fairly standard and quite objective, as we have not done it for any purpose other than to put the truth on there. Wkcannawillis (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at your latest version, and at a glance it does look better than earlier versions. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As a general note, you might both be interested in the existence of Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which is pretty helpful. Peter 14:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I probably would have linked to that, but didn't think of it. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My birthday

Why can I not have my birthday on Wiki, this seems unfair as many people have there Birthday on there for example Samuel L Jackson and Oprah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennywalker1985 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In order to be listed on Wikipedia, you must be notable. In general we only list people who have a Wikipedia page of their own on the date pages. Samuel L Jackson and Oprah pass this criteria and therefor they are included. DO keep in mind that you must also be notable in order to have a page. Creating a page and adding yourself afterwards won't work either. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Angela J Elliott

Dammit, thanks for catching that! I need to remember to pay closer attention to articles when I mop 'em. TFOWR 16:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am being kind to the author by holding back from a PROD BLP, to give maximum opportunity to establish notability if possible. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's appreciated - I'd declined teh speedy for much the same. There's a nagging feeling that the subject may be notable, but hasn't managed to demonstrate it yet... Anyway, more importantly, thanks for actually improving the article - that's better than my efforts ;-) TFOWR 16:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Stafford Collegiate

Hi. I hope that you won't mind too much, but I removed the speedy tag from Stafford Collegiate - because, the (new) user is clearly trying to fix things, and I've advised them; please see User_talk:Suseydude#Help_request and User_talk:Suseydude#still_not_sure.

I hope that my reasoning made sense, viz. "Removing speedy tag, because it does now have some claim to N and user is making efforts to reference/fix things (see their talk) - if it isn't fixed, I will PROD it myself, but to give article and new user a chance, I think speedy isn't necessary".

Of course, no objection to PROD, and indeed if it is not vastly improved after a few days, I will PROD or AfD it myself.

Best wishes, Chzz ► 16:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That is reasonable. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Kadima

Dear JamesBWatson,

I am hoping you can help with a dispute. I personally am very involved in editing the articles of the many Israeli political parties. You may notice recent and old contributions to the articles of New Movement-Meretz, Israeli Labor Party, the National Union (Israel), and others. An editor took issue with a sentence in Kadima, a relatively new party formed as centrist, although it has been included in the left-wing bloc of parties in the Knesset (parliament) since its inception.

Let me explain to avoid confusion. In Israel, where several (currently, 12) parties are represented in the Knesset, victories are judged based on whether one of two blocs wins a majority. One bloc is the right-wing bloc, which includes all right-of-center and religious parties. The other is the left-wing bloc, which includes all left-of-center and Arab parties. If the two main parties from each bloc are able to form a coalition, it is a unity government. As explained in The New York Times and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the influence of the Labor Party is waning, and Kadima is filling the vacuum as the new party of the center-left.[1][2]

As you may notice in Talk:Kadima, several reliable sources describe Kadima as centrist and center-left. I have been clear to note that Kadima was formed as a centrist party. I also added that its members are of the political center and center-left in the lead. Yet there is one editor who is opposed to this and continues to revert without addressing the comments of others in response to his argument in talk. He acknowledges that his opinion is in the minority. Please review the talk page and let me know if you can help. I believe this user to be continuing an edit war and I am opposed to this. Thank you. --Shamir1 (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My usual practice is to answer talk page comments where they are made, to keep discussion together. This time, however, I have decided to answer at User talk:Shamir1. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. It is true that Israeli political issues are often complex and controversial, but luckily, this is strictly a domestic issue, and does not relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope for the best. Thank you. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, please could you ensure that Shamir1 is aware of WP:CANVASS regulations. I've tried to tell him that asking editors to join the dispute is fine, as long as the invite does not expressly state the direction he desires the intervention in (i.e. his angle). Sadly this is the second time in a few days he has requested intervention in such a way. As for the "advertising" of how great Shamir1's contributions to Israeli politics articles are, in response, I'll just say that all I've done is create the vast majority articles on all Israeli elections, political parties represented in the Knesset, government ministers, ministerial posts and all 800+ members of the Knesset. I also suggest a quick browse of Shamir1's edit history and block log, amd involvement in disputes in many Israel-Palestinian-related spheres. I leave the rest up to you. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

why do u delete my page???

i have written on the bumblebeez page and it is true i have not lied or broken any rules,please put it back to normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpum123 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly referring to edits you made to The Bumblebeez. The main reason I reverted your edit was that you removed substantial amounts of text by other editors without any explanation. You may have had very good reasons for removing the text, but if so you should give a brief explanation in an edit summary so that other editors understand what you were doing. If you need to give more detailed explanation than you can fit into a short edit summary then you can also write on the article's talk page. Having said all that I think I owe you an apology, as I see that I didn't give an explanation of my edit either. Well, at least I have done so now. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for doubting

I'm sorry for suggesting your RfA will "get plenty of criticisms" [sic, myself]. Maybe I have grown cynical about the experienced community, but your smooth sailing has renewed my faith, not to mention I'm extremely excited that you'll be an excellent admin. It's not over yet, but I'm really excited about your success. Shadowjams (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No apology required: you were right to say what you did. When the suggestion of an RfA was first mooted I was very doubtful. I had never taken much notice of RfAs, but I had seen a few where the subjects were subjected to very heavy criticism. By the time my RfA started I had looked carefully at a few past ones, and decided that it wasn't that bad: the only candidates who were really slaughtered were ones who obviously shouldn't have even tried, and I didn't think I came into that category. Nevertheless I did expect some criticism, and was totally unprepared for the way it has gone. I think to a considerable extent this is thanks to Peter, who did an excellent job of anticipating the most likely criticisms and forestalling them in his nomination and the questions he set for me, so that editors who might have been critical saw their criticisms already answered when they came to the page. As for your being "excited" about the way it is going, I can only say once again thank you for your support. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You deserve it, and maybe it's that time of year, but Peter is the best nominator you could have hoped for. And SoWhy and I have had our issues, mainly over deletion-related issues, but in the end I think he's a reasonable guy, so his support for you I think is the threshold issue. Maybe you and I are perpetually modest, or maybe you're modest and I'm not very tactful. In any case, if I made a mistake it was in underestimating the wikipedia community, but not you. Cheers. Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand by what I said about Peter, but I realise that he does not deserve all of the credit for anticipating likely objections, as it was you, Shadowjams, that asked the question about WP:PROF. So please take your share of the credit too. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ablecommerce

