User talk:JBW

Iron Mask (band) Deletion

Well, I'll try to clarify what I wanted to say. Sorry for my English, I'm from Belarus - this is not english-speaking country. This article is my first post. I just wanted to say, that band "Iron Mask" is the project, that is more popular and more commercially successful as another Dushan Petrossi's project "Magic Kingdom". In Wikipedia I've found an article about Magic Kingdom. So I thought, that if THERE IS an article about this project, there should be an article about the project, that is more popular - "Iron Mask". Their latest album "Shadow of the red baron" is highly appreciated by many well-known rock magazines - for example, Burrn! Dushan is considered to be the guitar hero #1 in Belgium, so I thought, that there should be an article about his band "Iron Mask". I've already posted information of the album "Shadow of the red baron" in Wikipedia, in article "Red Baron in popular culture", and there were no problems with this post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 19:32, 18 July 2010

Jaysen Stevens

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysenstevens (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 July 2010

Talkback

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MCSKY (talk • contribs) 08:31, 26 July 2010

Talkback

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MCSKY (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 July 2010

Re: LGBT rights in america 'opposition'.

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 82.111.134.82's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.134.82 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 July 2010

DATAVIDEO wiki entry

Can you please explain to me what the difference it between the article that was up on this page and this other one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewTek Why was this datavideo wiki corporation article entry deleted by you sir?

Could you please leave the FACTS of the company? This in fact is a real corporation, compared to those others on the "VISION MIXER" area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_mixer

Scroll all the way down on the vision mixer page and you will see a list of manufactures.

Maybe put a little more attention to everything else in the articles before you delete them since all you wiki nerds seem to be "delete" hungry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.77.194 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Datavideo was deleted because it gave no indication of significance of its subject. Nobody, as far as I know, suggested it was not "a real corporation". Thank you for drawing my attention to NewTek, which also gives no indication of significance of its subject, and will probably be deleted soon. Wikipedia administrators are largely dependent on other editors flagging unsuitable articles, as we cannot check every article ourselves. You may like to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Incidentally, I think you are more likely to find that others co-operate with you if you are civil to them, rather than saying such things as "you wiki nerds". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tim Burton's middle name

Hi JamesBWatson,

maybe you would like to add your opinion at Talk:Tim Burton#William or Walter.

NB: Just for the record:

1. Google hits for "timothy walter burton" -wiki -wikipedia: 11.900
2. Google hits for "timothy william burton" -wiki -wikipedia: 46.300

Nageh (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No speedy

Hi, you declined a G6 speedy for move Miscellaneous_symbols here. I checked earlier that there is no other usage of that title than re Unicode, so I concluded that the short name is unique enough (a concurrent meaning should/could create a new article name, when created). Also, it is a redirect already, which says the same. I cannot see an existing conflicting meaning or usage. Anyway, this was my line of thought. Solved different now, adding "(Unicode block)". After this, I won't contest your declination. btw, could you take a look at a third one waiting, Letterlike symbols? -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no other page with similar title, but it seems to me that it is obvious what "Miscellaneous Symbols Unicode block" refers to, but not obvious that "Miscellaneous Symbols" refers to a Unicode block, so the former seems a much better title. I feel exactly the same about "Letterlike symbols" too. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So I named the target article per WP:DABNAME Letterlike symbols (Unicode block). -DePiep (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

nuclear microscopy vs. nuclear microprobes

Dear JamesBWatson,

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that nuclear microprobes have a lot more applications than only nuclear microscopy, e.g. proton beam writing. The International Conference on Nuclear Microprobe Technology and Applications is a series of conferences organized every two years, just finished in Leipzig, Germany. Proton Beam Writing was one of the main interest of this conference.

There is an International Committee of the conference series, which has decided that we need a wikipedia entry for this field of research. So, I would like to ask you to leave this page, do not delete is, it makes sense scientifically.

Thank you.

