User talk:JBW

Emily Taheny

The article has already been nominated for deletion and we agreed to keep it up. The article has more than enough information by Wikipedia standards. 12:00, 26 May, 2010 GuineaPigWarrior

Articles for deletion nomination of Douglas Tait

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

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)

1. Thanks for the good wishes for RfA.
2. 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)

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)

The administrators' mop and bucket, use this liberally. Now you have these, you shouldn't have to suffer the t-shirt, as it won't be all you've got ;-)

And I've also included this particular flamethrower, because it comes with safety catches. Use with care, and only after AGF has been exhausted. Peter 15:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new job! You might need to find a shovel tho... GregJackP (talk) 17:30, 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! --Nascar1996 ^(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)

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)

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)

yes it's vandalism

either i do not understand or you do not understand what vandalism is, according to your recent comments :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&action=historysubmit&diff=369876953&oldid=369875922

since then "he" did it again : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Did_You_Hear_About_the_Morgans%3F&action=history

i put here 256 lines since december 31, 256 ! and you call that "Insufficient recent activity" and "Edits are not vandalism", bravo! --- kernitou talk 05:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a content dispute here. The editor at 74.193.78.243 disagrees with your editing and has reverted much or all of it, which clearly must be frustrating for you, as you have put a significant amount of work into the article. That editor also shows no attempt at all to discuss the editing to reach consensus. However, that is not the same as vandalism, which is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". What I see is entirely consistent with the editor genuinely thinking that his/her editing is improving the article. You or I may disagree with that opinion, but if there is no deliberate intention of doing damage then it does not fall under the vandalism policy. Various ways of dealing with this situation are listed at WP:Dispute resolution, and Wikipedia:Edit warring may also be helpful, but Administrator intervention against vandalism is specifically for two situations only: persistent editing with the deliberate intention of disrupting Wikipedia, and persistent spamming, neither of which applies in this case. Finally, you quote with disapproval my saying "Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block". This referred to another IP address, which had done no editing for four days. We do not block IP addresses for vandalism which is not currently continuing. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

you wrote "The editor at 74.193.78.243 disagrees with your editing and has reverted much or all of it" and what happened is exactly the opposite : i reverted what he edited (me: like 3 lines; he: 256 lines!)! obviously you dit not read what he is doing since, at least, december 31, 2009 : he just put tens of google main page links, what has no use, no content, nothing (see here) ...when such an user is doing it and doing it again, using an article as the sandbox, again and again even after warnings, it's called pure vandalism - kernitou talk 14:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there are many points in the edit history where the anon editor reverted your edits, just as much as you reverted their edits. For example see this pair of edits: [1] & [2], and in this pair: [3] & [4]. Secondly, who started the string of reversions, and who was responsible for introducing the controversial material in the first place is completely beside the point. The point is that there are two editors (you and the anonymous editor) who disagree about what content should be in the article, and keep reverting one another's edits. This is a content dispute, resulting in edit warring, and is a completely different thing from vandalism. By all means pursue any of the dispute resolution methods listed at WP:Dispute resolution, and please read Wikipedia:Edit warring if you have not yet done so, but WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism is not the place to have it dealt with. "Vandalism" does not mean any kind of editing which is not constructive: it means editing done with the deliberate intention of being disruptive. It is, of course, possible that the anonymous editor intends to be disruptive, but there is no evidence that that is the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

could you please kill user:Wikipedical, even if he understands better than you the said vandalism problem : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Did_You_Hear_About_the_Morgans%3F&curid=24445186&diff=371324584&oldid=371295090 thanks in advance - - - kernitou talk 05:58, 2 July 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. dffgd 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). dffgd 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)

