User talk:JBW

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.) 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.

Thanks For Unblocking

Thanks sir JamesBWatson for understanding me and for unblocking my account.Thank you very much sir.Have a good day. Raghusri (talk) 10:55, 175 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me!

I didn't find my Tails Doll article a piece of vandalism, I just did a bad job.

-Oskarmandude —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Re

Well, on that, Wikipedia was being stupid on my system and I was just messing around and I accidentally saved the page. -Oskarmandude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskarmandude (talk • contribs) 10:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

BHP House

Dear JamesBWatson,

If you remembered, I have previously uploaded my article on the BHP House in Melbourne, Australia. After reviews from you, I have edited the text and I am attempting to upload the article again. I seek your kind advice to upload this text again. I do not wish to be blocked or be unable to upload in the future due to the errors in my article. This uploading of the article is extremely crucial to me as this is a university assessment and I need it to be uploaded permanently.

I seek your kind understanding and prompt response to this particular issue and am grateful in advance with your reply.

Many thanks, Zenasdeng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenasdeng (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

JBW, it appears to me that there are still copyvio problems with this article. (I can't remember exactly how the article looked before; I think, however, that the newly created BHP House is very nearly a verbatim repost of the last speedied version.) I tried to explain the problem last time on Zenasdeng's talk page, but the article still seems to contain material copied verbatim from Philip Goad's Melbourne Architecture and perhaps copyvios of other sources. We also have an older article on the same building at 140 William Street, so this is a duplicate that would need to be merged even if there were no copyright issues. I'll leave it to you to decide the best course here. Deor (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Attempt at dodging a salted page

The article for the band Make Me Famous (which you deleted twice) was recreated under the title Make Me Famous (band) in an attempt to get around the salting of the page. Just letting you know this in advance being that it's technically a violation being that someone made the page with the tab "(band)" at the end just to get around the protection of it being created. • GunMetal Angel 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No probz, also you gotta delete this too It's Now or Never (Make Me Famous album); in the words of the band "Once You Killed a Cow, You Gotta Make a Burger" hahahaha. • GunMetal Angel 20:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Another band

Bleed from Within (band) was made since the space Bleed from Within was salted. Do you think this should be deleted too or should you unsalt Bleed from Within and move the page there? I'll leave that choice up to you. • GunMetal Angel 08:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That was a repost of an article deleted after a deletion discussion, so it's a straightforward speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. But yeah you took care of it fast, it's just surprising since it's been up for more than a year and no one did it until now. But anywhoo, you didn't take care of the deletion of the article for album for the band you deleted yesterday here » It's Now or Never (Make Me Famous album). • GunMetal Angel 09:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but someone else has done it now. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Werribee Plaza

Hi James, I'm a bit curious as to why you deleted the Werribee Plaza article - citing that there had been a discussion. Is this 2006 discussion the one that has lead to it's deletion? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I very carefully read the discussion, and decided that, although the article has been substantially edited since its re-creation, nothing in it addressed the reasons for deletion given in that discussion. However, if you think there are good reasons for regarding the conclusion of that discussion to be inapplicable then I can restore the article, and invite the editor who tagged it for speedy deletion to take it to a new AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hate to be a pain, but I'd like to revamp the article; and ultimately participate in a pending AfD :D Can you please restore it? Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Earth Platinum

Hello, have you seen one? do you know anyone who has one? Do you know whether any of the reporters who have written articles on this thing have actually seen one of them? Newspapers are not immune from hoaxes, as we are not. Maybe I should upgrade to a 7.5/10. Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it may be a hoax, but there is sufficient support for it in numerous sources to prevent its being a blatant and obvious hoax, as required for speedy deletion. If you have good reasons to think it is a hoax, then I suggest taking it to Articles for deletion and giving your reasons there. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

One more thought. There seem to be plenty of sources, so maybe it's a notable hoax rather than a notable atlas. If you can find reliable sources saying it's a hoax, then perhaps you can try rewriting the article to says so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Might just be the last one I ever bother reporting; multilingual Renaissance man Mr Cheers does know how to use ratiocinatio polysylogistica to his own benefit, though Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What??? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This week's request

G'day James, this week's undeletion request is Jonathan Simpkin, but probably not the 2011 version that you deleted and salted but the original 2009 version that was deleted by User:NJA (who is no longer active here) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Raymond as not meeting WP:ATHLETE. Simpkin made his AFL debut tonight,([1]) so now meets the notability requirements. If the article is poor, then please userfy to my userspace and unsalt. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done The article had so little content that I'm not sure it wouldn't have been less trouble for you to have started from scratch, but it's now at User:The-Pope/Jonathan Simpkin. Good luck with improving it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

