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.) (I make only limited use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.) 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.

Location_map_quick etc.

I understand you want to follow petty rules about TfD, and ignore the core pillar "wp:Ignore all rules" which is intended to bypass petty rules and get Wikipedia running again, but the overall problem has been User:Plastikspork deleting several templates without consensus, or by some imagined consensus, where functionality does not apply in that view of consensus. I hope you realize, this day, a template should not be deleted when it provides functionality not available elsewhere, such as precise positioning of map-markers with any browser, including older versions of Internet Explorer, or Firefox or Opera, etc. But it does not matter to Plastikspork, who has deleted several templates which I have carefully developed for years, while I explained "Keep" but deleted anyway, some of them even without notifying me of the TfD discussions. Oh well. I really think there should be a term-limit for admins, such as at most 5 years, and encourage other admins to join, to share the workload, and let admins who cannot cooperate move into other areas, after the 5-year cutoff limit. Instead, Wikipedia's endless avalanche of thousands of new pages and new templates is pressuring admins to become more desperate to stem the flood of new pages. So, it is no wonder that better templates get deleted without thinking, and the whole website descends into worse performance with rampant errors, and even with some Bots run amok to insert thousands of errors, or edit-warring to uncorrect hand-fixed text. Bots fighting Bots or "Robots painting robots". The core of Wikipedia's encyclopedia should have been limited to avoid the "wp:Megatemplate crisis" of templates used in so many millions of pages that botched changes can get slipped into thousands of pages, but it takes 3-4 months for the megatemplates to be reverted and reformatted across all the millions of related pages, to undo the thousands which had generated errors. Smart people will be needed to solve these problems. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wikid77: I don't agree that what you call the "rules" are "petty". I think that we need some structure, or else Wikipedia would degenerate into chaos. How strictly to stick to that structure in any particular case is a matter for individual judgement, and in this case there was no evident reason for me to deviate from standard agreed practice. It s unreasonable to criticise my action on the basis of information which was not available to me at the time, such as the history of other interactions between Plastikspork and yourself, which you now tell me about. I wonder if you were tongue-in-cheek when you reprimanded me because you think that I "want to ... ignore ... Ignore all rules", or if you really failed to see the contradiction in your position. If you believe that Plastikspork is using his/her administrative tools disruptively, then you can take that up with him/her, and if you are unhappy with the outcome, then you can take it further. However, for one individual to decide that because he or she does not like what a particular administrator has been doing he or she will feel free to unilaterally revert actions of that administrator is not helpful. (And, for what it may be worth to you, I say that not because it is some sort of "rule", but because I see it as best for the encyclopaedia.) As for your other comments, not relating to this case, I'm afraid I really don't understand them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnnybob2744

Could you please block User:Johnnybob2744? He/she is obviously not here to positively contribute. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am reluctant to block an editor after only two warnings, one of them at level one, and no edits after the second warning. However, now that a warning of a possible block has been given, even one more vandalism edit will, in my opinion be enough, so feel welcome to come back here if you see another one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The user seems to have stopped. All good for now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Czechs protection request

Hi JamesBWatson. I want to request semi-protection for Czechs as User talk:Kohelet#February 2014, who has been blocked for racist edits on "Gang rape" article, is now removing Jews from the article about Czechs with sock puppets. Thanks--Der Golem (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. After my request here was somewhat vandalized, I turned to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers--Der Golem (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Custom templates discussion reply

I replied at User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Custom templates at the Yellow sandbox. No rush. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Mark Tufo

You asked me what my personal relationship to Mark Tufo is. I do not have a "personal relationship" to him. I've read his books. He's one of the few that inspire me by his writing style. I also admire Joe McKinney and Thomas Harris. Both their WIKI pages are pretty concise and beautifully done. I saw Mark had his book picked up for a movie, went to the Wikipedia page to confirm that, and saw that there was some aggressive arguments tied to his entry. I then realized that the person that did the entry had written it more "essay" style and decided to enter facts and try my hand..btw, it's definitely not for the feint at heart.