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

I don't know whether ablecommerce satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria or not. I suggest looking at the general notability guideline, the notability guideline for organizations and companies, and the guideline on reliable sources to see what is needed. Also very relevant is the FAQ for organisations. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VisualMediaWorks re-opened

I have re-opened the above AfD, as references had been added to the article since the last comment was left, and no one had addressed these new references.

Your input at the discussion would be most welcome! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks — I think they assume if they don't sign, they can't be traced Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Re: your RfA oppose. I don't want to badger the opposer, but I found their reasoning a little bizarre. Maybe they were bad examples, but I thought your AfDs were fine. So you lost an XfD or two... big deal. I'm more slap-dash as an editor than as an admin, and I'd assume most admins are too. I've pushed things to XfD that I'd never speedy, say, as an admin. The very last thing I pushed out to AfD was this - I've no regrets about it, but equally there's no way I would have closed it "delete", either (though I doubt I would have closed it with quite as much wit and panache as PhantomSteve...!)

Anyway, I'm rambling! Your RfA is going great! That's the important thing!

TFOWR 17:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In the first AfD he/she cites I just nominated and said no more, so I can't see how I can be described as "stubborn". I saw that the arguments were heading for "keep", and accepted it, having no more to say. In the second one I did give answers to points I disagreed with, and though I don't see what I wrote as "stubborn" I suppose someone might see it that way. I could make more comments about the discussion in that AfD, but they would be of limited relevance. Oh well, it would have been nice to have got 100% support, but it's not a big deal. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Audiosharx

I didn't do it BECAUSE they're one of my favourite bands, I'm just doing it because it's a fact, I was just clarifying that they must be fairly notable if they are peoples favourite band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiosharx (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That may well be true, but Wikipedia requires verifiable sources for its information, not just the say so of an editor. I suggest having a look at WP:Notability and WP:RS. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok then can you be more helpful and tell me what counts as a source, how am I supposed to prove it's true except from YouTube. And I'm not gonna spend all day searching this maze of a site for the answer Audiosharx (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully sympathise with you referring to "this maze of a site". That's exactly how I felt when I started on Wikipedia a few years ago. It gets much easier after a while. What counts as a source is described in the guideline on reliable sources, which is why I suggested you should look at it. If you have any specific questions about any particular points in that guideline then I will be very happy to try to answer them. As for the general question "what counts as a source", really the best answer I can give is to point you to that guideline, but I will try to help by giving a few examples of good and bad sources. YouTube is, in most cases, not a reliable source, as anyone can post videos there. For the same reason Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor are internet forums or most blogs, or personal web pages. An article in a respectable mainstream newspaper is a reliable source, and so is a website run by a respectable organisation that checks its information, rather than just putting out whatever is submitted. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Culture

I'm really sorry about this edit, my older brother hates Wikipedia and I left the computer for a second and he did it. Sorry Audiosharx (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is true then you have to be more careful. Don't leave yourself logged in. It's fairly unusual in this situation for an editor to say an elder brother is to blame: much more often it is a younger brother or a friend. In any case you have to take responsibility for anything done by your account, whether you did or or whether you let someone else do it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of my page - Angela J Elliott

I am extremely angry. My first page was deleted. I attempted to provide sources/references whatever you want to call them for my second attempt, but this too was deleted. Yes, my third page was me saying hey you, I'm a real person and I've done all this stuff and God damn it, I am notable and I have no way of telling you people this because Wikipedia's rules and regulations are so damned unweildy that I don't have time to do this. I mean who wants to spend all day googling themselves and finding references from articles in newspapers (which I have btw and could give you by the spadeload, but just don't have the time). So, I guess this is it guys. I'm done with Wikipedia. I'm tired of trying to meet your exacting standards. I am a nice person but this has got right up my nose. Get a bloody life the lot of you. Rant over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjgi (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 June 2010

You have put a good deal of work into this and seen it go to waste, so I can understand how you must feel. There is still the possibility of working on the article in a user subpage, as I suggested on your talk page. The offer of help which I also made on your talk page is still open, if you wish to continue. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Internal Propulsion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Internal Propulsion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internal Propulsion. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Brandenhunter

Sigh. Take a look at who's editing that page now: BrandenHunterX2 (talk · contribs)

I think someone should consider getting an admin to take a look at this situation, after we delete the page, if he doesn't stop. -- Rick Van Tassel ^{user|talk|contribs} 00:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that BrandenHunterX2 has removed an {{mfd}} template from the page. More alarming, though, are the activities of User:AttackOfMiceWithMen. This is a new editor, who started editing today. So far their only contributions have been (1) taking over the article Brandon Hunter, which is about a basketball player, and replacing it with a copy of User:Brandenhunter, and (2) posting another copy of the same material at User:Brandengillespie. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandenhunter has been set up. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD

Bhojpuri nautanki artist:Rasul might be a terrible article, but it states that he died in 1952... so why did you BLPPROD it? Fences&Windows 14:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I clearly wasn't thinking as clearly as I should have been. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've asked at the Indian WikiProject to see if they can help with Hindi sources. I'm not hopeful. Fences&Windows 02:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:SalvatorGotta.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SalvatorGotta.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 20:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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

6 seconds!

