User talk:JBW

Active Banana's AIV

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 58.71.79.8's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback|77.95.97.42

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 77.95.97.42's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re Brenda Hodge

I PROD'd this article and you deleted it. Now the article creator is objecting. He says the seven days didn't expire, but even if he's wrong, I would think this could still be treated as a contested PROD (albeit, technically, after the deadline has expired) and restored. Complication is that now he has begun to rewrite the article. The discussion is here: User talk:Sliat 1981#re Brenda Hodge Herostratus (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 revert

Please read discussion before reverting 120.20.128.66 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to read it - I am willing to take your word for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, thats a first for me from an editor...120.20.185.154 (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Aquarworks

Hey u have deleted aquarworks where as there are lot of other companies out there.Any particular reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilbollina (talk • contribs) 14:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Aquarworks was deleted for the reason listed in the deletion log: unambiguous advertising or promotion. The fact that there are many other articles about companies (if that's what you mean by "there are lot of other companies out there") is irrelevant, as this article was deleted on its own merits. Even if you mean "there are many other advertising/promotional articles about companies" it is still irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I would like to know if "Reign Thomas" aka "Reign Toni" can be added to Wikipedia. The author was deleted for information found on "YouTube". I have another author I would like to add "Jacqueline Thomas" also will be publishing her teen novels with Dreams Publishing Company. These women are Christian Fiction Authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonichild (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

contribs) 09:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is it neutral to discuss only the legality of Israeli actions?

I think that the article should either state that there is no dispute on the ilegality of the other parties' actions or discuss them. I believe that my addition was a contribution to the neutrality of the openning section of the article. I am open, and I will look at it again, to refine this paragraph if it misses its objective, i.e., discuss all parties to the conflict rather than only Israel.

Bbeehvh (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on lack of sources is true. I will think how to present the issue correctly. Bbeehvh (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Global Business Network (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance)

Hi JBW,

I understand why you deleted the article on the "Global Business Network", but am also familiar with why the subject is notable enough to have an article. (If you're a TED.com fan, you'd more readily agree.)

I have read books on and by GBN, and thus have familiarity enough to attempt to fill in missing pieces.

Could you undo the delete so I have material to work with/ work on?

And later, I'll probably need your feedback/QA again to see if my version is up to standards.

Thank you,

Vtob (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Userfied. Replied on user talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks, JBW.

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

Bonghan system

Hi! I was just wondering if you would be willing to userfy the Bonghan system article with you deleted? I was surprised to see it nominated for CSD by someone who had worked on it, but there seemed to be a hint of a worthwhile short article there. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, if at all possible, would you be able to pass along a copy of Bonghan theory, which I gather the above was a recreation of? There's quite a few papers on this subject in recent years, although most seem to be by the same group of researchers, so if it was to be recreated I'd like to make sure that it is sufficiently different from the one that went through AfD. If not, that's ok - I'll worry about it another time. - Bilby (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied the former at User:Bilby/Bonghan system. As for the latter, I have looked very carefully at the deleted article, and it seems that it was written purely to promote its subject, and is therefore unsuitable for userfication as "Material that should not be posted on user pages or subpages in the first place should not be relegated to user space if placed in article space". (Quoted from Wikipedia:Userfication.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No hassles. I only wanted the latter as Bonghan system was nominated for CSD as a recreation of the latter article, so I wanted to make sure that any new version of Bonghan system would be sufficiently different. It should be ok, though, as starting from scratch there shouldn't be a problem. Thanks heaps for your help! - Bilby (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless a new series of publications are released in the future, I can't see it being even a stub - it's fringe within acupuncture itself, the only place where it stands even a chance of remaining. The latest mainstream publication on meridians and acupuncture points I am aware of (here, I have the full text if need be) doesn't mention them.

May I suggest however, that the talk page be transferred as well? There is some analysis of the sources there that may be useful (in my horribly narcissistic opinion anyway). Also, the last long version of the page can be found in the history, here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, WLU, both here and at User talk:Bilby/Bonghan system. It will be interesting to see how the page develops, if at all. Meanwhile I have userfied the talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as well. Personally, I don't think there's anything in the theory - but there might be just enough coverage of it to warrant a NPOV treatment of topic. - Bilby (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. Obviously it's not widely accepted, but there is a fair number of primary research articles about it in third- and fourth-string regional journals. Is that sufficient to pass WP:N? I would argue not (obviously, since I CSD-ed it) because of the implications of the system if it actually exists. A whole new anatomical structure threaded throughout the body that verifies the beliefs of a prescientific culture? That's big news. But since we're not seeing it in the newspapers... For me, most convincing is that even the most recent article I could find focussing specifically on acupuncture points and meridians (linked above) doesn't mention it. That means it fits into the "tiny minority" part of WP:UNDUE such that we don't even bother.

