User talk:JBW

If I 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, unless you request otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Removal or HIDING of content

My Fault {[ “Mea Culpa" !!!]} Pls HELP!

To BWilkins, JamesBWatson, RadioFan, Gene93k, Nageh etc. wise ppl ...

With no intentions to do HARM to anyone i did attempt to create an article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vassilina_Dikidjieva -

not knowing that all of it will remain forever visible in the Wikipedia Archives and -actually- indexed and revealed by a simple Google NAME search to all the world to enjoy ...

This turns out to be extremely unpleasant and objectionable to the (innocent) persons directly concerned. (Obviously, especially in the cases of “NO EVIDENCE OF NOTABILITY" this turns out to look quite ugly; for artists are sensitive ppl). I have been -quite justly, of course- strongly criticized for my initiative . Once again, i will point out that in other Languages rules are much more relaxed, people write self-promoting articles freely, all the time.

Lacking much expertise myself, I guess I am not at LIBERTY to simply go back and delete the exchanged views and negotiations and discussions, no? It will be considered a Vandalism - not my cup of tea at all.

Is there any way you wise people of Administration to remove the whole discussion, pls?

PLEASE?

Or at least HIDE it from view through a Google Name Search? I am aware that some texts included in this coding:

 BLAH.

will remain invisible in the eventually PUBLISHED pages ...?

I assure you, that all your attention to this matter and your effort and results will be highly appreciated; and my affection towards the Wikipaedia Project will get restored.

Actually, once I did apply for some photographs (of the same person) to be removed from Wiki Media Commons upon her strong objections and my plea got answered and matter settled satisfactorily.

R.S.V.P. = Please RESPOND. Thx, best rgds, Peter S. D.

{P.S. Come to think of it, probably a Warning at the very point of initiation of an Article for a Living Person would be a good idea in the future, for such enthusiasts as myself to shyaway?} Ecce Nemo 21:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have blanked the articles for deletion page. (I assume that is what you meant.) I have also put a "NOINDEX" tag in the page, which should mean that once Google gets round to checking the page again it should be disappear from Google searches altogether. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

EXACTLY, thank you James, that's precisely what I needed (actually what they were requesting =artist+family). Now INDEED your intervention -quote-= This page has been blanked as a courtesy. =works fine, Google Name search hits the COURTESY BLANK wall, which is good enough (though not prefect, but anyway, my fault). BTW is this action available to users (like me) or it is allowed to ADMINs only? Teach me pls. So it is not the code I was thinking about:  ??? 2. I got a response from BWilkins too which is a bit complicated to understand (English being my fifth language only, and I am lost in some conversionalisms). Quote again -hoping that I am not breaking rules?: "The history of the Articles for Discussion related to the entry needs to remain, in part it tells YOU how to fix the article for the future. Second, it may need to be referred to in the future should the article be recreated. I'm not sure what you're really looking for in the long run, as deleting this or not deleting has no impact on the artist's ability to be creative." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bwilkins)

Anyway your RESULT closes the matter, thanks a lot, Peter Ecce Nemo 17:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, Sir, pls how did you "I have blanked" do this and is it for ADMINs only or users are allowed too? And how about the NOINDEX tag in a page: is this privileged too? Thx, rgds Ecce Nemo 13:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is anything written down anywhere that specifies who may do this, but I think that changing a closed AfD is potentially controversial, and it would probably be safer to ask for an administrator to do it, rather than doing it yourself. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that's logical. Will do as advised. Thx, best rgds, :-) Ecce Nemo 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a user

This isn't a user, and the warnings aren't only for the user. This is an anonymous account, for which editors need to be able to easily see earlier warnings to see how the user is or is not a problem. - Denimadept (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

More, there's no way to know that the user(s) responsible for issues have seen the problem. As an anonymous account at a library, 50 people could use it a day, only one or two of which are relevant. The others can read it without impact to them but without warning the actual people involved. I reiterate, this is not A user, it's likely SEVERAL users. - Denimadept (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply or I'll take it as agreement. - Denimadept (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly certain JamesBWatson is British so it is roughly 4 am where he lives. With that being said, can you point me to any guidelines on Wikipedia that say only registered users have the right to remove items from their talk page? Where does it say that these rules do not apply to shared IP's? Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a discussion we were having, or I thought we were. Looks more like a monologue, now. :-( - Denimadept (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have suffered some degree of frustration because I did not respond soon after you posted here. Unfortunately, for personal and family reasons, I was not able to contribute to Wikipedia for a few days. In a system run by volunteers in their spare time it is possible to rely on always getting prompt responses.

