thanks. do you know where i can submit a rsolution please? should i post it on the page itself? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.6.13.199|99.6.13.199]] ([[User talk:99.6.13.199|talk]]) 21:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
thanks. do you know where i can submit a rsolution please? should i post it on the page itself? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.6.13.199|99.6.13.199]] ([[User talk:99.6.13.199|talk]]) 21:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== New message at my page ==
{{Talkback|Harrym11/Miltos_Kambourides}}
Revision as of 09:28, 30 August 2010
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|JBW}} on your talk.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JBW.
Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. Thanks.
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
== User: 98.216.90.15 ==
Hi,
Thanks for taking care of 98.216.90.15, at least for a little while. I think we may have hit a bump in the road though. As soon as 98.216.90.15 was blocked from editing, another account, PilotBoy5 came back into action after having no edits from July 21-Yesterday. When he posted his edit to Bradley International Airport (which was where 98.216.90.15 edited all the time) he said in the edit description "I have added this because it is true. So tofutwitch, don't delete it because that would just be wrong. THIS IS A REFERENCE" I did not delete is, but another user did for understanding reasons. I think that there is a chance they may be the same user, but I'm not sure. Also, he also used a very similar source as 98.216.90.15 for one edit to Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport, it read: "My dad works for Horizon Air. He is in the route department for Horizon Air. He showed me a new schedule" What do you think? It could be that we just have two kids who don't like to listen.... Let me know what you think. Thanks. tofutwitch11 T. C. 12:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sorry it's taken me 5 days to reply to this. If, when I receive a message, I am too busy to deal with it, I normally plan to deal with it when I come back. However, what often happens is that it soon becomes lost behind a line of other messages and forgotten.
I think it very probably is the same person, but since at the moment it was just a one-off edit I think we can ignore it. Feel free to let me know if the trouble restarts when the IP's block expires (26 August). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, The Philip Schneider article was deleted in the past after a vote was cast, WITHOUT a majoriry for the deletion.
since then, the article has been recreated with better content and by other users.
Moreover, Having erased an article in the past (for no good reason) is no reason to re-erase it it the future. Since now, it's gone (by your personal decree, with no deleltion vote) all content has been lost.
Personally, I fail to see why some people seem to have nothing better to do than to destroy articles instead of bettering them.
I respectuflly request that you restore the information you have destroyed. if you have specific claims to it's content you may use the discussion page. --Namaste@?23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no vote. On English Wikipedia deletion discussions are decided not by voting, but by an administrator's assessment of the value of the arguments advanced. In this case we had such arguments as "there's gotta be a reason to keep an article about someone who claims to have done top secret underground government work... isn't there?" So presumably if I claim to to have done top secret underground government work then I can have a Wikipedia article about myself. (Incidentally, even if you think that a vote, including such nonsensical ones, would be a better way to decide deletion discussions, there was a majority for deletion: four, including the nominator, for delete, and three in favour of keep.) You say "the article has been recreated with better content". What is "better" is a matter of opinion, but that is irrelevant, because when I assessed the speedy deletion nomination my job was not to make that judgement, but to decide whether the issues which led to deletion had been addressed. They clearly had not, as there was not a single reliable source cited. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a serious reply. re-erasing an article because you have decided to erase it before is not a valid cause. moreover, if you wish more sources to be found (there are dosens of them all around the UFO community), you may ASK for them. destroying a work done by many collaborating individuals over weeks and months just because you personally dont agree with it is a blatant abuse of power. I mean, you can also nominate AfD by your self, see the vote, discount it, and erase it your self all over again.
some sources were the local Police who shot him dead, others were navy officers.
I can see by your talk page, that this is an almost common move on your behalf, and would hate to call names on arbitrations. please restore it, and place your request in a civil manner.
Besides, no one can really tell the differences between the articles' content once you have destroyed all copies of it.
we are all here by good faith, ands some believe that Admins are here to facilitate contributers to better articles. so, please help us do this work. Thank You.--Namaste@?13:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to "destroying a work ... just because you personally dont agree with it". However, that was not the reason for deletion. In fact I do not know enough about the subject to have a personal opinion. Wikipedia guidelines specify that if an article has been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion and then re-created, without the issue which led to deletion being addressed, then it should be speedily deleted. I was implementing that guideline, and personal opinion did not come into it. You say "re-erasing an article because you have decided to erase it before is not a valid cause". There you are expressing disagreement with a Wikipedia guideline. You are free to suggest changes to that guideline if you wish, but as long as that is what the guideline says, there will not be much mileage in criticising an individual for acting in accordance it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right.
