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, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please click here to leave me a new message.

My old talk pages

All right, I'm not going to remove the block notices anymore, as I fully understand now that it's not supposed to be done and that just showing it through the notice on the contributions page is insufficient. But could they please be unprotected? Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I allowed to redirect them to my new user and talk pages, or does this count as removing the block notices? I have added back the old block notice on my userpage. Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can the userpages also be redirected, given that I now have added the old notice back to my userpage (only "Double sharp" is in use, all alternates are blocked)? Double sharp (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected them back so that my userpage notice makes sense as it refers to accounts that redirect to my new userpage. I hope it's OK. Double sharp (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

User talk:Efanrees

I'm minded to give this guy another chance - I'd keep an eye on his edits and will reblock if there's any problem. What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would support another chance. The person seems to me to be genuinely willing to do better (and we can always reblock if necessary). JamesBWatson (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Billim123

Thanks for the quick action on reversions on this sock; I would have done it myself but I was literally about to step out the door before going to work when I got a talk page question from him/red flag went up and had to file the AIV report before leaving. Nate • (chatter) 10:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show

User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at DoriSmith's talk page.
Message added 02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My Perfect Mistake

Can you tell me why my page for My perfect Mistake has been deleted?

RichardGPailing (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what to add to what you have already been told. You were told that the article "does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia", and you have been given a link to the notability guideline. I am not sure what in the article you think indicates enough significance or notability to justify an encyclopaedia having an article about the band. We don't have articles on every group of friends who get together and form a band, and hope to start recording sometime soon. You may like to read Wikipedia:Yet another MySpace band. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Aron "Deuce" Erlichman, Aron Erlichman (aka Deuce)

In October you protected these pages to prevent them from being repeatedly recreated; that followed an AfD in April which closed as redirect (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron "Deuce" Erlichman).

In fact, there's rather more about this subject that just those two articles and one AfD; what I have been able to find includes an earlier AfD which closed with the same result (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deuce (singer)), an AfD for a forthcoming solo album which closed as userfy/redirect a couple of weeks ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine Lives (Deuce album) (2nd nomination))), other related articles which are currently also currently nominated for deletion (by me, on the basis the subject has no article): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron (album), Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_2#Template:Deuce, and a bunch of other articles which have all been created as, or since been turned into, redirects to Hollywood Undead, including Deuce (Artist), Deuce (Hollywood Undead)), Deuce (Hollywood Undead Member), Deuce (Tha Producer), Deuce (Vocalist), Deuce (producer), Deuce (singer), Deuce discography and Tha Producer.

Overlooked in all of this has been Deuce (musician) (formerly Deuce (singer)), which has existed alongside all the deleted / redirected articles since mid-2009. It should really have been turned into a redirect when the other articles you since protected were, but was overlooked at the time. Unsurprisingly, my attempts to do that now have been reverted.

Two days after you protected those two pages, the article which was the subject of the first AfD - now named Deuce (musician) - was recreated instead, as it remained unprotected. Unsurprisingly, my attempts to re-redirect it have been reverted.

Would you care to review Deuce (musician), and if you think the article should be redirected then consider doing it and protecting it also?

Many thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Update: another editor has since reverted Deuce (musician) to a redirect, and the editor who had most recently reverted from a redirect has taken this to WP:RPP (with the aim of preventing it being turned back into a redirect). RichardOSmith (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Update2: and, of course, it's been undone again. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Update3 (sorry about this): I realise my summary above about Deuce (musician) was slightly incorrect; I have updated it. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• My initial response was to restore the redirect and protect both Deuce (musician) and Deuce (singer). However, I see that discussion at RFPP resulted in the request being declined, and I don't think I should unilaterally overturn that decision. You may like to take it to yet another AfD and see what comes out of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking, and sorry you had to do/undo everything. It's ridiculous that an AfD closing as "redirect" is almost completely meaningless. Per the multiply-established consensus, the article should be a redirect and it should not have come back without a new consensus being formed; editors/fans have "gamed the system" and been successful. As for the subject himself, I have no interest - I didn't participate in any of the previous discussions and I'm not even sure right now why one of the pages was on my watchlist. My only motivation for renominating it now would be to force the new discussion to take place and, frankly, it's probably not worth the effort given the past history. I've tagged the article for notability concerns and will leave it at that. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete?