Clearly you are referring to removal of warnings from an IP user talk page. You are quite right about the need for other editors to be able to see past warnings, and for that reason some years ago the accepted guideline was that talk page warnings should not be removed. However, this caused endless problems, with editors edit-warring to remove and re-add the warnings, cases being taken to ANI, resulting in a lot of editors wasting a lot of time on discussion of such incidents, and so on. The whole issue was discussed at great length, and eventually a consensus emerged that it was better to simply allow removal of warnings, and for editors to have to check the editing history of the talk page to see if there had been previous warnings. I don't think anyone thought at the time that this was an ideal situation, but it was seen as the least bad arrangement. There are also several other problems with not allowing removal of talk page warnings, such as what to do about malicious and other unjustified warnings. It is not good enough to say "well, of course you can remove those", because a user may think that a warning on their talk page is unjustified when you and I disagree, so again you get edit-warring, ANI discussions, blocks, etc. And note that none of this is hypothetical: it all really did occur before the guideline was changed. It is of course true that, in a shared IP or public computer, there is no way of knowing that the message has been seen by the user it was intended for. However, that is true whether the warning has been removed or not. Firstly, the user may never come back to edit Wikipedia there again. Secondly, if they do come back and another user has meanwhile viewed the talk page, then they will not get a "you have new messages" notice, and will very probably never see the warning, even if it has not been removed. There is no fully satisfactory solution to the problem, but following discussion the consensus was that the best compromise is to allow all users to remove warnings, whether registered or anonymous users. If vandalism or other problems stop for a significant time and then come back from the same IP address then we treat it as a new user who has not been warned. If, however, problems persist without a prolonged break despite warnings then we block. Likewise if problems keep coming back repeatedly over a long period we may block, even if there are significant gaps. Of course this is not a perfect solution, and a block may be triggered by one good faith but misjudged edit by a person who has never received any warnings, or a single vandal may get away with it for quite a while by not vandalising very frequently, but there is no perfect solution, and this is probably as good a compromise as any other, and certainly better than the chaotic situation which resulted in the past from trying to enforce a "no removing warnings" policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The lion of Egyptian revolution (Qasr al-Nil Bridge).jpg

I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thousand Kites

I have reworked the wording of the Thousand Kites Wikipedia page that my colleague wrote so that I believe it no longer has a promotional tone. If you think that it still does, could you help me to remove that tone rather than delete the page altogether? It's not as though this is untrue or non-notable information. It is very relevant, as this organization has thousands of followers, and we simply wish to be informative about it. Also, when we have linked the Up the Ridge documentary or Thousand Kites page to the prisons that they focus on, the links are continuously deleted. I understand that this seems like promotion, but anybody interested in looking at the pages of these specific prisons would probably find it helpful to be linked to a documentary that directly deals with these prisons. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbrey (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock alert

user:Big NASCAR Fanboy is making the same vandalism edits as user:ThePickleman was before you blocked him. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Castelle

Hi, I'm wondering how to delete the Eugene Castelle redirect. The redirect itself is not necessary there are few articles that linked to it see. I looked over the Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects and Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting. In Reasons for deleting redirects if it causes "confusion to readers" and if it contains nontrivial edit history. --Vic49 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that the redirect does any harm, even if it's not vital, so I can't see any reason for deleting it. However, if you really want it deleted you can suggest deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

for the revert on my talk page. Send me a bill (I won't pay it but send it anyway!) Thanks, Chris W4chris (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

deletion

I'm gonna delete the section here (Section 3, block), okay? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk page

