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.) (I make only limited use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for 5 days 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.

Smoking Gun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business cards - spam link in reflist

Hi James.

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

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

Can you help.

Thanks James.

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

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

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

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

More and more elevators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galatta Cinema

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

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

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

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

No Source

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

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

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

@Sonicdrewdriver: Isn't it ?

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

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

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlee Kumar

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

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

Gerardw

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

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

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

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

Robert N. Rooks

A declined speedy deletion isn't legitimate grounds to restore gross WP:BLP violations. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

P.S. For more on this, see WP:BLPN: [2]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

See ANI thread here: [3]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Deletion Copy Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Langah

Hi mate i have moved the langah to langah(Clan) because i myself belong to that community and many factions amongst us claim to be afghan, jat, arain, baloch, pashtun. So i thought it would be better that article has all that info rather than the title as title gave final suggestion of who langah are. Also in the article there is clear mention of sources who support my move [[4]]

[[5]]

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

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

Notice

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

grammer mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

Child Marriage in Pakistan ‎

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

Just out of curiosity

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

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

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

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

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

Alan Lipman

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

brief note per instructions

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

Check

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

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

SACFaustonedb (talk · contribs)

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

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

Alan Lipman deux

Hello James!

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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