Albeit a wonderful compliment, I am not personally related to Mark Tufo, nor am I, " a sleeper account" just because I've had wiki for 7 years. If you look ME up on google, you'll see I've been around -- and I'm female -- for many years. Thank you very much for your time.

www.thedevilshalo.com www.unsaintly.com (.net, etc) twitter - unsaintly

and so on, and so on, and so on...

12.228.121.141 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)unsaintly

You must be User:Unsaintly, since that is the only person I have asked about a personal relationship to Mark Tufo. If you do not have a personal connection to him, how do you come to be in possession of a photograph of him taken by his wife, and how do you come to have permission to publish it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Re; the picture...You're kidding right? As I stated on my Commons submission it was on the internet, free of license as I assumed. How does anyone get pictures of any celebrity? I'm confused.....http://www.independentauthornetwork.com/mark-tufo.html look, there it is again.

I think you're reaching. Google ME. I'm pretty real. In fact, why not join my twitter...under UNSAINTLY

Unsaintly (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Unsaintly

@Unsaintly: No, I'm not "kidding" at all. Wikipedia has a strict policy on copyright, and we don't accept work on the basis that someone "assumes" that its copyright has been released: we need evidence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have FOLLOWED the permissions and guidance on the commons page. You don't have to tell me about the rules because I had to click the radio box that said whether I was the owner, or found it on the internet. I also have a week to provide all necessary requirements. I have seen his photos on his webpages and Google. Which is where I retrieved it.

This isn't about that, though. This is about your accusation that I could have a personal connection to him.

Answer: No. No more than I have a personal connection to you.

Unsaintly (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Unsaintly

Accusation? Why on earth is that an accusation? Is having a personal connection to Mark Tufo wicked or disreputable? You appeared to imply that you had a personal connection to him, or at least to his family, and I asked for clarification, in order to establish your right to release copyright. There was no "accusation". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If I upload a picture onto Commons, it asks me my permissions. I never claimed to be the person to hold the copyright. I just knew, via reading his websites (the many that I did my research for the contribution I did) who took the picture. One of the options is, "I don't know I found it on the internet". And I am given a week to make sure this is all peachy.

Unsaintly (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Unsaintly

Hmm. I will not go into the commons copyright policy on uploads, but certainly English Wikipedia's copyright policy says "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others" (original emphasis). An image must not be included in a Wikipedia page until it is established that it has suitable copyright status: it is not good enough to say that you will provide evidence of licensing at some time in the future. Also, please don't create a new section on this talk page every time you post a new message on the same topic as an existing section, as doing so makes conversations difficult to follow, and please don't put several blank lines in your posts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Willy (Character)

A short article without content, it gotta be kidding me.--Toмa646 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Дед Мороз1: OK, I have looked again, and the context can be worked out by following links, so as to find out what "Maya" is, so I have restored the article. However, I won't bet on its staying long in its present form, as there is no indication whatever of notability. I will also advise you that you might be better off contributing to Wikipedia in your native language, rather than to English Wikipedia, as your standard of English is not good enough to contribute to encyclopaedia articles. For example, "Maya's best friend, with whom it constantly" is not an English sentence, and doesn't mean anything in English. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This good joke :-D, but should not we make exactly this fun of each other, because we in Wikipedia. Thank restoring.--Toмa646 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no joke. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of Page for My DNA Fragrance

Hello JBW,

My SEO person thought he was doing me a favor to do some editing to the wiki page, which has been there since 2008 with no issues. I would like to request the restoration of the deleted page for My DNA Fragrance and have it restored to the original content that has been there since the page was original accepted and approved in 2008. The page has not had any issues since then and My DNA Fragrance is a notable product that is eco-friendly and has garnered global media attention since its creation in 2007.

