User talk:JBW

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, 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 add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Thanks For Unblocking

Thanks sir JamesBWatson for understanding me and for unblocking my account.Thank you very much sir.Have a good day. Raghusri (talk) 10:55, 175 May 2012 (UTC)

EthosCE Article Deletion

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

Zendoodles (talk)

Mr Smith Bot

Hi, JBW. I've been contacted by this user regarding their block. Their latest unblock request is over 10 days old and there has been no action. I'm testing the waters to find out if there could be some edit restrictions set out so that this editor would have a possibility for unblock. I've made my opinion plain regarding "directed" editing on the user's talk, so don't misunderstand this as lobbying for unblock. It's only that this user's requests (and their e-mail to me) contained none of the gnashing of teeth or foaming of the mouth I see from the majority of SPAs. They may actually have something to offer. I'm going to check with some other folks, but you are the blocking admin and I trust your judgement generally. I'm watching their user talk so you can respond here, there or my user talk. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I see now you weren't the original blocking admin and that you're on break. Still, if you get the time I'd appreciate any thoughts. Thanks Tiderolls 02:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for drawing my attention to this. I have unblocked on the basis of the user's assurances, and spelled out conditions for the block which I hope should avoid future problems. My impression is that the user does have an intelligent understanding of the relevant issues, and does have a good faith intention of complying with our policies, so I see no reason not to give another chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Gentlemen very much. I do appreciate the renewed opportunity. I have requested the name change and will honor my promise to edit within the guidelines. Mr Smith Bot (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Smith Bot (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing of Grapefruit drug interactions

The following message was copied, without saying so, to here from User talk:99.104.126.16. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that, if any statement in an article is challenged or questioned, the onus is on the person wishing to keep the information there to provide a reliable source to support it. It may be that what you say is true, but we cannot assume that it is true just because some anonymous person chooses to edit Wikipedia and say so, because unfortunately many people edit Wikipedia and make false claims. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

However, you did not bother to read the attributions as given. Also, your harassment of someone who is not actually anonymous - Wikipedia knows who I am - as being a poor editor over someone who is logged is is not Wikipedia policy. You're supporting a user who is maliciously protecting an incorrect, unsupported version of the article, and your stated reason is that you don't bother to read the citations of the artcle because I am anonymous 99.104.126.16 (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1. I very carefully read the source cited (I assume that's what you mean by "the attributions as given", and it does not say that other flavourings have the same effect as grapefruit juice.
2. Harassment? You mean posting the message which you have copied above? That was intended to help you, by explaining what the problem was, as you didn't seem to realise. I am sorry that it came across as harassment: it certainly wasn't intended to be.
3. By "anonymous" I did not mean "not logged in to an account", I meant that anyone at all can edit Wikipedia, and we have no way of knowing who it is. I am just as anonymous as you: the fact that I have created an account doesn't alter the fact. The point I was trying to make is that we need reliable sources to support claims made in articles: we cannot assume that something is valid just because someone chooses to edit Wikipedia and says it is, since we have no way of knowing who that person is, and therefore no way of knowing whether they are a reliable source. I did not mean to suggest that it makes any difference whether or not that person has chosen to create a Wikipedia account. Sorry I did not express myself unambiguously, and I hope I have clarified my meaning now.
4. My "stated reason" is certainly not that I don't bother to read the citations of the article. Nowhere did I say that I had not read the citation. Indeed, the point is precisely that I did read the citation, and it does not support the statement it was cited to support. I have no doubt that you were acting in good faith, but to start from a citation which says that a particular substance or class of substances may be a significant factor in causing the grapefruit reaction, and jump from there to stating that other substances which contain the same or related substances also cause the same reaction, is to go way beyond what the source says. It is necessary to use a source which supports the statement made in the Wikipedia article, not merely one which supports another related statement from which you have inferred the statement made in the Wikipedia article.

I hope that helps to clarify things for you. Please do let me know if you have any more questions about what I meant. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe we disagree as to what the citations say on their pages; time will tell as more information is published. I was more upset that attributions to the drug interaction were being added without being referenced in the preamble of the page, and I was trying to edit it to reflect the citations added. I gave up after being insulted by a moderator (and banned, although I didn't notice the ban before it expired) for not logging in. I found that to be in poor taste; I was trying very hard to reflect what I understood the sources said. The other editor of the page was only policing my edits, and no others, despite lack of citation for them. Anyhow, I have no idea why wikipedia decided to alert me to this message today, as I thought I'd already read it. 99.104.126.16 (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

