User talk:JBW

Holographic Metaphoric Mathematics

I'm inclined to just let Int21hexster ramble on his user page, on the theory that pushing for deletion is more likely to cause a problem than just looking the other way. Any thoughts?—Kww(talk) 04:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as long as it is just on the user page. However, if at some he time branches out elsewhere I think it will need reconsidering. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Modifications of ICIM

I made some changes according to the editor's advice. Please see if you could delete the

of ICIM.

Thanks for your help.

Huihui

reverts of Dutch nationality law

Could you indicate to me why you reverted the changes to the Dutch Nationality Law. I thought it would be very relevant to note that the Dutch nationality covers all citizens in the kingdom and that no separate Antillian/Dutch antillian nationality exists and that this topic would be the place to place them...~groet! L.tak 08:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

At first the edit looked like vandalism, but I have looked again and decided this was a misreading. I have now restored your edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

no problem. thanks! L.tak 09:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Rockyman512's talk page.
Message added 11:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rockyman512 11:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding IPA and the Segoe font article.

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 74.194.243.162's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Second response to the Segoe/IPA talk page for my IP

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 74.194.243.162's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Segoe/IPA question

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 74.194.243.162's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LVP 1946

We could use an editor with your experience on the London Victory Parade of 1946. I would ideally have you contribute to consensus editing, which would make a huge difference because there are very few editors working on this article. But if you don't want to get bogged down with mission creep, it would also mean a lot even if you simply add the page to your watch-list and contribute to the Talk page. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Just now the controversy seems to have settled down somewhat, but feel welcome to call on me again when you think help is needed. The trouble with watchlisting it is that I have far too many pages on my watchlist, and often don't keep up to date with checking it. Also the sheer volume of text on the talk page puts me off: if I don't study all of it in depth I may make misinformed edits, and if I do it will take ages. However, this is not a "no", it is more of a "yes with reservations". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit annoying...

...to keep seeing you on WP:AIV. And on first impression you seem like the sensible type. Have you thought about one of those RFA things...? Peter 09:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Errm... I don't fully understand this message. I sort of think I get the point, but could you clarify it a bit? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you thought about becoming an admin? RFA = Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Peter 09:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realised that you probably meant that, but sorry to have (apparently) annoyed you. I am not sure I want to go through the RFA process, having to defend myself against criticisms, and also I predict that I would get some negative reaction to the very limited amount of article writing I have done. Anyway, I'll think about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise! I didn't mean that you had annoyed me. It was supposed to be a complement (i.e. that you're reporting a lot of vandals, which is a good thing). Yeah it does seem that RFA is getting tougher, I don't suppose I'd have passed mine if it had been held now (most for the same reason, lack of article contribs). If you do want to pursue it further anytime, feel free to let me know and I'll take a closer look at your contributions and consider a nomination. Only if you want of course, I won't be offended if you don't :) Peter 10:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll get plenty of criticisms, but even though you and I have disagreed from time to time, I will be the first in line to support you if you come up at RfA. You do good work, and you represent necessary ideals. Thank you for that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to co-nominate you if you do decide to accept the offer, James. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for helping me with the vandalizme on my user page JDDJS (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing name

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

Hello!

I'm first time using Wikipedia and alrady got so many warnings I don't really know how it works and instead of help and let me finish project, they trying to pull me out and asking me to confirm everything, change username ( I don't know much how edit and create wikipedia pages and will appreciate help instead of being banned all the time)

I changes my signature ( seems like it is only way I can change my username) WIkipedia said that if I will change username it will delete my account. The only option I had is change signature. Arch-TRHO 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I will appreciate if you can help me with:

1. Picture was uploaded on my page is confirmed and has autorization for use and it was provided by email to wikipedia. Another simmilar picture of Konstantin Mustafaev who is also the model - was removed from other website, just to make sure it is only on wikipedia.

2. Information we are trying to submit is only begining - it is not finished. Please remove warning from page and allow us to finish it. We need help we person who write in good English and it takes time, What can I do? Can some one from admins just tell me directly what is wrong and what needs to be changed - but I just started. I'm not talking on my page about Osman Monarchy - it doesnt exist - it's history, but they have 3 today's descendants who are ONLY carring the title by blood and do not pretend to be rullers.

Please I need some admin who can really help me with that.

Thank you

Arch-TRHO 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Royal House of Osman (talk • contribs) 23:00, 27 April 2010

The message I gave you concerning your user name had several useful links in it, including a link to the page explaining how to change your username. You can find the same page by clicking here.

As far as permission to use images is concerned, if you have emailed about permission to the correct email address it should eventually be dealt with, but unfortunately the people who deal with copyright permissions on Wikipedia frequently find it difficult to keep up with the amount of work needed, so it can sometimes take a long time. If you need to contact one of the copyright team directly you could try Moonriddengirl.

Unfortunately nothing I saw in HIH Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev or elsewhere suggested that he meets the guidelines for notability. If he doesn't then no matter how much rewriting you do any article about him is unlikely to remain for long. I suggest reading the guideline on notability of people and probably also the general notability guideline to see what is needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Sonia's talk page.
Message added 10:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

{{Sonia|talk|simple}} 10:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at EdoDodo's talk page.
Message added 11:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion of Neighbourhoods in Thane

I know this category is currently empty . If there are articles on Thane city's Neighbourhood they should ideally use this category e.g Chandanwadi,_Thane,Hiranandani_Estate,currently they are using Neighbourhood of Mumbai . Sorry i am new to Wiki editing.I am creating a page on panchpakhadi and will add it soon.