Irajta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irajta (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Satisfied customer

Just thought I'd let you know: [1]. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, how nice to see such a constructive and adult level of discussion among Wikipedia editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Blinded by Faith wiki

Hello,

This is most likely a typical newbie question but here it goes:

I had began a wiki page on the band Blinded by Faith and it was sadly deleted on me while still being in the works... I can't spend more than an hour or so a day on it therefore, now that it is deleted, is it possible to retrieve it?

As well, instead of having it posted without it being final/completed and marked for deletion, have it in some form of "working on it for now - don't delete this page please!" mode?

Thank you, -Sk8a Joe (talk)

I have restored the article to User:Sk8ajoe/Blinded by Faith. This is a temporary measure to allow you to work on it until it is ready to be restored as an article, and not a long-term way of avoiding deletion. Nothing I have seen suggests that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if it doesn't then it will not be suitable as an article no matter how much it is rewritten. The most relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. You should also have a look at the guideline on reliable sources. Feel welcome to ask again here if you have any more questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben Rector Page Deletion

I'm curious as to why this page was deleted. I believe that he is a notable artist who has charted on itunes pop charts and billboard, toured with big time names like Five for Fighting, is the #8 selling artist on TuneCore right now, and has been featured on TV shows. He is #8 out of 200,000 artists on TuneCore. I'd appreciate any insight. Thanks!

--Jordancn (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I admit the article was not unambiguously about someone of no significance, but it did not make it totally clear that he was significant, and the references given were either to blogs or to pages which give him only brief mentions. However, since you have questioned the deletion, and since there is some suggestion of significance, I will restore the article. If you want to prevent it from being deleted again try to give a few reliable sources to indicate that he satisfies any of the relevant notability guidelines ( Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (people)). Feel welcome to contact me here again with any further questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Ali Wilson entry?

Why did you delete the Ali Wilson entry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Wilson

Who asks you to play god? Such an ignorant editor...

The page has been up for quite a few years. Yes, in hope that someone would finally edit it and add more information.

But why on earth would you go ahead and delete what little was there?

You bored? Power hungry?

If I were the artist, I would sue you.

You did not have a valid reason for deleting the article.

The reason you gave shows you know little or nothing about Trance Music and its culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.36.9 (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You may or may not be interested to look at the sections User talk:JamesBWatson#Deleted Blinded by Faith wiki and Ben Rector Page Deletion above to see how I respond to editors who make civil queries about deletions I have made. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bibliolis Books

Hi James I'm just wondering why you deleted an article I was working on for you guys? The article was a few sentences long but I was, as I often do, writing the article when I have a chance to do so - contributing to Wikipedia isn't, unfortunately, the main highlight of my day so I need to fit this around other jobs.

I understand you following an editorial policy, that makes a lot of sense, but you need to wait for an article to be written first, to get to a point of critical mass, usually beyond a few sentences, and then make an editorial decision on that; if you need to edit or delete at that point then by all means do so, no ones going to blame you or hold it against you. What you've done is delete the beginnings of an article that amounted to no more than a couple of sentences.

Ive had this problem before - for example an article on Warwick Fairfax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick_Fairfax (by all means check the history page). The article was posted for speedy deletion by somebody who had never heard of Fairfax, yet the briefest and most cursory look on Google, and even a little general knowledge, would have revealed that Fairfax was a substantial figure in some major financial scandals in Australia in the 1980s and was part of a very high profile family that had been publishing for more than a century. Fortunately, a wiser head prevailed and the article was reinstated, only to be added to and built upon by a number of contributors since.

I'd also like to bring to your attention that at the time of the speedy deletion notice for that article, it too, was only a few sentences long.

I thought that the point of Wikipedia was to have the general public make contributions, and then these build up slowly over time to make more complete and more detailed as more and more contributors add to them. This doesn't seem to be the policy any longer, why has it changed? Why are you locking contributors out?