List of cemeteries in Hudson County, New Jersey

This page is a well-referenced complete list of cemeteries in Hudson County, New Jersey with a substantial amount of photographic material and as an appropriate fork of List of cemeteries in New Jersey. Cannot review history, but do not believe it has ever been reviewed for deletion, and at this time would it not fulfill the critieria for deletion (it may have at a much earlier date, but no longer does). It is a list that fulfills notability, is comprehensive, and encyclopedic . Can you please restore? Thanks- Djflem (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

My own view is that the changes to the article do not significantly invalidate the reasons given in the deletion discussion. However, I accept that it is quite different from the version that was discussed, so I think, on reflection, that I was wrong to delete it. I have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a list: how can it possibly be "substantially different" from a previous list? How has it managed to overcome the rationale for its original deletion, and how does it therefore bypass WP:DRV? --Calton | Talk 04:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's "substantially different" from the previous list because the previous one was just a list of cemeteries, whereas the current version also includes photographs, latitudes, dates of establishment, etc. In my opinion it doesn't overcome the rationale for its original deletion. I don't think Deletion review is relevant, because what is at issue is not undeletion of an existing deleted article, but speedy deletion of a new, and significantly different, article. My own view is that such lists are pretty pointless, but I really don't see that it satisfies any of the criteria for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting article. Can you please also restore the correspondent talk page? Can you please direct me as to where I can find the history of previous discussion to which you refer. Thanks Djflem (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Restoring talk page:  Done. Thanks for pointing this out, and sorry I didn't think to do it when I restored the article.

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cemeteries in Hudson County, New Jersey. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

your assistance please...

In the fall of 2010 you deleted the article Al Wafa (Israel) as an expired prod. Unfortunately, whoever placed that prod didn't bother to leave a heads-up on my talk page, and I only became aware of the deletion now.

I request userification to User:Geo Swan/userified 2012-05/Al Wafa (Israel) please. Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Manoj Bhawuk

Hi!
I get that you deleted it for Copyvio. But couldn't you just blank the prose, keep the one liner lead with awards & publications section? You could even delete history so that no one reverted it back.
I also read your closing note that anyone could restart the article. But wouldn't it have been better if the AfD had gone through the routine way and concluded on notability or non-notability of subject? Now if someone restarts it (i am not gonna bother) we are on square one. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Every version of the article in the editing history contained substantial copyright infringement, so there was no question of keeping any of it. I could have edited the article to just a one sentence introduction and deleted the rest, but I don't see any advantage whatsoever in doing so: anyone else can create such a one sentence stub article as easily as I could have done. The existing AfD would have become largely meaningless in that case, as most of it is about characteristics of the old article which would not apply to the new one (such as it being promotional, it being partly in the first person, DBigXRay's "cosmetic changes", etc) so it would have been necessary to have written a disclaimer in the AfD page explaining that much of the content was no longer relevant. In other words, we would have had an AfD full of stuff which had no relevance to the actual article, and a message telling us to ignore it. I really don't see that as better than closing it and starting from scratch. Also, if someone now writes a decent article, not promotional, not copied from elsewhere, and with evidence of notability, then there will be no need for an AfD, so what would have been gained by wasting people's time by keeping a redundant AfD open? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm! Just happened to remember that i posted something here and hence i returned. Frankly speaking, lost interest now. The subject wasn't anyways worth much efforts. You are right; would have been waste of time. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

EthosCE Article Deletion

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

Zendoodles (talk)

Protection of Dutch people

Please unprotect Dutch people which you protected last year. There is no reason for it to be protected any longer.  Liam987(talk) 14:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done I hope you are right, and the problem editor doesn't come back. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Pestering

On the chance that you may have overlooked my comment at #BHP House above, I'd like to bring the matter to your attention again. Deor (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen your earlier message, left it intending to come back when I had time to look into it, and forgotten it. You are quite right: the article was clearly a copyright infringement of at least a couple of sources, perhaps more, as well as duplicating an existing article. It has been deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was unsure what to do about the article. Deor (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Pro-Pakistan sentiment in Kashmir