if you'd like to get even more beurocratic, please answer me this.
if an article was erased via reason x, and y weeks later was recreated by another user who did not know about the said reason nor participated in it's discussion, and have alternative content that may address reason x, is it not so that by wiki guidlelines (not laws, I remind you. guidelines for beter community incorportaion) the article should be reviewed? what is y so that an article that was erased in prehistory to have any chance of being recreated to achieve the so called conclusion of x?--Namaste@?17:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You ask me to answer if I'd like "to get even more beurocratic". I don't wish to get bureaucratic at all, but even so I will try to answer. I am not sure what you mean by "the article should be reviewed", but if you mean that it should be checked to see whether it has successfully addressed the issues which led to deletion, then the answer is "yes", and I did so. The AfD was based on lack of notability and verifiability. As I have already said above, the new version of the article contained no reliable sources, so it certainly did not address those issues. As for your final sentence, I'm afraid I don't understand it, but if you will clarify it for me I will consider whether I can answer it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, John Titor has a wikipedia page, and he only CLAIMED to be a time traveler. How does that make him any more deserving of a wikipedia page than Philip Schneider?
AutoMe (talk)AutoMe
Unfortunately another administrator had already deleted it before I saw your message. However, I think that what you are trying to do is outside Wikipedia's terms. The whole nature of what you have tried to do is inconsistent with the purpose of Wikipedia, as other editors tried to explain to you on the article's talk page. You are in effect trying to use Wikipedia as a web host for your college team, rather than to write an objective encyclopaedia article. I think you would be better off putting the page on a web host or social network site, rather than on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening. I've made such request on the other discussion page of administrator, but I'm nit sure that I can have an answer from him. Explain to me please if this is normal behavior? NovaSkola reverted my edit as vandalism, while I've filled interwikies, native name in both languages and I've mentioned that fortress is situated in disputed area which is under control of the NKR. It is not the first such behavior of this user. Thanks --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you did as vandalism doesn't look like vandalism to me. However, another editor has reverted to your version, and it has been left at that, so I don't think we need to worry too much about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following a brief discussion on IRC with User:Jamesofur, do you think it would be OK to undelete this page? I know the user was socking, and that he's been rather uncooperative and accusative at certain points (including to OTRS, apparently), but the person is notable enough to me and the only reason was G5 (I think the spam and copyvio parts have been removed and such, and it was his originally his own writing, anyway). Probably unblocking the user wouldn't end up well after a while, but I think the page can be salvageable. Is that OK with you? —fetch·comms18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I tend to take the line that blocked users should be prevented from getting their way if they try to get round their blocks, in order to discourage them from trying in the future to do the same again. However, I don't see anything really bad about the latest version of the article, so I won't object if you want to undelete it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will undelete it, but if they end up making another account, I won't be so lenient on whatever they might choose to write next. —fetch·comms20:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Galindo
Why the heck did you delete Samuel Galindo's page? That was absolutely pointless because even though he hasn't made a first team appearance yet, he made an appearance for the Boivian national team so the article should've been kept. – Michael (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you will see from the deletion log, I deleted it because it was a repost of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Nothing at all in the article indicated that there had been any change affecting the reasons for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
our last post as of 15:44, 19 August 2010 : ... i put my draft for the article at User:Seujet2010/My-worktime thanks, added by Seujet2010 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 August 2010 ...
we have no answer from you, so we try to add a new article in the hope that it will comply
Good to see you Huggle patrolling, knowing all that admin-ing isn't going to your head. I've been more low-impact lately owing to some other obligations, but hope to be doing the 0 hour vandal patrols again soon. See ya there. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huggle patrolling can be less stressful than some kinds of admin-stuff. Even blocking vandals that come up on Huggle doesn't produce a string of "how dare you do something I didn't like, (such as deleting my vanity article on my garage band)" messages. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ip I reported a few minutes ago DOES have edits. It looks like there might be a bug. check my contribs for the reverts I did on the ip. Not sure why it's not showing up.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this was 80.222.122.229, who edited 80.222.122.209's talk page. I have blocked 80.222.122.229, and I will delete 80.222.122.209's talk page, since there is no such user. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HI. could you take another look at this pleas? I think it is a cleverly contrived hoax. Let me know what you think. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably not a hoax, but it seems to be an account of an inadequately sourced and totally non-notable myth, and I wouldn't oppose a PROD if you want to make one. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you have deleted my new addition to wikkipedia, which was a serious entry under the assumtion that it is a hoax of some sort. it is not...It is a valid point of veiw that was enetered in order to communicate with the world. please reinstate the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danspeede (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2010
Oh yes? The article gave no sources, a Google search for "prostetute theory" gives precisely one hit (the deleted Wikipedia article), but provide me with sources and I will consider undeleting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, for anyone who knows how to spell who reads this, I can save you the trouble of searching: a Google search for "Shay Shvartzman" "prostitute theory" gives no hits at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Truthiracy word was already accepted, why now did you decide to delete it? What word do we have that describes a conspiracy that becomes the truth? We don't, and that's why we need this word to be accepted. The Enron conspiracy became a truthiracy. Who pressured you to remove it?
