User talk:JBW

JamesBWatson (talk · contribs)

Hi! Thanks a lot!

Oh hey, I really didn't expect someone to edit my page so quickly! But thanks for helping out. I'm brand new to this so I'm sorry for sill mistakes and what not. If there's anything else, please help my page out. Thank you again.

~Hey again. You're really helping me out, thank you so much. I'm trying to keep an unbiased view for Wikipedia, I understand that this is an encyclopedia and cannot be based off of opinion. Thanks you again for you help, and adding the resource.

Threecheerslife (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Threecheerslife

Hey again, I just had a few quick questions:

Regarding my article on Tommy "Wind" Riccardo, I just recently spoke to him and he says that he won the award for Best Teen Magician of the Year from the World Magic Awards on October 10, but there isn't any reference on Wikipedia that I can link that to. Is there anything I can do?

Oh, and there are a few pictures I want to post on the article. I know I'm new, but I looked up how to post the pictures and am still confused.

Also, the name needs to be changed from Tommy "Wind" Riccardo to Tommy Wind. Do you know how I can change that? Or do I have to recreate the entire article under a different name?

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threecheerslife (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate timing: I have seen your query just as I need to leave, and don't have time to answer. I will try to post an answer tomorrow. If I haven't responded within 24 hours, please remind me again. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, concerning the "Best Teen Magician of the Year", a reference on Wikipedia that you can link that to is exactly what you don't want. You need a reference to a reliable source, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source, since anyone can write anything here. It often seems odd to newcomers to Wikipedia that we don't regard ourselves as a reliable source, but it makes sense if you think about it. I have done a Google search for "Best Teen Magician of the Year", and I got 6 hits. Five of these are either MySpace or FaceBook pages, and again these are not reliable, as anyone can write there. The other one was www.tommywindmagic.com/bio.html, and this is a little more complicated. This may be a reliable source, but it is certainly not an independent source, as it may well be written by him, and is certainly promoting him. Sources which are not reliable can be acceptable for establishing details of people's lives, but they are no use for establishing notability, and if information is not notable it is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. I see that you have given links to www.silive.com, which also mentions the award. However, www.silive.com consists, as far as I can see, of advertising, blogs, and forums. Generally speaking most blogs and forums are not reliable sources, for the same reason as above, and paid advertising is certainly not an independent source. Unfortunately, an award which is mentioned only on the subject's own web site, a few pages on two social networking sites, and a self-promotion site does not qualify as notable, and so I'm afraid that information will have to be left out, and really the links to www.silive.com should go too, as not satisfying the criteria for inclusion of external links. On the other hand I see no reason why www.tommywindmagic.com/bio.html should not be given as an external link. I suggest putting that in place of the two links that are there now.

Next, uploading images. I agree that the process is somewhat confusing. The first thing is to be clear about copyright. By far the best thing is to use only images which are public domain, or have been released by the copyright owner under a free license. If you own the copyright then you can release it for use, if someone else owns the copyright then you should have evidence that it has been released. Once you have determined copyright status you should be able to upload the images at Special:Upload. If you find using that page confusing you could ask for help at Wikipedia:Helpdesk. Alternatively if you make the images available to me I could do it for you, but you would have to post them somewhere where I can access them, so you may prefer not to use that option.

Next, renaming Tommy "Wind" Riccardo to Tommy Wind. I am glad to say that this should be much easier. Assuming you are using the normal default Wikipedia interface, load up the article, and you should see that one of the tags at the top of the page is labelled "Move". Click on that link. In the page that comes up edit the title in the box labelled "To new title" to say just "Tommy Wind", click on "Move page", and the job should be done. It is normally a good idea when moving a page to then click on "What links here" (normally at the left hand side) so that you can update links if need be to point directly at the new page (otherwise they will point to a redirect at a page with the old name). For the Tommy Wind article this is not very important, as at the moment the only pages that link there are this page and two of your user-space pages. Please don't edit the link on this page; whether you edit the links on your pages is up to you.

I hope this has been of some use to you. Sorry Wikipedia-editing is so full of complexities, which can seem really confusing when you are new (I remember how confusing I found it). It does get easier with a little practice. I was tempted to make life a bit easier by just going ahead and making the changes myself (apart from uploading the images, of course) instead of telling you how to do it, but I decided in the long run it would be more helpful to you to point you in the right direction so you can learn how to do it yourself. Let me know if there are still problems or if I can help you again. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow I didn't expect such complications at all...but thank you so much for the help. The whole thing about notable sources is understandable and I'm trying to find as many reliable sources as I can, however being that he is not a known figure yet, there isn't much. I tried to credit everything accurately, but most likely I'm not doing the right thing there either. Concerning the images- the two that I want to use are up on his website, so if I want to upload them I need the copyright license, right? Or I can give you the links for them. I hate to be such a burden about all of this, so thank you for all the help you've given me so far. The link for one of the pictures is http://www.tommywindmagic.com/photo.html, the second one. I'm going to try to upload it so we'll see what happens. Thanks again for the amazing help, I couldn't have done it without you! Threecheerslife (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. I just have a few questions:

1 - You know the box on the side of some of the Wikipedia articles where is shows a picture, occupation, and different information? I want to create that for my article but I'm not totally sure how to.

2 - Also, concerning the picture, how can I get a licensed copyright or verification for it when I put it up on Wikipedia? I'm not sure how to give the right information so that Wikipedia won't delete it.