What kept you? Thanks! Kevin McE (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It's Huggle: it's just so slow. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Micky 1234567890123

I see you have dealt with User:Micky 1234567890123 in the past. It appears that he is once again using his userspace to promote non-notable off-wiki projects, one of which (The Print) was speedily deleted from the mainspace today. I am unsure if non-admins have the authority to selectively edit out contents of a userpage, and was wondering if I could get some insight into the matter. Good luck on your adminship, by the way. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes for RfA.
Generally speaking it is not considered good practice to edit other user's user pages, but there are exceptions. My own feeling in this case is that the offence is not blatant enough to justify an exception: however, that is just an opinion. Since "Pobble" has been repeatedly deleted, the current use of user space can be seen as an attempt to get round policy by keeping what would be deleted if it were an article: this is contrary to the User page guidelines, as can be seen at WP:FAKEARTICLE ("this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content"). Most of the page is, in my opinion, promotional, so you could tag it with {{db-promo}} for a possible speedy deletion, if an admin agrees with you. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Since you bring up WP:FAKEARTICLE, It would be best to note that the entire The Print section is an exact duplicate of what was deleted from the mainspace today. So that pretty much makes everything from Pobble downwards a violation of the userpage guidelines. I'm inclined to tag it, but there's nothing wrong with the intro stuff. Hm. I'm going to have dinner. Maybe this won't matter so much once I have some sushi in my belly. Steamroller Assault (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Change of Acronym Definition - Removal of 'uc' from the word Fuck, and its replacement

Jame, While I respect the policies of Wikipedia, and whole heartily endorse the free - flow of information and ideas, the reversion of the term 'Fuck' in the definition of an acronym, seemed a bit over the top. While I am only one opinion, I see no added value to inclusion of the term when a suitable definition is already included. Now, not to start a 'Tastes Great - Less Filling ' type of opinion war, please give me a citation as to where Wikipedia is unambiguous about the use of certain words to describe Acronyms. I have not found one yet, and would like to improve my edits. For this reason I am leaving the page alone, but would like to learn more about the use of profane words in the Wikipedia context. Is there a suitable replacement page that pops up when any of the words are in a 'no-no' html filter tool that attempts to protect the children from viewing such pages. I do not know the answer , yet, but am willing to find a solution. Responsible-Richard-NQW (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no explicit mention of "the use of certain words". If there is, then I do not know where it is. However, I have already given you a link to the policy that Wikipedia is not censored, which covers the whole issue, without having to list each possible example, including particular words. It would be possible to start a discussion on a whole list of issues, such as whether or not seeing a particular sequence of letters somehow harms children, but it would be pointless, as Wikipedia's policy is unambiguous. If you want to try to change Wikipedia's policy then I suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). As long as the policy is as it is now we should not individually try to work against it, whatever our personal views. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on adminship! (Special early version)

Hey, 'grrrats on a fine Rfa... I salute you and wish you the very best as a mop-wielding Wikipedian! (Thought I'd beat the 'crats to it, since I see the Rfa time is up.) Jusdafax 10:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not normally superstitious, but I do feel slightly uncomfortable about receiving congratulations for something that hasn't actually happened yet. Even so, thank you for the kind words. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand. (Then having written that, I sit here laughing.) I'm delighted by your success, and amused by your laudable caution... but, at 92% of the !votes, it would be absolutely unprecedented for you not to get it. And I am inspired by your Rfa to mull running the gauntlet myself one of these months. Cheers! Jusdafax 10:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I know of one support !vote you can expect if (or, better, when) you do. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Aww shux, thanks! As you note above, Peter's nomination was among the best - perhaps the very best - I have seen. Another thing I observe... you got a nice round 100 supports, which means you go on a special list for that sort of thing. Well, I better move over because I sense a 'crat on the way to pay you a visit. (If it takes more than another hour I'll be surprised.)

It would have been 101 but for the fact that I removed a "support" from a (now blocked) editor whose support I didn't take seriously. It would have been amusing if I had just missed the 100 page because I had removed one - it did look as though that was going to happen. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Jusdafax 10:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me adding my congrats now, as I need to go to bed. Exactly 100 supports- what a nice number for posterity! I'm exceptionally flattered to have been some minor part of your deciding to run, because you're going to be a great admin. Regards, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You have new email

Sent to the address you last replied from. Peter 18:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

I wanted to say (a belated) thank you to you, for reverting the vandalism to my user page.Mk5384 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

Dear JamesBWatson,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and the items on the Administrators' reading list. Feel free to contact me if you need anything, and good luck. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

uhoh, we're doomed. Congrats :) - Happysailor ^(Talk) 12:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! My predictions are that this file will get bigger, and this template will be your new home. No one warned you, huh?! TFOWR 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, !James! And yes, I definitely recommend going on a poaching expedition for monobook entries. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

May I add my congrats to the rest. I don't patrol RfAs, so I didn't see it, but I want you to know I would have also been in the support column. I look forward to your mopping work. :D GregJackP (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So, it's officially over. Thanks to all who took part. It was a strange experience, and at times a bit depressing. "Can all these people really think that badly of me? Am I really making such a mess of things?" But somehow I managed to remind myself that, even though the negatives were the ones I noticed most and tended to dwell on, the positive were actually in a substantial majority, and I managed to keep myself going. Thanks, of course, to those who supported me, and especially to those who did one or more of (1) encouraging me to undertake it in the beginning, (2) helping me to prepare for it, (3) giving a co-nom, (4) giving one of the longer messages of support, or (5) asking questions for me to answer. Thanks also to those who made good faith constructive "oppose" or "neutral" contributions. I believe I have learnt from them. Nearly all of the criticisms concerned deletion in one form or another. Did some of the contributions lead me to realise I needed more care in this area? Yes. Will I try to change my approach to take this into account? Not only "will", but "already have", and will continue to do so. Do I think all of the examples raised were valid criticisms? This time the answer is "no". For example, a couple of articles mentioned that I had tagged for speedy deletion I could not look at, as they had been speedily deleted. One of them had even been twice speedily deleted by two different admins. And I was supposed to have been completely out of line in tagging them? Among the "oppose" !votes there were bits I agree with and bits I don't agree with, just as in my editing there is good and bad. I will try to learn from the good parts. I will also work hard to make my admin work include as much good and as little bad as I can. When I make mistakes, please feel welcome to help me by telling me.