Christopher Lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthiracy (talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled by this. The only ways I can think of that you know I deleted it is that you have seen either the deletion log or the closure notice on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Truthiracy. In either case you will have seen that the reason given for deletion was copyright infringement, yet none of what you say above has anything to do with copyright. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance PLEASE!
James (I know that's not your real name based on your user page but I wouldn't know how else to address you)... :-),
I know we disagreed on Lisa Christiansen article. However, if you look at my information on my user page Sara-rockworth (talk·contribs), I think you will see my intention's are real for being here.
One of the articles I did some minor edits on was the social media article. Well, Flowanda (talk·contribs) who the was one of the people who was bashing the Christiansen article, has removed everything I wrote in social media citing "poor sourcing" as the reason. My sources were http://mprcenter.org and the European Journal of Social Psychology. And there were no "outlandish claims" in my edits as she also used as a reason.
I understand I didn't do my homework well enough before writing my first full article on Christiansen. But I am not Christiansen - or related to Christiansen somehow - either. I just didn't make a good first attempt and I didn't know of all the drama that had come before my submission as because of the way I originally entered the title, nothing else came up. Well, Flowanda (talk·contribs) was more than harsh on the Christiansen article and even implied to another editor that she knew some deep dark secret about me. Well, I can tell you that's not true because there is no deep dark secret I am hiding.
Since I know you and I didn't agree before either, I thought I would ask you to review her removal of my edits on social media. Since, if you think they are valid, they obviously would be. If you think they are merited, then I will accept that as well. I did review this other editor's talk page and she gets attacked on there pretty frequently for this same behavior. Sara-rockworth (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My own opinion is that the part of it you wrote was actually better sourced than most of the article. The rest of the article is, in my opinion, very poor in several respects, and your section too is by no means perfect. However, removing that one section on grounds of poor sourcing while leaving other sections with poorer or (in the case of one section) no sources, does not seem to me the best way forward. As for the "deep dark secret", I cannot find that suggestion anywhere, and unless it was a really serious accusation I suggest dropping the matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Of course we can move on and I am through acting like a toddler regarding your initial remark. As for Flowanda, there is no dark secret so I can definitely drop that as well. I was not really concerned with it other than to show that for some reason, she or he appears to be tracking what I do and making arbitrary changes. Yet, as long as it doesn't continue, I am more than willing to let it go. For this article, thank you for your honest remarks. I wanted to really dive in and edit this entire piece but was concerned about COI even though I do participate in Wikipedia using a pen name and don't link anywhere to my my writings (which are mostly text-based and not able to sourced on the Internet anyway). Would it be inappropriate for me to work on this entire definition if I also teach a course in an academic setting on social media? I currently write under a pen name in here that only one person knows as tied to my real name so it shouldn't look as if I am trying to build my own authority. Regardless, would that be seen as COI? I could stay away from all social media and marketing discussions but I am somewhat of an expert in these areas and it would seem to be a waste of my expertise. This is one rule I am still unclear on in Wikipedia...how this part works? Sara-rockworth (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think it makes sense to say you should not edit a particular topic area because you have an expert knowledge of it. I have never thought that because I have a knowledge of mathematics I should keep away from editing mathematical articles. However, it may be best to avoid editing anything to do with, for example, the institution you teach at. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mr. JamesBWatson. I appreciate the speed at which you responded and the advice. You're not near as awful as I thought. (That was a joke) Again, I appreciate your feedback and assistance. Sara-rockworth (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar
Thank You Mr. JamesBWatson for quickly responding to my pleas for help and for reverting edits that I - and you - felt should not have been deleted. Most of all, thank you for your willingness to help a new editor! Sara-rockworth (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contacting you in regard to a an article (this one) that got deleted by you.