Thanks again! Threecheerslife (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

1. What you want is an "infobox" template. There is an amazing range of different infoboxes for different types of people, but as far as I can see there isn't one for magicians, so you should use Template:Infobox person. Click on that link and find the section headed Blank template with basic parameters. Copy and paste the text from the box below that heading, and write in the relevant details. You don't have to fill in every detail: for example, I think you will want to leave "death_date" out! If you scroll further down you will find a blank template with a much fuller list of parameters, and you can include any that are relevant, but the basic list is usually perfectly good enough.
2. Is this a picture you have taken yourself, or one you have got from somewhere else (such as a publicity photograph)? If it is your own picture then there should be no problem, as you will own the copyright (assuming you haven't transferred the copyright to someone else). On the file upload page at Special:Upload you will find a box labelled "Licensing" at the left hand end. At the right hand end of this box click on the downward pointer, and you will see a list of copyright options. Choose one of the options that starts with "Own work". The simplest is to choose "Own work, release into public domain", provided you are happy to allow anyone to use the picture however they like; otherwise choose one of the others, but don't ask me to explain the technical legal differences! Frankly whatever licensing permission you give probably won't make a lot of difference to what happens to your image, once it is released on Wikipedia. I would go for "Own work, release into public domain" because it is completely straightforward and complcation-free, with "Own work, multi-license with CC_BYSA_3.0 and GFDL" as a second choice. If you do not own the copyright it is a bit more complicated. There is a lot of information available about this in very places, but Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission probably covers all you need (and more).

I hope this answer has been helpful to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I got the infobox up, still working on the pictures. Because I did not physically take the pictures that I want to upload, I need the copyright owner's permission, right? Is Wikipedia's declaration of consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries) the way that I can get the proper copyright? If so, should I get the owner to send a copy of this via their personal e-mail? I'm not sure how to go about giving them the information to give me the rights so I can upload the pictures. Very confusing. Anyway, thanks for the help! As stated before, I couldn't have done this without you! Threecheerslife (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too find the whole issue of copyright in Wikipedia very confusing, and I am not an expert in the subject. Somewhere there is a list of Wikipedia editors who deal with copyright issues, and if I searched for a couple of minutes I could no doubt find it, but quicker is just to give you a link to the user talk page of one of them that I happen to remember. Here is the link: User talk:Moonriddengirl. You may like to try asking her: she knows far more than I do about copyright issues. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I recommend commons:Commons:Otrs as a how-to-guide for uploading an image, how to compose a proper permission e-mail, and making sure the image is not tagged for deletion in the process. This guide is specific to the Wikimedia Commons, which is where I would recommend uploading the image, so that other projects (such as Wikipedias in other languages) may benefit from it. The page also contains a link to several e-mail templates you can use to make sure the permission is legally sound. The one at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries would also work. Regards, decltype (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks Decltype for that advice. I hope Threecheerslife will find it helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for the help! I'm going to send a letter to the owner of the pictures. All he has to go is send in the Declaration of Consent to the Wikipedia website and include the file name that I should already have up on the site. So when he sends the e-mail, OTRS volunteers will attach the consent to the image so that the copyright is correct? If I'm completely wrong, then I think I'm more than a bit confused...anyway, we'll see how this goes. Thank you again!! Threecheerslife (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nemu64

Did you even check the log before creating that MfD? --Tothwolf (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "even". I spent a long time searching through the deletion review logs and elsewhere to find the history of what had been done. I also read the template on the page, which specifically stated that the page was temporarily kept during the deletion review discussion. Checking the page log to which you refer was not one of the many things I did. I could have done so, just as I could have omitted some of the other time-consuming checks that I did perform. Thank you for drawing my attention to that log: I now see that the template at the top of the page may be misleading; I had no reason before to doubt it, and if it could be relied on then what I did seems reasonable to me. I shall try to remember if similar cases arise again to give greater priority to looking at page logs. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The {{tempundelete}} template was just a leftover from when the article was userfied. A lot of the time such templates are not removed immediately when the article is userfied. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Robert Williams (geometer)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Robert Williams (geometer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (geometer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good news

Hello JBW,

Instead of being deleted, the article Robert Williams (geometer) has been moved into the article incubator. The incubator is a collaborative environment aimed at helping new articles be brought up to Wikipedia's standards in an environment that is free from the pressures of impending deletion. To continue working on your article, please visit Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Robert Williams (geometer).

If you have any questions or need help, feel free to ask and I will be glad to help. — Sebastian 07:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Custom Line

Hi JamesBWatson,

I saw that you merged the Custom Line 97', Custom Line 112' Next, Custom Line Navetta 26 and Custom Line Navetta 33 pages into Custom Line. I was trying to create a boat template like the one used on the Italian version (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Imbarcazione), but I'm not sure it will work correctly. How can I do to make it? Do you think that I can make different pages for each model using that template, or the article is better now that is merged?

Thanks in advance! --Ddquadrante (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no experience of creating templates, so I'm afraid i can't help you. However, my feeling is that the individual models do not require individual articles anyway, as the degree of notability they have is adequately covered by mentions of them in a single article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Škocjan caves

Hello

let me introduce ourselves... Škocjan Caves Park are Regional park in smal country Slovenia managed by the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning - Government of Slovenia.

So...Yesterday we accomplished our page on Wikipedia (Škocjan caves)...BUT...after 10 hours of work you change back old version of the article. Can I ask what we did wrong? We logged in as Škocjanske jame (in english - Škocjan caves) and I think that we know the best about our information and we want people to know the right information.
I think it is in everyone's interest that there are as many of the right information on the page, and believe me that when complemented with this article we did not do anything wrong.