At least they didn't invoke "quantum". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Venus

Hello, I apologize for my revert, I did`t saw that in the meantime , while I was examining IP`s contributions you already reverted. I did`t intended to revert you. Sorry, my mistake. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the sort of mistake that can easily happen. I've done worse myself. Since you realised your mistake and put it right I don't think there's anything to worry about. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Diffs of policy violation are expected

Your name has been extensively used to justify a sanction on three editors. However, you never provided diffs in which clearly the policy was violated. So, I would appreciate that you provide diffs so that we know how exactly you can contribute to the understanding of this case [1]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My response is here. However, in brief, my answer is that I never said that "policy was violated". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Hi..

May I ask why you have twice removed the alterations I have done to the site Solomon Iguru I ?

I simply added some text that had been put on the Iguru I of Bunyoro that has been marked for speedy deletion..

Skibden (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The tool I was using (Huggle) should have given you a message telling you why I reverted your edits, and I don't know why it didn't. You added large amounts of text without any source. i now see that the whole article is, in fact, unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is.. I am working on getting sources. As you can see on my userpage I am working on a series of articles, and it take time to find the sources, especially about a small un-developed kingdom, in an area where internet is almost non-existing.. :) Skibden (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tionna T. Smalls Revised, Ready for Submission?

Hello! As I have revised the page that was previously deleted for Tionna Smalls, I wanted to resubmit it. Prior to me doing that the creation paged advised to me contact you, which is the action that I am taking. I will include below the completely revised article and look forward to hearing back from you regarding if it is ready for submission or not. Please advised throughly what needs to be changed or revised if it is still not ready. Thank You.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oateney Silvera (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 September 2010

(I have removed the copy of the draft article which was included here. Just a link to User:Oateney Silvera/Tionna T. Smalls would be good enough.)

I have looked at the draft article, and it certainly does a much better job of providing sources to show notability than it did when it was first tagged for speedy deletion. If you want to move it back to Tionna T. Smalls now I can see no problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Promotion of book

Dear James,

You deleted an entry I made to the Orlando Wikipedia page recently. It was the second time I made that entry (I amended it from the first time), and the first entry was deleted by Barek. I've written to Barek with some concerns about the situation and I have copied my message to him below. I think the same points I've made to him, and the same questions I have asked, I would also direct to you. I am anxious not to set you at odds, so to speak, but I am seeking a clear answer to my concerns and if you can elucidate on it I would be grateful.

Thank you and best wishes, Hugh Hunter.

Dear Barek,

Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my question; I appreciate that you must be busy. I must say, however, that I'm still left confused about your view on this: it seems to me arbitrary at best, and almost capricious. In what sense was my addition 'solely to promote a book.' It is true that I wish for the book to be known about, but in as much as it is a book set in - and largely about my official work in - Orlando I cannot see why it is inappropriate to mention it in the section "In popular culture'. There are other books mentioned on that page and in that section, so why aren't they 'solely promoting a book'? Additionally, there are references to sports franchises, cars, bands and all sorts of other things that must surely, on the same criteria you apply, be 'solely to promote' a product. Further, there are actually Wikipedia pages completely and only about books. How are they not promoting themselves?

In my entries I specifically did not say that the book was good, nor did I recommend it in any way. I did provide a link to the publisher, but only because when I read the Wikipedia guidelines it encourages you to substantiate an entry with references. The best way to substantiate that my book exists, and that I'm not just making it up, or vandalizing the site, is to provide a link to the publisher. If I've misunderstood that, then the simple solution is to remove the reference to the publisher. Consequently, I cannot understand how I was 'promoting' the book.

The only other aspect of this that seems to potentially apply to me is the section on autobiography and conflict of interest. I read these guidelines carefully. Wikipedia does not prohibit such entries, it only encourages you to think carefully before writing an entry. It is true that I wrote the book I mentioned in my edits, but I cannot make that clear to the public as Wikipedia prohibits this (for, it seems to me, good reasons). Nevertheless, if I'm fair and objective, why should it matter? Are you seriously suggesting that there aren't many books (or for that matter, other things/products) that appear legitimately on Wikipedia that weren't written by the author/manufacturer or somesuch? Most of them probably take the precaution of writing under an alias or getting a friend or colleague to do it, but I chose to be more direct in what I did.

After your first messages last night I re-added my book to the Orlando page, but without the link to the publisher. It was removed again by someone else (I shall copy this message to that person also). I am, as you probably can tell, somewhat frustrated at this as it seems so unfair. I added edits to other pages last night (all of which you deleted and I've not re-visited). In the case of Krishna Maharaj and Chantal McCorkle - both convicted felons - their Wikipedia pages must surely have been set up and run by them (or close friends and supporters) for the purposes of presenting their cases. I am totally unable to understand why my adding the existence of my book, which discusses their cases, is advertising or any less promotional than the very existence of their pages. In the case of Slick Rick - also a convicted felon, whose case is discussed in my book - I expect also that his page is, if not created and sustained by him, at least managed by those close to him. I believe in all these cases that if a scholar or someone who is even just casually interested in these people were to use Wikipedia to research them, they should know about a book that deals with their cases.

