User talk:JBW

Reply

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

Deletion of My-worktime (follow-up)

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

Hello James,

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

thanks, Daniel

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seujet2010 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 23 August 2010

Reply

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 61.173.108.143's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.173.108.143 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 August 2010

Please don't delet my page again

Please don't delet my page again user Craigh57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigh57 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 August 2010

Need your opinion/assistance in resolving dispute w/ "suposed" high-ranking, anti-vandal editor

I need your assistance resolving a bit of a dispute I am currently having with a supposed high-ranking "anti-vandalism" editor- username "Grayshi". Lately, he has been undoing many of the images I had added to the "Chinatown, San Francisco" article some months ago on the grounds of "excessive imaging". He has also basically removed all of the images from the "Kobe Chinatown" article which I had practically edited from the ground up via a pre-existing work. When I pointed out the he had left more images standing in the "Chinatown, Los Angeles" article and hinted at the possibility of a double standard in regards to "excessive imaging", his only response was that the images were irrelevant to the text and that I should read up on the WP files concerning protocols for inserting images. It mostly states that images should correspond to the texts(which I've tried to accommodate), but it doesn't specifically mention that it was required(unless I overlooked that bit), nor did it say anything to the effect of "excessive imaging is a NO NO!"

I also find it highly strange that Grayshi is trying to impose such standards on others, while not following them himself. Many of the images he removed from "Chinatown, San Francisco" were relevant to the text, including one that was of historical importance regarding the section on Ross Alley during the 1880s. In contrast, he has left more lame images standing in the "Chinatown, Los Angeles" page, most of which aren't historically important or relevant to the text, violating his on stance on "excessive imaging". Simply put, he is specifically targeting users like myself and randomly pulling out images without giving much thought. With such obvious display of favoritism towards one article over another, IMO he is also violating Wikipedia's "neutral" policy.

Some of the images in question from "Chinatown, San Francisco" had been there for YEARS before he came along to wipe them out. ---->If possible, could you please tell him to chill out and stop targeting pages edited by certain users and lecturing them on the moral rights and wrongs of Wiki. He's spending way too much time obsessed with removing images, when he could be doing more important things like checking for historical and factual accuracy, correcting mis-spellings, and removing obvious vandalism and obscenities, which I can assure you there are plenty of on Wikipedia.<--- I would also like to mention that I know of a good number of articles the same size with tons of images(often not relevant to the text) that make the "Chinatown, San Francisco" pale in comparison. These are also well-edited articles that are locked/restricted to special editors. For obvious reasons, I will not reveal their identity for fear that Grayshi will wipe them dry of their visual quality as well. To me, images tell a story and convey what can't be described in words. That's what I've always felt about Wikipedia which makes it stand out from other informative sites, and hope to continue to.

Has there ever been complaints against such editors for going too overboard, even to the point of being disciplined? Currently, I am not even working full-time and can barely find time to keep up this insipid battle. Don't some of these editors have lives? Family? Friends? A Pet? Hobby?

Thanks,

R. Beecher Wiki user: MealMachine MealMachine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

Clearly you and Grayshi have different views on how many images are suitable, in a number of articles. However, this looks to me like a simple difference of opinion, rather than an issue of policy. It is true that Grayshi has removed many images from some articles, and only one from Chinatown, Los Angeles, but I see no reason to doubt that this is an expression of perfectly good faith view on the relevance of the images. Action can be taken against editors who persistently edit disruptively, even in good faith, but I really don't see that this is on a scale to warrant any intervention. You may like to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see if it helps. I also suggest starting an article talk page discussion, which may possibly bring other editors in, so that you could see where consensus lies. Wikipedia:Requests for comment might attract others in to such a discussion, but it is not guaranteed to work. I really don't wish to take sides in this, but for what it's worth I am personally more in line with Grayshi's opinions on how many images are suitable than with yours. However, that is only a personal opinion, and I have no intention at all of trying to impose it.