My name is Sidonija Mozetič and I am a representative of the press (PR) in that park. So I ask you to response me what we have to do, that you will not change our articles back in the old version.

thank you for your response...and if you do not belive me you can se our main page (all the informations we wrote are from it) www.park-skocjanske-jame.si
or you can write me to my official e-mail: sidonija.mozetic@psj.gov.si —Preceding unsigned comment added by Škocjanske jame (talk • contribs) 09:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall try to explain my reasons, and indicate what you can do to make your contributions to the article more acceptable. Firstly, much of the material you added was phrased in rather promotional language (e.g. "Ranking among the most important caves in the world"). Secondly, for the majority of the material there were no sources given (e.g. who ranks them as among the most important caves in the world?). I suggest that you carefully rephrase your contributions to make sure that they appear as objective presentation of facts, rather than as an attempt to promote the caves, and also that you provide references to reliable published sources to support your statements. You may like to carefully consider Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources: "I know better than you" is not acceptable justification for edits. I have had a quick look at the web site which you link to above, and it looks good: I suggest that you give references to its various pages in the relevant sections of the article. I see that you, or someone else, has undone my edit, and for the moment I shall leave the article for you to work on. You may also like to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. There is no reason why you should not edit the article, but it is worth bearing in mind that, since you are involved with what you are writing about, you will see it from a particular point of view, and you may have to think carefully about how to write in a way which can be seen as objective by an outsider, and not appear promotional in tone. I hope these comments are of some help to you, and please feel welcome to contact me again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Škocjan caves

Dear JamesBWatson All things which are summarized in an article, are from the scientific literature Škocjan Caves Park (Monograph), we refer to the contributions of authors: dr. Andrej Mihevc: Climate, Geology and Geomorphology (pages 58-65), dr. Andrej Kranjc: Historical overviue and description of the Caves (pages 42-57), dr. Rajko Slapnik: Flora and Fauna (pages 66-79), dr. Peter Turk: Archeology (pages: 86-97). Contributions of these authors refer to the specialized articles that you can be also send. In this contribution we do not want to do any advertising because our task is primarily complementary and up to date information on Škocjan Caves. Through exposure to the caves as a World Heritage Site - UNESCO area it is something special from a scientific point of view. I think this is NOT cheap advertising of the caves. As managers of this area, we have a moral right to make certain information about the area on Wikipedia, but certainly we'll consider your comments and try to edit the article in as much objective as we can. Sidonija Mozetič Škocjan Caves Park Samo Šturm, biologist Škocjan Caves Park —Preceding unsigned comment added by Škocjanske jame (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback: Nbarth, J-invariant

{{Talkback}} (I see that you are watching, but include TB for ease.)

Stephen North

Hi there. I've outlined my objections to the prodding of the article on the talk page. SteveO (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have replied on that page too. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How to add external links?

Thanks for letting us know that there's a problem. We are adding links to online resources that we have (in this case, interviews with authors) about existing Wikipedia entries on those authors.

We are new to Wikipedia, so maybe we are not going about it the right way. How else are we supposed to do this? Our interviews are vetted, credible, and informative and would add to the Wikipedia resource.

Keverding (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)keverding

Unfortunately I have received your question just as I have run out of time and have to go. I will try to look at your edits later and let you know what I think. It is likely to be quite a few hours: I am really sorry not to be able to respond more fully sooner. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. We've reinstated our Chip Kidd interview, this time under "interviews." We look forward to hearing from you about adding these interview resources to other author pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keverding (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now posted a response to this at User_talk:Keverding#Links, since another editor had posted a warning on that page, and I thought it more helpful to have my response visible with that warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mary Bond Davis

Dear Mr. Watson,

I read your comments regarding mediocrity and I do agree. We are living in a day and age in which mediocrity is rewarded.

With that said, I am unaware if you have read my most recent post regarding my Wiki entry.

My entry will be Wikified once I have closed the show I am now working on in January 2010. I do agree that my bio should be left to others to compose.

What prompted my entry was mistaken identity. No one should deliberately or mistakenly take credit for my hard work under any circumstance.

A friend who works for Wikipedia suggested that I include my bio back in 2006.

Sincerely,

Mary Bond Davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by This1ismbd (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not sure what this refers to. Where did I comment on mediocrity? I tend to make about 100-200 edits in a day, and don't remember them all, but the only posts of mine that I can find that have any relevance to you are this one, where I warned about removing material without explaining why, and this one, where I tagged an article for Wikifying and for references to establish notability. Was that second one the one you mean? As for your "most recent post regarding [your] Wiki entry", I assume you mean this one, in which case yes, I have read it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Watson,

If you follow this link you might understand why I made the edits to the S.O.S. Band. I am not Mary Davis, I am Mary Bond Davis:

http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/The_SOS_Band?src=mtoc&fwd=1&q=mary+bond+davis&qpvt=mary+bond+davis

If I go to Bing.com and click on reference, this is where the link will take you. This erroneous information is frustrating to me and if there is some way I can be assisted, please make a suggestion.

Sincerely,

Mary Bond DavisThis1ismbd (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am totally puzzled by this. Before your edit the article The SOS Band said "The band, fronted by Mary Davis (R&B singer),", and after your edit it still said the same. You did not make any change to or from anything to do with Mary Bond Davis. The only change you made was to remove a link to Mary Davis's Wikipedia article, and I cannot understand what the purpose of that was, nor how this is connected to the fact that you say you are Mary Bond Davis. Perhaps you can clarify that. I have searched and found a web page which says "The band, fronted by Mary Davis (not Mary Bond Davis)", which seems to confirm what the Wikipedia article on the SOS Band says. However, that does not seem to be in dispute, as you did not change that. Are you now saying that the information is wrong, and the band is fronted by Mary Bond Davis? If not then I really don't know what you are saying. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Watson,

There are many edits you have reverted that I want to address with you and things I need to clarify. All will have to wait until the new year.