I would be grateful if you could, when you find the time, address these points that I raise.

Very best wishes,

Hugh Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh H Hunter (talk • contribs) 11:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Hugh H Hunter's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying - I've had limited free time the last few days, so hadn't been editing or replying to posts. I'll take a look at User talk:Hugh H Hunter later today, and post any additional thoughts I may have on the subject. --- Barek (talk) - 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lee James (BBC)

can you reinstate the page lee james (bbc) - i have references to add - sorry am new to this and just finding my way - sorry for not doing correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdsport (talk • contribs) 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now added two refernces to this page. And details of notable. Please can you make live —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdsport (talk • contribs) 11:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are now references, so I am removing the unreferenced tag. I am also correcting a typing error in one of the references. However, the references are both to the BBC, for whom Lee James works, so they are not independent sources. I am not convinced that he is notable by the relevant criteria, but I will not tag the article for deletion at the moment. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:BGWeditKF

• BGWeditKF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just a heads up, reblocked, for continuing exact same pattern of spam / advertising, and disruptive editing, after having been unblocked. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all surprised . I somewhat expected as much, but thought I would AGF and give the editor a chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and no objections to that. Just next time, let me know about it as a courtesy? I am most likely bound to not object whatsoever. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal alert.

Sorry to disturb you if you're doing some, but the Indonesian misinformation vandal has done it again. He's using the address 118.161.64.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Same MO on the same kinds of articles. Action needed ASAP. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Ted Nuce

Out of curiosity, how is inclusion in a professional sports organization's hall of fame not an assertion of significance or importance? While it was only sourced to the PBR website, Ted Nuce did make that assertion. —C.Fred (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this award is significant enough to confer notability on its own, but now that you have prompted me to think a bit harder I accept that it is a claim of significance, so I have restored the article. Thanks for prompting me to think again. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for restoring the article. (And I'd been down that road myself with the article already. Sithrathien (talk · contribs) had created a number of articles with no assertion of significance or importance. This was the only one where there was an assertion of significance—the Ring of Honor—so I cleaned it up rather than delete it.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion decline

Hello there. I just saw that you declined a speedy deletion request stating: "Taking author blanking as request for deletion under CSD G7 does not apply to user space pages.". However, general speedy deletions do apply to user space pages. Please take a look at WP:CSD#General. You will see a line that says: "These apply to all namespaces (and so apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc)". Thank you, and if you have any questions, please contact me. :)

Please note that the page was deleted as G7. MJ94 (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that "General" speedy deletions apply to all namespaces, and also specifically that G7 (Author requests deletion) does. What I said does not apply is taking blanking by the author as a request for deletion in user space. If you take your own advice to "take a look at WP:CSD#General" you will read "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request" (my emphasis). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing by Maxandnutmeg

Hello, Maxandnutmeg. I see that you have encountered quite a bit of opposition to your editing, which must be discouraging. I will try to explain to you what some of the problems are, in the hope that it will help you. You have repeated the same or very similar changes without discussion. This is known as edit warring, and is not acceptable. You have repeatedly removed all content from an article. This is not acceptable: if you think the article should be deleted then you should say so, not take unilateral action. You appear to be trying to impose a particular point of view on an article, and suppress other points of view. This is not the way Wikipedia works. If you think changes are needed and other editors disagree then please start a discussion on the article's talk page. You have repeatedly added unacceptable links. Please see Wikipedia's links policy to see what is acceptable. Please feel welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello James, The article has many inaccuracies. A link to "Hidden Spring Hilbillies" is included as a reliable source of the the shows call screening policies. The other link was included to balance this, AS A DESCRIPTION OF THE CALLERS EXPERIENCE WITH STEVE'S CALL SCREENER WAS INCULDED. It is inaccurate to say that ALL callers are asked specific and detailed information about the dead person they want to contact. Clearly this is not being done. If Hidden Spring Hillbillies (which is obviously a blog from a disenchanted caller) is included, the link from a satisfied caller should also be included. Keeping the Hidden Spring Hillbillies link and deleting the link I added clearly shows your bias against Steve's show and suggests he is using some kind of trickery with his callers.

Steve Godfrey has on numerous occasions said he is not a psychic. He is a medium. So calling him a self professed psychic medium is inaccurate. There are half a million listeners who would also call him a medium. Self professed has a negative connotation that suggests he is arrogant.