Looking forward to your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.140.133.57 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, for future reference, it helps to indicate what article you are talking about. After a couple of minutes searching I decided that you must be referring to Bibliolis Books. At the time of deletion there were no references at all, and the text of the article consisted of two sentences, neither of which gave any indication that the company was in any way significant. I fully understand your point about it taking time to write an article, and the first version does not necessarily have to be complete. However, if the subject of the article is significant then it should be possible for even the very first version to contain a sentence suggesting that it is significant. If you do not know of anything that you can say to indicate significance then you do not know that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, and you should not be writing an article on the subject until you do know that. My suggestion is that you collect the information you need off wiki, and post it as an article only when you are ready to include an indication of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD outcome

Hi, excuse me I chose you at random as you are online. This AFD outcome Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lex_Coleman was affected by multiple sock puppets, could you userfy it for me so I can have a look at it, with a regard to merging or recreation? Off2riorob (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also thought that it may be more correct to ask the closer of the AFD User talk:Lankiveil so I have also asked the same request from him, as even though it was over a year ago he may still have some memories of the close. Off2riorob (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You are probably right. However, by the time you posted your second message I had already written the following. I would be interested to know who were the sockpuppets and what is the evidence that that is what they were. I have looked at the AfD, the deleted article, and links given in the AfD. My provisional conclusion is that the article was probably full of inaccuracy, and I doubt that there is anything worth recovering. However, I have userfied it at User:Off2riorob/Lex Coleman for you to examine. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw your move, I have got it. You may well be correct, there is an ongoing issue and a death claim at the other Coleman and claims that it is or could be this person if it is a real person...all very confusing and I am really looking to find all the details to see if I can work out exactly who is dead or not as the case maybe. I presently have no intention of adding any of it the the main space..many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the code that strikes through blocked users, I have added it and it is great so that when you look at the AFD any blocked users get a struck line through them, and the socks are clearly visible - four of then are blocked from that AFD. There is a section commenting on the Lester Coleman talkpage. I have found it a very useful monobook addition. If you want to add it, I will dig the exact code out for you. Off2riorob (talk)

importScriptURI('http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 August 2010

Wow! That is really useful, and I had no idea it existed. Thanks a lot. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Off2riorob (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

117.254.75.49

See 117.254.75.49 (talk · contribs)s talk page, blatant copyvio over multiple articles, thanks for reverting. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ik Kudi Punjab Di

hello thank you Accept Request i want create this now i add information not copy write it punjabi movie detail only  : —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manpreetsinghfdk (talk • contribs) 12:27, 4 August 2010

I have removed the copy of the proposed article from here: it does not belong in a talk page.

1. You give no sources or verifiable evidence. We cannot have an article on the basis of "rumors".
2. The article you have suggested promotes a personal point of view, with such comments as "we hope this movie also gives us some message and breaks all previous records". Wikipedia articles are not for promoting an opinion, and need to be written from a neutral point of view.
3. I have searched for information about the film and found mostly promotional sites and non-reliable sources (e.g. Facebook).
4. The text you gave appears to be a copyright infringement of http://vibedesi.com/forum/movies-discussion/1528-ik-kudi-punjab-di-amrinder-gill-new-2010-movie.html.
5. The text was incoherent, and not in comprehensible English.

I should think that is enough to indicate that the proposed article is not remotely suitable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson#My time on Wikipedia

You can just put {{clear}} underneath (or beside) the userbox, instead of putting a bunch of extra lines. dffgd talk·edits 13:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew there was a better way of doing it, but didn't remember what it was, and never got round to taking the trouble to find out. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Crookstill etc.