Just know that when I type Mary Bond Davis into the search field of Wikipedia, I DO NOT want to be redirected to The S.O.S. Band or any other person. Then maybe Bing.com and other sites will stop redirecting, as well.

Happy Holidays

This1ismbd (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah! At last I begin to see what you mean, Mary. At least I think so: tell me if I've got it wrong. The Wikipedia page Mary Bond Davis used to be a redirect to The SOS Band, which was wrong , as that band involved Mary Davis, not Mary Bond Davis. You blanked the Mary Bond Davis page to stop this wrong redirect from happening, but you found your attempts to do this kept getting reverted. Eventually out of desperation, because it seemed the only way forward, you tried writing a true article about yourself in the hope that this would stop people reverting to the redirect. However, you found that people still kept making unhelpful changes, because they didn't understand what you were trying to do. Is that about right? If so I think I can help you. Please let me know. Hope you have happy holidays too.

Now this is completely irrelevant, but I want to say it. I had never heard of you before all this came up on Wikipedia, but I searched around about you, and found a YouTube of you singing "Pour Me A Man", and I quite enjoyed listening to you, so some good has come out of all this trouble. Thanks! JamesBWatson (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it helps to make things easier to follow if you post new messages about this here, rather than at the bottom of the page. If you look at the top of this section, on the left it says "Mary Bond Davis" in bold letters, and at the right it says "[edit]". If you click on that "[edit]" it will open a window for just editing this section concerning you, rather than the whole page, so you can easily add more comments at the bottom of this section. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LINK

James, I asked on the talk page about your addition. Wikipedia_talk:Linking#Recent_addition Tony (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

International Center for Autism Research & Education

Sorry for the hassle on International Center for Autism Research & Education. I guess you know the scoop from the discussion page. I should have checked it out first. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Haji Muhammad Salah Mugheri

An editor has nominated Haji Muhammad Salah Mugheri, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haji Muhammad Salah Mugheri and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

About the user page policy

Re [1], I don't think I understand the way it is said. Are you trying to say that the user talk page shouldn't be redirected unless the user is indefed, or that that it can only be redirected to another talk page unless the user is indefed? — Coren ^(talk) 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The latter. However, on reflection I have decided to revert to the previous version anyway, as the exception seems to be unnecessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:JamesBWatson. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Diff, the attack is in the edit summary)  Sandstein  14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I confess that the edit summary was more uncivil than it needed to be, and after making the edit I regretted the words I had used. Nevertheless, I think to call it a "personal attack" is an exaggeration. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Servo Robot Group modifications

Good morning,

I "undo" your actions on Servo Robot Group's article on Wikipedia. It is very important to show this information to focus on the technology use in robotic laser welding. If you remove this information, we only have information about the company, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. I have something else to add to this article but I am waiting to have the credits from some robot companies and link this article to their articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks Judlef —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

Unfortunately I don't understand that at all. Why is it "very important" to have a complete list of patent details for this company? Why is this information encyclopedic? What do you mean by "we only have information about the company"? Isn't the list of patent information information about the company? And why is this "not allowed in Wikipedia"? I am not aware of any policy which says that an article about a company cannot have "only ... information about the company", and indeed it would seem very odd if there were such a policy: I would expect that an article about a particular subject should have only information on that subject. In short, as I said , I don't understand it at all: perhaps you can clarify your meaning. One thing I do understand, however, is that you want all this detail about the company's patents to be included. On this I disagree entirely: it is the kind of detail about a company that might be included in a company prospectus, but not in an encyclopedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Samba school

Sorry, I misunderstood the situation here; thanks for the clarification. Nyttend (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Languages

Hi there JAMES, VASCO from Portugal here,

Thanks for your tip, will try to "humour" you in that direction. The only occasion i have done this is when i am sure that the editor speaks very little English. From now on, i will add the pertinent translation.

Have a jolly 2010,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Language

Hi James! Thanks for note, i actually translate my talk pages via Google, but now i really forgot! You know, new year and so! :) Thank anyway! Be good, Happy New Year! --Tadija (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I simply would like to let you know User:Paulozin can't speak English. He never leaves edit summaries and when he does so, it's in Portuguese (or Spanish). 189.24.160.136 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Carioca's talk page.
Message added 20:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you. It thought that it was are private conversations, but after i have read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.--Mladifilozof (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of User:EZW/Joel W. Gonzales

Please note that CSD criteria rarely applies to userspace, and your tag did not apply to EZW's draft. Thanks,  IShadowed  ✰  20:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The heading for the "General" section of CSD at WP:CSD#General says "These apply to all namespaces (and so apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc)". In fact that is exactly the point of the "G" prefix, distinguishing these criteria from "A" criteria (which apply only to articles), "R" criteria (only redirects) etc. The statement that "CSD criteria rarely applies to userspace" therefore seems to me irrelevant, unless I have missed something. On the other hand the description of G4 does go on to say that it excludes "content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)". I do not doubt your sincerity in userfying the article "for explicit improvement", but, considering the history of the editor on whose behalf you userfied it, I certainly do doubt his sincerity, and it seems to me to be done for the purpose of "circumvent[ing] Wikipedia's deletion policy". I therefore think that the criterion does apply here. I shall make further efforts to have it deleted, either by an MfD or by restoring the speedy tag. However, I shall not do so for now, to give you a chance to respond to the above comments if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Kind request to solve dispute