Hi, JamesBWatson. I am slightly concerned about this new section that PhanuelB has recently added to his talk page. He seems to be using it as a holding area for lengthy negative quotations about a particular living person (for what purpose, I am unsure). Is this acceptable with regard to user talk page guidelines on content? I ask mainly because PhanuelB has previously compiled lists of this nature under the claim that the sources are reliable, but such collections are clearly intended to advance a specific POV and seem to amount to little more than soapboxing with quotations. I also wonder whether there are inherent WP:BLP concerns in the creation of such a section, and whether the copying-and-pasting of long extracts from sources is perhaps dubious with a mind to WP:COPYVIO - it does not appear to me to be a suitable use of a user talk page. Do you believe that there is a cause for concern? Regards, SuperMarioMan 11:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. However, I am reluctant to be dragged even further into this mess than I have already been. You could take it to WP:ANI if you like. If you do so let me know and I will be prepared to comment there, but I am unwilling at present to take it further myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to blank the section unilaterally, justified though it may be. It certainly seems to present more than one problem as far as WP:UPNO is concerned. For the moment, I'll inform PhanuelB about the problem and request that he remove the content voluntarily. If he refuses to do this, and continues to paste long quotations into the section, then I'll see about reporting the situation to WP:ANI - at this moment in time, it would probably be too drastic a step. SuperMarioMan 12:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am unimpressed by this response. Since the user is still adding long quotations to the section, I have, in accordance with your original suggestion, started a discussion at WP:ANI. It can be found here. Regards, SuperMarioMan 05:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your accurate summary of the situation at ANI. SuperMarioMan 14:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Article for: Phyzical Thurapy

Hello James, I would really appreciate it if you could help me out here, I am in the process of getting the article for 'Phyzical Thurapy' approved. I have made changes to the article and added some valid websites like radio station articles, etc under the 'career' section. But I know it says to contact administrator first if a similar page is being recreated. I am editing the page and adding valid points. I have copy-pasted the whole set up for the 'Phyzical Thurapy' page below. Please help me to get this article up. I would really appreciate your help James. God Bless Man. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackfrint (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 June 2011

The draft you posted here is unsuitable for several reasons, including the following.

1. It did not address the issue of notability raised in the deletion discussion. Unreliable sources as Urban Dictionary and non-independent sources such as the band's own web site, etc, do not establish notability. I have made searches, and found no evidence at all that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If it doesn't then it is not a suitable subject for an article. No amount of rewriting of an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one.
2. It was to a significant extent a copyright infringement of http://www.phyzicalthurapy.com/.

In addition, posting a whole draft article to this talk page was not very helpful, though I have no doubt you did so in good faith. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey James, thanks for your help. So in order for "Phyzical Thurapy" to be created, they would have to have articles from online magazines, or interviews, radio stations, without exact wording from the phyzicalthurapy.com website? Correct? So unless they have notable articles online by a publisher, it will not be approved, right? I'm just trying to better understand. You've been really helpful! Please let me know, thanks James. God Bless!

Zack Frint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackfrint (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

For clarification of what is required to establish notability I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and at Wikipedia:Notability (music). JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Protecting

Hi James. While you are protecting Shutter Shades, the same sockpuppet/rotating IP is having his way with all things Bros related. Specifically now List of best-selling boy bands and The Time (Bros album). Can you please protect them too, or at least the first which seems to be the target of constant vandalism? Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have protected them for three days. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Muhandes (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Seen and replied JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

RTV

Password scrambled. --User:VanishedUser99 15:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User:67.82.48.23

Hi JamesBWatson. I just looked at the the above editor's edits, and need to find someone with Rollback Rights willing to revert his strange punctuation edits. memphisto 15:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits (I hope I got them all), but you could have done it yourself. You can just select the version you want to revert too, click on "edit this page", and save it. All that rollback does is to make the change a bit faster: it doesn't actually make possible any change that anyone can't do. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Unfortunately, the editor has ignored your message on his talk page and continues with his strange punctuation edits. memphisto 11:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the most recent edits (and some older ones), but wonder if this users habit of editing the article several times is a ruse to make reverting more difficult? memphisto 11:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it is just that. I have warned the user that a block may be forthcoming. feel welcome to inform me if the problem continues. Also, for future reference, I strongly recommend that in similar cases in the future you warn the user. This has several advantages: (1) the user may take the warnings on board, and stop, (2) other users who see a problem edit will realise that it is part of a pattern, and may therefore take further action, (3) an administrator may be prepared to block the user if there have been adequate warnings, whereas only in exceptional circumstances is a block likely for a user who has not received warnings. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Block

