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.

User:Rotten regard

Rotten regard appears to be a single purpose account who does almost nothing except remove prod templates from pages. These are often without comment or with statements like "Not eligible to be prodded". I can't find anything that says he can't do what he's doing, but it might fall under the general catch all of disruption. Specifically "Rejects or ignores community input" and "Does not engage in consensus building". What do you think? I've no desire to see him run off or blocked, but would prefer that he shows more clearly that he's put thought into removing the PROD tags or edits in another area. Ryan Vesey 21:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making the comments. I hadn't considered that his "not eligible to be prodded" might refer to articles that had been prodded before; however, I picked a random example Scott Stevens (weatherman) and that didn't appear to be the case. Hopefully he sticks to what he said and is more communicative in the future. Ryan Vesey 20:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you Ryan I am very thorough when I remove prods for ineligibility. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 20:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my mistake there. Thanks for being much more communicative with your PROD removals. It helps a lot. Have a good one, Ryan Vesey 18:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A message for you

Hi JBW! In case if you have not watchlisted User talk:Yousufshakeel65, he has left a message for you. --SMS ^Talk 03:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about Are You Watching This?! Deletion

Greetings James,

I think the page on Are You Watching This?! is worth of inclusion in Wikipedia. There companies has press articles from major news organizations around the globe, and counts companies like The Sporting News and FOX Sports as its customers.

Thanks, Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphil14 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A business does not inherit notability from its customers, any more than the people who clean the floors at the White House inherit notability from their employer. As for "has press articles", I am not sure what you mean by that, but neither the references provided in the article nor anything I have been able to find elsewhere suggests that there is substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Certainly there is a very great deal of coverage in non-independent sources, including business promotion web sites, writes up of press releases, etc etc, but none of that does anything to establish notability: it just shows that the business has a very active PR team working for them. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey James, what do you mean by independent and reliable? I would think sources like ABC News, AOL, Techcrunch, and GigaOM would fall under that definition? NPR, ESPN, and the Technology Review have also written about the company--I'm happy to cite those as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphil14 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing article I wrote

Hello JamesBWatson,

One of my articles, Joseph Fosco, is suddenly gone. I can find no proof this deletion was debated. It seems you deleted it because of a G4 violation, but I cannot find any proof this is true, aside from some other page I had nothing to do with from years ago.

In short, this is very confusing.

Any help would be appreciated.

Mobwatcher22 (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Like it or not, the version you created in 2011 closely matched the one deleted after discussion in 2009. That's the problem when others can edit your edits :-) .. there is no "debate" for WP:CSD#G4 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• The "other page [you] had nothing to do with from years ago" was the subject of a deletion discussion which ended in a "delete" decision, as you must be aware. Since it is nearly 11 months since you created the new article, it is likely that you don't remember, but when you created it you will have been confronted with a big red notice telling you that an article with that title had been deleted, and providing you with a link to the deletion discussion. Unlike creating a new article with a new title, you will not have simply been presented with a blank editing area to start writing it, but will have seen the notice informing you of the previous deletion discussion, and will have then had to specifically click on a link to confirm that you really did want to re-create it. When you did that, it was, of course, entirely up to you whether or not you took the time to also click on the link to the deletion discussion or not. If you did choose to do so, you will have known why the article was deleted, and could have avoided spending time creating a new article with exactly the same faults that led to the deletion of the original one. Before deleting the new article I did look at the deletion discussion, and at the article, and found that the reasons for deletion still applied to the new version of the article. That is why it was deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• I did in fact see that warning, and if you read the talk page on my version of that article, you will see this was discussed. As per the deletion discussion page for the '09 version, my article made no mention of something called “KTF media”, or Stella Foster. Conrad Black was mentioned, but I had a direct quote from an article he wrote for the National Post talking about Joseph Fosco. I’ve got no idea what this previous author did, but it doesn’t seem that Conrad Black article existed at that time (impossible to tell though, as I cannot see the content of that ’09 deleted article to tell what exactly is referenced). Other items I used for sourcing did not exist in ’09 as well, including records and articles about trials of Chicago Outfit members Joseph Fosco was involved in. I cannot understand how this article survived a year, with a moderator attempting to delete it a year ago when I first created it (and losing the argument, mind you, like he did with another article I have written) only to disappear like this. Unless you have some method to see that '09 article, I do not know how you could compare it to mine. Mobwatcher22 (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