Hello. Would you be able to help solve this dispute? Few other users have viewed it, but has not yet come to a conclusion. Thank you. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read Talk:List_of_onshore_wind_farms#Restructuring and posted a response there. You will see when you read my comment that I have agreed with some of your opinions, but disagreed with others. I have tried to be a helpful as I can: I hope I have succeeded in being helpful. Let me know if you have anything else to ask me, or any comments about what I have written. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. It is in fact, one way or the other, very helful. I have responded there. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you found my efforts helpful. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Sphere Value-added reseller Nap Moomin Connected category Veneroida Rutland and Melton (UK Parliament constituency) Tales from the Elvenpath Tero Kinnunen Walkway 2-category Group Sounds AOpen Subcategory Braided monoidal category Enter (album) Spot Kitee Kuolema Tekee Taiteilijan

Cleanup Equivalence relation Cardinality Plastic bag Merge Twin prime conjecture Functional derivative Convergence of random variables Add Sources Dell Latitude Coset Atlantic Coast Hockey League Wikify 1939 New York World's Fair Economy of North Korea DC motor Expand Thomas Robert Malthus Lenovo In Flames

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

FCPS No Contact Rule

The other editor insists on the article the way it is. It is not NPOV. I added a section, as it was suggested I do, that presents the other side, with cites. He still removes it. I don't understand how this is allowed to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.18.218 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is still no consensus although the addition is neutral. An admin put an edit block on the page. It seems to me your involvement before was NPOV. Can you please have a look again? 71.91.18.218 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Fairfax_County_Public_Schools#Response_to_a_request_for_help. I hope my response has been helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback January 18

{{Talkback|Mlaffs|Proposed deletion of WCSD-LP}}

Query from Sreenikethaathreya1998

Sreenikethaathreya1998 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)where do u live?Sreenikethaathreya1998 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Why do you ask?
2. Have you edited under any other user name, or anonymously? I see the above message is the only edit from this account, and it seems a surprising query with no context in relation to other editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous post apparently about User:David Steele Searacer

Thanks james, So the $1000.00 I donated to Wikipedia will be refunded .Yes? Or do stop payment on it ? you must make lots of money in donates if this is how you treat people that try to help. MaryAnn Smith(Steele) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.84.227 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not have the remotest idea what you were talking about were it not for the fact that your edit history shows that you have made several edits to David Steele Searacer. I am not sure what you mean by "how [I] treat people": I have tried to explain as courteously as I can to an inexperienced editor why his editing is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. It is also far from clear to me how he has "tried to help": all I see is repeated attempts to use Wikipedia to publish promotional material about himself. However, perhaps I am missing something: if so please explain what. I have known new Wikipedia editors before who have started out falling foul of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but whom I have been able to help, and I am certainly willing to do the same again for anyone who is willing to learn, so please let me know if there is any more help I can give. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Alliance for Animals page

Hello I am trying to put up a page for Alliance for Animals, a non profit organization, that is a no kill animal shelter. I know that many are interested in its content, and I was planning on building the site to have history of the organization, its mission, etc. Please put the tag down. Thank you.

Sunshfp (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the start made so far consists only of providing contact information. I will delete that, and also for the moment I will remove the speedy deletion tag to give you a chance to write an article. I wish you every success in improving the article, but you should realise that the article will still be eventually deleted if it continues to look as though its main purpose is to promote the organisation. I shall also put a welcome message on your user talk page, which will include links to various pages which may be of help. You cannot be expected to read them all before starting, but you should at least be aware of "What Wikipedia is not" and of the guidelines on notability. Also you should check the copyright FAQ. If you have any questions please feel welcome to ask me here. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello thank you for the time. Can you let me know how much time I have, since I am working on a few major projects at the moment? Thank you. Sunshfp (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned I am willing to leave the article for quite a while, say a month or so. However, there is no way I can promise that another editor may not find the article and decide it needs deletion at any time. I will put a note on the article's talk page asking for sympathy. I think there is a Wikipedia template to put at the top of an article for this sort of situation, but I have never used it and don't remember what it is called. If I can find it I'll put that there too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're thinking of {{Underconstruction}}? I've added one to the article. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That will do the job. I vaguely thought there was a different template which fitted the circumstances more precisely, but probably I had just misremembered what {{Underconstruction}} said. Thanks anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

2006-07 Victoria Salmon Kings season

• Hi is it possible that this page be reinstated. If the the actual written article is copyright infringement that is fine to erase, but the entire page is not acceptable, since the majority of the information are done in the same manner as the other professional team season pages. I worked hard to set up everything including season schedule game log and transactions, which is not easy to locate on the web concerning ECHL teams. I will take blame for the copyright of written material since, because I was still working on the page and forgot to show proper references and it is really dumb on my part since Wikipedia follows certain rules concerning that. But I don't feel that deleting the entire page is acceptable, since this information will not be available after this season on the internet considering the ECHL will remove any important information from its website after this season.