El Corte River

The log indicates - 23:07, 26 June 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "El Corte River" ‎ (G2: Test page), which I don't think is right. I think based on the "hang on" in the edit summary that an editor had improperly formatted a hang-on argument. The CSD notice indicated the criteria as too little context to determine the subject of the article, but I think that is incorrect as "The El Corte River is a river in Mexico" certainly identified the subject. I don't want to go the mat for an old one-line article with a couple of external links but it didn't really seem like a proper candidate to be speedied. Thoughts? Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth I was neither the article's creator nor the editor adding the hang on argument. I just happened to be looking at it to see if it could/should be expanded. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I recreated the article, and will add some more content. See this book source for some of the colonial history of the people of the river. The speedy was submitted by a very new editor (contributions). Better to think about whether a stub has potential than to knee-jerk speedy delete because it so far has little content, my view. See the picture in the article - seem quite large. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A speedy deletion tag for "no context" was added to the article, but I rejected that, because, as Abby Kelleyite rightly says, there was enough context. I speedily deleted the article for a completely different reason, as the deletion log shows: "test page". Such text as "Most rivers are, for many people, decidedly interesting. ... Maybe this stub will grow into a DYK article? Let's see" looks to me like a test page. There may have been a case for removing the unsuitable text, which would have left us with "The El Corte River is a river of Mexico", and perhaps a reference or two, which seems to be what you are suggesting, and certainly I would not have objected to anyone doing that. On the other hand I don't think what I did was indefensible either. How far it is better to have an article even though it is very poor rather than have none is a question on which there is a wide range of disagreement among Wikipedians. Certainly the present article is a different matter altogether, and I offer Aymatth2 congratulations on their contribution to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

After writing the above comment I thought about it some more, and I have come back to update my opinion. I still think that "I don't think what I did was indefensible", but I don't think that is the most useful thought on the matter. As I have already indicated, I did not delete the article because of "no context", and I did not really delete it "because it so far has little content" either. I deleted it because almost all of what content there was was inappropriate for an article. However, I think I was wrong to think of it in those terms. Instead of thinking about the value of most of what was there I should have thought "Suppose I remove all of the inappropriate material. Suppose I then look at the stub which would be left, and ask myself 'if this was what I had seen when I first came to the article, would I have deleted it?' " The answer to that would be "Of course not. I would have tagged it for expansion." That, therefore, is what I should have done. Obvious? Well, yes, it seems obvious to me now that I have thought it out, but my attention was dominated by the existing content, which I still think was more "test edit" than "article". I think the view I have now expressed is probably more or less what Aymatth2 was saying, but spelled out in more detail. I am very grateful to both Abby Kelleyite and Aymatth2 for prompting me to think again about this, and I shall try to bear in mind these thoughts when looking at future speedy deletion candidates. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

James, don't beat yourself up over it. That inappropriate text was added by some other editor after the article had been tagged for speedy deletion (probably after misreading the instructions about adding a hangon notice immediately below the deletion tag). The result looked like a test page. The end result is a much improved article thanks to Aymath2, so no real harm and quite a bit of good done in the end. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Both my deletion and all of what I wrote above were based on thinking that the text I saw was what had been tagged for deletion, whereas in fact most of it was added later. I should have checked the history. Ironically the new text, presumably added in a misguided attempt to prevent deletion, was what caused me to delete it. However, you are right: the end result is OK, and the history that led to it is not all that important. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I see what happened. It was completely my mistake. I put the {{hangon}} tag on the page, then added my explanation and saved. I realized my mistake - the explanation belongs on the talk page - went to put it there and found the page had disappeared. What JamesBWatson saw was an odd article that said something like "All rivers are interesting. Maybe this stub will grow into a DYK ... This is a river in Mexico" and nothing else. So my fumbled hangon caused the speedy. No harm done anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a comment like that would make more sense on a talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I caused the problem, and things moved too fast before I could fix it. Sometimes I wonder if there should be a process in between Speedy and AfD, call it pending deletion, for articles that are relatively harmless but are not worth keeping unless they are fixed up. There is no point opening a big debate, but the author should be given a few days to fix the article before it is wiped out. Or perhaps that is a solution to a problem that does not really exist. An article can always be recreated. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Does/would WP:PROD have anything to do with this? –dffgd 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Show how well I understand the deletion options! Yes, I think it would be an excellent idea to implement WP:PROD. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I actually figured out something another editor didn't. –dffgd 16:34, 29 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)

edits removed by you on TTP on wikipedia

Hi James,

I have added Khawarijts with the definition of TTP "It's a group (of Khawarij) that is closely allied with al-Qaeda. They train together, they plan together, they plot together. They are almost indistinguishable".

Please refer to the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawarij

TTP are from the Khawarij school of thought and they consider all the Muslims other than their school of thought as Mushriqs. you ca see this text on the above link also:

"They Kharijites believed that the act of sinning is analogous to Kufr (disbelief) and that every grave sinner was regarded as Kafir (disbeliever) unless he repents. With this argument, they denounced all the above mentioned Ṣaḥābah and even cursed and used abusive language against them. Ordinary Muslims were also declared disbelievers because first, they were not free of sin; secondly they regarded the above mentioned Ṣaḥābah as believers and considered them as religious leaders, even inferring Islamic jurisprudence from the Hadith narrated by them."