With all due respect, James, I think your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Setareh Diba as a speedy delete (A7) was erroneous, since I had already declined a speedy deletion on the same ground. You have every right to disagree with me, but I think the general practice is that an article cannot be speedied after a previous speedy request has been declined. On the merits, also, I think this was not a speediable article. WP:CSD#A7 says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Here, there was a claim, even though it was not supported by a reliable source and probably did not satisfy the notability guidelines. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you have questioned the deletion I have restored the article and reopened the AfD. However, I see no claim of significance: can you say what the claim of significance is? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The claim is that she is a published poet in Persian (alliteration unintended). As I said, it's probably not enough to meet WP:GNG without any published sources, but it's enough to give the author a chance to improve the article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see having a few poems published in magazines as being much of a claim of significance, but what constitutes a "claim of significance" is always ratehr subjective. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

True, it is subjective. I'd rather err on the side of a generous interpretation of "significance", within reason ("Terrence is the coolest kid in seventh grade" would not make the cut), given Wikipedia's ongoing difficulties in attracting and retaining new editors. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr Curious has escaped again

That twat has escaped his ban again as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/192.148.117.99 Please block him.--Brainiac Adam (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deuce article redirects/protecting then unprotecting

Hello, I'm just a little bit confused as to why you redirected "Deuce" to "Hollywood Undead". Last year the decision was made that Deuce be removed and redicrected to HU until Deuce had gained notable recognition and have more works as a solo artist. He is now signed, with an album coming out in March (two singles of which have been released [one leaked illegally]) , sponsored by a clothing line, released an official mixtape and signed with Ten Street Entertainment (under eleven seven music [motley crue,papa roach, blondie, etc]) and performed at 2010 Epicenter, opening for Eminem, performing between KISS, Blink-182, Rise Against etc as well as reaching over 100,000 likes on Facebook; The decision was made a few months ago that Deuce did qualify for his own article.

I respect the fact that you know more about wikipedia editing and rules/regs than I do, so please message back!

Thank you, happy new year.

TrueBlue9LIVES (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The redirect was to follow a decision made at AfD. I then reverted it when I realised that the matter had been discussed and a decision had been made not to prevent recreation of the article by protecting the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirection of Climate of Northern Ireland article without consensus

I will now pursue the WP:DR policy. I am also very concerned about sock puppets being used to avoid detection. As this is my second day as a Wikipedia editor I am trying to learn how to deal with this problem. According to WP:DR, one is advised to try first of all to resolve disputes by using the discussion page - but how can this work when the page you are disputing skips to a different page when you try to view it? If you see the discussion of the original page, there was no 'consensus' to delete the page. There were clear objections by several users that they did not want the page to be redirected or merged with the Ireland page. The other users set out their reasoning for the page not to be merged very clearly. Please advise on how to deal with this problem, especially regarding the redirection aspect. I am afraid to revert any changes in case I will be blocked again. Seamus48 (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In declining your unblock request I did mention a factual inaccuracy in that unblock request, but apart from that I restricted myself to assessing the reason you gave for unblocking and the reason for the block. I did not get involved in the dispute that you were involved in, nor do I intend to do so. Disputes about Ireland are one of the topics that I avoid getting involved in, just as little way behind Israel/Palestine (which I avoid like the plague), and on a par with various other forms of nationalism in various parts of the world. It is true that your request is purely for procedural advice, but nevertheless in this case my involvement starts and ends with administrative tasks, such as assessing the unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Whippany River Watershed Action Committee Deletion

Dear James, I just read your Delete on the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee article. I thought this was an organization that was notable. I just came across this live link on the United States Environmental Protection Agency website http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7144dd430c47561885257018004c77a3/d6165ffef5f792e18525716a005bccfb!OpenDocument on the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee, middle of page. To help me in future articles I may create, isn't something like this notable? The Whippany River Watershed Management project was New Jersey’s pilot watershed management project. The Watershed Action Committee is a coalition of citizens and municipalities dedicated to preserving and protecting the land and water resources within the watershed and achieving the goals of the watershed management plan. Among their accomplishments is the creation of model ordinances that have been adopted by watershed municipalities to address nonpoint source pollution. They have also undertaken a project to achieve a 58% reduction in fecal coliform to meet the Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, established by the plan. Through education and outreach they are engaging the entire watershed community in the effort to restore and protect its valuable water resources.