Marcuard Family Office

I removed the "services" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minders1 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 April 2010

Network of Buddhist Organisations

Dear JB Thank you for your intervention on this page. Please eradicate any changes I make that are not clearly evidenced. If possible, could you communicate the need for editors to watch the page as it is turning into an edit war. I DO have previous. However, having committed the crime, I did the time. I have learned my lesson and am now trying to adhere to principles. I believe the pro NBO editors, (who are clearly of the NBO ["NBO secretary" is one!]) are simply inexperienced in wiki principles rather than inherently malicious. Anyway, I am also sometimes responsible for mistakes. Keep an eye?94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)I'll also try to work out the way to message you suggest94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear JBW, I realise that it is difficult for editors to master all the abstruse arguments that go on over disputed edits. Your recent reversion to an earlier and disputed version of the NBO article must have been based on WP guidelines of which I'd be grateful for an explanation. From my point of view, the original stub was colonised by a contributor with a past history of vandalism and vituperation (he was the Yonteng of the NKT discussion page, for example). His interpretation of the publications he quotes has been challenged; he has also quoted as evidence anonymous web pages which there is evidence that he created himself; he has quoted a letter that is not in the public domain; he has wrested the substance of Parliamentary replies to questions available for all to see in Hansard. The Discussion page covers most of this questioning of his 'evidence' which your reversion has allowed to stand. Please tell us what we have done wrong that has caused you to take this action and what appeal is open to us against what we argue is a misrepresentation even of publicly available facts. Thanks Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the edit I reverted was promoting the organisation, and simultaneously suppressing information not favourable to the organisation. I have now looked back at the changes involved, and checked some of the references which were removed. This seems to confirm my initial impression. Editors should not remove well-sourced information from articles unless you have a good reason, and can explain that reason. In addition to this the history of articles created by you makes it look very much as though you may have an involvement in the organisation. If so then you have a conflict of interest, and tour editing is quite likely to not be impartial. The editor who removed the sourced information from the article has a history of editing entirely restricted to this one article and its talk page, so there may be a conflict of interest there too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear JBW, I'll admit that I was responsible for the original stub. I was about to leave NBO and so thought it would do no harm to set the ball rolling. However, that doesn't prevent me feeling outraged at the appearance of a contributor who has been abusing NBO anonymously for a number of years, and other Buddhist organisations for even longer, and has a long history on Wikipedia of similar attacks on at least three other entries. Since your reply makes clear that this is news to you, forgive me for boring you with the transcription of previous complaints below. Before that, however, let me comment on the fact that in his latest edits this contributor has considerably modified his attacks over the last few days when it has been pointed out to him that his sources (I notice you described them as 'well sourced') do not bear out his allegations. I note in particular that he has dropped all mention of the book by Robert Bluck which, as the contributor Ahimsa argued, said very much the opposite to what was alleged, while still maintaining the same allegations undocumented. I fail to see, also, how the citation of an email that is not available in the public domain (the present note 12) can be considered a proper source. You will understand our frustration with an attacker whose prejudice led him to make such unfounded allegations in the past and in his anonymous letters to politicians and educators in 2007 insinuated that the NBO Executive was made up of pederasts. Reading over your replies to other readers, I have taken heart from the fact that they are invariably courteous and helpful. I'll therefore ask whether it is possible to revert to the original stub without having to suffer from the kind of obsessive mud-slinging that has been charateristic of 94.192.139.167 over such a long period?

My thanks, and here are the transcripts of the web entries I have hunted out referring to this contributor. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

1. http://encyclopedia.sprinko.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive108#Yonteng_aka_94.192.139.167_reported_by_Emptymountains_.28Result:_Stale_.29

a) Yonteng aka 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: Stale ) • Page: New Kadampa Tradition (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) • User: Yonteng (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) • User: 94.192.139.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) • Previous version reverted to: [25] • 1st revert: 04:49, 21 August 2009 (edit summary: "") • 2nd revert: 08:11, 21 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 309233984 by Atisha's cook") • 3rd revert: 08:23, 21 August 2009 (edit summary: "same nkt goons-remember scientology!") • Diff of 3RR warning: [26] and [27] and [28] and [29] and, today, [30]. To show that Yonteng is 94.192.139.167, please see in the archive: [31] and [32] and [33] and [34]. • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]. This user's past few edits on the talk page have been entirely unconstructive, especially [36]. Emptymountains (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