I hope that my comments have been some help. They don't give a definitive answer, but that is because I don't actually think there is one. It's essentially a question of discussion, seeing where consensus lies, and above all of being willing to compromise or even back down altogether. I do sympathise with your feelings if you have put a lot of work in and seen it gone, but with different editors having different views it is sometimes necessary to accept that things won't go the way you would have liked. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, my only complaint is not whether I am putting too many images, but why there is a double standard when applying it to me. To re-iterate, there are more images on the "Chinatown, Los Angeles Page" which he is already aware of, and yet he has done nothing. There are also other smaller-sized aricles with tons of more images which would be categorized as being "irrelevant" by Grayshi's standards. These are really excellent pages whose identity I won't revleal for fear that he'll do likewise with them. What Wikipedia should do is add in a function to set a limit for the amount of images based on size. Then editors —Preceding unsigned comment added by MealMachine (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. It appears to me to be not an issue of number of images, but rather an issue of relevance of images, and the two cases do not seem to be comparable, so I see no sign of "double standards". I can also see no evidence at all that Grayshi has any sort of personal vendetta against you. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

Can you check the edit history of User:Pioneer77, the MO looks suspiciously like User:Aviationperson/ talk. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

More than "suspiciously like". It is obviously the same person. However, the account was already blocked before I read your note. Thanks anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why secret pages should be deleted

Hi, JamesBWatson. I used your rationale for deleting secret pages at Wikipedia:Why secret pages should be deleted. Any feedback on the essay would be welcome. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Cunard (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Synics Awakening

I recently created a page for my band The Synics Awakening. We have been featured in two local newspapers, one widely distributed Metal zine, and have been aired on local FM stations as well as various internet radio stations. We also have a CD released by a well known online distributor. How would I go about referencing those things so that the page I created will not be deleted again?

Whoandwhatnot (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately your message comes just as I have to go offline. I will try to answer soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be making a mistake which is very common among newcomers to Wikipedia, especially those who come here in order to promote something (whether a club, a band, a person, a company, or whatever). That mistake is asking "how can I rewrite this article so that it doesn't get deleted?" without first having asked "is the subject of this article suitable for a Wikipedia article?" Unless the answer to the second question is "yes" any time spent on the first question is likely to be wasted, as no amount of rewriting of an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. It is possible that The Synics Awakening are notable by Wikipedia's standards, but nothing I have seen suggests it. Certainly the article did not indicate it. When I did a Google search I saw MySpace and Facebook pages, blog posts, the Wikipedia article, etc etc, but little if any sign of coverage in reliable independent sources. Have a look at WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC to see if the band does satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines and WP:RS to see what sources are required to show that it does. If and when you have evidence that the subject is notable then you can consider writing an article, and I will be very willing to give advice on how to do it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hi Jim - The reason why i created a deletion review is because, when I went to the page 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesa Arcilla', I read a message saying that 'Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)'. That is the reason why I created this page.

My complain is that the page was deleted although I added some reliable sources (an article from the South China Morning Post and an entry from the official blog of the Journalism Centre of the University of Hong Kong). However, I also took the chance to complain about Wikipedia's inclusion criteria saying that, by essence, it was difficult -if not impossible in non-anglo-saxon countries- to find sources about journalists since journalists are not the focus/subject of any publication, they are the publication. For example, no article has ever been written about Diana Lin, who is one of Hong Kong's best know journalists. In a struggling democracy like Hong kong, can we accept that people cannot access to any information about someone who brings to the news to the people, like she does?