When I wasn't worrying about the "opposes" I was amazed by the "supports", quite a number of which included really encouraging comments. I had no idea there were so many Wikipedians with such positive views of my contributions. That was so encouraging, and helps to make it all seem worth while. I will try to justify the faith that most of you have expressed.

I have kept the best part until the end. I was not even considering adminship until Peter encouraged me to. Several others encouraged me too, but more than any other single person Peter was responsible for my deciding to give it a try. When I asked him if he would consider nominating me he very kindly agreed to do so. He then proceeded to do a job of preparing my RfA of a quality which was way beyond the call of duty. I do not know how long he spent searching through my edit history to find material, consulting me and other editors, and putting together the nomination, but the result was a more thorough RfA than I have seen from anyone else. I was most fortunate in having such a first class nominator. I have already expressed my gratitude to Peter privately, but I would like to like to say it publicly too: thank you, Peter. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I had just finished combing through your RFA and was ready to promote when I hit 'refresh' to see it had already turned green. I think you'll do fine, just take the constructive criticisms on board and remember that administrators need to be ambassadors of the community at all times. Happy adminning, –xeno^talk 14:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. If I had noticed the rfa I certainly would have supported. Syrthiss (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that James seems to have paused from saying how amazing I am (thanks James, it is appreciated!), I can do my modesty speech! It would be wrong of me not to point out that I was only trying to show the community a bit about you, so they could agree with me that you would do this job well. It was of course you that they were basing that on, and there were rather more comments about your replies to questions/comments than about my nom (which is how it should be of course). Also, I thought SoWhy's co-nom was very complementary (in the going well together sense) to mine, so I want to say thanks for that. And just to add my own echo to the above, I recommend looking through a few active admin's monobook file (assuming you use monobook like I do, I tried the new one a few times, but kept on hating some parts of it enough to switch back). I particularly recommend 'mark blocked' and 'user info', which you can find in mine along with some others. Also have a look through the 'gadgets' page if you haven't already in preferences. Of course feel free to pay a visit to my talk page anytime and ask for some advice. Oh, and congratulations :) Peter 15:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall have to spend some time looking at bits and pieces. And yes, I do use monobook. I found the other thing mildly irritating. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done...Modernist (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Good for you: I think you'll do a grand job. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! Well done. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! --Nascar 1996 ^(sign) 15:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done - Begoon (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats my man! Enjoy your new nik-naks. Orphan Wiki 15:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, well deserved. Peter's flamethrower is pretty appropriate. After you finish with WP:NAS, check out WP:NOTNAS. It's more of a survival guide than new admin school. Let me know if I can help along the way. Best. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A hearty congrats from this corner as well. Well-deserved! Good luck with your shiny new mop. May it accumulate the dirt and detritus associated with a good day's Wiki-work in as short order as possible :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! This is excellent (though not unexpected) news! Susfele (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done, and have fun with the mop. But don't go swinging it around to wildly though! ;) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA. Cheers, Vipinhari || talk 17:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't prove me wrong! ;) You know how it works -- power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Congrats.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and congratulations. I hope you did not feel my comment was completely unjustified - and the examples were all taken from articles that are currently live, though they may not be at some point in the future (In case the comment regarding deleted diffs was directed at me). Anyway, it's all water under the bridge at this point. Good luck with the new user rights! Regards, decltype (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

- Your comment was by no means completely unjustified. At least some of the tags you mentioned I now think were mistaken. However, yes, it was you I had in mind. Taecyeon is "live" at the moment, but has been twice deleted and re-created. There is no record in its history of my having tagged it (or edited in any way) so I assumed that I had tagged it and then it had been deleted. The alternative, as far as I can see, is that you made a mistake and got the wrong article. Hey! Wow! I've just realised I can find out, because I'm an admin and can look at deleted edits! Wow! Wow! Errm, except that I don't yet know how to.... Yes, I've found out now. One of the deletions was before I put the tag, and one was afterwards. More interesting, though, is that I see I did not originate the tag. I restored it after it had been removed by the author of the article. I wouldn't have done that if I had thought the tag was totally unreasonable, but I have quite often restored a removed tag that I wouldn't have placed myself in doubtful cases, on the principal that by the rules the tag should still have been there, and I would leave it to an admin to make the decision. I think now that taking that line was a mistake, but that's what I used to do. Now that I am an admin I will not do that: if I don't agree with a speedy deletion tag 100% I shall be that admin who makes the decision, and leave the tag off. Would I have tagged the article myself? Yes, but for references, not for speedy deletion. So were you right to criticise me for the tagging? Yes. Anyway, enough about that: I am now officially leaving the topic. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Err, I applied for a mop, and got a flame thrower. I'm not sure I can handle it. Can I just use the mop, please? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's in case you get fed up of the mop and want rid thoroughly (of the mop, that is). Peridon (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It was the last word of my nomination statement, which you signed to accept ;-) Sure, go ahead and just use the mop to start with, but once you get more confident you can use the flamethrower for killing trolls (at least if I remember rightly from my days of playing RPGs) and similar things. I did provide the one with safety catches... Peter 19:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(Somewhat belated) congratulations. I'm sure you'll do a great job. You might find a few of the scripts in my monobook.js useful. Let me know if I can be of assistance. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks for the message on my talk page. It's great you've got selected as an admin. I read every word of what you've written and surely think that you have the wherewithal to be a great admin, with experience. My best. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 02:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 06:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too. You'll do just fine as long as you remember two things. Firstly, the community has expressed trust in your judgement so trust yourself as well. Secondly, when you screw up (because it will happen sooner or later) it's not the end of the world; apologise, learn from it and move on :) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 09:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on your RfA! Immunize the editor _{Contact me} 20:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ADII