b) 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: 1 month to the IP) • Page: New Kadampa Tradition (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) • User: 94.192.139.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) • aka User: Yonteng (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) • Previous version reverted to: 08:28, 21 August 2009 • 1st revert: 04:48, 24 August 2009 (edit summary: "") • 2nd revert: 05:46, 24 August 2009 (edit summary: "") • 3rd revert: 03:31, 25 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 309754225 by Tim Song") Please note that this is a continuation of last week's edit warring reported here: [162]. This editor keeps inserting the word cult into the lead section of the article. The reasons against such an inclusion have been discussed on the talk page: [163], but he is insistent. His methods continue to go against the advice of non-involved editors: [164] and [165] and [166], whom he flat-out ignores. • Diff of 3RR warning: [167] and [168] and [169] and [170] and [171]. • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [172]. Emptymountains (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)(and his response [173].) Atisha's cook (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC) comment - This comment is not meant to defend Yonteng's silly and obviously intolerable random addition of the word "cult" to the lead, but to give some general context. Although i often disapprove of Yonteng's style, i can perfectly understand his frustration as it is very hard to get any results on the NKT related pages. Almost all of the editors are NKT affiliated and fight ferociously (including taking turns in reverting) to prevent criticism - or what appears to them to be critical or unfavourable - from entering "their" pages. If it was left to them, the NKT-article would consist of merely an exact copy of the NKT's own publicity material. This behaviour at least does come across as a bit cult-like from time to time... To be fair though, there have been times in the history of that article when it was the other way round and critical views were very dominant in the article. Also, User:Emptymountains, from my experience, is the most reasonable of the NKT-affiliated editors, striving for compromises and a more NPOV in difficult discussions. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC) • Result - IP editor blocked 1 month. It is understandable that some admins may have lost patience due to the many complaints about New Kadampa Tradition, but this issue seems like a pure form of silly edit warring about the word 'cult', which the IP insists belongs in the article instead of the word 'organization'. It is believed that the IP is actually User:Yonteng who for some reason has not used his registered account since June, when he was given a two-week block. The IP was also last blocked for two weeks, so now it is increased to one month. I realize that an indef for Yonteng and an SPI filing might be the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

2. http://www.filepie.us/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive98#94.192.139.167_reported_by_Emptymountains_.28Result:_semi.29 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: semi) • Page: Dorje Shugden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) • User: 94.192.139.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) • Previous version reverted to: [219] • 1st revert: [220] • 2nd revert: [221] • 3rd revert: [222] • Diff of 3RR warning: [223]

Please note that today I added sources which support my edits, but the user continues to remove them. Emptymountains (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC) I've semi'd the page for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Please consider doing the same to the related Dorje Shugden controversy article, where this user is also active today. Emptymountains (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC) I am the user Emptymountains speaks of. i have reported this group to the relevant authorities and would ask that you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism as well as all the stuff in the talk page of New Kadampa Tradition as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive140#POV_edits_from_a_group_of_users_on_Dorje_Shugden These people are dodgy/slippery and this must be watched!!!YontengYonteng (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3. http://www.filepie.us/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive98 Yonteng / 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: 24h) • Page: New Kadampa Tradition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) • User: Yonteng (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) aka • User 94.192.139.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) • Previous version reverted to: [277]

To show this has been going on for a week: • 1st revert: [278] • 2nd revert: [279] • 3rd revert: [280] And, in the last 24 hours: • 1st revert: [281] • 2nd revert: [282] • 3rd revert: [283] • 4th revert: [284] • Diff of 3RR warning: [285] • 5th revert: [286] • 6th revert: [287] • 7th revert: [288] • 8th revert: [289] • 9th revert: [290] • 10th revert: [291] • 11th revert: [292] The user was reported for 3RR the day before on another article here: [293], the result of which was a semi-protect, which is why they have since registered a username. I posted this to the user on the discussion page: Yonteng, the onus is on you. Per WP:NPOV dispute, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." Emptymountains (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC) The user is active on the article's discussion page, but never listing any "specific issues that are actionable" concerning the content of the article, saying that removing his tag is "cyber bullying." I asked the user on the Dorje Shugden controversy dicussion to "agrue facts not personalities," but that continued unabated, including an attempted outing which I reported here: [294]. There was talk of a block by the administrators who responded, but I don't know if anything came of it. Emptymountains (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) New user Yonteng also making unpleasant ad hominem attacks on the talk page (and Edit Summary boxes). (Truthbody (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)) 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding comment added by Mzilikazi1939 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 April 2010

My impression that the material I referred to was "well sourced" was based on a fairly quick look at a couple of the sources cited. Unfortunately I was short of time, and did not give it as much attention as ideally I should have. Judging by the detailed account which you have given above clearly the situation is by no means as clear-cut as I thought, and certainly the editor you refer to has been somewhat troublesome. There are clearly problems on both sides, but at present I have no intention of taking any further action, as I do not feel I know enough about the situation to judge what is best. I shall keep an eye on the situation, and it is possible that at some future time I may feel I can usefully contribute, but for now I will leave the matter to you. Feel free, however, to contact me again if you wish. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at [[User talk:Ahimsa07 (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)|User talk:Ahimsa07 (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

why is page User:Sazarian/EVER_TEAM tagged for ambiguous advertising

Hello, you have tagged this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sazarian/EVER_TEAM - for deletion, and i really beleive that it is not an advertising page, can you please specify why you think it is? looking at similar companies / competitors on wikipedia such as Documentum, laserfiche,Open Text Corporation, IBM... i do not see any difference in the way they write their articles. please advise. thank you. --Sazarian (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks rather promotional in tone to me, but having looked again I don't see it as blatant advertising, so I have removed the tag. This should give you a chance to work on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't permit the use of © ® or ™ symbols in articles. In addition, there is never a legitimate reason to use the word "solutions" in any article not about solutes dissolved in solvents. This article fails both those tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. When I wrote the above post I considered mentioning the word "solution", but decided not to. I decided that, for a page in user space we could afford to allow a little leeway for a while to allow time for improvement. However, i certainly don't think the present tone of the page is suitable for an article, and even as a user space page if it stays as it is for more than a little while I think it will not be acceptable. I should really have made this explicit in my comment above. I certainly wouldn't argue against anyone who restored the speedy deletion tag. Finally, as far as the other articles referred to are concerned, at a quick glance I think one or two of them are indeed not a lot better, and maybe they should go too. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the content and removed the word solutions, I think now the updated content is ok, and with all the references that i have added. I will be adding more references in the coming days. meanwhile, can i publish the content online?Sazarian (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved EVER TEAM to article space at Saz's request. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Mamas & Papas

I am not a writer but a person who wants the public to know the other side of where it all went after the break up of the Mamas & the Papas in the late 60's! Are you still involved in this piece and if not who shall I write to? I am new on wiki and I hope that I am not breaching guidelines for this forum.