1. The AfD discussion essentially related to the question of notability. The talk page discussion did not even mention that issue, but dealt only with questions of neutral language and promotional writing.
2. KTF media was mentioned only by an editor who, as far as I can see, was suggesting that it was a reliable source. Substantially similar remarks apply to Stella Foster. The consensus in the discussion was against accepting them as adequate sources, in which case the presence or absence of mention of them in the new version of the article is irrelevant. in any case the absence of mention of a source in the new version of the article cannot possibly be an argument for notability, no matter how good or bad the source.
3. I don't know what you mean by saying that "a moderator" attempted to delete it a year ago. I can find no record of any speedy deletion tagging of the article, nor any proposal for deletion, until 24 October 2012, and there certainly wasn't a second "articles for deletion" discussion. I can't even see a talk page post or edit summary that suggests it should be deleted. As for how it can have survived for a year, my guess is that it simply wasn't noticed. Almost all of the editing of the article was by two accounts, the few exceptions mostly being rather trivial changes, and the page view statistics do not indicate a great deal of attention, so it seems likely that few people were aware of its existence, and fewer still were likely to be aware that there had been a deletion discussion.
4. Yes, I do "have some method to see that '09 article". In order to be able to assess administrative issues (such as the request for speedy deletion that was posted in this case) administrators have access to the archived records of of deleted pages. I would never re-delete a previously deleted article without first checking any old versions. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to speedily answer my questions. I appreciate all the work mods like you do here, and I hope you did not take my confusion as a hostile expression. It was not intended as such. I've done the mod thing in other places and know how thankless it can be. Is there any way for me to get a copy of the article moved to my userspace/sandbox to look it over? Mobwatcher22 (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. I have "userfied" it for you at User:Mobwatcher22/Joseph Fosco. Please note that userfication is a short-term measure to allow time to work on the page. It is not meant to be a long term way of keeping content which is not considered acceptable as an article, and if it is left lying around for a long time it may well be deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, then

Who claimed that the Whore of Babylon stuff wasn't true? ResonX (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea whether anyone claimed it wasn't true or not. Whether anyone has done so or not is not pertinent to the point of my message, which was that you need to accept consensus and current Wikipedia policies. I mentioned a couple of examples of ways in which you have not been doing so. I could have said a lot more (such as pointing out that consensus is that trivia only tangentially related to the subject of an article don't belong there), but I have no intention of spending hours writing everything I can think of that could possibly be relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Suzi Martin

I don't see a list of Search for Tommorrow characters as there is for All My Children. Go ahead and delete the article.--Wlmg (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Mary Help of Christians Cathedral

Hello JamesBWatson,
This is regarding the article Mary Help of Christians Cathedral that you deleted for copyright infringement. I have read WP:Close paraphrase and now better understand the issue. I would like to rewrite the article, so please could you create a copy of the deleted page as a user subpage for me, to enable me to reuse things like the infobox, categories, images, etc.? Any other advice you have for me regarding this is welcome.
Regards, The Discoverer (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Seen, thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Billy Graham article

Seem rather odd that the article is semi-protected since very few of the recent edits have been made my anonymous editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous editors were not involved. An editor who has used several newly created accounts to harass another user has been editing various articles, including that one. The user has returned to several accounts with a new account. Short-term protection is an attempt to prevent more of the same, in the hope that the user will give up. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I now know more about this disruptive editor. He/she has been active for a very long period, using a very large number of accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Note about the sockmaster

I have edited your sockpuppet taggings to label the correct sockmaster of those socks. --Bsadowski1 14:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought there might be others, but I did not guess on what scale. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:82.33.215.26

Greetings. Since you are an Admin I have no doubt of your decision making skills being fine tuned but can I please ask you why the 'formal introductions' section was removed? It wasn't harming anyone. Also I don't see any more vandalism having been run in the history since I undid the errors. Also on the block no timescale has been stated, was this block placed in a rush? if you look at My Talk Page you will see that I keep an eye on that page, I report back to my school's technical department on goings-on from the IP Addresses and under their guidance take the required action, but i'm not seeing the reason as to why this blocked was placed. Would you please be so kind as to specify? Thank you. Meva / CHCSPrefect - (Give cake?) 16:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate that you have been trying to control vandalism from this IP address. However, the fact still remains that vandalism continues, and indeed almost all edits from the IP address are vandalism, and the few that aren't are clearing up after vandalism from the same address. Someone editing from that IP address (perhaps you) has said that vandals at the school will be traced and punished, but that does not alter the fact that vandalism takes place, and, in the time between a vandalism edit being made and it being reverted, a Wikipedia page is faulty, quite apart from the time wasted by other editors in correcting the vandalism, issuing warnings, reporting to "Administrator intervention on vandalism", etc. The knowledge that the culprit may well have been punished at school doesn't alter that. Even during the last block on the IP address, several vandalism edits were made to the IP talk page. I see absolutely no evidence at all that unblocking would benefit the project. The block is for six months, as you can see here. Perhaps you mean that I did not state the block length on the talk page. If so, I rarely specify the length of a long-term block on a school IP, as doing so seems to serve little purpose other than informing vandals when they can successfully resume vandalism. As for removing messages from the talk page, there seems little point in keeping detailed messages referring to a situation which no longer exists, and which cannot exist again until six months have passed. You may, however, restore your message if you think keeping it there during the duration of the block is likely to be useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This is ResonX

Please do not block me like that again.