Dear Sir, I do understand that two of my newly created pages are deleted. As I am a new contributor to wikipedia, I may not be aware of all the guidelines. I would kindly request you to review the article "ADII" and guide me as why it is proposed to be deleted and how could I improve it so that it will comply with the guidelines of Wikipedia.--Agileaxis (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I sympathise with you, finding assorted guidelines and policies that you don't know being referred to. The total range of such guidelines and policies can seem bewildering for a new editor (I know it seemed that way to me at first). However, there are just a few guidelines which are really relevant in this case. The editor who proposed the article for deletion felt that the article did not indicate sufficient notability to justify inclusion. The principal consideration for notability is that a subject should have received substantial coverage in reliable sources, as described in the general notability guideline. The sources must also be independent of the subject, so that for example a company's own material would not establish notability for that company, nor would material from other companies selling or promoting its products. More specific guidelines for companies is given in the notability guideline for oragnisations and companies. In addition to this, the guideline as to what constitutes a reliable source is helpful. If you want more specific help in understanding particular aspects of these guidelines then feel welcome to contact me again with any questions. If you want any more help in understanding why this particular article has been proposed for deletion I suggest contacting the editor who made the proposal, Empty Buffer. Finally, you are free to remove the proposed deletion notice if you disagree with the proposal. If you do that the article could still be deleted, but only after a deletion discussion, in which you would be able to take part and express your opinion. If that happens and you want help in understanding how the process works you are again welcome to contact me. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfair

On what basis have u deleated my page Bird Group? if u say that its promoting or advertising the can u explain me what in the hell is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterGlobe_Enterprises?????????????? Aman9999 (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article Bird group was deleted because it was unambiguously an attempt to promote a company. As for InterGlobe_Enterprises, it is completely irrelevant to the deletion of Bird group, but thank you for calling my attention to it. I have now proposed that it should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion of Liquid DrumStep

Hi! As far as i remember, the article was about a musical genre named Drumstep and according to WP:CSD, WP:A7M it can't be deleted per WP:CSD#A7 — the subject is not “a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content”, neither a musical recording. Am i correct? I am confident with the possible “notability” issues of the subject, but, imo, it does not meet the WP:CSD#A7 criteria. Thank you! — Zhernovoi (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I had read it as being about a band, as had the person who tagged it for CSD A7, but looking at it now I see it wasn't. It would have helped had the article started out by explaining what it was about ("Liquid DrumStep is a type of music...") rather than assuming we knew what it was referring to. I have restored the article, and will remove the tag. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! — Zhernovoi (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Zhernovoi's talk page.
Message added 13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you! — Zhernovoi (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC) — Zhernovoi (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

NUST Aeromodeling (NAC)

Regarding this edit: the user had legitimately added a {{hangon}} tag. It is often the case that a user mistakenly removes the {{db}} tag when doing so. I prefer to think of this as a mistake rather than vandalism. I understand this user has a history of problematic edits, but I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to make their hangon case. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Editing with Huggle I had intended to only revert the removal of the speedy tag, but inadvertently did more than that. I have restored it now. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! I restored the earlier version + speedy deletion tag, but meanwhile you and the author of the article had made further edits, so I inadvertently restored material which the author had removed. It's too complicated. I hope that I have now restored it to how it should be. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinatown, San Francisco Page

Just to let you know....I was attempting to re-size the 15 or so images that I've added to the "Chinatown, San Francisco" within the past few weeks. Obviously, the way I was going about the edit was setting off a "vandalism" alarm so I guess I use this approach again. Anyways, everything on the "Chinatown, San Francisco" page should be the same w/slightly resised images. If anything, I should get an editor's start or 2 for adding all these pictures, as well breaking down the sections into more organized subsections. Or, maybe not. Regards, MealMachine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

The best way to avoid this problem is to make sure you give an edit summary which explains what you are doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gotchya...BTW, I'll also be adding in a bit about the "Highbinder Tong Wars" in the SF Chinatown Page which I think you'll find quite interesting. Regards, MealMachine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

Message for Watson

For Transformers(2009 film) plot, I changed most of the info to false info. People put false info on wikipedia sometimes. If it was bad for me to put false at the end of Transformers(2009 film plot), then why is it bad? If someone looks at it, then it's obvious that he/she won't believe it? (1751Muscat (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)).

Deliberately putting false information into Wikipedia articles is against our policy. The fact that people do it does not make it alright. You will be blocked from editing if you continue. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Watson

I'm sorry. I thought every false detail doesn't get deleted.

For ezample: I put a false paragraph on wikipedia. I know that paragraph'll get reverted. Even though I know that paragraph'll get deleted, is it still bad to put it?

I edited Four Brothers(2005 film) plot today, but someone erased my edits. At top of 4 Brothers(2005 film) plot, is it okay for me to type a question: Who erased my edits? I want to type question because question might get answered by the same person who erased my edits. If it's not okay for me to type question, then why? (1751Muscat (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)).

My page was tagged as spam

Please help or how do I contact someone to help with this.