I feel that there is a need to put things right in the history of "The New Mamas & Papas" As a key vocalist with the folk-rock quartet from 1986 until 1993, Laurie Beebe (now Laurie K. Lewis) has earned a place in the history of the band who worked and spent seven quality years of her life, energy, heart and time into the M's & P's.

Laurie started out as a replacement for Mackenzie Phillips while she was trying to get her act together and get clean & sober so she could have her son (she shared this on the Oprah show in 1990) However, from the time she came back in June of 1987 until December of 1991, Laurie filled in for her on numerous occasions because whenever they left the country (which was too many times to count) a red flag would come up on her passport so Laurie was called in to do the international tours.

In 1991, Mackenzie told Laurie about her relationship with her dad. She kept tight lipped about it until Mackenzie's book came out and then she was contacted by the press and appeared on several tv shows to confirm her story. Mackenzie Phillips left the band for good when she could not work under the conditions with her dad. Laurie was called again and was told that Mac was leaving permanently. She continued to work with them from January 1991 until March of 1993. John Phillips was with them until June of 1992 when he had to get a liver transplant...then Scott MaKenzie took John's place and Denny, Spanky, Laurie and Scott continued to be the Mamas & Papas until Laurie left in March of 1993, Spanky left in September of 1993 and then the band split.

Laurie was a significant part of the group and a "Mama" who spent more time performing with with the M's & P's than Jill Gibson or Michelle Phillips put together. But I would not say that she was more important than either one of these women...just a factual person who was a part of the group and an official "Mama"!

The New Mamas & Papas story is another factual and historical story that should be amended into the article. I feel this need to bring it into view before it is no longer relevant to the next generation of music lovers who are absorbed in the history and color that surrounds the Mamas & Papas, even aftr the death of John!

All in all, most of my "proof" and references is hard copy. The internet was not a big thing until Laurie was long gone and the band long broken up...so all there was to tell was the past band and TV shows with Spanky, Mackenzie, John & Denny

There are numerous publicity pics with Laurie in them...including 8x10 pics that were taken after Mackenzie left...one with the configuration with John, Denny, Spanky and Laurie and then the configuration after John left and Scott taking Johns place.

These pics were done in a local photo studio some where in Las Vegas and the other outside of Jack Pot Nevada...so ther are no copyrioght information that I am aware of. There are also many articles, Media stories and press releases involving the New Mamas & Papas that included Laurie as one of the featured key vocalists in the quartet. Referencing these things are difficult to find on the net. You may find M's & P's pics on Laurie's my space page at [www.myspace.com/laurieklewis]

It was a very important time in the life of this band and a true historical event in the history of John Phillips and the Mamas & Papas. Please help to get this information on Wiki. For more reference please see article [1]

Bebfire (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have sent this message to me. I have no memory of ever editing to do with this, and certainly I have not edited the article The New Mamas and The Papas, as the edit history of that article shows. Perhaps I once edited something related to it, but I have made well over 20000 edits on Wikipedia, and I don't remember all of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mohammad Arif

I am Shadowbhia Arif my father Mohammad Arif is a candidate for California Governor in upcoming June 8, 2010 election in California. I tried to fix the speedy deletion but find myself in vain because I'm not too familiar, I need your help and support to upload Mr. Mohammad Arif page on Wikipedia. He is one of the 23 certified candidates, people in California who wanted to vote for him are looking negative when they find deletion on his Wikipedia. I am sending you the basic fact about him and photo will be available:

Mohammad Arif (born January 30, 1969) is a candidate for Governor of California in California's 2010 gubernatorial election. Arif is running as a Peace and Freedom Party candidate. He was a Secretary of the Treasury during Howard Johnson Campaign for Senate in California. According to his campaign website, Arif is a supporter of the common people of California, leading to the adoption of the campaign slogan, "People are Power".

Hailey College Educated Graduate in Commerce and Master in Economics is willing to perform California Executive and Leader as a Governor. He was elected Executive Member of County Central Committee, he got top one-third votes as an "Independent Candidate for California Governor in 2003."

Mr. Arif is the Chairman of Peace and Freedom Party in Kern County, Peace and Freedom party is one of the ballot-qualified parties on the ballot in California.