Your argument that my edits impose a particular point of view can easily be applied to this ariticle as they are clearly biased against Steve and his show. Have you ever talked with him? How much do you really know about his program? There is virtually no personal information about him in this article. Even the affiliate information is out dated. Clearly this article was thrown together by someone with a chip on their shoulder.

His contact information is on his website. His office phone number is 602-258-4389. I know for a fact he does answer his phone. I suggest you call him. If you insist on keeping the content as is, the article should be deleted entirely.

Also, I only deleted the content once and that was an accident. There are many who believe in what steve does and many who don't. I will continue to edit this article daily until it is fair and balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxandnutmeg (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to help by explaining to you why other editors (not me) had been opposing your editing. You have responded here with a long explanation of your point of view. I am glad that you are willing to put some effort into explaining the reasons for your edits, but since I was not one of those reverting your edits and warning you, my talk page is probably not the most useful place to do so. The article talk page would be better. You say that you "will continue to edit this article daily until it is fair and balanced". My advice on that is that it reads very much like an declaration of the intention to continue edit-warring, which is likely to get you blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

125.164.*

Hi, I've noticed the occasional block given by you to this IP editor that has been coined the 'Megafauna vandal'. See User:First_Light/Fauna_vandalism#Megafauna_Man for some background. He edits from a new IP address every 24 hours, so there was a filter put in to prevent him from adding certain categories to pages that had a taxobox. It seems that he's figured out the filter, which explains his strange edits today (I noticed you gave him a warning) at: 125.164.19.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've notified User:Shirik, who created the filter. Anyway, in case you have any ideas, see User talk:Shirik#Megafauna vandal figures out the filter. First Light (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation: I had wondered about the odd editing pattern. I have blocked this IP, but presumably another one will be back tomorrow. The only idea i can think of is a range block, but a short term block is unlikely to be effective for a disruptive editor who has been doing the same kind of thing for 4 years, and a long term range block is really to be avoided. It is just possible that a few short term blocks might discourage the editor a bit, so perhaps it is worth a try. Please feel welcome to let me know of further instances. Of course I won't always be online, but I will block the current IP if I am. I will make a few other suggestions for trying to get the IPs blocked more quickly. I don't know how much of this you already know, so please forgive me if I seem to be telling you that grass is green. Reporting further examples at WP:AIV immediately (i.e. without waiting for the new IP to vandalise a whole string of articles and receive multiple warnings) may be worth while. However, if you do that make sure you give a brief explanation of the fact that this is a vandal with an extended history, otherwise an admin is very unlikely to take action without several warnings. (A link to User:First_Light/Fauna_vandalism#Megafauna_Man would also be helpful.) Another thing worth considering is to give an immediate {{uw-vandalism4im}} on the IP talk page, once again with a brief mention of the history. Not only does that indicate to any admin reading it that there is a long term problem, but also if a vandalism patroller using Huggle reverts another edit by the same IP then Huggle will (by default) automatically report it to WP:AIV. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas - the {{uw-vandalism4im}} is especially helpful. Lately, I'm not usually online when they are (they are in Indonesia), so I'm not often there to catch them live, but will certainly start doing that when I can. Typically I look at Special:AbuseFilter/331 to see if they were active the day before, and then revert any damage they've done. I looked into the possibility of a range block, but it appears that there would be too much collateral damage. But the more editors that are familiar with him the better, so thanks for giving this some thought and suggesting some good ideas. First Light (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thermal wave massage

Hello, JamesBWatson, Thank you for your attention to my page. Really, I am new user. Please, help me. Aren’t official sites of European Patent Organization trustworthy sources? Why not? Basilius (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They are perfectly trustworthy. However, thousands of inventions are patented and then forgotten about, so the fact of having applied for a patent, or even having a patent granted, does nothing to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ок, I agree to delete this article until the technology will be world famous ;-) Basilius (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for replying there; could you take another look at your most recent comment? I'm not sure if you meant to put in the last part. Thanks again, Airplaneman ✈ 22:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Some sort of error in editing my comment before clicking "save page". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rallye Alsace-Vosges

Hello! I do not understand your revert. I'm currently correcting articles, as Rallye Alsace-Vosges and Rallye de France–Alsace are actually two different rallies. --Glopp (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. Must have been some sort of mistake. Thanks for alerting me. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! --Glopp (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

re:October 2010

When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

Consensus was gained and User:Kwamikagami violated that when he started to claim that Croatian is "the name commonly used for Serbo-Croatian as spoken by Croats." --Jack Sparrow 3 11:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.7.30 (talk)

AIRY Internet Media Player

Hi There, you deleted my created page about the open-source product I offer.

How come you delete my page as advertising, when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player is almost identically the same, and I followed guidelines to create my page. Please advice, what can I do to offer description of my product .