Gift of Life Bone Marrow foundation ..rewrote some entries. Was created for education, not advertisement

Socialmediarox (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you involved with this organisation in some way? For example, do you work for them? Frequently someone who is involved in an organisation cannot step back, take a distant perspective, and see what their editing will look like to an outsider. For this reason it is common to have people apparently sincerely at a loss to understand why their editing is seen as promotional. However, there is really no other way of reading "Gift of Life's vision for the future is simple: A match. Anytime. Anywhere. For anyone. Please join us in a global movement to save lives. Become a member with a simple cheek swab today!" Also "Gift of Life can proudly claim that they are different than the other registries based on many factors" is the kind of language used to promote something, not to describe it dispassionately and objectively, and the whole article contained passages like this. Such extreme examples of promotional language as those have now been removed from the article, which is in a very much better state than it was when the article was tagged. The overall impression I get from the article is still somewhat promotional, but nowhere near enough to mean that the article is in danger of being deleted as spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re User:Mundilfari

I was recently involved in an unrelated matter with Fiddle Faddle and he asked me, as a wholly uninvolved administrator, to have a look at the AN/I discussion about User:Mundilfari's wholesale deletion of trivia sections, etc., with an eye to closing it. I've had a good long look at the relevant edit histories and discussion and I agree that a topic ban seems appropriate and seems to be the consensus of comments. However, I am sufficiently inexperienced in this area that I've never imposed a topic ban before, or indeed had very much involvement at all with this sort of situation. Since I have seen your involvement in this sort of thing many times in the past, and I note that you blocked the user in question and contributed to the discussion (so therefore are familiar with the situation), could I ask for your advice/involvement/guidance/supervision of whatever you think is appropriate to have happen? Fiddle Faddle wants to see this closed off, and I think the time is right, but I'm hesitant to do the wrong thing here by accident and inflame an already difficult situation. Any comments or direction you have would be gratefully received, and thanks in advance for your kind attention to this. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've only just realized why I've seen your involvement in this sort of thing in the past; I went over your contributions at your RfA. Duh. Sometimes I think my memory is going, and sometimes I think my memory is going. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually feel I have the degree of experience of this kind of matter that you seem to think, and I have no particular expertise in the issue. However, since you have asked, I am willing to give you my thoughts on the matter. I done so in the ANI discussion rather than here, so that everyone involved can see it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I realized some time later that I'd expressed myself poorly, not for the first time <sigh>. I didn't actually remember any experience with a topic ban... my impression was that you were able to make difficult and complicated decisions in areas involving contentious users, and that you know about policy areas that I don't, but that might just have been because I was randomly sampling your edits at a high rate of speed iin order to be dutiful about your RfA. (My overall impression was that you contribute here with a great deal of politeness, intelligence and willingness to assist and, since I value those qualities highly, I was happy to support you. That, and I'm a Sherlockian <grin>.) At any rate, I really do appreciate the large and thoughtful contribution you made to the AN/I discussion; I will spend some time this morning examining other people's methods of imposing such a topic ban and then do so. Thanks for your time and help here. Accounting4Taste:talk 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the confidence you show in my judgement. A look through other cases at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions might be useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged for the link. I'm going to look for a useful sample of the specific language that other admins have used to inform users of editing restrictions but right now I have to lift and shift to the office. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re this at AIV

You don't really need to be quite so cautious :) If the report was for an IP you're quite right to be looking for more recent activity, but with a completely unproductive/vandalising registered account - even one that hasn't been active in the last few hours - it's probably still worth blocking on principle. It might be that they're laying dormant for a while and then hoping to get back in under the radar. EyeSerene^talk 10:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was unsure about which way to go with this, and, being fairly inexperienced as an admin, I decided to err on the side of caution. However, thanks for the advice: it is all part of the learning process. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that's what it was - your diligence and reluctance to block just confirms my RFA support of your candidacy. In practice though, the "recent warning" and "currently active" provisos generally apply less to registered accounts than to IPs. Even quite old and apparently abandoned vandal-only accounts occasionally turn up at AIV if a patroller happens to run across one, and I normally indefblock purely as a matter of housekeeping. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 10:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

While we're on the subject of blocking (though not really related to above), I wanted to say congratulations. On unblock-en-l we've had our first report from a user where you're the blocking admin. The unblock request was denied. Also been good to see you at work, you seem to be doing a good job from what I've seen - stuff like the above is perfectly normal while you're learning the finer details of blocking (or whatever). Once you find half the messages are telling you you're being too cautious and the other half not cautious enough it probably means you've got it about right ;-) Peter 10:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. As a matter of interest can you give me a link to that incident? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The user you had blocked who appealed the block was Breenchris72 (talk · contribs). Actually it was quite an unusual request, most of them are either people trying to edit through a rangeblock so need an account creating for them, with some more complicated cases thrown in as well (possible trolls etc., that sort of thing). We don't get many from vandal-only accounts. The unblock mailing list archives are private, but I'm sure the list admins wouldn't mind you having access as you're now an admin. I would recommend getting some more experience first though before responding to requests on the list. Details about the list are here. Peter 10:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really need to see the details in this case, I just didn't know what unblock-en-l was. Thanks to you I do now. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

they are reporting it as spasm

sir i am posting a link of a blog that is highly informative ,contains invaluable pictures and i am getting reported as a spasm u personally visit that blog it is the best i have ever come across.i want to share all the invaluable information with all. if u feel that the information given is not unique and rare then u can delete all the links.butthat wouldn't be the case.u will like the blog very much and find it highly informative and will let wikipedia user connect with that blog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhas17 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter how "informative", most blogs are not considered as suitable sites to link to, as they are not reliable sources. This is because, in many cases, anyone can post anything to a blog. Certainly in the case of blogspot anyone can set up a blog and post what they like. I suggest reading the guideline on external links. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

hi/ help plz!

sorry for bad english ((:

i wont to open AlterEgo (H.O.S.T rock band) page on viki but u deleted this page... what is A7 i don`t understand this.. please help me to open this page its very importantd to me plzz... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafitmonea (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CSD#A7. dff gd 16:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The article did not give any indication that the band has any significance: that is what speedy deletion criterion A7 is about. It may be important to you, but is it important to the rest of the world? If it is a significant band that has received attention in reliable published sources then you need to show that in the article. If not, then the band does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, and writing an article about it is likely to be a waste of effort, as the article will be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Question About New Page Patrolling