Thanks for the help. Author left a note on my talk page and on Talk:Brad (British Rates and Data)--but perhaps you saw that one already. Much appreciated, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

/* Oquos Technology */

Hey James, can you please suggest how i can add this page, I am not promoting any product, I recently saw this Technology at a conference and felt like it deserved to be on Wikipedia. The technology is quite innovative it absorbs up to an ounce of liquid and always stays dry, This Technology can be used to help not only incontinence, but one day it may be used in other industries and therefore having it on Wikipedia is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philtercom (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have articles about subjects because they "deserve" to be here, but because they satisfy our notability guidelines. It is clear from what you have written above that you wish to have the article because you think it is a good product and wish to show that fact to people. This is what "promoting" means. Finally, we do not have articles on subjects because one day they may be significant: see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a product, it is a new Technology. I am "teaching" people about Oquos and how it absorbs moisture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philtercom (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Product, technology, person, company, club, book, band, religion, philosophy, it doesn't matter. Wikipedia does not exist to "teach" people about anything new that someone wants to be more widely known about. That is called "promotion". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Radio boys and the short wave mystery

Hi. You PRODded this, and I deleted it; but then I saw that the author had protested on the talk page and suggested a merge to the radio station article. So, mutterring under my breath, I brought it back, but told him it could still go to AfD and I thought it had very little chance of surviving that; so, I said, your plan for a merge sounds the best way to save something, why don't you do that by adding a brief para about it to the radio station article, and then save us trouble by tagging this one {{db-author}}? I'll keep an eye and see what happens. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback re: "Just Northwestern"

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

Rocky Mountain Wildcat (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wondering Brit

Hi James,

Ok, I've spent a while reading up on everything and I think I understand. As such, feel free to delete my input because after a few hours on this, I simply can no longer be bothered. I'm sure in time someone will eventually write and effective article on who or what The Wondering Brit is or is about, but today it isn't me. I think it's right that you screen these things, I too have come across many an eyebrow raising articles over the years and I certainly don't want anything I may write to be looked upon in the same light, I don't think it does, but then it hardly looks like a normal wiki post.

regards

Chris (Chris258258 (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC))

Replied on Chris258258's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

deletion of page

Why are you saying that the page has no indication of why it meets the criteria for being here? It clearly indicates that it is in the category of Zen Buddhist monks and the content is about a Zen Buddhist monk.Zenmonkgenryu (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Being a Buddhist monk is not enough to establish notability. Have a look at WP:Notability, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to contribute here as there is a whole section for bios of Buddhist monks. Why is it that the page I created, which is exactly the same in terms of content, is not appropriate and all the others are?Zenmonkgenryu (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Have you looked at the guidelines I have linked above?
2. Look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did and it is exactly the same as all the bios in the same category. I also placed the hangon tag as requested. Did you even read the page? Come to that, have you read any of the pages in the same category?Zenmonkgenryu (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Since you say you have read WP:OTHERSTUFF I don't understand how you can still say "it is exactly the same as all the bios in the same category". This article gave no evidence of notability. Other articles are irrelevant.
2. Placing a hangon tag calls attention to the fact that you think there are good reasons for not deleting. However, unless you actually provide such good reasons the mere fact of having placed a tag does not prevent deletion.
3. Yes I read it.
4. No I haven't read the others. They are irrelevant (as you know, since you say you have read WP:OTHERSTUFF). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback from 210.87.17.162

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 210.87.17.162's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.17.162 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 August 2010

G T Tilak

I would like to know why G T Tilak page was deleted? --WkBuzz (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Ganesh T. Tilak, the reason was given on your talk page by Timneu22. Have you read that message? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