Thanks in advance for your comments. (LeonardC (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

The page you link to has one brief paragraph on the subject. Generally speaking, to establish notability we require substantial coverage in multiple sources. Wikipedia's concept of "notability" is essentially to do with such substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, not to do with what you or I or anyone else thinks is the value of the work the organisation does. It is natural for someone involved in a subject to see it as notable, but the question at issue is how notable it looks to the world at large. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear JamesB, I do appreciate all your time to date. I think you spend WAY too much time editing Wikipedia! But you obviously love what you do. I read your page. I found an article that appeared in the Star-Ledger, New Jerseys's largest newspaper, that is not listed/referenced on the page http://wrwac.org/news/SL_study_part1.jpg I found it on the committee's website. And another article that appeared in the Star Ledger earlier this year. I googled this one. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/storm-drain_filters_to_protect.html WOuldn't these two articles, coupled with the US EPA's brief paragraph as well as many mentions on the New Jersey Department of Envioronmental Protection website show notability? These coupled together must be notable sources? Thanks again for your time and reply (LeonardC (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

You are 100% right about one thing: I do spend WAY too much time editing Wikipedia. In fact, I'm glad you pointed that out, because I need to stop now and do other stuff. However, I'll try to answer your message tomorrow, if I get time, and within the next couple of days if not. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

downy (band)

"Unsourced article about a non-notable band that fails." Well, if article is unsourced and/or not well written then it maybe deserves to be deleted, but "non-notable band that fails" is certainly not a valid argument, and not true at all if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.70.11 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason given for the deletion proposal was "Unsourced article about a non-notable band that fails WP:BAND." Being unsourced, being non-notable, and failing WP:BAND are all good reasons for deletion in line with Wikipedia polices and guidelines. The article was unsourced, and nothing in it suggested that the band is notable. Personally I wouldn't have cited WP:BAND, but it was not I that wrote the deletion proposal. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ikswodasb1

I think this guy just needs to be blocked. See his contribs. Calabe1992 20:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Indefinite IP block

I believe my actions are well grounded in the (other parts of) the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Myself and others have assumed good faith from them time and time again - and they've done nothing but completely ignore us all. I find it indicative that the said user has continued to ignore us - they haven't made a modicum of effort to appeal the block.

We know little about the IP addresses - they're both in the same huge 58.160.0.0/12 netblock owned by Telstra Internet. I don't see any particular indication from WHOIS that it could be a shared IP address. No other user seems to have come forward to complain. Obviously they may well exist, yet might simply be uninformed or confused about the matter enough to not to have told us.

I saw no hint of evidence that unblocking the addresses would produce a result that would not be harmful, so I left it as is for the time being.

In any case, if you feel this caution is now outweighed by the possibility that another legitimate user is being prevented from editing, feel free to unblock the IP addresses.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Article of Comext

Hello, my previous article on "Comext" was accepted by another moderator. You have deleted all my page. Could you please update my article without my modifications of yesterday ? Thanks in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.9.14 (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume that you mean you would like the article restored to the state it was in before yesterday. However, the article contained unambiguous copyright infringing material ever since December last year. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Question on User talk:Hafeezanwar/Editnotice

As you were indeffing and deleting, I was asking a procedural question on essays in Editnotices at WP:ANI#Question_on_user_posting_Essay.2FOR_in_User_Talk.2FEditnotice. I guess you have answered the question already by action but would you care to comment there? I was inclined to G11 immediately w/o CSD nomination, but wanted to avoid WP:BITE. Maybe we should include a mention of User Editnotice pages in Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I had to think a bit about this. The fact that it was some sort of essay, totally inappropriate in an edit notice, did not qualify it for speedy deletion, but it seemed to me that it was promotion, which did. I think this particular editor was beyond Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, having been around for over five years. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. I was not thinking of promotion at the time but trying to see where OR falls in this respect. I'm seriously considering adding mention of User Talk Editnotices (as an extension) in WP:TALK. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Alexf^(talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That loser has escaped his ban again

Mr Curious now as this IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.109.249.103 has escaped his ban again. Please block him and remove the message he put on my talk page please.--Brainiac Adam (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Jayeshjain88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayeshjain88 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

He's escaped his ban again

Mr Curious has escaped his ban AGAIN! As THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/192.148.117.95 Please ban him please--Brainiac Adam (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't block me. BrainiacAdam's my friend and has been since February. Now you will unprotect those zoo article's otherwise, I'll get admin rights with an account and do it myself. So don't block me.

Oh and there's no account called Mr. Curious anywhere.