Hello, I noticed you deleted one of the pages I tagged for speedy deletion, so I thought you might be able to help me out with another aspect of new page patrolling. I often come across articles that are not written properly but have subjects that are notable. I know that the proper thing to do in this case is to add a wikify template. In order to save time, I was wondering if you know of a program like Twinkle that I can use to place such templates? Xenocide^Talk^|^{Contributions} 19:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know of one. However, there are lots of gadgets around, and I would be surprised if someone hasn't covered this task. If you find one perhaps you could drop back here and let me know about it too. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You're probably looking for WP:Friendly - similar to Twinkle but gives you the option to tag pages with maintenance templates. Activate it in the same place you do Twinkle - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dffgd

This user appears to be caught in an autoblock, following your obviously good block of Me is vndl. Looking at his edits, I do not see him as a vandal. Could I ask you to look at it? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, done (this proves it). dff gd 20:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Social Engine Forum

Sir, I edited and added new sources to SocialEngineForum, Please review it and remove Speedy Deletion. Also, I will add more content to it soon. Thank you.

--Sandakelum2009 (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the article as it existed immediately before deletion. I had previously seen the article, with a speedy deletion tag, and had decided not to delete it, to give time for references to be added. However, at the time the article was deleted there was still no evidence of significance or notability, despite your further editing of it. In addition to this the article was somewhat promotional in tone, (even including use of such clearly promotional expressions as "Our Mission"). Despite my earlier decision to allow more time, I'm afraid I have to agree with Zhernovoi, the editor who tagged the article for speedy deletion, and RHaworth, the administrator who deleted it, that the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Er... recent speedy deletion

Eric duke. I think that fell under G10/attack page, rather than a mere non-notable person (A7). – Tommy [message] 21:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Both, really. Yes, perhaps it would have been better to have included "attack" in the deletion log, for the record, but either way it needed to be deleted and it is deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

okay, agreed – Tommy [message] 21:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Added organization under vallavilai

Hi James, I have added Vallavilai Welfare Association under organization in vallavilai page. VWA is formed by the people from Vallavilai village who are working and living abroad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feltonjude (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood tax

Thanks for your feedback. I am sorry if things were unclear. I am not familiar with how the deletion process is supposed to work so I may have used the incorrect method. You can find a detailed rationale in my comments on the Discussion page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Hood_tax. Please respond to the points outlined there. To summarize:

1. This article was created by Oxfam as a means of promotion.

2. Check the earliest version of the article when the editors were Oxfam personnel (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Hood_tax&oldid=351390397). You can see here that the material is unambiguously promotional. The material was directly copied from the Robin Hood tax website. Even the "Arguments against the tax" material comes directly from their FAQ.

3. All the material covered here that is not promotional is covered in other articles: Tobin tax, Financial transaction tax, or Currency transaction tax. In particular, the material on unintended consequences is in Tobin tax. Moreover, the Robin Hood tax is just a marketing name for a Financial transaction tax. Therefore, the substantive material is covered elsewhere, leaving only promotional material remaining.

4. I feel it is inappropriate for Oxfam to put up a promotional article on Wikipedia and then expect the editors here to serve as unpaid labor for their marketing campaign by "cleaning it up".

Cosmic Cube (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect

This is technically incorrect. When an editor violates a restriction and there are no special enforcement provisions, that editor should be blocked (or in the case it was picked up too late, warned - though, given the edit was made today, a block seems appropriate). The log at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions would be in complete chaos if each violation editors made resulted in a change to material details of the restriction. The section on evasion (in ban policy) is more for when an editor either is socking or finds another editor to edit on their behalf, though is ultimately more applicable for a site ban. Is there a reason you did not block the user? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My own inclination was to block, but I have no experience of dealing with cases of this kind, and decided to make a minimal intervention in case my action might not be considered acceptable. Thank you for clarifying the matter for me. I would be more than happy for what I did to be reverted and a block substituted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You have email. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of a desire to make things perfectly clear to the user in question, I've amended the editing restrictions I imposed to make the potential for blocking explicit, and so informed the user. Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we not now block him?

He has proved that he does not care. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The editor shows no sign of intending to co-operate, and a block would be right. My only uncertainty is for how long. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A week would seem appropriate. But I am not an admin and have no qualifications to say so. The 3RR plus the new vandalism and block evasion seems to me to mean at least a week. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor. For some reason I thought you were an admin. I'm not sure why: perhaps I was confusing you with someone else. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I never fancied the idea of being an admin here :) Too much like work, too little like a hobby :) I'm easy to confuse with other folk, though :) :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's no excuse - at least, it didn't work for me... I never wanted the mop :-( But they made me take it anyway :-( Only half-joking... eventually I worked out that I could help more if I had the mop, but I never had that "I want to be an admin someday" userbox. TFOWR 11:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I never wanted it. In fact at one time I had a user box saying I did not want to be an admin. But then several different editors, some of them admins, encouraged me to go in for it, and I gave in to them. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I worked out that I could be more use without owning a set of door keys, even if they are only to the back door! Not being an admin means I can do things here that the admin burden would restrict me from. Tracking this user down and getting the problem solved would have been somehow harder as an admin. People often yell "abuse of admin power" in cases like this. Instead I have been able to act as what I would term a 'power editor' for want of a better term. Responsibility but without actual power is an interesting and useful state. I know that we all have the same level of scrutiny, but an admin also carries an implicit authority, something that is not always useful. And I really can't be bothered with the RfA stuff!