Thanks--Waseemg (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have also posted this message to the user talk page of Deb, who deleted the article. I expect Deb will userfy the article so that you can work on it. If this has not been done within a couple of days contact me again here and I will follow it up. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi James, Deb sent me the following message that "The rules are complicated but I hope you will understand that I don't have the option to restore the page for you." on 12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC). I would like that page to be restored with the exception of the season summary text or to gain permission to input the information all over again. Thanks Waseemg (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment on Deb's page regarding this - if she doesn't mind then I'm happy to restore the non-prose parts of the article for you. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Olaf, that's exactly what I hoped some admin would do. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

David Lichtenstein

why is it important to have david lichtenstein's residence location posted on his wikpedia page. i think that would come under the category of invading his privacy. just because one of his addresses is listed on the loan documents doesn't mean that anyone looking on wikpedia has to know where he lives! can't you just leave it alone? Thetrueword88 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I find this message quite disingenuous. You repeatedly posted a statement as to where Lichtenstein lived, and did not regard it as invasion of privacy. You asked for sources confirming that the location other editors had substituted was correct, and so I provided them. Only after that has been done, in response to your request, have you changed your line to "publishing where he lives is an invasion of privacy". This is exactly similar to the way you changed your mind on the existence of an article about Lichtenstein. You will recall that you said that he "is a private person", and did not want information about him to be made public, despite the fact that you have been a major contributor to the article, and the fact that Lichtenstein's company's web site publishes a very large amount of personal information about him.

Your own editing of the article has consisted almost entirely of two elements: removing information about him which shows him in a negative light, frequently well-sourced, and inserting material which is highly promotional of him. Much of the material you have added looks far more like the sort of thing one reads in an advertising brochure than in an encyclopedia article. A good deal of it is completely unsourced, and much of it, although given sources, is no more than the personal opinion of a not particularly notable individual. It is perfectly clear that your aim in editing this article is promotion of its subject. At least one other editor has suggested that you are in fact Lichtenstein, and it is quite clear that if you are not then you are someone with close connection to him. It is very difficult indeed to avoid the conclusion that when you protest about "a private person", and about "invading his privacy" what you are really objecting to is publishing information which you (and Lichtenstein, if that is not you) do not want to be prominent.

I strongly recommend that you read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, reliable sources, and notability, and the policy on what Wikipedia is not, particularly the section relating to using Wikipedia for promotional purposes.

Wikipedia is not for promotion. People who are subjects of Wikipedia articles cannot control what the articles contain: they do not own the articles, and cannot ensure that the articles contain only information which they want promulgated. You clearly have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing this article.

You will recall that what prompted me to write this was your claim that including information about where Lichtenstein lives was "invading his privacy". Since the information is publicly available I do not see that as the case, quite apart from the fact that this view, as I have indicated, sits ill with the fact that you have repeatedly placed a statement about where he lives into the article. Furthermore, your question "why is it important to have david lichtenstein's [sic] residence location posted on his wikpedia page?" could just as well be addressed to you, since, as I have already reminded you, you have more than once posted a statement about where he lives in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I realise now that in the above message I didn't actually answer your question. Sorry about that, and now here is an answer: it is not important to have Lichtenstein's residence location in the article, but if it is to be there it must be accurate. Putting misinformation in Wikipedia articles is not acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More Go players

Since you seem to know a fair bit about this area, please look at User talk:CanbekEsen where DASHbot listed some 80 biographies, many of which appear to be Go players. Thanks, Pcap ping 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATING FROM MY WEBSITE

I was updating the information from www.subexworld.com to subex wikipedia. As I work Subex, Bangalore I was updating the information on wikipedia. So I was not violating the guidelines. So it is an OBJECTIVE PROSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhay.kolhar (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you were acting against several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Firstly, the material you added was quite unambiguously of a promotional nature, and Wikipedia does not accept promotion or advertising. Secondly, the fact that you work for Subex means that you have a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia strongly discourages any editing of an article in which you have a conflict of interest. Thirdly, if the material was copied from www.subexworld.com then it is a breach of copyright, unless you have evidence that the owner of the copyright has given permission for free use of the material under the terms of Wikipedia's licensing arrangements. Since www.subexworld.com displays the notice "© 2009 Subex Limited. All Rights Reserved" on every page I think it unlikely that they are willing to give permission for its free use, but in any case the onus is on you to show that this has been done. I shall post on your talk page a welcome notice, containing links to various Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc: you may find some of them useful in understanding how Wikipedia works. Please feel welcome to ask me if there is any other help I can give. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Abhay.kolhar (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I was not violating the guidelines, I was pasting the contents from subex website(www.subexworld.com) to wikipedia.

I work for subex so I was updating the content.

Abhay.kolhar (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)So can I continue with editing of Subex Wikipedia from my company website www.subexworld.com.

As Subex is my company, We have to update information about Subex on wikipedia. So it is an OBJECTIVE PROSE.

Rgds Abhay

Abhay.kolhar (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to see how I can make this any clearer than I have done above. However, I shall try to clarify a few points.

1. It is emphatically not true that because you work for Subex you have to edit the article about Subex. In fact the exact opposite is true: Wikipedia policy strongly discourages you from editing an article about a company you work for, as you will have a conflict of interest.
2. There is no way that your editing could reasonably be described as "updating" information. You have added substantial amounts of new text, far longer than the entire length of the article before you edited it, and including material on topics not mentioned before.
3. I do not know what you mean by "objective prose", but the material you have added is entirely promotional in nature. Since you wrote it yourself I find it hard to understand how you can be unaware of that fact, but here are a few quotations to illustrate the promotional nature of your editing:

• Learn about our suite of breakthrough service fulfillment products.
• Learn how our suite of revenue maximization products offer you the ability to manage and reduce risks to the revenue chain and maximize operational efficiency.
• Moneta is highly effective in both traditional circuit-switched and Next Generation packet-switched service environment.
• Vector is a complete catalog-driven service fulfillment solution that enables service providers to ... better serve customers with on-demand offerings and support; drive costs out of their business through greater automation.
• By ensuring quick, reliable service fulfillment, NetProvision accelerates time-to-market for new offerings and facilitates mass-market efficiencies, while supporting crucial network transformation projects.