About edit war

The user undo my edits and insist removing images in Lot (Bible) and Sodom and Gomorrah again and again. I think this is WP:harass. Maybe that user want to edit war however I don't like this. Can you please block that user as you talked from above? Thanks. --Player23 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no question at present of my blocking one party to this edit war and not the other. I have responded at User talk:Player-23#Request for intervention on edit warring, and also posted an almost identical message at User talk:MCSKY#Request for intervention on edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for assistance for block that user not only because of the edit war, and more is harassment. Someone using a new account to target a user in certain field is simply harassment. I just want to quit the edit war and I think that if not stop that user more harassment maybe come to me. Whatever thanks your comment.--Player23 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That user harass me again! In Sodom and Gomorrah arcticle. Just a few days after he revert my edits again. PLEASE BAN THAT USER FOR NO MORE HARASSMENT TOWARDS TO ME.--Player23 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That user insist in edit war. After the edit war a few days he is watching my contributions. I hate to being targeted by that user. Another user doing in same way in Chinese wiki, similar behaviour. It may be his puppets.--Player23 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Please add any more comments on this topic to this section, rather than starting a new section with the same title each time you comment.
2. You repeatedly say that the other editor is harassing you, but I see no evidence of it. Do you think that reverting your edits is in itself harassment? If so then I have to disagree: it looks to me like a sincere disagreement about the content of the article.
3. You say that you "just want to quit the edit war". Then why not just stop? It really is easy: you just have to stop doing it.
4. I am a little disappointed that neither of you responded to my last attempt to help, but much more importantly I see that considerable progress has been made towards producing a compromise version, with both of you participating. In this situation for you to keep calling for a ban on MCSKY does not seem constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit war is colded after a few days, so I think there is no edit war again and making consensus of other wikipedians (the page view stat is high). However that user watch it and just revert my edits. This is targeted revert. Furthermore, it is only revert by him, no any other wikipians doing this. If you or other wikipedians revert the images, it is another issue.--Player23 (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not respond to the request because I don't know if agreeing to it would mean I can not edit the articles anymore.

player23, I reverted your edit because the image is terrible for the page Sodom and Gomorrah. The city of Sodom itself can barely be seen in the background, and the main subject is Lot and his daughters. The article is already illustrated by sufficient images, which all clearly depict the city of Sodom. Simply inserting irrelevant images makes the article harder to navigate and read, and it creates a disconnect between the images and the text it illustrates.

It is not a targeted revert towards you, and I have no accounts in other encyclopedias. MCSKY (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all - I'm out of this before I get caught in the crossfire. Strong suggestion to all involved that you take JamesBWatson's initial advice - there are 3,372,853 other articles to edit! Friendly regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Lion of Punjab

The Lion of Punjab is a Punjabi film by Diljit Dosanjh. Shooting of the movie “The Lion of Punjab” has been completed. By this movie The Dancing Machine, Diljit Dosanjh will be making his debut as as an actor. This is the debut punjabi movie of famous Bollywood director Guddu Dhanoa. He Said “I always wanted to make one, contribute towards the Punjabi cinema and my homeland. Starring: Diljit Dosanjh, Divya Dutta, Pooja Tandon, Gurpreet Ghuggi, Deep Dhillon, Vivek Shauq, Vindu Dara Singh, Bhotu Shah, Yaad Grewal, Rupinder Kaur, Malkit Meet.[Ajmer Kainth]]Parandeep Kainth Director – Guddu Dhanoa Produced By – Balvir Tanda (Norway) and Shikha Tanda (Norway) Action Director – Ram Shetty Music Director – Anand Raj Anand Cinematography – Raju K G Story – Santosh Dhanoa (Guddu Dhanoa’s Wife) Screenplay – Sanyanshu Gupta Dialogs – Guddu Dhanoa

tell this article not copyright why showing here external link http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/The_Lion_of_Punjab

[1], {{official|http://http://www.punjabiportal.com/articles/lion-of-punjab-diljit-dosanjh-punjabi-film} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manpreetsinghfdk (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that. At the time when that message was posted my only connection with The Lion of Punjab was that I had reverted editing which removed maintenance templates and links without any explanation. (Since receiving the message I have looked back at the article and removed a link to a forum.) Nothing I have done relating to the article has had anything at all to do with copyright. I do not understand why you have given me a link to a Wikipedia mirror showing a copy of the article. Nor do I understand why you have given me a list of other facts about the film. Would you like to clarify? JamesBWatson (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Owler69, no recent vandalism?