I am assuming it was a mistake since you immediately reverted it but I had to deal with the autoblocker. I'd like to kindly ask you to be more careful in the future. Also please delete the revisions in my talk page identifying my IP address to the general public. -- Cat ^chi? 16:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)  Done Sincere apologies. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Also I want to keep this thread on both talk pages. -- Cat ^chi? 17:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what thread you mean. Can you clarify? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Copying the discussion on both places so it is archived properly in both talk page archives. Thanks for the deletion of personal info. -- Cat ^chi? 19:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Copying what discussion in what two places? What talk page archives? I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:EncyMind. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was a personal attack. Also, don't you think it's up to the owner of the talk page to remove my advice if they choose to, rather than you doing it? JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I also see that both MarnetteD and Snottywong have expressed the opinion that there was no personal attack. Consensus does not seem to support you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, you have my support too !James - I have no idea what Hawkeye7 was thinking there, but it wasn't even close to a personal attack -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

++ Syrthiss (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

AIV

Yeah, I didn't see that; now I feel real smart. At any rate, it was before my coffee; so I suppose not all is lost! :) Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for lifting a block

Hi James, this is with respect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Strat_student - you have blocked the IP address; this belongs to an educational institution with over 2000 users and some of them currently working on a Wikipedia project. Please lift the block asap. While I can lift the block myself as an administrator, I felt it appropriate that the one who blocks also unblocks. You may want to reconsider your tactic of indefinite blocks for ips as most ips are shared by a large number of people in countries like India. --Gurubrahma (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what IP address you are referring to. I have searched in the logs and can't find it. I can't find any IP block I made within hours of blocking the user you have named that could possibly be the one you are referring to. Can you let me know? As far as I know I have never indefinitely blocked an IP address. I don't normally even block for periods of more than a couple of days unless either there has been long term troublesome editing the nature of which indicates that it is one user or there has been long term abuse and there have been previous blocks which have not stopped it. Anyway, as far as the case you refer to is concerned, if you let me know what IP address you are referring to then I will look at it as soon as I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear James, this is the message one gets when they try logging in with their id and then edit a page.

"You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong. A user of this IP address was blocked by JamesBWatson for the following reason (see our blocking policy):.......Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Strat student". The reason given for Strat student's block is:....

I guess the reason we are having the issue is of this block by you: "(del/undel) 20:03, 30 June 2011 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs | block) blocked Strat student (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Spamusernameblock) (unblock | change block)" - may be, lift the block, as anyway this does not seem to be a spamusername and seems to be causing autoblock to everyone on this IP? --Gurubrahma (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The block reason of "spamusername" seems to have been a case of clicking on the wrong link: I have now corrected it. The correct reason was given on the user's talk page. I have also removed the autoblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

VanishedUser99‎

Hi,
I've cleaned up the White Cat SPI by moving everything to Access Denied. You're sure about this, right? I have received a hint by mail, but didn't look into it since I saw you change the tag.
Cheers, Amalthea 11:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am certain that the user was a sock puppet. I got a pretty clear impression that it was a sockpuppet of Access Denied. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that it was a sock account. If all IPs that are attributed to Access Denied are really him though then he's coming around quite a bit. US West coast, US East coast, Germany, now Belgium. Probably makes no matter though.
Thanks, Amalthea 13:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

88.159.112.114

No problem. He hadn't been blocked before, so 24 hours was the usual standard, and I didn't see anything egregious like hate speech or personal attacks which I usually adjust upwards.

Aside from that, did you see the AIV report? It was interesting. It was made by a brand new user (Who.was.phone (talk · contribs)) whose name is very similar to (THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk · contribs)) a longtime user and vandalfighter who suddenly left over two years ago. The account's sole edits were reverting this vandal today and yesterday.

What's going on here? Is TWWP returning? If you look at the userpage it seems so. Is this some sort of socking situation? It bears monitoring. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, I know that 24 or 31 hours is the usual standard, but when an editor has been vandalising for months, I am doubtful whether there is any point in it. I wouldn't block for several months in a case like this, but would probably compromise and start at a few days. However, I am not totally against a 24 hour block on the same principal as WP:ROPE.

If he does it again once the block expires we can and should block longer. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Looks to me as though it clearly is the same user. I see no evidence of abuse, so calling it sockpuppetry is probably not justified, but it would certainly be interesting to know the reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say impersonation. But, as you said, no harm no foul. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tracey Williams Gallery account

I really do try to AGF and all that; but I am just a bit cynical about this one. I hope your good faith is requited properly. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I used a little AGF and a lot of ROPE. I will certainly watch the account, and I hope you will too. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation Editing

I am sorry, sir, but you are incorrect. Punctuation marks such as commas and periods go inside of quotation marks. These are the only corrections that I have made. I fail to understand why it would be necessary to threaten me with being banned before one checked one's facts, and such corrections can hardly be considered "vandalism" at any rate, as I was only trying to be helpful.