Add that to feeling that I would have to act as an admin where I can easily ignore when only an editor, and my life is far simpler. And, for my sins, I own and administer a family of wikis anyway elsewhere! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about "the RfA stuff": it was not fun. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We have far too much bureaucracy here. Heck, we even label some folk as bureaucrats! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article

Regarding Jackdaw with crowbar which you deleted. I, too, was doubtful of this band's notability, but they meet several criteria of WP:MUSIC: They were signed to a notable indie label, and they had received significant notice and airplay from a national DJ. I agree that the article you deleted was a mess; I was in the process of cleaning it up. I'm not sure the article is worth recreating -- I'd like your opinion given the arguments I have made. Given my own doubts about the band's notability, and the lack of current sources, I'll go whichever way you think best on this one. You can look at the user space draft that I have saved of my cleaned up version. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

PS -- if you agree with my assessment, it would probably be best to undelete the original article that I could then clean up, in order to retain the edit history and the attribution to the original contributor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a lot of evidence of notability, but I accept that there is just enough to make me think that a speedy deletion was open to question, and your arguments have been enough to sway me. I will restore the article. Good luck with developing it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a day to be improved. After that, I'll be tagging it for an A7 again. If you guys have some links for that I can use to establish notability, hit me with them and I'll improve the article. I don't really like waiting around for articles like this because I think that's how many article fall through the cracks. Let me know if you have some info and I'd be glad to help improve the article though. OlYeller^Talktome 12:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

William Wallace (Entrepreneur)

Could you tell me the reason why my page William Wallace (Entrepreneur) was deleted? and how i can have it reinstated?

Slimkaos (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading the speedy deletion warning for William Wallace Entrepreneur on your talk page you will see that it says "it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia". Wikipedia does not accept articles about just anything: they have to be about subjects with some degree of significance. The mere fact of being a businessman is not enough, as there have been millions of people who have at some time or other run a business, but are not significant enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. There are guidelines on what constitutes notability for Wikipedia's purposes. You should look at least at the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people. If William Wallace satisfies the criteria given there then it should not be too difficult to write a suitable article with sufficient reliable sources to justify it. If, however, he does not satisfy those guidelines then any article on him is likely to be deleted. It is a common mistake for people who come to Wikipedia in order to add an article about a subject of their choice to ask "how can I have an article on this kept?" without first asking "does this subject qualify for an article?" Only if the answer to the second question is "yes" is there any point in spending time on the first one. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering me

Hi,

Thanks a lot for writing me. I understand your point of view. The first intention when I asked for a Wikipedia user and logged in was to replace some of the links to my old pages (now gone courtesy of Yahoo Geocities) with the new ones. When I thought of starting my website again, I looked for free hosting websites, but it's not easy to find that now, especially because of a big limitation in available free space (and I had more than 500 biographies). So, I tried to choose which format should be better: a Wiki site or a blog. The Wiki site was more similar to my old site, but a blog seemed easier to me when trying to publish and give format to my pages. I didn't know that there were more factors to choose: for example that blog sites are not completely welcomed in some places. I know there are many different kinds of blogs, and many of them contain contents that are not allowed.

I guess there's nothing that I can do to prove my intentions. In the past, my website received some awards, and many musicians from the 60s and 70s have thanked me for writing bios about them or some of their past mates. I never wrote any thing that could be considered spam or offensive or untrue. And I think that there's a small proof: links to my old website have been included (not by me) in Wikipedia for the last years without any complaint from the editors. Now, I replace an old, broken link with a new one linking to the same (although updated) content, but it's in a blog format, and it's not adequate.

Regarding sending more links when I was being warned... yes, I saw that I had new messages, but when I followed the link to them, I always looked at "Welcome to Wikipedia", and didn't notice that I was receiving warnings at the very end of that page, so sorry, I really didn't watch those messages until I got the final decision of being blocked for spammer.

Anyway, as I told you in my first message, my intention was NOT doing anything inadequate, so I ask for apologies. Your collective work is fantastic, and I guess that you need severe rules in order to be sure that everything is in due shape. And for a newcomer, maybe it looks like too many rules to learn in the first 5 minutes of being inside of Wikipedia's world. Molympus (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Molympus

First of all, I have no doubt at all that you had perfectly good intentions, so don't worry about there being "nothing that you can do to prove your intentions". As for the warning messages, I must admit that in the messages automatically places by XLinkBot the most important facts are rather lost in long passages of stuff which though relevant is not so essential. If I had seen your edits before the "Bot" I would have given far shorter warnings, which would probably have been more helpful. It is perfectly natural for a newcomer to editing Wikipedia to think "such and such links exist on Wikipedia, and what I am doing is very similar, so it must be OK." However, there are two problems with this. Firstly, there may be some difference which looks minor to someone with little experience of the ways of Wikipedia, but which for some (possibly very good) reason makes a significant difference. Secondly, there are millions of articles on English Wikipedia, and many of them contain material which is not acceptable by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but nobody has yet noticed them and edited out the unacceptable material. For both those reasons "other stuff like this exists" is not a safe criterion.

As for there being "too many rules to learn in the first 5 minutes", I fully agree. I remember being bewildered and frustrated when I first came to edit WIkipedia, and I still think Wikipedia would be improved by cutting down the amount of bureaucracy. Even so, after a while it gets much easier: you come to realise that among the apparent forest of rules there are just a few essential points that you need to be familiar with, and the others you can leave in the background, and check out on the rare occasions when you need to.

Finally, I hope you have not been totally put off, and will continue to work on Wikipedia. If so, please feel very welcome to ask here for help when you need it. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SSA & Company wikipedia page deleted

I was working on a wikipedia page for SSA & Company and you deleted it. It was far from being completed and was only in my userspace. How is it possible for you to delete something that wasn't even close to being finished? I will start the page over again, but please do not delete it until I have actually posted it onto wikipedia.

Acceberg (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)acceberg

Such language as (for example) "the firm has helped many leading companies ... to increase the quality of their services while lowering costs" is unambiguously promotional. Promotional material is liable to speedy deletion, whether or not in userspace. I suggest making sure that what you write is expressed in non-promotional terms from the start, to avoid such problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)