Meanwhile, I am already in touch with Wikipedia people to suggest changes to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Best, Elementalkarl (talk · contribs)

I can't find any deletion review you have created. Did you create it anonymously, or from another account? Can you give me a link to it? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

deletion discussion

hi jamesB, ok i cant get my head around the speedy deletion tags, help! i tagged dry bones for deletion because this is not Wikia, dry bones already redirects to list of mario characters, try Dry bones(mario) it redirects there so this article should have never been created. what do i use instead to get it deleted?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tionna Tee Smalls

Dear James: A few months back I created a wikipedia page for reality TV star and author Tionna Tee Smalls. That page has since been deleted. I wanted to request that the page be reinstated on my account so that I can edit it and improve the page so that it can remain on Wikipedia. Further, if there is any information you can give me as to why the page was removed, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time with this and I look forward to hearing from you.

Oateney Silvera (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Oateney Silvera. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRO-CUT International

I would imagine that this page no longer warrants pending-change protection? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  04:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, though it probably would do no harm leaving it, since nobody should be editing it anyway? Well, I've removed it anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree probably 'no harm', but that isn't a great reason for protecting things; otherwise, we'd apply Pending Changes protection to all completed AfDs, I suppose...and that would need some debate. I was just looking at 'odd' pages tagged for pending-changes protection, because the trial is over, and there is currently considerable dispute as to whether PC should be removed, as there is no consensus approval. Anyway - thanks,  Chzz  ►  14:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 'no harm' isn't a good reason for protecting things, but I wasn't suggesting it was, only that it was a reason for not needing to remove protection once it had been put there for some other reason. However, in this case I don't see that removing it is likely to do any harm either, and, as I have already said, I have done so. Thanks for explaining your reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

GDiesel

Did not get to see the PROD delete until yesterday, and did not have a chance to respond re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDiesel. Is there a way for people to know in advance that there is a propsoed delete on a particular page?

George2140 (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The person proposing deletion should ideally notify anyone who has substantially contributed to the article. However, checking through strings of edits to determine exactly which editors have made substantial edits is something that very few editors do, and in practice it is usually only the original creator of the article who gets notified. It is possible to check at Category:Proposed deletion, which links to pages giving lists of all pending proposed deletions. However, to be realistic, it is unlikely that you will want to regularly check through all of the pending deletion proposals to see if they include any pages you may have an interest in.

The conclusion of this is that there is probably really no realistic way of knowing if an article is proposed for deletion except looking back at it. However, all is not lost. If an article has been deleted following a PROD you can contact the deleting administrator and ask them to undelete it. Although you have not actually asked for undeletion, it is clear that you are not happy with the deletion. If you would like to ask me to I will undelete the article. However, I think it is only fair to tell you that if I do so I think the article will very probably be deleted again, perhaps following an article for deletion discussion. The article did not really establish notability for its subject, and was also in my opinion sufficiently promotional in character to be borderline for speedy deletion on that basis. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert Tor Russell

Hello! I am writing about an article that you deleted for unambiguous copyright violation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Discussions_.2F_disputes_re_.27Hitchin.27_and_.27Robert_Tor_Russell.27

Personally I do not believe it is such, but of course I understand that I may well be mistaken.

I believe that RTR is an interesting architect who should be properly documented in Wikipedia - do you have any suggestions about how one might proceed in this case?

with all best wishes, Daderot (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

On the question of copyright, most of the article seemed to me to be clearly a paraphrase of the source, but whether a close enough paraphrase to constitute copyright was perhaps debatable, and certainly not unambiguous enough to justify speedy deletion. However, there were a few passages where the wording was so close that it was unambiguous copyright infringement:

• From the original: During the 1920s he built the arcaded three-storey accommodation blocks on both sides of Queen’s Way for members of the Legislative Assembly, and in 1930 he completed the residence of the Commander-in-Chief, Flagstaff House (now the Nehru Memorial Museum).
• From the Wikipedia article: During the 1920s he built the arcaded three-storey accommodation blocks on both sides of Queen's Way for members of the Legislative Assembly (Eastern Court and Western Court), and in 1930 he completed Flagstaff House, then the residence of the Commander-in-Chief, now the Teen Murti Bhavan.