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Respectfully, John

The grammarbook.com site is specifically American, and the placing of commas and periods varies between US and UK grammar rules (and probably with other versions of English too). The "always inside" rule is not universal, and we shouldn't change between versions of English - as per WP:ENGVAR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some of the changes constitute changing from one English style to another, but most don't. For example this edit. No matter whether you are using a style of English in which a punctuation mark at the end of a speech quotation goes inside the quotes or a style in which it goes outside, there is no style in which it is accepted practice to put commas inside quotes which are used to single out a word which are not part of a speech or quotation. This is the sort of mistake which commonly happens where people try to use rules rote fashion without an understanding of them. I have no doubt that your editing has been done in good faith, in the sincere belief that you were correcting errors, but unfortunately you were mistaken. Please do not try to correct errors in an area in which your understanding is not good enough for you to achieve reliable results. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

IPs 67.70.15x.xxx

Perhaps you do not remember him/her, but a month ago you blocked for 6 months the IP 67.70.153.125 (talk · contribs). Today s/he returned as 67.70.152.52 (talk · contribs), again giving blatant factual errors to articles (Christopher Plummer and Charlie's Angels). The problem I see is that s/he has been doing this for months (at least March 67.70.154.4 (talk · contribs)) and s/he won't stop until s/he is completely blocked or s/he's 40 years-old. What I found is that his IPs are statics for sometime and all begin with 67.70.15x.xxx. Is there any possibility of have this range blocked? Or what else can be done? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with a range block:

1. Although almost all the edits from the range are vandalism, there have been a few constructive edits, which makes me reluctant to block out potentially good contributors. The constructive edits are a tiny proportion of the total, and are only small details even then, but they do exist.
2. The editor has also edited outside this range (see Special:Contributions/70.48.113.185) so a range block may not be totally effective.

Because of those concerns I am unwilling to place a range block for an extended time, but I will block the range for a brief period, and see if it helps. Please feel welcome to contact me again if necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing an edit

Would it be possible to remove this edit from Guoguo12's talk page? I was also wondering if there was any chance of blocking the editor who made it. There must be strong policies for editors who try to discourage others from editing the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignore this, it was an error on my part. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I was just searching through history to see if I could figure out what you meant exactly. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It had appeared that he was encouraging Guoguo12 to never come back to edit Wikipedia. Other editors believed this too until Nolelover pointed out that Guoguo12 had made 3 edits. The edit was actually encouraging Guoguo12 to stay. I apologized on Alzarain16's page and he left a clarification note on his edit so it would not confuse others in the future. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Aah, yes, now I see. Thanks for explaining. However, even if the original reading had been right, I don't think that removing the edit from the record would have been justifiable. Whenever an admin tries to remove an edit there is a pretty strongly worded warning in red about making sure that the circumstance fall within the terms of the revision deletion policy before doing it. Saying that you hope an editor will stay away from Wikipedia may be considered uncivil, but I don't think it falls under the provisions of that policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

block on 92.8.84.0/23

Please note, that your block on "92.8.84.0/23" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.8.84.0/23) has blocked all IPs in a range. This is not advisable as it means hundreds of innocent people will be affected. Removing this block would surely be wise. H2005uk (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC) ~

That would be true if it weren't for the fact that over a significant period here have been very large numbers of vandalism edits and not a single constructive edit. It is conceivable, though improbable, that some "innocent" editor may be affected, but out of the question that "hundreds of innocent people will be affected". I assure you that I regard blocking an IP range as a last resort, and never do so without very careful consideration of how likely collateral damage is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

But do you realise that the range you've blocked won't really have much effect? As the block is simply part of a number of IP addresses that are used by AOL/Talktalk. Such users can be put on any IP in the range of 92.0.x.x to 92.30.x.x, plus some other IPs. So chances are that people on the range you blocked will be on a very different IP address soon anyway. H2005uk (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for page protection

I hope this request is worth your time. I'd like you to semi-protect "The Adventures of Blinky Bill" article. Some anonymous user is persistently expanding the summaries with pointless information and will not listen to reason about the various wiki policies and keeps hopping from IP address to IP address. Kindly notify me when appropriate action can be taken.Deltasim (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Semiprotected for a month. Let me know if the problem returns. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)