Hi. Just a couple of minutes ago, you deleted this article. If you check again, there's been a mistake here. The article was started freshly with fresh sources and has nothing to do with the other article, as far as "duplication" is concerned. You may verify this by comparing the content of that article with the other one. As such, the speedy criterion does not apply. It would be good if you could restore ASAP as I am currently working on the article (and so is another user as seen from the article history). Mar4d (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

it is far from true to say that it "has nothing to do with the other article". It is on a topic covered in the other article, without any evident reason for forking into a separate article. It looks as though the fork has been created purely to promote a particular point of view on the topic, which in itself is sufficient reason for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Err no, not exactly. I started that article from scratch as a more specific page about a topic that is adequately covered in multiple academic/reliable sources and meets the notability criteria to have its own article. But that is a secondary issue. What I find more amusing is that it got removed in less than half an hour after I created it, not even giving the chance to work on it. Your deletion of the article also removed whatever sources I had used (and also an academic source added by another user in the lead). How do you exactly intend to resolve this? Mar4d (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• While you're at it, it may also be of interest to you that there are similar "sentiment" articles that exist eg. Anti-Americanism in Korea, Anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan. etc.

Anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan seems to me to have too little content to serve any useful purpose. Whether Anti-Americanism in Korea is any more suitable than Pro-Pakistan sentiment in Kashmir I have no idea, as I haven't read it. However, even if it isn't, the existence of one article doesn't justify the existence of another one: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. AS for being deleted in less than half an hour, Wikipedia's policy is that pages which satisfy one or more of the speedy deletion criteria can be deleted immediately. You are, of course, free to propose an amendment to that policy, but unless and until it is amended, complaining that an administrator has implemented the existing policy will not serve much purpose. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

When I wrote the above message, I took your word about the "less than half an hour". However, I have now checked, and found that the deletion was actually one hour and forty minutes after the article was created, and one hour and nineteen minutes after you were informed of the speedy deletion nomination. Evidently you made a mistake about the timing. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, could you restore the deleted article to my userspace at least? User:Mar4d/Pro-Pakistan sentiment in Kashmir would do. Mar4d (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done that. However, remember that pages which exist only to promote a point of view are unacceptable anywhere, including in userspace, so I hope you will soon edit it to make it neutral. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

CSD

Hey JBW ... you did notice that I declined the CSD a few days ago on Erebus_haunted_house? I felt it could be appropriately fixed to be less promotional, and it held appropriate notability - all it needed was some cleanup (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that you had declined a speedy deletion about 24 edits before I found the article and deleted it. I still think that the article was promotional enough to justify speedy deletion, even though you and others had toned down the promotional character somewhat. I also see another editor used an edit summary which said "spam, don't agree with the CSD decline", so I was not alone in holding that opinion. I see that the article has been re-created, and is still, in my opinion, promotional. I won't speedy delete it again, but it will be interesting to see what happens to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your block on User:122.109.0.0/16

Hi JamesBWatson. Can you remember why you blocked that range? Or more specifically, can you tell me what the IPs were that led you to block the range? Please include as many as possible. I suspect the range block might be overly broad, and it may be possible to fine tune the block somewhat or even remove it completely. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm pretty sure mostly the IP's of banned user User:Mr. Curious Man. A smaller range was blocked for sixth months. →Bmusician 23:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact circumstances that led to the block. Bmusician is right in saying that this IP range is one of those used for block evasion by the banned user Mr. Curious Man, but I have no record of edits in this range from him more recently than 17 March, two months before I placed the block, so that can't have been the reason. There has been a good deal of vandalism from this IP range, much of it just one or two edits from particular IP addresses (e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] etc etc), but also some cases where an individual IP address was used for multiple vandalism edits (e.g. all of Special:Contributions/122.109.136.239). The total amount of vandalism from the range is considerable, but there are also some constructive edits, so I have unblocked the range. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if the vandalism kicks off again and I can see about possibly blocking a more restricted range. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Break

.

---

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I will be unable to edit Wikipedia for a few days. Any messages left here will be likely to remain unanswered for a while.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

---

.

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr Smith Bot

Hi, JBW. I've been contacted by this user regarding their block. Their latest unblock request is over 10 days old and there has been no action. I'm testing the waters to find out if there could be some edit restrictions set out so that this editor would have a possibility for unblock. I've made my opinion plain regarding "directed" editing on the user's talk, so don't misunderstand this as lobbying for unblock. It's only that this user's requests (and their e-mail to me) contained none of the gnashing of teeth or foaming of the mouth I see from the majority of SPAs. They may actually have something to offer. I'm going to check with some other folks, but you are the blocking admin and I trust your judgement generally. I'm watching their user talk so you can respond here, there or my user talk. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)