You declined to block this user, but he had vandalism this week, created an inappropriate page, and all his other edits have been vandalism. If an account vandalizes, waits a month, vandalizes again, and so on, are we just to allow this behavior? That seems to be the case here. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism was almost all restricted to one session on 2 August 2010. There has been no vandalism since then. There has been no vandalism since the last warning. The editor has said that they have given up vandalism and will be constructive from now on. Certainly I have known vandals to say that and then continue to vandalise, but under the circumstances I see no reason not to give them a chance: if and when vandalism re-starts it will be a different matter. If we say to someone "please stop vandalising, or you may be blocked", and then after another four days in which there has been no more vandalism to suddenly block them seems to me an odd procedure, unless there are special reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking back at his contributions, almost everything was vandalism. He says he wanted to vandalize and now he won't, but that's a real rarity. — Timneu22 · talk 19:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

GRADUATE PHARMACY APTITUDE TEST

Sir as you have deleted an article written by me with the same title,i want to ensure you that this new article written by me does not match with the previous article body that had been claimed to be copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarbjeet30 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is a copyright infringement or not, if it is anything like the first version it is totally unsuitable as an encyclopaedia article for several reasons. You even said on the article's talk page that your purpose in posting it was "in order to get students knowledge about the newly updated syllabus for the new examination of GPAT the article", in other words you were attempting to use Wikipedia as a web host for other purposes than writing an encyclopaedia, which is against Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

since there is the page of GATE(graduate aptitude test for engineering)it is the new exam .so it is a encyclopedic topic as it is the new thing,and be there in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarbjeet30 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be intended to mean that there is a Wikipedia article on "Graduate aptitude test for engineering" and there therefore should be one on "Graduate pharmacy aptitude test". If that is so, then there are two points:

1. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.
2. There may be significant differences between the two cases, meaning that there is more notability for one than for the other, or simply that the one article is better written than the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Kipzock

You deleted my userpage. Please reverse this action. This is not a hoax, I as a matter of fact have self awarded this award, in accordance with the guidelines of the award. Kipzock (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As far as I can tell from this and User talk:Kipzock, it was deleted as a hoax for having a wrong level of award--is that right? dffgd talk·edits 20:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all I said I deleted it as "blatant misinformation", which it clearly was: it claimed a level of editing which the user did not have. Secondly, as for "self awarded this award, in accordance with the guidelines of the award": nonsense. The guideline is that it is awarded when you have reached a certain amount of editing. Certainly it says that you assess this yourself, but that means you check whether you have done the appropriate number of edits you have done yourself, not that you give it to yourself when you feel like lying about your editing history. As far as I am concerned putting deliberate misinformation into any Wikipedia page is vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

“ These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty, and displaying the right one does not indicate authority or competence. ” — WP:SERVICE

Just saying. dffgd talk·edits 23:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWatson, I kindly asked you to restore my user page. I think, I have done nothing wrong. Instead of replying to me you deleted the backup version of my userpage in my userspace. Your objection to the template (I placed on my page) has been duly noted here. However there is no reason to keep deleting pages on my userspace, only cause your objection might not be seen as relevant by the community. If you continue to misuse your admin privileges, I will report you at the incidents board. Kipzock (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think, this is a blatant misuse of CSD what you are doing. Re: "deliberate misinformation into any Wikipedia page is vandalism" What wikipedia pages have been vandalized, except from your action of deleting my userpage. Kipzock (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

James, please see User:Kipzock/userpage, User:Kipzock/Jimbo2, and User:Kipzock/Barnstars, all identical in content to the deleted hoax page, and ALL created (or recreated) after this user recieved a final warning about this very matter. WuhWuzDat 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note what I said earlier! According to WP:SVC, "displaying the wrong one carries no penalty." dffgd talk·edits 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view, JamesBWatson is wholly correct in his actions to date. And Dffgd please note that Kipzock has to date suffered no penalty for displaying the template in question. He has merely been prevented from doing so. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