Please note that I cannot remember the login info for my original account JadeIce, and I do not have the same email address from that time. However, I would like instructions from you regarding what is necessary on my part to have the page restored as there are literally hundreds of links in google that go back to this page since 2007 and we would like to make sure that those links do not remain dead and expire.

Any follow up from you is greatly appreciated.

Jade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeice1000 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the article was created on 18 May 2010, not 2008. The name of the account which created it was Jaydeice. By "with no issues" I assume that you mean that nobody objected to any aspect of it. However, that is not true: the very first edit made by anyone other than you had the edit summary "tone down wording", and consisted of reducing the amount of promotional language in the article. Apart from edits either by editors clearly working on behalf of the business, edits made by bots (i.e. computer programs doing routine maintenance tasks), and utterly trivial edits (such as replacing "My DNA Fragrance Official Website" by "My DNA Fragrance official website", adding a tag saying that the article had not been categorised, marking links as dead, etc) every single edit to the article consisted of removal of some of the promotional content that you or others working for the company had posted. Such edits were made by Slightsmile, Fetchcomms, and Ubiquity.

My guess is that your reason for mentioning the survival of the article "with no issues" is an assumption that an article which has gone unchallenged for a long time must be all right, as everyone who has seen it has accepted it. However, that is not necessarily true. While unacceptable content in an article on a prominent topic is likely to be seen by many thousands of people per day, including large numbers of active Wikipedia editors, an article on a more obscure topic may be seen by very few people, fewer still of whom are Wikipedia editors, and fewer still are Wikipedia editors who are likely to pick up policy violations such as use of Wikipedia for promotion, so problems can go undetected for a long time. I have known absolutely blatant vandalism on a little-viewed article to remain in place for years before being noticed and removed. For example, in the last 30 days the article Adolf Hitler has been viewed 659,182 times, and United States 1,169,961 times, while a sample of 10 months over the lifetime of the article you are concerned about suggests that it has been viewed on average about 7 times per day. Before April 2014, there had been a total of eight edits that were not either by the account that created the article or by bots. Seven of those eight edits made utterly trivial changes, as described above. The one other edit was the one I have already mentioned, reducing (but by no means eliminating) the promotional language. All that is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that the article had been left as it was because it was largely unnoticed, rather than because a lot of people approved it.

However, all that is of limited relevance, because the issue is whether the article was consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not how and why it escaped for so long. The editor Ubiquity studied the article and decided that it was an unambiguous advertisement, and nominated it for speedy deletion. As a Wikipedia administrator, I assessed the nomination, and concurred with Ubiquity's view. The article has been full of such marketing gobbledygook as "enjoying leading the field in this customization mega-trend, giving the consumer one-of-a-kind exclusively crafted items", and so on and so on. There is no way that any impartial observer could see the article as anything other than a blatant attempt to abuse Wikipedia by using it as a free advertising service. That is against Wikipedia policy, and any such article is liable to speedy deletion. You should consider yourself lucky that you got away with free advertising for four years before it was noticed. There is certainly no case for restoring it.

You ask "what is necessary on [your] part to have the page restored". I'm afraid that the answer to that is that you should not have any part in trying to get an article about your business in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest strongly discourages editing in connection with a business you have a connection to, and you should certainly not be creating an article on this subject. Indeed, the totally promotional character of the article you did create is an excellent illustration of one of the reasons for that policy. Wikipedia is not a medium for businesses to publish information about themselves: that is what the company's own web site is for. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi James,

Thank you for a very concise explanation. I understand that Wiki is a neutral environment. My DNA Fragrance has significant international media attention and qualifies for inclusion in the Wiki. Will take all you said into consideration now. Thank you for your time.