When and where were you banned? Were you using an account when you were banned? If so, what account? Are you referring to the block on 76.21.107.221? If so, then how on earth did you get the impression that it was "for not logging in"? Both the block log and the message on the talk page of that IP address said that the block was for edit warring. Who insulted you, and how, and where? If you let me know, I will see whether the person who insulted you should be warned about civility, or whether it was serious enough to warrant a block for a personal attack. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I was wondering how long it would take before this conversation begun again. I saw PP expire earlier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

PRProgRock

On the basis of interractions on his talk-page I am prepared to unblock this editor. Before I do, do you have any comment to make? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. It seems perfectly reasonable to give the user another chance. Rather than keep him/her waiting for you to come back, I will go ahead and unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I have removed the tags from the userpage--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't think of that. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

2011-12 season Eccellenza

Dear JamesBWatson,

I write about the hasty cancellation page 2011-12 season Eccellenza decided after a discussion that lasted only a week which was attended by only 4 users because it considered as an amateur league. On the contrary this is not a seasonal article on an amateur league, it is a competition between 28 divisional champions which puts it on a different level. Also were inserted only the winning teams that will participate in next year to Serie D, league fully encyclopedic: so it was just a preview of the upcoming Serie D.

Moreover, this cancellation is in stark contrast to the case of no cancellations of the seasons from 2005-06 to 2010-11 of Eccelelnza and decided after a lengthy discussion lasting less than 17 days from 31 March to 16 April 2012. Unfortunately, the first discussion there has been publicity and broad participation, otherwise the outcome would have been the same.

So it makes no sense not to include the current season and when there are others: or cancel all or none.

Sure you understand the situation and then put the deleted page, if you also want to reopen a broader discussion, I greet you cordially.--Mr Richy (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidently you are referring to the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eccellenza season, which resulted in deletion, and you are addressing me because I deleted a re-creation of the article. I had no part in the original discussion, nor in assessing its outcome. The deletion of the article when it was re-created, contrary to the decision reached at the deletion discussion, was a purely administrative action, and I would be acting wrongly if I decided to unilaterally overturn the result of that discussion, which is what you appear to be suggesting I should do. If you think the discussion was wrongly closed, then you are free to take it to deletion review, though it seems to me that there was an unambiguous consensus. I see that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 Eccellenza season was closed as "no consensus". I have read the discussion, and frankly, I find that a surprising closure. However, if we accept that there was no consensus in one discussion, that does not imply that consensus in a similar discussion has to be overturned or ignored. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

75.65.228.12

• 75.65.228.12 (talk · contribs)

The reason I warned the above user with a Warn2, Warn3 and then a Warn4 warning in quick succession, was because each warning was for a different page the user had vandalized. If I only gave the user one warning for vandalizing three seperate pages, he/she would only be up to Warn2. Not really fair since they would be allowed to continue to vandalize until getting a Warn4 before being blocked. The user vandalized in each and every single one of their edits, none were constructive. Hence why I issued a quick succession of warnings and asked for an immediate block for the user. I ask that you reconsider your decision since it doesn't appear this user will be editing constructively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessarily true that "they would be allowed to continue to vandalize until getting a Warn4 before being blocked". If, after the level one warning, the user had continued with unambiguous vandalism, been given a level three warning, and then vandalised again, I would certainly have been willing to consider blocking. I have no idea where the popular idea that nobody can be blocked until they have had four warnings comes from. What you seem to think is (a) that there is a rule saying that a user has to have received four warnings before being blocked, and (b) that it's OK to get round that "rule" by simply giving a string of messages one after another and then immediately blocking. What on earth would be the point of warning messages in that case? The user has received only one warning message. Posting messages that we know full well the user has probably not seen, and that the user certainly had not received when they did their last editing, does not justify a block. A level 3 or 4 warning says "if you continue to vandalise then you may be blocked", not "I've warned you, so now you can be blocked for something you had already done before I warned you". However, in any case, the user had not edited for nearly six and a half hours at the time of the AIV report, so there would be no point in blocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What I sometimes do if I see a couple of vandalism edits and no warnings yet is issue several warnings, but at the same level. Alternatively, I'll manually edit a warning to list all of the vandal edits. My aim is really to let the editor know I've spotted all of the vandalism, yet not escalate warnings that they had not read yet and could not possibly have acted upon. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that a succession of warnings (up to Warn4) had to be issued before a block could take place. I also was under the impression that admins prefered a full set of warings to be issued before coming to AIV (another reason I issue warnings for each). Apparently I was given bad information, but that's what I have followed since I got here...some almost 5 years ago. :S - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is not a requirement that all 4 warnings are given, but many admins who patrol AIV will indeed only block if they see sufficient warnings. But the problem here is that there needs to have been some opportunity for the editor to have taken note of the warnings, and to have carried on vandalizing after warnings. So, for example, <vandalize><warn><vandalize><warn><vandalize><warn><vandalize> might be seen as sufficient, but <vandalize><vandalize><vandalize><vandalize><warn><warn><warn><warn> should not, as the latter shows no vandalism after the editor was warned. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee, both in that post and earlier you have given a pretty good summary of the most important points. I would often accept even just <vandalize><warn><vandalize><warn><vandalize>, if the edits were really unambiguous vandalism, but not <vandalize><vandalize><warn><warn><warn> except in the case of really extreme vandalism, and in that case I would have accepted <vandalize><vandalize>. Warnings after the last vandalism are completely irrelevant to whether to block or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I was following the old way of warning I was taught many, many years ago. The reason I warned the way I did was to give sufficient warning on each vandalism after the bot warning (ie: <vandalize1><BOTwarn><vandalize2><vandalize3><vandalize4><vandalize5><warn2><warn3><warn4>...would have been 5, but I ran out of warnings to give). I guess I was just covering all the bases so the vandal couldn't say he wasn't properly warned. I will do better in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