Therefore my change is justified, please do let me know if you have an argument.

Regards, HAROON —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroonsarfrazj (talk • contribs) 06:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

After spending some time searching I worked out that you are referring to this edit to Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. You changed the text of a quotation from John Brennan. The relevant quote has been widely reported, as for example here, and here. Not a single one of the reports that I have found says that Brennan included the additional words that you added. When reporting a quote we must report what the person quoted actually said, not what we think they might justifiably have said but didn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am so sorry, i apologies for the change, i was wrong to edit a quotation.

Sorry again

Regards, HAROON —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroonsarfrazj (talk • contribs) 06:19, 1 July 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)

re List of breath mints

I'm not sure what you mean here. Regarding notability, the article recently survived an AfD. Regarding the content, are you saying that we needs refs showing that Product X does indeed exist and is indeed a breath mint?

That's reasonable, but could we tag the article rather than wholesale deleting content? Part of the point of the list is for the redlinks to provide editors with a quick reference as to what articles need to be written. I have done this, is this acceptable? Herostratus (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

James K Baker

Hi, just thought you might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James K Baker which you deleted A7 yesterday. There's clearly a division of opinion as to whether this guy merits an article, but I'm a little surprised that you thought it merited A7. ϢereSpielChequers 17:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

At the time I deleted it the full text of the article was "James K. Baker is a technology inventor and entrepreneur, who co-founded Dragon Systems with his wife Dr. Janet Baker." Perhaps Dragon Systems is such a major company that co-founding it is a claim of significance, but even if it is, the article did not make that clear. Perhaps I should have been more willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, or spend more time checking, but on the whole I think a one-sentence article that tells us the line of business someone is in and the name of their business and nothing else is not really making an assertion of significance. However, thanks for drawing my attention to this. I shall express an opinion at the AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PBSKIDS

Hello JBW, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

editing

I have edited a page and i recieved two emails saying that my writing was unconstructiuve. I was constructive and gave alot of information so i dont know why i was sent that email. please fix this problem now!

If you give people the freedom to edit then let them edit how they wnat or just take editing away completely Geez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexismarie504 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing of emails you may have received. Do you mean messages on your talk page? If so, you have received three of them. I will not waste time explaining why you received them as it is inconceivable that you thought the edits you made were constructive. You may be under the misapprehension that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can edit Wikipedia in any way they like", which is a common mistake among people unused to Wikipedia's methods. If you continue to vandalise you will be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Truth(video game player)

You recently deleted my article on "The Truth"(video game player). What the wiki-community needs to understand is that there are things that are notable in a local setting that may not seem notable to you. when someone wins a local tournament (or 6 as is the case with "The Truth") that person is notable. Phoenix newspapers don't publish tournament wins for video games, however video gaming has become a higher grossing industry than the movie industry. This is an area prime for improvement. The companies that put on these tournaments did not do a good job of keeping records so it is next to impossible to establish this notability in the fashion you are obviously expecting. In closing, this article was written using the apex of information available and chronicles a notable person locally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrymcdowell (talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you or I may personally think about the notability of a person, Wikipedia's standards of notability are outlined in its notability guidelines. The most relevant of these in this case are the general notability guideline and the guideline for notability of people. It does not seem that the subject of the article satisfies the criteria in either of these guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting WP:REFUND and Incubation of a couple of my articles deleted by you

Dear JamesBWatson:

Please “WP:REFUND” and “Incubate” or at the least “Userfy” the following articles speedily deleted by you:

1. Sanjay Kapoor (IIT Alumnus) and 2. Vrajesh Lal.

Also, please suggest the improvements to help these articles stick, as I'm getting a lot of requests from interested people in the professional community and the fraternity that the subject belongs to. I'm a new editor and am seeking your advice and wise counsel to reinforce the above articles, as they seem to be of great significance to thousands of people who know these individuals.

Thanks very much for your help.

Regards, editfun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editfun (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied these two pages, and I shall comment further on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless anonymous comment

spoilsport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.171.10 (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Burak Arıkan article cleaned up

Burak Arikan article is cleaned up and more references added.