Jade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeice1000 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearing my own talk page

Hi James! Just wanted to check with you on whether I am allowed to clear my own talk page? Thank you. EmilyREditor (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Normally, anything on your talk page that you have finished with, you can remove. There are a few exceptions, the commonest being that while you are blocked you should not remove information about the block, such as declined unblock requests, but I hope you won't be blocked again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ROLLBACK

Hey James. I am A.Minkowiski, fighting against vandalism from some days. Now I am looking for WP:ROLLBACK to fight vandalism, also requested @ Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback but didn't receive any approval yet. It would be better if you gand me such rights. I am quite familiar with ROLLBACK guidelines and usage. Best Regards: A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Closure of MfD

I think your made a rush decision. MfD normally runs for 7 days and you closed the MfD in question after only 4 days. For fairness sake, may I ask what criteria you used to base your decision on? You claimed that "There is unanimous support for deletion except for the author of the page", which is a oxymoron. As long as I the author oppose to the deletion, you can't claim "there is unanimous support for deletion". Even the author of a fringe article shouldn't be discriminated against. Why not let the discussion run the full course otherwise you may appear to have some ulterior motive. You also accused me of "continually plays IDHT", please elaborate your claim with evidence. I consider myself much more of a contributor than an editor and I haven't edited any topic articles other than my own for at least a month now. I fail to see how I could possibly have committed disruptive editing. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

1. I didn't make a rushed decision: I gave the matter very careful thought before coming to a conclusion.
2. I didn't say that there was "unanimous support for deletion": I said that there was " unanimous support for deletion except for the author of the page". Did you somehow overlook the word "except"?
3. Your editing is disruptive in many ways, most notably your persistent refusal to drop the stick on an issue where it has long become clear that consensus is against you. I seriously considered blocking you, and that option is still open if you persist.
4. I have far better things to do with my time than explain how you keep up IDHT "with evidence". The evidence has been presented to you before, and you didn't hear it: I see no reason to think that this time your behaviour would suddenly be different.
5. Yes, an MfD usually runs for a week, but there are exceptions. This one was a waste of time, and it was more constructive to put it to an end. See Wikipedia:Snowball clause.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You are the accuser and you failed to back up your accusation with evidence. You also failed to follow the normal procedure without enough justification. I have no other choice but to take you to the deletion review. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course you have another choice. You could drop the stick and move on to do some constructive editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Dream on. What would you expect people to do when you keep forcing them into defending themselves, deleting their articles or reverting their edits, hindering them at every move and threatening them with blocks and bans? Of course I am not accusing you of doing all these things. Just a hypothetical question. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleting my edits

Why you delete my edits in Wikipedia, i evasion blocks, but i no understand, why delete my constructive edits and protected article Zbečník stream. This is against common sense. Please answer me to this question. What you eith it herself you prove, taht you something better than iam.--Táhni do prdele (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If you learn that anything you do here is likely to be deleted, it is just possible that you will eventually get the message that evading blocks is not going to serve your purpose. Either make a reasonably intelligent and meaningful request for an unblock, or go away. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete good edits, its no good for for Wikipedia. I request unblock, but this request no acepted. I'm not vandal, I'm good user and I want do good edits, but when i blocked and others delete my good edits it me extremely provoke to hard personal attacks because it stupid idea. I go to Wikipedia, do good edits next me blocked and delete my edits, and I hate they for it.--Okurka v prdeli (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Rajagopalan

Hello, I had written before and I can't seem to find your response. I placed the following page with lots of references and facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Rajagopalan

Can you please reconsider restoring the entry as it does not promote with unsubstantiated material. In addition, I could point out at least 10 physician entries that have much less in the way of references and facts and are still there.

Davidlgreene1969 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC) David Greene

Russian American

Hi,

I saw you were the one who protected Russian American. I saw a certain user added people without discussion or agreement, could you please revert it? I can't revert for whatever reason.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FixTheErrorNow (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

-i gave links for Pamela Anderson, bloomberg and this other women have it stated they have ancestry from russia--Crossswords (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You have a new message

Hi James, I got the message that you sent me on my talk page. I replied to it. Please write back as soon as possible; thank you. EmilyREditor (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)