Regards

Shadowbhia Arif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowbhia (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 May 2010

Have you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Arif? If you haven't then I suggest doing so, because that explains why the article has been deleted. Nothing in the article indicated that Mohammad Arif is at all notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Nor does anything you have said above, nor anything I have seen anywhere else. If you have not done so you should certainly read the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for politicians. If you can show that he satisfies those guidelines then a new article can be created. However, on the basis of what I have seen it seems to me that he does not satisfy them, in which case you are probably better off accepting the fact that he does not qualify for a Wikipedia article, rather than wasting more time on it. It is a common mistake to think that Wikipedia accepts any contributions on anything, but in fact we accept only articles on subjects that satisfy our notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi James,

Thats not problem I totally understand now. I will make the appropriate changes and re submit the page as required... only thing is i am finding this whole process really complicated... Maybe you can help me? I would like to delete both the Talent and Production page & also the Elliott Seller one and start again in the4 format you have suggested :)

How do i perform these actions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirs44 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I found editing Wikipedia pretty confusing at first, so I am not at all surprised that you do.

As far as deleting articles is concerned, only administrators can do that. However, if you have created a page and you are the only person to have made any substantial contribution to it then you can request deletion of the page by putting the tag {{db-self}} at the top of the page. Normally an administrator will then delete the page. In the case of Elliott Seller I have added the tag for you, and a note on the article's talk page explaining that you have requested deletion.

For the rest of the process, I see you now have a page User:Eirs44/Talent and Production Website. If and when this is ready to release as an article you can do so. Bear in mind the need for notability, and you may find it helpful to read the guideline on reliable sources if you haven't yet done so. Also remember that material which appears to be intended to be promotional is likely to be deleted. If you have any other questions about this please feel welcome to contact me here again. Also some of the links in the welcome message on your talk page may be useful to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

God this is stressful! lol

Hi James, sorry to be a pain but I am really struggling here lol. I appreciate what you have done with the Elliott Seller page regarding deletion, however when I altered it earlier it also got removed for being A7 or somthing? I have no idea what that is & I read the A7 guidlines but I dont see how my article about my career failed to meet guidlines??

Also I edited the eirs44/talentandproduction page to make it more 'neutral' and made the changes you suggested... I didnt know how to make that live so i clicked move and put it under the title of Talent and Production...

Have I done anything correctly, i feel like im fighting a losing battle now... Just want to know how to upload my own 'elliott seller' article, like my friends (charlotte Mcdonagh) and a Talent and Production article too

Is there a simple way to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirs44 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The first thing to say is that, since you refer to "my article about my career" you should really read the conflict of interest guideline, if you have not already done so. Wikipedia strongly discourages editing in a topic in which you have a conflict of interest, and requires great caution if you must do so. Next, I have already posted on your talk page examples of promotional language you have used, but you have kept much of the same tone, including some of the very examples I gave. In this context I can really do no better than repeat what I said on your talk page: "I can only assume you are so closely involved with the subject that you cannot stand back and see it from a distant enough perspective to see how it looks to an impartial observer. If this is the case then you would probably be better off not editing this article, as you are unlikely to be able to give an objective account." Next, I have looked at the article Talent and Production, and have seen no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability and reliable sources guidelines, although I drew your attention to the need to follow these. You have given numerous links, evidently intended as references for the article, but as far as I can see all of them are either links to Talent and Production's own web site or else links to web pages that don't mention Talent and Production: in neither of these cases do they even begin to contribute to showing notability.

I sympathise with someone who comes to Wikipedia thinking that writing a couple of articles will be straightforward, only to find a string of obstacles and, as you say, "feel like im fighting a losing battle now". However, I think you may be making a mistake that I find is often made by people new to editing Wikipedia who come here to write self-promotional material. That mistake is thinking of the question "how can I get my article accepted?" rather than of the question "am I suitable for a Wikipedia article?" From what I have seen it looks as though you probably don't satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. If that is the case then you would be better off saving yourself further wasted effort by not struggling to try to get your articles accepted. If, however, you do satisfy those criteria then it should not be too hard to find evidence that you do. However, that requires substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of you and your web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Eric Trautmann

Hello JamesBWatson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eric Trautmann, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 20:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, having thought about it I think you are right. I have tagged it for references instead. Thanks for letting me know of your decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I guessed with the amount of patrolling you do, you might not check again to see it. :-) Regards SoWhy 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed Prod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Historic Charleston Foundation, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I removed this PROD because off this national recognition [2] and the fact that this is a new editor's 1st article. Indeed it can be improved, but we shouldn't bite the new guys, we should mentor them instead.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Donncha1

In fairness to this user, I don't think he edited from an IP address after he was blocked, as you suggested on his talk page; those edits were made before the block. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

On at least one of the articles in question IP edits came after the last edit by Donncha1, which made it look like block evasion. Thank you for pointing this out: I shall check more carefully in future. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Your suggestion of an RfA

I've replied on my talk. Peter 22:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I've created User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA, and added a reply. Peter 17:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You for everything you do here on Wikipedia. --Fumitol (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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

List_of_family_offices_in_Switzerland

I have the content of this list created from VSV, the phone book (www.tel.search.ch) and Google. I searched for Family Office. How should I reference this best?