I thought, and still think, that the presence of passages which were verbatim or so nearly so that the copyright infringement was unambiguous, together with much of the rest of the article being so close to the original as to make copyright at least questionable, justified deletion of the whole article.

I know nothing about Russell apart from what I have seen in the deleted article and the source mentioned, but it seems to me that he is probably notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. You ask for "suggestions about how one might proceed in this case". Since the only issue was copyright, the point is to avoid making the article follow any given source too closely. If you are writing from one source it is surprisingly difficult to do this. Even if you are genuinely trying to avoid direct copying there is a natural tendency to slip into following the source closely, often without realising that you are doing so. (I know this very well, having experienced it myself.) If you can find more than one source (preferably more than two) and write on the basis of a synthesis of what you read in all of them it is likely to be easier than if you are essentially rephrasing information from a single source. If you really have to write from just one source, then when you have written it, look back over your version and the original, and consider whether you think an outsider would be able to guess that that was where you got your material from. If the answer seems to be "yes" then you may have a problem. (Unfortunately this is far from a perfect solution. It is very difficult to look at what you have just written and see how it would look to someone coming to it afresh.) Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing may helpful. There are numerous Wikipedia pages on copyright, and there may be others which may be helpful to you, but most of them are of little relevance to what you need. One other point: it may be best to first write a draft in a user space page, say User:Daderot/Robert Tor Russell. Then you can iron out any problems, and ask for other people's opinions, before letting it loose as an article. Putting it in your user space does not mean that you are free to breach copyright, but it does mean that if there are defects it is less likely to be deleted almost immediately, so you can have time to deal with any problems. If you do this you are welcome to ask my opinion of your draft before moving it into mainspace as an article, if you want to. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! He seems like an interesting and notable man, and I will give it another try. Again, thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful response. All the best, Daderot (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Here's a reminder per your request. Cunard (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing context for the page. By the way, I plan to start a mass nomination for secret pages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2 within the next week or two. See the discussion at User talk:Cunard#Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

About the unblock request by User:GreenGobbie92, I think he was not using his old account because he has lost its password - it is pretty much clearly written there. And about User:Graham1973, they could have a same IP address because they might live in same vicinity and use same ISP. Forgetting a password is pretty normal and common. I just want to help a good faith wikipedian get his account back. Give him a chance and keep an eye on him. Keep the other accounts blocked. Cheers. Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue of a lost password is irrelevant. This is a blocked user trying to evade a block. It is also a user who has abused multiple accounts (the evidence is not just the checkuser results, but behavioural evidence too.) It is also a user who has a history of various kinds of unhelpful editing. Whether or not it is a "good faith wikipedian", it is a Wikipedian who was not a net positive to Wikipedia. (Incidentally, you said User:GreenGobbie92 above, but in fact it is User:Greengobbie92. Because of this mistake, I had to search to find the real user. In the course of doing so I happened to stumble on evidence of sockpuppetry which I had not previously seen, and so the effect of your trivial slip has been to considerably strengthen my belief that the block is justified.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence in what way? He may be learning how to use and edit wikipedia. Thats why he recently discovered userboxes. We all were newbies when we first arrived on wikipedia. But later we learned to cite our sources. He deserves to be blocked on behavioral evidence if he has vandalized a page. If so, which one? And besides the block request was because of sockpuppetry. (I) We need to see when was the last time the User:King kong92 was used. And when was the first time when User:Greengobbie92 was used. If these two times dont overlap this would prove that he was forced to make a new account because he lost his password. If the times do overlap, then he is wrong and deserves being accused of sock puppetry. (II) If only he is given another chance, is it not somehow possible, that two previous accounts are deleted or kept blocked and his Greengobbie92 account is unblocked. I am pretty sure he learned his lesson by now. He now knows that administrators have access to tools that he cannot escape. Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I find "If these two times dont overlap this would prove that he was forced to make a new account because he lost his password" totally bewildering. How on earth would it prove that? I am also puzzled as to why you don't just look at their editing histories and find out the dates. If you did so you would find that the respective dates were 6 December 2009 and 20 June 2010. Have you looked at the edit histories of all the various sock puppets? If you have and can still believe that the similarity of interests, the similarity of editing styles, etc etc are just chance coincidence then you surprise me. Then there are the similarities among some of the user names used (King kong922/King kong92, Greengoblin92/Greengobbie92). Yes, it is perfectly possible for different users to independently come up with such similar user names, but come up with such similar user names and edit on the same range of topics, often the same articles, and frequently make similar edits, with similar style, similar citing habits, similar introductions of OR, etc, and frequently have one account coincidentally start up shortly after another one has been blocked, and show up to a checkuser as being the same user? That many chance coincidences stretch credulity a long way. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have taken this discussion to User talk:Greengobbie92 Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Err??