PCSO-524

Hi. You may want to review the comments you made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCSO-524 as they no longer seem valid. For example, your statement The paper "The Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Omega Tetraenoic Fatty Acids Isolated from a Lipid Extract from the Mussel, Perna Canaliculus" by Joerg Gruenwald et al is published not by an independent peer-reviewed journal, but by www.omaprem.com is incorrect. It's just re-published there, but originally in a journal about asthma.[1] There are now 7 citations to independent peer-reviewed journals in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on your recent comment, we seem to be reading different articles. There are seven peer-reviewed independent sources shown there, not just one as you claim. Lyprinol and PCSO-524 are synonymous as far as I've been able to determine, as PCSO-524 makes up the backbone of Lyprinol and other trade names. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for not throwing up your hands and deleting my article on day one. I must apologize, this being my first Wiki article, I made quite a few mistakes. Were it not for your patience and Amatulic's efforts this article would never have survived. --Romano Writes (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

jun.rhee

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

btw, how should I handle Borovv who has accused me of using multiple accounts/being a duck(? I have no idea what that means)? I'd like to get some advice away from my talk page. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replied by email. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I've replied via email as instructed. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

121.54.29.98

Hey James, noticed this user posting mass edits to numerous radio station and TV station pages. They are constructive edits and edits that someone needed to have done a long time ago, but no one wants to do the leg work in finding the information (essentially, the dirty work). I even awarded the user a barnstar. But I began to think and thought maybe it is a bot running that has somehow signed out (it happens). I am hoping you might know. If not, then perhaps an admin letting the user know that his/her skills would be welcomed at Wikipedia and perhaps nudge him/her toward getting an account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

At a quick glance it looks as if it could well be a bot. However, I'm afraid I have to go offline now, and don't have time to look into it further. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, no problem. When you do get a chance or do message the user, keep in mind that response time for the user might be a tad slower than normal as the user's IP is out of Quezon City, Philippines, so there is a 12 hour time difference ahead of Washington, DC (8 ahead of London). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review request

Dear JamesBWatson,

I would like you to reconsider deletion of article Corporate Responsibility Group. It was deleted under (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).

On the G11 point: as I put in my Challenge to Speedy Deletion (to User:Basalisk) I don't feel the article is blatant promotion as it is non-profit organisarion that has been run by unpaid volunteers since its creation in 1987. Also, it is an organisation that works towards a more ethical world, as it promotes Corporate Responsibility, environmental sustainability and ethics. It is _not_ a consultancy, a think-tank or a lobby group: yet several of the latter have articles on Wikipedia (witness Confederation of British Industry and Policy Exchange.

Also, I think there are far more obscure UK organisations that have surviving Wikipedia articles covering them, despite having far fewer third party links: Institute of Economic Development and Orthodontic Technicians Association being just two examples. That said, I modelled some of the deleted articles structure on articles like these.

On the A7 point, I can perhaps see the point on signifcance of the subject and this was why I was in the process of improving the Research section - please see below. This was to make it clear that CRG has been involved in work with the UK Government, and the likes of world-class academic institutions like Ashridge Business School (which in May 2012 the Financial Times ranked as the number one business school in the UK for its customised executive education programmes. In 2011 Business Week ranked it the 2nd best Business School in the UK, 7th in Europe and 16th in the world.) Below is what I was going to publish, until you deleted the article (c:

Please reconsider deletion of this article, as this is a genuine UK institution. As you can see from CRG's members page (http://crguk.org/?id=9&ob=1) it is a credible entity, otherwise the likes of the BBC, Airbus, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, [Nike]], Rolls-Royce_plc and many other world-class organisations wouldn't be members.