Let me ask you this: If all mainstream, third–party, "reliable" sources are worth 1,000 "notability points". In that case, how many points are fan sites with thousands of visitors, hundreds of users, and many complex fan works worth? And how many points are the stories themselves worth? At what point does a character become notable enough for an article just by having enough appearances and stories to their name? Give me a number for each.

Also, when is it acceptable to use sources that aren't "reliable", and when is it acceptable to not have sources at all?

Please respond on my talk page. ResonX (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Assuming that "notability points" is a reasonable concept (it isn't), the answer to your first question is 0. Anything is a reliable source for itself; we can use stories as the source for basic plot summaries. But we can't use it as a reliable source for talking about anything else, and it can't be used as a reliable source for the purpose of demonstrating notability. A character becomes notable enough for its own article when it passes the simple answer to Wikipedia; that is, when it (specifically the character, not just the story with a mention of the character) has significant coverage in multiple, legitimate reliable sources that are independent of each other and the subject, just like everything else. The answer to both of your final questions is "never". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, have you tried editing TVTropes instead of Wikipedia? It's much more suited to this type of thing; for one, they don't care about notability there. It's a pretty fun site; I edit there occasionally, especially before coming to Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we assume that the claim is valid on its face and block to prevent damage or wait until the actions show they are not going to follow Wikipedia rules? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

the user simply appears to be blowing off steam on talk pages and not interfering with the encyclopedia. I withdraw any request for pre-emptive action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to throw this and this on the pile. Anybody got a match? Zad68 18:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm holding fire for now myself, though that may change shortly. I did see those diffs already, and TRPoD's had me hovering over the block button, but I dunno, maybe reason will prevail. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I knew that would be the response, and it's the correct one, IMHO. It's all sound and fury until we see actual disruption or damage to the articles, which I can't quite see a convincing case for, at least not just yet. Zad68 18:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't damaged or disrupted a single article. I am only adding to the site. ResonX (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A statement like this from someone who has already declared that he will not follow the rules regarding what kinds of edits are damaging does not hold any weight. It's up to the community of people who do adhere to the rules to determine whether they've been breached. Zad68 18:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Lupo & Tan pages @ Hummingbird Music

I have replied to your questions & suggestions on my talk page. Please let me know how I can proceed with getting the pages back up! Thank you. Angelchiu (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)angelchiu

IP you blocked before still making weird AFC requests

Greetings, the IP has racked up a large number of AFC Declines since you last warned him. Maybe time for harsher steps? User_talk:46.18.177.229. Thanks for looking into it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained message

I've tried my best to prevent vandalism but all you've done is protect it along with the bold-faced liars who spread it. Your actions are irrelevant. 99.158.249.195 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What have I protected? What actions? Irrelevant to what? JamesBWatson (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Remembrance Day

Would you mind if I made a few changes to Remembrance Day (United States section)? I would like to change "commemorated" to "observed" (first sentence). Also, I would like to change the last sentence to read: Veterans Day is observed with memorial ceremonies, salutes at military cemeteries, and parades.

I am asking because the article is semi-protected by you. Very respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, just go ahead. Those seem perfectly reasonable changes. The semi-protection is to stop outright vandalism, and there is no reason why you should hold back form making the sort of changes you have in mind. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The changes have been made. You should know your name is in the Edit Summary as having been discussed with you. Very Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Galactic_Battle.jpg

It seems this image was accidentally orphaned after some IP vandalism went unnoticed. Could you restore it please?—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Modern.js

Delete this please. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed Al Maiman

Hello,

Just to mention this article that has been created and deleted many times (in particular by you), see logs of Mohammed Al Maiman and Mohammed al Maiman. Udufruduhu (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Jfgsloeditor creating "fake" AFDs