I added the VSV as reference, but do I need to reference the phone book and Google? From the phone book and Google I have only added organisations with a website, where I could be sure that they are family offices. Unfortunately, family offices are not regulated and have only a SRO like VSV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minders1 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 May 2010

Information in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be supported by coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Thus, for example, the list includes Beekay Family Office LTD., Zurich under the subheading Multi Family Office. To justify including this entry in the list there should be a reference to some reliable source which tells us that Beekay Family Office LTD is indeed a "Multi Family Office". At present there is none: just the inclusion of the name of the company in the list, and that is all. In principal it is also not sufficient that the company exists and is a "Multi Family Office": there should be enough coverage of it to show that it is notable. However, the amount of notability needed to justify putting an entry on a company in a list is less than the amount needed to justify having an article on the company, so a moderate amount of coverage is likely to be sufficient. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I spend some time to find a better source than http://www.vsv-asg.ch/htm/mitgliederliste.htm (has over 1000 members), where I could find all other organisations as well. Only 4 organisations are regulated by SAAM (I found one more family office). Any ideas how we could proceed? Because it is so difficult to create a list, I think it is valuable to have a list. --Minders1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

The whole issue of list articles is one on which there is considerable disagreement, with some Wikipedians thinking we shouldn't have any at all. Personally I don't go that far, but I do think that there should be evidence of notability: just having a list of pet gerbils because someone interested in pet gerbils has decided to make such a list is not good enough. To indicate notability there must be at least some source cited to justify inclusion of an item on a list. I am just about prepared reluctantly to accept a link to a Wikipedia article about the item in question, provided that article has good sources, although Wikipedia articles are not really reliable sources, and this compromise is not ideal. As far as this particular case is concerned, I know very little about the subject, and do not really know what sources might be available. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

• Swiss Association of Asset Managers (SAAM)

Minders1 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric Pickles

I think my change should upheld solely on the grounds of style and accuracy. Celebretionary isn't even close to a real word, and confectionery was misspelt. If you must, make it celebratory confectionery, but better still get rid of them both as they are redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.88.188 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you look at the following edits I made you will see that I removed the sentence in question as vandalism. Reverting your change was just a first step. Sorry that a side effect of my editing was that you were given a vandalism warning by the anti-vandalism tool I am using (Huggle). I have now removed that warning. However, it should also be considered that this edit which you made was completely unacceptable. I accept that the later one was well-intentioned, but it did not completely remove the vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your reverts without discussion

Sir, you ignore my edit summaries and just issue threats. Your behavior is uncivilized. I will no longer edit this page, but you've just lost my respect despite numerous barnstars you display proudly. 71.146.87.61 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you consider my editing in this light. I have read the two notices which were placed on your talk page as a result of my actions, and I cannot see why anything there should be regarded as a threat, but since you have seen it that way I apologise. You do not have to stop editing the article in question. At first sight replacing "Many Hungarians fled to the United States after the Soviet invasion in 1956 and during the Second World War and Holocaust, a significant percentage of whom were Jewish" with "The constant influx of Hungarian immigrants was marked by several waves of sharp increase" did not look constructive, but I am perfectly willing to consider your opinions on this if you would like to explain them. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Electric Mist

It's not vandalism Goodman's first name in this movie is Julie it's not my fault !! See the imdd page : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910905/

Not so good for an anti-vadalism !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.130.143 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. It does help to use edit summaries to explain what is going on. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tantalum Capacitor

Thank you for reviewing the edits I made to the Tantalum Capacitor article. Could you indicate to me why you reverted the changes I made? I added references which I found to be very relative to the article and sourced the current information very well. Thank you for your time --Lindseyrose 09:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindseyrose (talk • contribs)

I thought your edits to the article, all of which consisted of adding links to material from one company, looked like spam. I have looked back at them, and, while the links may be seen as a little promotional, I accept that they do provide useful sources and are not blatant spam, so I have restored them. Thanks for letting me know about your concerns. Incidentally, when you post to a talk page it is best to type 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end of your post. This is automatically replaced by your signature. Not only does this save you the trouble of typing your signature by hand, but it also gives a links to your talk page etc, which can make it easier for other editors to follow up your contributions. JamesBWatson (talk)

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

hmm

Ok, how's this an attack on anyone though, Jesus is a commonly used name and if someone's nickname is Obviously Jesus, I don't see how that can instantly be referenced to the religious figure if nothing in the article brings up any religion. Someone will click on this article and not see anything religious whatsoever, this is like saying if I made a page for a guy named Jesus Gomez, it would be taken down for saying that the religious figure Jesus is of a hispanic decent when he is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptotinman (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The article contains completely unambiguous attacks on the person it is written about. For example, you refer to him as a "shark", and make childish remarks about his growing up "loving giant penises and guns shaped to resemble penises". So far as I know nobody has suggested that there is any religious issue involved: certainly I haven't. The fact that the person you have attacked has used a nickname with religious connotations is irrelevant. What matters is that you have attacked that person. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Spam???

Please stop falsely caracterizing as spam that which its not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.13 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you told me what edits you are referring to. At the moment the only edits of mine that I can see have any connection with you concerned addition of external links contrary to the guideline on external links to avoid, but I did not refer to them as spam. if you are referring to something else then please let me know exactly what, so I can judge whether I have made a mistake, and if so correct it. JamesBWatson (talk)

My apologies. I had forgotten that the level 3 template on inappropriate links uses the expression "it is considered spamming". I have now removed that wording. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The official pages of the political party/alliance the article refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.13 (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I am leaving those links in place. However, the YouTube link is more questionable. JamesBWatson (talk)

Article on artnet

Hello James,

I am very sorry to hear that the article about artnet does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Of course I am happy to include more footnotes in the various sections, the new annual report was just published - I have to say though that the annual report is probably the most important printed source artnet has; would that be sufficient, or do I need to include various different kinds of sources?

Thank you very much for your help.