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

Rfc: Commator's links to metal-art.com.ua

Having previously reverted this link in other articles, you might be interested in a new Rfc on the matter: Talk:Forging#Rfc:_Commator.27s_links_to_metal-art.com.ua

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Falcon Crest

Hi, I am truly sorry to bother you, but I have tried to edit the falcon crest page and it keeps going back as it was. I think you did a great job, but it filled with to many spoilers and I personally think that a lot of fun of those series it to be surprised, it says who dies and what happens to them and I think it should just be something more general. My sister just recently started seeing the series and she wanted to know some stuff about, searched here and ended up knowing a lot, like the resolution of the cliffhanger that Jackqueline died and that Chase drowns or who died in plane crash and earthquake. Please consider it and change it as it to full of spoilers. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynastyfalcon (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I agree with you that articles should not contain spoilers. However, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline against it, and I have no wish to get involved in an edit war on the basis of nothing more than personal opinion. I have no knowledge of Falcon Crest, and although I am happy to remove material which is clearly against policy (such as vandalism or spam) I don't think I am competent to take part in a content dispute on the article. You could try discussing your concerns on the article's talk page, but on the basis of past experience I am not optimistic about your chances of success. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:SPOIL. –dffgd 15:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I had forgotten about that. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Inflexitarian

I thought it's a hoax because I see no google results. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 13:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I find 8 Google hits, which are not enough to make me think it's remotely notable, but enough to make me think it's not a hoax. However, having thought about it I have decided it is sufficiently promotional for speedy deletion under CSD G11. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. See ya later. — Timneu22 · talk 13:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My Post

Hello, You had called my editing on the Erskine Academy vandalism. It is in no way vandalism. It is the truth and am offended that you took it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boarder12345 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether true or not, your editing was unacceptable. It was unsourced, and potentially libellous if untrue. As I said in my notice on your talk page, the editing was unconstructive and appeared to constitute vandalism. If it isn't vandalism then you need to present it in a way that does not appear as though it is, including providing reliable sources. Without such sources any such edits will be reverted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

...and if I'd seen someone add "(Soule Man)" to a name, I'd have reverted it as vandalism, too. TFOWR 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Soccer is not USA centric.

Soccer is not USA centric as you claim rather it is the phrase used by the majority of humans living in the English speaking world. This includes the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, Canada, Japan, South Africa, Papua New Guinea to name a few.

In countries wherein the phrase Football is used to refer to the sport, the phrase often develops from the native-language phrase for the word, examples are U.K. - native language: English, phrase used: "Association Football", Germany - native language: German, phrase used: "Fußball", Spain (and Spanish speaking countries) - Native language: Spanish, phrase used: "fútbol".

Note however that in the majority of English, NOT foreign language countries, the phrase "Soccer" is the majority language used. 120.16.79.220 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if that is true, to say the game is "occasionally" known as "football" is inaccurate. The name is in common use. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for removing my edit to the section of "Sexting". It was a well thoughout idea and now it is gone forever. My only regret in life is that it was not left to bring joy to all who dared view the touchy subject of "Sexting". I want you to know that my soul dies with the deletion of my edit, along with the many possible laughs it could have brought. I only hope that you found it funny and that you know what you have done. -A Very Angry Teenager Who Wants To Better The World One Day- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.38.71 (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hoosch

Hi JamesBWatson - you just deleted the article on Hoosch that I created. I had placed the hangon tag on the page no less than 24 hours ago and was looking to improve the article with better references. Rather than wipe-out my work completely, is there some way you can restore the page, or supply me with the text so that I can continue to work on it? Thank you. Znarky (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have restored the article to Znarky/Hoosch, and you are welcome to work on it there. You should be aware, though, that this is a temporary measure to give you a chance to establish notability, and not a way of permanently avoiding deletion if the subject is not notable. I searched and was unable to find suitable reliable sources to establish that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Best of luck with trying to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. To lose the work would've been a setback. However, I've just checked and it appears Hoosch won't be returned as a search result if someone else wants to write on the subject as you've placed NOINDEX on it. If the article was left indexed there would be an opportunity for others to add/refine/establish it. As I understand it - as it stands now - the collaborative element has been removed and it's all down to me. Is that so? Znarky (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will remove the {{NOINDEX}} tag. Unfortunately some users use userfied pages as a way of avoiding deletion, and keep pages indefinitely, unless they are noticed and deleted. However, I suppose this page is fairly innocuous, even if notability has not yet been established, so leaving it indexable for a while won't do any harm. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson - It appears Hoosch still is not showing up when I run a search on WP. Is there a lag in the indexing once it's been removed? Otherwise, as I stated previously, other possible contributors will not see the page as it stands so far. I fully apprec iate that you don't want it up there for an extended period of time if you feel it hasn't yet been properly established as notable - but I'd argue that without it being available to be established as notable by the community, it will never have the chance to be established. I'm new to WP, but I'm experiencing far more exclusionary treatment from other contributors than I had expected! Znarky (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