Can you please explain to me the reasons for the quick removal? (I didn't even have time to put a {{hangon}} tag on it ?!?!).
As far as my understanding of G10, I was under the impression that if an event page is sourced by reliable secondary sources (in the case of this article, the Seattle Times and others), it is proper to write an article about it, especially if it too big (as I though was the case) to be included in a related article (which under this case it would be 2 different ones, InfoSpace, and Naveen Jain). I'm still new at Wiki editing and I might have made the wrong assumption (which was based mainly on the Talk:Naveen Jain page), so any clarification that will help further my understanding on the rules of Wiki, will be appreciated :).
Thanks, --Nightseeder(Chat). 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is room for debate on when it is justified to create a new article which covers a particular aspect of a topic already covered in an existing article. If that were the only issue I would be perfectly willing to undelete the article so that it could be discussed before it is finally decided whether it should be allowed to stay. However, that is not the only issue, as the article was tagged by Ukexpat for deletion as an attack page. Having looked at the content of the article I had to agree with Ukexpat. The article was written entirely to express a negative point of view about a company, and did not give a balanced, objective account. That was in itself sufficient reason for deletion, and it would not be acceptable to restore such an article, even for discussion. The speedy deletion policy explicitly states that an attack on a living person should not be restored, and although this was about a company rather than a person, it could be taken as an attack on the people responsible for the actions referred to, so I think I have to take the same line in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dffgd has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
FYI, the article creator (and subject) removed your prod and added what looks like more reviews of his productions. I haven't looked at them all, but they still seem fall under the same problems that were indicated in your prod rationale - they're not about him, but rather his works. Might be time for an AFD? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for calling this to my attention. I don't think there is the slightest doubt about it. You certainly had enough grounds for a sockpuppet invetigation report, but on the other hand there were also enough grounds for immediate action by an administrator without such a report. By the time I read your message they had all been blocked except for Kimmy cutexv, and I have now blocked that one too. Thanks again. (By the way, how much intelligence do you think it would take to use user names that don't give the game away?) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who wants to find out about Senostoma may look for an article on Wikipedia. With the present setup they will be taken directly to the article which gives what little information Wikipedia has on it. The way you would prefer it, they would just draw a blank, so the current arrangement would clearly be more helpful to them. On the other hand, someone already looking at the article List of Tachinidae genera will see a black listing, which will suggest to them there is no other article on the subject just as effectively as a red link, so I don't see the advantage in the latter. In addition to this, is that if someone should some day decide to write an article on Senostoma, they will be able to start from the stub that is still preserved in the edit history, whereas if Senostoma is deleted that will be lost. That is a minor point, but it adds a little reason to the other one. Is there any advantage at all in your proposed version? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I accept that there is a point to your suggestion, though I think "stupid" is overstating it. I still think, though, that the benefit to readers is more important than inclusion in a list for editors to see. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether I have "tried the search function", but rather what is likely to be most helpful to an ordinary user, knowing nothing about the workings of Wikipedia. (I'm also not wildly keen on the edit summary to your last edit.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify that remark? I understand neither what you are referring to when you say "where you have no expertise" nor how you think I am being " an obstruction". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm?
Why you delete my article, it was a refreshing work of literature and was observed by actual doctors and many experiments were conducted with evidence of this tragedy pictures were not posted due to the fact the article was semi-complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorAmbrose (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article did not look serious. Also, although you say "many experiments were conducted", the article gave no sources to indicate this. The "references" in the article did not confirm any of the article's content. A search has failed to produce any evidence of existence of any research on this by doctors with the names you gave in the article, or indeed of the existence of such doctors at all. If you can give a source for the information in the article then I can restore it for you. However, if I do that it will go to an Articles for deletion discussion unless you give pretty good sources, and in its present form it is, I think, very unlikely to survive. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:WereSpielChequers/Cribs
Thanks for pointing out this genuine and easily made error. I have apologised to WSC with a full explanation. We enjoy an excellent working relationship, especially on BLP and RfA issues, and I wouldn't like him to think I've suddenly become a vandal ;) --Kudpung (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit puzzled by it, but it was entirely clear from your editing history that you are a constructive editor, not a vandal. I just thought the best thing was to let WereSpielChequers know, so that if it was some sort of mistake he could deal with it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We really need some kind of references or proof besides Wiki before we mark those living people as dead. An obituary or vsomething with a reference footnote would be best. Williamb (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