James, this newbie user jfgsloeditor (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has created fake AFD tags in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1, America's Next Top Model, Cycle 2, America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18 and List of America's Next Top Model contestants. All of the AFD creations are suspected bad faith edits, that makes rude and ruining article's overview on reading bad AFDs. So are you plan to report this user? ApprenticeFan ^work 16:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the evidence that the AfDs are created in bad faith? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked to my watchlist and the nominator did the fake deletion discussion, it should be closed all three fake AFDs and the editor would block indefinitely for prevent editing again. ApprenticeFan ^work 16:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It appears to me that the AfD nominations are done in good faith (at least one of them is an absolutely brutal article), just that the AfD's have been improperly created - manually creating AfD's is a multi-step process that is easy to mess up - I think that's also what JBW is trying to say (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the text used, highly likely the editor is an MMA fan, probably a banned MMA sock. Mtking ^(edits) 22:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This account has said nothing about MMA. I nominated some crufty articles about a non-notable television show for deletion. WHAT are you talking about?! If you think those articles can be saved, then participate in the discussions I started. --Jfgsloeditor (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks so much for contributing to Wikipedia, last month we collectively made 977 edits to MMA articles. Did you know there is a WikiProject dedicated to Mixed Martial Arts? Check out WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Feel free to sign up on the Participants page! This month we have a survey for new and existing members, What is the number 1 thing you do to make MMA articles better? Kevlar (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jfgsloeditor. Thank you. Mtking ^(edits) 22:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the CSD'd form the AfD the user had created, you are right not G1 but most likely G5. Mtking ^(edits) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude, what is wrong with you?! Leave me alone! --Jfgsloeditor (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I Love your work as a wiki admin. P.S How did u get that clock that show how long u are on wikipedia DetectiveSherlockHolmes (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas

I guess I don't get the point of this website. Entries like one for my film "Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas" get created then someone like you comes along and deletes it.

There are no copyright violations. I am the writer and executive producer on the film which you can see with a quick look at IMDB or renegade picture.us. All I try to do if I edit is correct things that aren't right, add references and do what I can to add value. Maybe you don't see any value in an entry on this service about a feature film but others may disagree. I do. If one film is pointless then they all are. Frankly I find it insulting. I know there's all this neat "talk page" crap but some of us don't have time to sit trolling all day pointlessly deleting material they no nothing about.

If you want to really talk about this call me at 913-205-1747 and we can clear the air.

Best regards,

Wood Dickinson

a subsidiary of Think!, LLC 5638 Mission Road

Fairway, KS 66205

Phone: 866-461-0485

Cell: 913-205-1747

Fax: 913-273-0888

www.renegadepictures.us about me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wooddickinson (talk • contribs) 08:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Wood Dickinson. I will try to clarify a few issues. I hope doing so will be helpful to you. You have presumably seen the deletion log entry, otherwise you would not have known that I deleted the article. You will therefore have seen that the reason I deleted it was logged as "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content". Indeed, the full and complete text that you posted was "Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas. Developing entry for this film. I wrote it and produced as well. Wood Dickinson reference" followed by a URL. The deletion had nothing to do with copyright, nor did it indicate that I "don't see any value" in having an article on the subject. The only relevance of copyright is that a completely different article on the same subject written by a different person was deleted three years ago. I expressed no opinion at all on the value or lack of value of a proper article on the subject. Wikipedia does not have "placeholder" articles waiting for content to be added, as such articles are immediately visible to the readers of Wikipedia, and a web page that says words to the effect "we haven't written this page yet, but we will" does not produce a good impression. Instead, if an article is being worked on but not yet ready for publication, we keep it in a "userspace" page: for example, if I were to write an article on that subject then I could create a page called User:JamesBWatson/Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas, and move it to Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas when it was ready.

I give up quite a significant amount of my time to Wikipedia administration. Unfortunately a large proportion of what is posted here is vandalism, trivia, propaganda, uninformed adolescent speculation, illegal content, and other unhelpful stuff. If there weren't people willing to put time into cleaning up the mess, Wikipedia would soon degenerate into something very different from the very useful and widely consulted reference that it is. You are, of course, welcome to criticise any Wikipedia policy, and also to express rational disagreement with any particular decision I take in the course of the work I do to help implement those policies, but I disagree with your characterisation of my administrative work as "trolling".

I hope these comments will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions about these matters, please feel welcome to contact me here again. However, I have no intention of getting involved in phone calls about Wikipedia work, especially not calls from one continent to another. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. So you know I did not create the entry for this film nor did I create the entry for any of the films I have made. I am assuming others with an interest in this stuff is creating them. I really don't have time. I do an incredible amount of consulting and research for psychiatrist mainly. Filmmaking and the movie biz has been with me all my life so I write, produce and sometimes even get paid. It is important to me that these entries are correct and I know I'm close to these projects but that's the reason why.

If I have done something wrong to cause someone else hardship I'm sorry. I'm frankly not on this site hardly ever. Just stumbled across those entries and as with IMDB I make sure it is right. Don't delete them just because of me. Someone put a lot of time in creating them. I just want them to be right and understand how they work.

Thanks again,

Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wooddickinson (talk • contribs) 08:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Over the course of nine months you have evidently forgotten, but you did indeed create the article Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas. The creation of the article is listed in the log as 10:49, 4 February 2012 . . Wooddickinson (...) (←Created page with '=== Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas === Developing entry for this film. I wrote it and produced as well. Wood Dickinson reference Http://www.wooddickinson.com'). JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)