First, yes, Google tends to have a time lag, which is sometimes quite short, but other times very long. Secondly, I fully understand what you mean about "exclusionary treatment": I felt that way myself when I started here. After a time, though, I came to realise that what at first seemed like unnecessarily unfriendly treatment was not as arbitrary as it seemed, and there were reasons. Obviously, in a place where anyone can edit, we get all sorts, including unfortunately some people who are unnecessarily unfriendly, but on the whole Wikipedia is quite friendly once you understand it. Part of the problem is that we get many people coming here to edit in unsuitable ways, including vandalism, personal attacks, spam, etc etc. Those of us who patrol such activities have our time cut out dealing with the problem, so we tend to do things quickly, which sometimes means leaving rather curt automated messages and reverting or deleting contributions with a minimum amount of explanation. If every time I dealt with an editor who had fallen against Wikipedia's policies or guidelines in some way I gave them a detailed explanation of everything relevant, I would get much less useful work done here, so I often compromise. However, don't let that put you off: I hope you will stay and continue to contribute here, and please do feel welcome to ask me for help. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Znarky, James, I have moved the page to User:Znarky/Hoosch as userfied articles should be in the user namespace (I guess this was just a simple slip). Peter 11:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It certainly was a simple slip - but a pretty serious one. Thanks for the correction. User:Znarky/Hoosch is, of course, what I intended. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Valan International cargo charter

Hello, u have just deleted my article, considering that it was advertise

i want to remake this page or create a knew one, so that it wouldn't be considered as an advertise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alunar1988 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to write a satisfactory new article inplace of an unsatisfactory deleted one. However, even if you avoid outright promotion or advertising, there are other considerations to take into account. The article indicated that you are working for the company, (for example, "We are in the market to offer our clients ...") which means that Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from editing an article on this subject. There is also the question of whether the company satisfies Wikipedia's requirement for notability, and whether there are reliable sources to indicate that it does. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations are also relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you for the review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alunar1988 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Routerone's talk page.
Message added 14:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion of Ron Orp page

Hi there, I don't understand why this page should be deleted. Ron Orp is a publishing house which is growing and getting more and more important. It's newsletters are delivered to over 70'000 subscribers in London, New York, Brasilia, Vienna, Munich, Berlin and 7 Swiss cities. I've added many sources to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.143.187 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion about the possibility of deleting the article, but at the end of the discussion it was not decided to delete it. If you are interested in why deletion was suggested you can read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Orp. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Favonian's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swami Nardanand

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

The article Swami Nardanand you deleted, was not to promote a perticular entity, or it was not any advertisement page. It is just an spiritual info page like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagawan_Nityananda. Please consider this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamisatyadevanand (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 July 2010 07:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It was unambiguously promoting a particular religious view. Giving another article which you consider similar is never a helpful argument for keeping an article. For one thing, the other article may be in need of deletion too. In this case, the two articles are very different: one promoted a person's view, and the other describes a person and his view, without presenting it as the truth. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Stations Former Talent List

Hi James,

I was just wondering... I have always edited these pages for about over a year now and I know it's against Wikipeda policy, but I had worked very hard to add everyone that was w/ the station at one point or another. Just for the 5 Chicago Stations, I was wondering if I could have your permission to leave the articles as is. It's not like it vandalizing them in anyway. I am not taking anything away form the article itself. I just feel like if you only keep the notable names, you might as well as not have a list at all b/c that is just such a select few. I would really appreciate it if you as an administrator would allow just those 5 pages to remain as is. I also used to look forward to updating those lists with budget cuts and everything else going on these days in television. Every other station can stay as is. Thanks so much. 98.223.95.42 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There are several things I could say in reply, but since the user is now blocked as a sockpuppet it's not worth it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

reply

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at DeadRed94's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadRed94 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

reply

Okay listen,I can't understand what a dumbo like u is thinking is right now.The recent changes that Ive made in ********* section is completely right.