“ This only applies to cases where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism. ” — {{db-hoax}}

Okay, this is jumping around, so also note what I've said here and here. @ Anthony.bradbury: In reply to your above comment and your comment here: Do I think the pages should be deleted? Yes. Do I think they should be deleted per G3? No. Do I think the user should be warned? Yes. Do I think they should be given template warnings, including a final warning? No. Yes, I'm not an admin, but that shouldn't make much difference. Yes, this is just my opinion, but it comes from what I've seen on WP:SVC, WP:G3, and {{db-hoax}}. Enough said for the moment. (Now, after all that, I think I need a little break from typing...) dffgd talk·edits 22:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to the G3 criteria quoted above, is claiming ONE MILLION edits, when the user in question has 19 edits, or claiming 15 years of service, when Wikipedia itself is less than 10 years old, anything less than a blatantly obvious hoax? WuhWuzDat 23:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is potential here for much fun for anyone who likes Wikilawyering. One could argue ad nauseam about whether deleting a page is a "penalty", about exactly what constitutes "vandalism", and so on and so on. I also note that dffgd has argued on this question in several places, and that others have argued on the other side in each of those places. However, as far as I am concerned, the idea that it is acceptable to use Wikipedia pages to post deliberate misinformation is absurd. If you are the kind of person who likes quotes from guidelines and policies to support everything then they can be given, but they are not needed. The attitude that editing Wikipedia is just a childish game in which we are free to play games and tell lies as long as we do it in ways that do not break some specific written-down "rules" is unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Shadowjams#JamesBWatson

I would appreciate a response from you regarding your recent comment. Shadowjams (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry... actually it's all kind of funny in that I misunderstood you misunderstanding me. I'm sorry for not seeing through your jest. Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

James, you ought to know that any attempt at humour must be preceded by a Request for process in order to be compliant. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do love process. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD on List of Hijos De Rebelde's characters

Prod was removed by an IP, just thought I'd let you know. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jes homosexual supporter.

So now it's "controversial" to be gay? Or to support the gay community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.12.185 (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it certainly is controversial to be gay: otherwise there would be no need "to support the gay community". It is much less less controversial now than it once was. However, the essential point about the edits to which you are no doubt referring is that you did not cite any sources to support your statement. It is true that one of the templated messages on your talk page also mentioned the desirability of discussing "potentially controversial edits", but this was a minor aside, really. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Jes age

Then could you at least update her age for me. Here's the source, she's 40: http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?utm_source=123people&utm_campaign=pubrec&utm_content=name&fn=jessica&ln=brieden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.12.185 (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rv on Self-determination

Hi,

I just thought I would notify you of why I had reverted what an IP user has added, which I reverted. The user added

“ Currently a massive local insurgency is on the ascendant in Kashmir targeting Indian rule in the Kashmiri parts under the control of India.Pakistan has cited the Human rights violations in Kashmir,including genocide and rape of Kashmiri Muslim civilians, at the hands of the Indian Army, and the continued presence of Indian soldiers in Kashmir as reasons for not withdrawing its troops. ”

This is naked and blatant POV as you understand. The user has not even provided a source for a Pakistani government allegation of this demeneour. The same accusations have been placed on Pakistani soldiers on the other side of the LOC. Also, I am not Indian nor Pakistani, unlike this IP user who is from Rawalpindi. I am sure that you understand it is completely wrong for Wikipedia to harbour these views, though. Wikipedia shouldn't become a mouthpiece for Zaid Hamid or a mirror of rupeenews.com.

Many Thanks.

--92.8.124.45 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re user below:

This is in response to the user below:

a)IP address is registered in Rawalpindi

b)I don't see a correlation between a wrong location and neutrality

c)where was a reference removed?

d)all references added were added to prove the point: Both sides have committed violations.