And so it goes on. If you really cannot see that this is the sort of writing that appears in advertising copy, not in encyclopedia articles, then you may possibly not be suited to the task of writing encyclopedia articles on ahything, whether you have a conflict of interest or not. JamesBWatson (talk)

Abhay.kolhar (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)So we understand the Wikipedia guidelines, so we will abide by that.

Regards Abhay

Your Comments Regarding Chales A. Williams III PhD

Your comments about Charles A. Williams, III PhD are often nitpicky and short sighted. Given that he has been quoted, three times, within the past month, on a single subject, by newspapers in one of America's largest media markets, makes it notable; this does not happen for most of the 300 million people residing within the United States. Specifically, this creates a pattern, which justifies much of the content related to his interest and working with abused and neglected children cited on his wiki page. Did you also miss an entire news segment committed to his work,on the highest rated news network in Philadelphia - ABC 6, which is cited on his page? Also, not everybody has the opportunity to testify before legislative committees. Typically, staffs of these committees identify people who are considered, "notable" to participate. Lastly, most “notable” comments, found in articles, are merely a few lines. If you’d like, I could provide millions of examples. So, your comments to that end are also a bit off the mark.

By the way, we will be adding more press citations, which will only contain a few lines. JamesBeeWatson (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Although my usual practice, as described above, is to answer talk page comments on the same page, this time I have thought it more appropriate to respond at User_talk:Drchuckwilliams#Your message on my user talk page, on the talk page of the puppet master for the above account. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have created a sockpuppet investigation for this user. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Question from Natalia Sosnina

Hello James,

Hope all is well,

My name is Natalia Sosnina and you have revised my page on Wikipedia.

You put the note that the article doesn't have enough notability. I have to say that this is very difficult for me to find on-line articles and proofs of my article more than i already have at least for now. I have however the pictures of my awards, diplomas, competitions etc.. I have the break down from my classification Book of Dance sport, but unfortunately those are not on-line links.

Please advise what is your suggestion to make my article valid? Should i e-mail you photocopy of all the proof maybe? or should i shorten it and change the wording?

By the way, i am not a very strong user of wikipedia, so i am not sure how to go back and read the answer, so if you could kindly send me response at nsosnina@yahoo.com i would greatly appreciate it!

I am looking forward your feed back.

Best. Natalia Nsosnina (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi James.

This is Natalia Sosnina. As you have sugested to send you a reminder-i am doing so. Looking forward to your answer.

Best.

Natalia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsosnina (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid I had forgotten about it, Natalia. Thanks for reminding me. I will make a note to deal with it within the next 24 hours: I hope much sooner than that. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here at last is a proper attempt at a reply: sorry it has taken so long. I don't know whether you have read any of the Wikipedia notability guidelines, but if you do so you will find that the general notability guideline essentially says that to qualify for an article a subject has to have received significant coverage in independent sources. There is no requirement for this coverage to be online: printed sources are perfectly acceptable, but obviously on-line coverage is usually easier to check. You offer to send copies of pictures of your awards, diplomas, competitions etc. Certainly this would serve as verification that you have received the awards, and if anyone questions the fact then that may be a useful thing to do. However, verification of facts is a quite different matter from establishing notability. No matter how much proof you can offer that the statements in the article are true, if you have not received substantial attention in independent published sources then you do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria.

The question, therefore, is whether you have received substantial coverage in independent sources. I understand what you say about difficulty in finding on-line sources, but even so I have spent quite a while searching, to see if I could find anything suitable. I found a good many web pages mentioning you, but most of them did not really fit the needs, for one reason or another. Many of them just about mentioned you, rather than giving significant coverage. Others appeared to be written by you, or on your behalf, or by or for some person or organisation that had an interest in promoting you. While page of this sort may be fine for verifying facts, they are not independent coverage, and so are no use for establishing notability. Of the pages I looked at the most promising was this metropolitan report page. Assuming this is an independent review service (which is what it looks like) and not an advertising service then it is a perfectly good source. However, even if it is a perfectly good source one brief online review may possibly not be regarded as "substantial" coverage.

The result of the above is that there does not seem to be enough online coverage to establish notability, but there still remains the question of whether there is sufficient coverage in print. You mentionthe "break down from [your] classification Book of Dance sport". What exactly is that? Is this an independent published book? Or is it a personal, unpublished, record of yours? If it is a published source then it may be good enough for the purpose, but of course I cannot say so definitely without having seen it.

If you can offer sources confirming notability then that will be really good. If you would like to let me look at anything which you think may be suitable and let you know what I think then I will be happy to help. If we can give sufficient evidence of notability to justify keeping the article I shall be very pleased, and you will no doubt be even more pleased. However, I think it is only fair to make it clear to you that when you asked "what is your suggestion to make my article valid" it is possible that you were asking the wrong question: if you have really not received substantial independent coverage then the article can never satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, no matter how much it is rewritten.