Best,

Wasserfloh (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The company's annual report is fine for confirmation of facts about the company. However, there is another issue involved, which is "notability", and for establishing notability the annual report is not useful. The point here is that Wikipedia does not aim to have articles about just anything, but only articles on subjects which have received a certain degree of coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subjects. The company's own annual report is clearly not independent of the company. In fact, since every company will have its annual report, the fact that there is one is no indication of notability at all. To get an indication of the sort of thing that is acceptable as indicating notability I suggest you look at the notability guideline for organizations and companies. It is probably also worth a look at the general notability guideline. The editing history of the article shows that Phil Bridger thinks the business is notable, whereas when I looked at it I didn't. However, that was just over three months ago now, and I do not have a clear memory as to exactly what I found when I searched for evidence of notability, so I cannot comment now on how good the evidence of notability may be that Phil Bridger found. What I can say, however, is that no indication of notability is shown in the article. If you can find suitable sources to show notability then I strongly encourage you to add references to them, otherwise the article may sooner or later be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. I understand your point regarding notability. artnet (like Sotheby's, for example) is one of few art companies to be publicly-traded on the stock market (pls. see http://www.skatepress.com/?cat=56). Significant coverage of artnet can be found in many third-party sources, e.g. The Economist, Hoovers, Art in America, The New York Times, etc. Please do not delete the article, I'll revise it by the end of the week; I will include the updated figures from the annual report, as well as independent sources. Wasserfloh (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can do that then that will be great. I have no plan to take any more steps towards deletion at the moment. (Of course that does not mean someone else can't do so, but I wouldn't worry too much: I am saying it is possible, not probable.) It is worth mentioning that any reliable published source is acceptable, though it is easier for other people to check your sources if they are publicly available on line than if they only exist on paper. This does not mean that you can't cite paper sources, but it does help if at least some of them are online. Also, nowadays even such sources as newspaper articles are likely to have online copies too. Let me know if you have any further questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, James, I appreciate it very much! Wasserfloh (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback on Illegal immigration to the United States

You rolled back this edit,[3] which does not appear to be vandalism. It's great that you're patrolling so actively, but please only use the tool for clear cases of vandalism.   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I can't now see any reason why I reverted that. It may have been a slip: possibly accidentally clicking the wrong button in Huggle. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I hit the wrong buttons all of the time.   Will Beback  talk  08:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have posted an apology to the talk page of the editor whose edit I rolled back. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"You're a gentleman and a scholar."   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Purloined User Page

Hi JBW. I seem to have gotten into bit of a scrap with Ofcourseofcourse (talk · contribs), and since you are listed on WP:ASSIST I seek your advice. After I had reverted and warned this editor about his repeated vandalism of the Fernando Alonso article, he created a user page as a copy of mine, complete with barnstars and stuff. I thought that a bit obnoxious, so I blanked it with a suitable comment. My new best friend didn't appreciate that, so with this pithy comment he reverted me. Somehow, the exchange of edit summaries does not encourage my belief in a negotiated solution, but what would be the appropriate way to proceed? Incidentally, I am strongly tempted to PROD Grand Prix Race Manager (Game), which he just created, for crystal balling and lacking notability, but that would probably look too much like a vendetta. Favonian (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor stepped in, but I would actually still like some advice on how to tackle this kind of situation, should it arise again. Favonian (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several ways of trying to deal with this sort of thing, none of them perfect. I will mention a few of them, and indicate my own feelings about them.

Sometimes if a new user creates a user page which I think is unsuitable but not totally objectionable I simply leave a message on their talk page explaining why it is unsuitable, and leave it at that. If I think the page is a bit more unsuitable then I may blank it, with a suitable edit summary, and perhaps a note on the corresponding talk page explaining that user pages are supposed to be related to contributing to the encyclopedia. This is, of course, what you did. Often this works, but sometimes, as in your case, it doesn't. Copying your page was evidently intended as a form of harassment, but of such a mild form that you probably would not get a lot of support if you tried get serious action taken on it. As far as the dishonest use of barnstars is concerned, a while ago there was a user who repeatedly put a user box making a false claim onto his user page. Several editors, including myself, thought this should be stopped, but the consensus that developed was that the user box system is based on trust, and if it amuses someone to use them to make false claims then they are being pretty silly, but it is harmless, and they should be left to do so. I have thought of raising this at Wikipedia talk:User pages, with a suggestion that Wikipedia:User pages should say that deliberate false claims are not allowed, but I think there is a good chance it would not gain consensus.

On the whole I think usually the way to deal with such incidents is: (1) Remove the silly material, with at least a suitable note in an edit summary, and perhaps one on the user's talk page. This is perhaps more likely to succeed if done by someone other than the "victim" (in this case you). (2) If that doesn't work then leave it. The sort of person who does this is essentially trolling, and fighting them is feeding the troll, which is exactly what they want. In such situations I tend to think that if the person's life is so empty that they have to get amusement by such silliness then it is their problem, not mine.