Research

CRG has collaborated in several pieces of significant research into the state of Corporate Responsibility. From 2002 to 2003 it supported the work of a UK government working group, commissioned by Stephen Timms MP, the then Minister of State for e-Commerce & Competitiveness at the Department of Trade and Industry (United Kingdom) (now BIS, looking at professional skills development in the Corporate Responsibility sector. Its report, entitled "Changing Manager Mindsets", was published in 2003 in conjunction with Ashridge Business School. In 2005 it produced a study with Ashridge Business School looking at the state of executive development amongst Corporate Responsibility professionals. In 2012 it hosted interactive sessions for members with noted academics, such as Professor Robert Horn, visiting scholar of Stanford University and Professor David Grayson CBE of Cranfield School of Management.

Thank you James. Simonjon (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Whether an article is promotional or not does not depend on whether it is a non-profit organisarion, or whether it is run by unpaid volunteers. the notion that the word "promotion" can be applied only to commercial promotion for profit-making purposes is, for some reason, common among newcomers to Wikipedia, though I have never understood why. If I wrote an article about the boy scouts, saying that I think it is a wonderful institution, does excellent work for boys of all kinds, and reccomending any parents reading the article to get their sons to join the scouts, then I would be writing to promote the boy scouts, the fact that they are a non-profit organisation notwithstanding. Likewise, whether the organisation "works towards a more ethical world" is irrelevant to the question of whether an article about it is promotional. You may possibly find it helpful to look at Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.
2. I have had a quick look at the two articles you say are about "far more obscure UK organisations". Neither of the articles does a good job of establishing notability, and neither of them cites adequate sources. It may well be that they are two of the many poor articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted. If you believe that is so then you can propose them for deletion, but the existence of those bad articles does not justify the existence of another one. WP:OTHERSTUFF elaborates on this point.
3. The fact that the organisation has worked in conjunction with other prominent organisations does not guarantee it is notable. Notability is not inherited by contact with other notable organisations or people.
4. Wikipedia's policy is to have articles only on subjects that satisfy the notability guidelines, which are principally concerned with the subject's having received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Being "a genuine UK institution" or "a credible entity" is not enough. There are many genuine and credible subjects which do not qualify.

It is possible that the subject does satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but the article did not establish that it does. Most of the references were to either pages on the Corporate Responsibility Group's web sites or material published by them or by organisations working with them. Not a single one of the references could be regarded as substantial coverage in an independent reliable source. Nor did my searches produce suitable coverage.

I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which gives a good deal of useful information, much of which is likely to be relevant. Other relevant documentation can be seen in the general notability guidelines, in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and in the guideline to reliable sources. If, having read the relevant information, you decide that the subject does satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, then, having read those, you will be in a better position to write an article which shows that it does. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Static web page

FYI: You might want to have a look/comment here. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note this edit [2] of Alison, who as CU identified the user Static web page (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole, a community banned user. She did not record it in the block log. More details are available in an email I sent you and at the SPI report yesterday that already connected the account with that of Flexural strength (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After that Static web page made his unblock request, presumably havong noted the SPI report. In the light of Alison's block and Echigo mole's recent editing of articles related to Aix-en-Provence through multiple sockpuppets, the statements in the unblock request of Static web page seem not to have been truthful. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I should, I suppose, have checked with Alison before unblocking, or looked at the user page, or both. I have reinstated the block. Unfortunately, I don't have time now to comment at length at the SPI, but I'll drop a quick note. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for acting so speedily. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Eden

In fact the blocked editor with whom we are interracting both under his username and as an IP was correct, in that this article had been left, after an incorrect Cluebot reversion, in a vandalised state. I have corrected it. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, Anthony. As far as I can see, you have never edited the article. Also, the only editing of the article since the ClueBot edit (and the only one since the blocked editor's comment) has been this vandalism edit and a revert of that edit. Have I somehow misunderstood? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The sequence is puzzling: I agree that I have never edited the article, but when I looked at it yesterday the vandalism as described (a chunk of Mutiny on the Bounty cut-and-pasted to Anthony Eden) was in place, in spite of a vandal reversion notice. I hunted through and reverted to the last correct version, which was, I think, the third one down the list. As my action consisted only of a reversion it does not show on the history. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Advice on Notability

I read the notability page. Now I know what is considered notable. Thank you for the advice. Also, I noticed that AnthonyBradbury seems to be annoying other people, not just me. Heymister14 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)heymister14

Interesting comment!--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And James, please note that I already advised this editor that deletion review is available. He appears to have chosen not to exercise this option. If you wish to help him formulate a case I have absolutely no objection. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you had pointed out the possibility of deletion review. That was one of the reasons why I suggested not posting to you again: you had already explained the situation, so there was no point in pestering you about it any more. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)