Please feel welcome to contact me again with any more questions. I hope in future I shall be able to reply more quickly. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippine administrators

I have so far been able to all I have tried pretty trivially in GBooks. Please try the others you have nominated for deletion. Yes, the original author should have done it, and I left him a note to that effect, but if he does not, it's everyone;s responsibility. Per WP:BEFORE, it is in particular your responsibility before proposing deletion. I wouldn;t ask you if I weren't doing my share also, but I can;'t do it all. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, at least up to a point. I did do some checking. Evidently I didn't look in the right places, but in my defense I will say that I don't spend the time to look everywhere I could: I genuinely think that on balance my time on Wikipedia is spent more usefully by looking in a sample of places and then moving on to other work. As for WP:BEFORE, I tend to regard it as somewhat of a counsel of perfection: it would be wrong to ignore its advice completely, but I am not convinced that it is realistic to expect everyone to always put a huge amount of time into checking. I prodded two such articles; Mariano Garchitorena and Jose Manuel Estela Stilianopoulos (unless there are some others somewhere I have forgotten: if so please give me links). The first of these you have deprodded and referenced. For the second, because of your post above, I have made further searches of several kinds, including GBooks as you suggested, and after a fair amount of time I found evidence of existence (http://www.philembassy-uk.org/philemb_previousAmbassadors.html), but still no evidence of coming anywhere near to satisfying the notability guidelines. This has, on the whole, confirmed my belief that my time would have been more constructively employed elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, and I'm glad you did not take it in a negative way, for it was not meant as such. Frankly, I too regard BEFORE as to some extent overambitious, and use my judgement in deciding how hard to look. If the material appears on its face exceedingly improbable, I tend not to try. If the necessary sources will include material I have no access to, I leave the job for others. I know I have made mistakes in deleting articles that actually did have some sources--a few have been pointed out to me from time to time, but I am sure there are others. The way we decrease error is by having people check each others' work--If you make 10% errors, and I make 10% errors, checking results in only 1%, which is probably about as good as we can get in a system like ours. Since people sometimes get careless without realizing it, I like to let people know if it's more than sporadic, or they seem to be making a systematic error, & I am glad that people do just the same to me. And there have even been times when someone has told me I ought to stop for the day, and they;'ve been perfectly right.

Additionally, a good number of article on Philippines subjects have in the past been shown to be totally fallacious, after in some cases being in Wikipedia for long periods--I recall particularly an extensive and elaborate hoax involving a fictitious broadcast network. I was aware that these were people who ought to have left obvious records, and I would not have been totally surprised if I had found nothing--but if I did find nothing, a good deal would need to be double checked for similar problems. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully accept every word of that, and, as for taking it in a negative way, there was no question of that. There are more than enough obstructive editors on Wikipedia: I certainly don't want to start feeling negative towards constructive editors, even when I sometimes disagree with them, as I have in the past with you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon Johanson, references

Hi,

Thank you for your message regarding the references. I will get the exact links and add them, and more.

Thanks again,

Abby —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abiwelch (talk • contribs) 22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ramakrishna Mission Sri Koneswara Hindu College

Hi, I removed most of the article that violated copyright rules. Please let me know if it is still problematic. Thanks, --PinkBull 17:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way James, the page you tagged it as a copyvio of (here) is in fact a mirror of a previously deleted version which was copied from here. Just letting you know in case you realise your mistake and are tempted to replace the material in the impression that it's not a copyvio. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. That could happen, though it's not likely, as I thought it was not suitable as a Wikipedia article anyway, for other reasons. Thanks for telling me, even so. Incidentally I make no apology for not noticing that the page I linked to was a Wikipedia mirror: there is a limited amount of time that's worth spending on searching. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hi James. Are you interested in the rollback tool? I'm confident from your anti-vandal contributions that you'd use it sensibly, so let me know if youd like me to grant it. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough I had been wondering about asking for rollback rights. Yes, I think it might be useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, clearly you're fated to have them then. Enjoy. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

Hi, JamesBWatson. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

prod: Robert Nebřenský

Hello James. I've removed the prod template and I added reliable citations. Robert Nebřenský is a notable musician and actor, well known in the Czech Republic, as well as his former band Vltava. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. I am glad that there is evidence to justify keeping the article, which was not clear before. Thanks for clearing this up. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the article of Chak hong Lui

He really helps for fertility patient in UK. Because of him, I am a mum now. (Chank Hong Lui) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fertilitylondon (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Snowboard27 may be offensive or unwelcome. In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. DaL33T (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While I am aware that it is usual to avoid editing another user's user page, there are situations in which it is reasonable to make an exception. I judged that this was such a situation. If you disagree then you are welcome to explain why. However, to suggest that my edit "may be considered vandalism" seems to me absurd, and to describe it as "offensive" seems to be to use unnecessarily aggressive language under the circumstances. If you really do consider that my edit falls under the provisions of WP:Vandalism then I should be grateful if you could explain why. If, on the other hand, you do not think so, then perhaps you may like to consider whether use of this template message was appropriate in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was quite busy at the time, so I apoligize. I didn't know what was on that warning because I was going a little too quickly, and I realize that that warning was not appropriate. Sorry. DaL33T (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, no harm done. It seems that you used Twinkle to "rollback (vandal)", but I think it's better to use just "rollback" except in cases of really unambiguous vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page Format

Hi there,

I note that you tidied up Fantasy Island (disambiguation). However, it was written that way to conform to the standard format for entries which have a "primary" meaning (in this case Fantasy Island).

There's more information on the subject here, hope it's useful.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Diamond Way Buddhism

I undid your revision on this page. The statement you restored is based on 3 really poor sources: An unsourced oppinion in a campus newspaper, a linkpage and a page that have a copyright-violation problem. Pink Python (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right: I should have checked more carefully. Thanks for putting me right. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ministry comic proposed deletion

I have tried to add additional independent sources to my Ministry comic article in the external links. I have also removed elements that I can't back-up (i.e. my own interpretation of the comic.) Unfortunately I cannot give an ISBN for the comics as Indyplanet only applies those to their graphic novels, not individual comics. I hope the changes will let Ministry comic stay on the site. If not, could you please tell me what additional changes need to be made and I will redo the article in my sandbox and submit it through the correct channels for approval and editing to bring it up to standard. Your help is much appreciated. Thank you.