Of course, if the attempt at harassment goes further, such as making attacks on you, or making objectionable edits to your user page, then that is a different matter, and some further action is reasonable. In this case first address a really polite message to the editor on their user page, explaining nicely why you would like them to stop. If they persist then you can take it further. How does one take it further? Well, there are several options. If the editor in question is here only to be disruptive, and is making very few or no constructive edits, then once a few warnings have been posted to their talk page a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism stands a good chance of getting them blocked. (Note that for this to work, except in cases of an extremely offensive nature, it is essential for there to have been a few warnings, including at least one that explicitly mentions the possibility of being blocked. If you are using the standard templates this means at least a level 3, and preferably a level 4 too.) In more complex cases a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents may be a good idea, but note that you will get more sympathy there if you have been totally reasonable and polite, even to someone who clearly doesn't deserve it, so that it is abundantly clear that the fault is all on one side. However, I would like to emphasise again that in my opinion in mild cases it is often better to simply forget about it. I remind myself that I can make a useful contribution to only a few of the millions of pages on Wikipedia, and what little contribution I can make will be more usefully employed somewhere else than in trying to deal with some child (it usually is a school child) who wants to put a few silly lies on their user page. One final thought: in a case where you do think that you need to follow it up and not just walk away, it can often work out much better if someone else can be involved too, so that it is not just a battle between two people.

I hope my remarks have been of some use and/or interest. You are very welcome to make any comments about what I have said, if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

After I wrote the above it has occurred to me that I should have mentioned one more method of dealing with unacceptable user pages, namely submitting them at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I don't think the present case is serious enough to be worth doing that, but it is certainly one method which is sometimes useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

James, I think there is a substantial difference between the dishonest use of userboxes and barnstars in this case: because Ofcourseofcourse copied the signatures he wasn't just making false claims but falsely attributing opinions to others. That's much worse in my opinion, and I'd be much quicker to block someone for it than 'mere' lying. Indeed, misrepresenting others is explicitly forbidden by WP:TALKNO. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't thought of that distinction, but it is a significant one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your advise! Keeping cool is certainly important when dealing with this kind of editor, who, as one of his recent actions demonstrates, is turning downright trollish. Still, I wish I could take credit for this response. Think I'll give him a wide berth for the rest of his career. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Following the edit you mention above, if any more attempts to harass you take place then I think it should be followed up, but I think it may be best if you are not the one doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Roger that. And thanks for informing the editor about the errors of their ways. Favonian (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The plot thickens! Ofcourseofcourse seems to have stopped editing, but a "new" player has appeared. Issuedealt (talk · contribs) started his career with this bit of trolling on my talk page, whereupon he created a user page strikingly similar to User:Wikipeterproject. The original author of this has been involved in editing Mark Webber, and Issuedealt's third contribution was this characteristically belligerent edit to that very article. Articles about Formula One drives are also Ofcourseofcourse's favorite topic. In my opinion, our friend has now taken a decisive step into the realm of vandalism, and I'm inclined to break my vow and report him to WP:SPI, but I would like to hear your opinion first. Favonian (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in love with JetLover

Why must you deny our love by reverting his user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.58.174 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you do not understand how close me and him were. Please let our love be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.58.174 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Scarlett (G.I. Joe)

• I’m sorry to bother you, but I thought I should let someone know about a user called Doctorfacts[4]

He/she keeps deleting and adding wrong info on the G.I. Joe Scarlett page and never gives any explanation as to why[5]

To explain what is going on the page as best as I can... he/she keeps stating on the page that there was it implied that Scarlett was romantically involved with the character Duke and then goes on to say that they were together... now that doesn’t make any sense since implied is not an answer and yet in the Relationships section, it says that they were together. There's no source or episode from that cartoon show to prove that. I'm trying to be as accurate as I can on that page and I have listed which episode and have written out the scenes that explain that. But looking at that person's history page, that user goes on to remove any info that says otherwise no matter what and gives no reasons too any of this or that he/she will listen or stop and it seems that very little control goes on over there. Again I'm sorry to be a bother, but I thought someone should know of this. That person just keeps doing that.

This person is out to delete information just because he/she doesn't agree with it.[6]

Something needs to be done. 75.60.208.208 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the edit history of Scarlett (G.I. Joe) since 6 August 2009, when Doctorfacts started editing. It is clear that Doctorfacts has been continually edit warring over that period in an attempt to keep certain claims in the article. I know nothing about Scarlett (G.I. Joe), and so have no opinion at all as to the accuracy of the information Doctorfacts has been adding, but consensus is clearly against Doctorfacts, with several other editors having reverted edits by Doctorfacts. However, as far as I can see no attempt has been made to discuss the issue, which should be a first step. If an editor continues to work against consensus after an attempt has been made to resolve the issue by discussion then further steps can be taken, but discussion should come first. I strongly recommend explaining what you see the problem to be, in as courteous and constructive a manner as possible, on the article's talk page, and also drawing attention to that on Doctorfacts's talk page to make sure that Doctorfacts is aware of it. If after a reasonable time the attempt to resolve the issue by discussion has not made progress then please feel welcome to contact me again. However, I think in the first instance discussion between the editors who are involved in the dispute should be tried. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I thank you for your time on this. When it comes to people who knows more of this type of info... I can't find any that are still here who has the power to do something. I don't know how one would go about finding such a person here. When it comes to talking... that user has made no attempt at talking about this about at all and it seems that nobody is there. Well see what happens 75.60.208.208 (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Even so, you should try to start a discussion. If the other editor fails to respond then we can move on from there, but if you are seen not even to have tried to sort it out by discussion then you are less likely to get support if it does turn out to be necessary to go further. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have taken this too at least two other people who have or should know more about this than I do and I have said something on the talk page. How long should I wait until I come back to you? 75.60.208.208 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)