Please undelete. We're getting on making sure the page is properly edited, etc. Would be open to suggestions, and I"m board to help ensure accuracy and following wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.128.92 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Undelete what? (This does not seem to relate at all to the section it was posted in, so I have segregated it into its own section.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Tonetta Chester

I am trying to create an article about a nationally published author, Tonetta Chester. I see that previously it was posted but has since been deleted. Before I post information about her can you please suggest what can be done to insure that this article stays a part of the wikipedia database? Mwilson52607 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Mwilson52607

(talk page stalker) The article was originally deleted due to this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonetta Chester. For a new article not to be deleted, the minimum requirement would be that the subject of the article has now recieved non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources. A search a news.google.com and books.google.com does not suggest that anything has changed. And the publisher [1] appears to be a WP:SELFPUBLISH / print on demand type of service, not a traditional publisher.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Active Banana. Mwilson52607, I suggest you read the pages that Active Banana has provided links to. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So can this article be listed a biography about a living person? Mwilson52607 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Mwilson52607

Reason cited

Hey - there is a reason listed for the removals at List of Legacy of Kain characters. The site no longer exists, and was noted. 60.241.188.222 (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that now. It's a good idea to always use an edit summary to make it clear. The note I left you said "Please do not remove content from pages without explanation", as you will see. Thanks for explaining it now, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Per your request on my talk page, I am notifying you that I have started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uchiha23/Awards is a related discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Manganvesuvianite wikipedia page

hello, I recently started a page for manganvesuvianite because I am doing a project for Mineralogy at the University of Texas at Austin, we have to slowly update the page with different information and you deleted my page, which I have to print out and give to my professor, by the end of the semester there will be a full page on this mineral, could you reinstate the page please?

Marty

Mm45883 (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to retrieve the text of the article, I will give it to you. However, Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, not a free web space provider, and I am not willing to restore the article, which did not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.

The full text of the article was:

Manganvesuvianite

chemical formula

Ca19Mn3+(Al,Mn3+)10(Mg,Mn2+)2(SiO4)10(Si2O7) 4O(OH)

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

^ (the report bit just below that). Cheers. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reckless Love page deleting

Hi!

Reckless Love, the Finnish glam metal band is one of the most popular bands in Finland this year. Band's debyt album "Reckless Love" reached the official top 50 list in Finland a week after its publishing. Reckless Love's singles has been in YleX Himotuimmat lists for many times. YleX is a part of the national radio and tv, Yle.

The band is nominated to Classic Rock Magazine Roll of hounour awards as a "Best new band", and for sure, that's a big deal. Band also played two conserts in legendary Download 2010 festival. In this fall it's touring the UK.

I'm a new guy in here Wikipedia, so I dont know how to add references. Reckless Love has got wiki-pages in Deutsch, Español, Italiano and Svenska and it would be nice if the Enlish pages could be done and in safe.

Please, tell me a step by step info so I can add the references. Reckless love ain't no "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".