For a person like u who knows nothing regarding my country's win,achievements,hosted or going to host matters,I cant help it.That article was left completely barren & nobody cared to make the ongoing updates.So I decided to step in & clean up the mess.

Any Indian would appreciate my work without hesitation & ppl who know about that article wll acknowledge that it is good & well acceptable —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadRed94 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A dumbo? JamesBWatson (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Simon Prast

I see that you have removed many internal links to Simon Prast on the grounds that the article has been speedily deleted under A7. However, that article has not been deleted, and as an actor in a number of reasonably popular New Zealand television programs, I doubt that it is likely to be. I will revert your edits.-gadfium 09:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not intend to remove these links. By accidentally clicking on the wrong button I deleted the article, but immediately corrected my mistake. Unfortunately, links were automatically removed by Twinkle. Thank you for reverting them, and apologies for putting you to the trouble. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see there is a deleted article SIMON PRAST, which probably lead to this situation. No problem.-gadfium 09:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KakapoNZ (talk • contribs) 09:15, 2 July 2010

Errm, I can't see any. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the explanation above re Simon Prast. Good thing is it prompted me into gear and I have done some major editing on my on wikimedia server. So intentional or not, thanks for the motivation. Will put new post up tomorrow. Again Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KakapoNZ (talk • contribs) 10:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

list of Dawoodi Bohra dai

Dear sir,

I clarified the position of new article which I have created naming' list of Dawoodi Bohra dai' on its Talk page and left message of hangon on the article.

The article is similar to article of list of Ismaili Imams ,name and details of dai compiled at one place.

These have link with article Ismaili, Mustali,Dawoodi Bohra and would be very useful for Wiki viewers.

There is no information in it concerning with live person,references are given ,may pl. consider the article suitable for Wiki.

Thanks.--Md iet (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

--Md iet (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

creating "Mohamed Sulaiman Kuthubdeen"

Hello,JamesBWatson

May i have to create a Page for a Real People Mohamed Sulaiman Kuthubden and he is a son of Kamil Kuthubdeen, So Please can i create him a Wikipedia page.. he was the chairman of Apple SK9 inc. and youngest president of Real Estate.. Please Allow Me to create a good page about him on wikipedia and may people would know about that person..

Regards,

USR:Sulaiman7799

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulaiman7799 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that this article has been created and deleted five times within a period of four days. Each time the deletion was because the article failed to show that the person had enough significance to justify an encyclopaedia article, and four different administrators did these deletions. A Google search for his name produces very few hits, among which Wikipedia, MySpace, etc feature. None of them looks remotely like substantial coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject, which is what Wikipedia requires in order to justify an article. A search for "Apple SK9 inc" produced nothing other than Wikipedia. The long and the short of this is that I have seen nothing whatever to suggest he is any more than a very ordinary businessman running a very ordinary small business, without any notability at all. In this case he does not qualify for an article. If you have not already done so you may like to read Wikipedia's notability guidelines, including the guideline for people. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you please monitor this discussion

I trust your ability to summarise and close. Would you please monitor this friendly discussion, both to keep it on track if necessary, and, in a few days to close it with whatever consensus is reached? Unless, of course, you wish to add your thoughts to the (so far not) emerging consensus? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've had a look at it, and I will come back to it and see how it goes. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Very many thanks. I will say nothing here to influence any decision you make in the future. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

List of record labels: A–H

Can I ask you logic for removal of EyPi RecordZ, since it has an article (all be it at AfD) should it not be presumed notable until the AfD closes ? Codf1977 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no good reason for "presuming" notability in the absence of evidence of notability from reliable sources, but I don't feel very strongly about it, so if you wish to restore it I won't mind. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree I don't think it is notable, but I think that in the interests of seeming fair, it should not be removed until the article is deleted. Codf1977 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Vice redirects to Kascha Papillon

Please let the RFD discussion conclude before deleting anything, there was really no concensus for anything but a merge, so the redirect is natural to that. UPCDAYZ (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Kamil Kuthubdeen

Hello,User: JamesBWatson

why did you remove Kamil Kuthubdeen's Article?

Under what circumstance did remove kamil kuthubdeen. could you please give me some reason for removing kamil kuthubdeen.