Thanks. --92.8.124.45 (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

concerning the statement above

This is in response to the user above,concerning my edits to the self-determination page:

a)I'm not computing from Rawalpindi.I'm computing from Lahore;

b)As the user above stated a false location I have doubts about his/her neutrality;

c)IF the same accusation has been placed on the soldiers on the left side then BOTH should be mentioned with proper reference instead of one being deleted and having the whole matter of mass genocide and rape shoved under the carpet.It is a consequence of the self-determination movement and therefore must be mentioned;and

d)Balwaristan.net is a politically oriented site promoting ethnic nationalism and such politically motivated sites don't really deserve wiki reference.Correct me if I'm wrong here but I do believe accusations placed by worldwide human rights organizations surpass,in weightage,accusations placed by ethno-political sites.Therefore,I will place fairly neutral references to substantiate my claim and the user above should do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.219.118 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Need your help

I saw your name in the Editor_Assistance page. I would appreciate your help about how to use Rfc, NoticeBoard and Arbitration. I am currently working on the Transcendental Meditation (TM) article, which may not be a subject of interest to you, but this is good because then you have a neutral perspective. Since I opened my account, editors that are sceptic of TM are constantly using the above tools. Me and others editors which are positive toward TM have not much experience with them. The sceptics seems much more experienced. They thus as the advantage of presenting the issues in their own way. They also have the advantage that the TM organisation is bringing out new concepts and people are normally sceptics.

However, my objective is only that all meta-analyses about the effect of meditation, which are published in peer-reviewed journals, receive about the same weight, the most recent receiving an higher weight. The sceptics position is that only some meta-analyses that used some clinical standard (but not developed for studies on meditation) should be represented. They give a very low weight to other meta-analyses because of some connection with the TM organisation, either through a declared funding or because some authors are affiliated with TM. On the other hand, it turns out that the meta-analyses that they consider have been prepared for governmental agencies with a peer-review process that they declare themselves as non standard. I say that discrediting a source because of a TM affiliation is a one-sided argument because a similar argument cannot be applied to authors, referees and editors that are opposed to TM, even though they potentially exist. (I believe they actually exist, especially in the context of a non standard peer-review, but that is not a part of the argument.)

Perhaps, you would not want to take position, but at the least you could give us some advices about doing our own Rfc, appeal to a recent Arbitration decision, etc. What is the best way to proceed from the current situation? Here are examples of action taken by the sceptics:

• Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:TimidGuy_and_User:Littleolive_oil_and_Edith_Sirius_Lee
• Rfc: Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#RfC:_How_to_best_summarize_the_scientific_literature_on_TM
• NoticeBoard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#AHRQ_and_Transcendental_Meditation

This may also be useful: Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_33#What_is_wrong_with_this_2008_meta-analysis.3F

Any comment or advice will be appreciated. Is TimidGuy banned from participating in an eventual mediation process? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is far from clear to me exactly what kind of help you are asking for. You clearly have experience of RFC, Arbitration, etc, and can scarcely want instructions on the mechanical aspects such as where to find them. Are you asking for advice on how to present your case to its best effect? That would certainly be asking me to become involved and "take a position", which you indicate is not what you want. Perhaps you can be more specific. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarence C Hulley

Hi, I wanted to alert you that I have removed the BLP-prod tag from the above article. The article claims that he died in 1981, which would not make it a BLP. I apologize if this is an incorrect action. Quasihuman (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. I really should learn to read more carefully. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry for the mistake. New to the site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerjohn23 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:82.45.192.123

I have seen that you blocked for 48 hours the user User:82.45.192.123 on August 4. Unfortunately, she/he made today silly modifications to the entries Rory Williams and River Song (Doctor Who). What should I do ? Hektor (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Clearly a repeat offender, so I've blocked them for one week. Favonian (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

:o

yer hey um that is my teacher that im editing with true information so why cant i edit it without getting told off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peopleofaustralia (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"A new, fresh sensational group" is an opinion, not a fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

then what would i write then ? because she does do a singing group at my school?