User talk:JBW

Active Banana's AIV

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 58.71.79.8's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

David Amoo

Hi - would you be able to drop the content of the deleted David Amoo article into my dropbox. He's notable so I would like to tidy and restore the article (even if it was created by a banned user. Thanks Steve-Ho (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

about spooler UTM article

hi dear admin. at first sorry for my bad english writing. i create one article with this subject : SPOOLER UTM but you deleted my article with this title : (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://parskharazm.com/Portals/_Spooler/HTML/Spooler_EN.htm) spooler is one Unified Treath Management application in internet. spooler is native product in UTM base. other UTMs in the word such as ASTARO, Cyberoam, IBSEngine, NetAsq and .... please verify my article and dont delete this article. it is not advertising article. my article in farsi language is in here. our site is http://www.parskharazm.com or http://www.spooler.ir and i design this site and the contents are posted with me. my email is mahdi.faraji@parskharazm.com and i observe the copyright. thanks dear admin. Mahdifox (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Kalifa Fai-Fai Loa

Hey. You deleted Kalifa Fai-Fai Loa which was created by a banned user. From what I recall the page itself wasn't that bad and the player was notable (though maybe unsourced), is there a way I can recover the source and edit it before starting the page again? Mattlore (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this and your reply on the block. Most of the page details are basic factual stuff (statistics, dob etc) so I don't see the problem, it would be the same if I started it from scratch (just take me longer...) but I will rewrite what I can before I move it to the main space. As for the block, I wasn't sure if I should approach the admin who blocked me or not for advice so I asked you instead - being blocked was rather a shock as I've been around here for over four years and never had a warning or anything so I wasn't quite sure the best way forward. Mattlore (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

POLQA

Hi: I noticed you deleted the "POLQA" incubator page. That page was in the incubator awaiting review for reinstatement following updating; new external references had been added that demonstrated the original deletion complaint was in error. Could you please reinstate this page at least to the incubator so it can be reviewed, or at least give me some way to retrieve the text so that a new article can be started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.205.127.124 (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more precise as to exactly what page you are referring to? There has never been a Wikipedia:Article incubator/POLQA, and I don't know what else you may mean. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Taztouzi is back

Hi JamesBWatson. Wanted to let you know that Taztouzi is back, making the same old edit [1][2][3][4], and he has also created an article Mohammed Al Maiman containing the same misinformation. I have submitted an SPI request WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Taztouzi. I put various notices on his new talk page [5][6]. Is there something else I can do? Thanks. Susfele (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Update -- The new user name has been blocked as a sock. In his last edit he came up with 5 dubious sources (Wiki's and promotional sites) naming Al Maiman as the 2nd runner-up. I think he is trying to invent the evidence he needs to get the Al Maiman name to stick in the Mister World 2010 article. I feel quite concerned about it actually. I tried to write up a fairly complete history of the whole thing on Talk:Mister World 2010. I mentioned some things you discovered. Could you take a look at what I wrote to ensure I didn't misrepresent you? And let me know if you think it's inappropriate? Thanks. Susfele (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the vandal has worked out the trick of creating an account, leaving it idle for a few days, and then rapidly making enough trivial edits to get autoconfirmed, so semiprotection won't work. If it continues maybe we should consider full protection. I have deleted the article the vandal created under CSD G5 (Creation by a banned or blocked user), and I would suggest tagging any future articles for this. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much.Susfele (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Eye Candy Films Pvt Ltd

mr jamesbwatson

why did you delete eye candy films page??? please tell me why you are playing god on wikipedia???

eye candy films is a production house based in mumbai and they are into commercials, music videos and feature films production.. i have even give the link for the website.. www.eyecandyfilms.in... why did you delete this page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallamraju (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted Eye Candy Films Pvt Ltd for the which I reason stated when I did so, which was the same reason that you were told on your user talk page by the editor who nominated it for deletion. This did not constitute "playing god". (Incidentally, my experience is that generally speaking editors tend to get more cooperation from other editors if they are civil.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback|77.95.97.42

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 77.95.97.42's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Battle of Phillora

Please note the edit that I did was based on reliable sources which I had cited in the articles Battle of Phillora and Battle of Chawinda. I am reverting your edits as the information changed are exactly as mentioned in sources. You can take up the topic on talk page if you have doubt.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Verismic

You deleted this due to conflict of interest (I think). I've never disputed this situation, but those commenting and editing the PC Power Management article have very similar conflicts of interest and threatened removal of products that did not have an associated article for the organisation. To answer this I created a page in the format of one of the more well-established articles Faronics. I'd ask that this Verismic page be re-instated or that you review what is happening specifically on the PC Power Management article so that the same position is taken across all vendors. There are people on there claiming impartiality when in reality they have a vested interest and I hope it would be clear from the discussion threads that I've tried to point out this in the past. At the moment it seems that people hiding their interest are able to edit or comment as they please whereas I am open about where I come from and that puts me at a disadvantage.

Appreciate your comments. Mgmcginn (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, in general I do agree that sometimes declaring one's interest can sometimes put one at a disadvantage compared to others who hide their background, and I fully sympathise with you if you think this is happening in this case. However, as far as the specifics of this case are concerned, I did not delete the article because of conflict of interest. In fact, although Wikipedia urges caution in editing if you may have a conflict of interest, such a conflict is not in itself a reason for deletion. The article was deleted because its tone and character appeared to constitute promotion. I would have deleted it no matter who had written it, and conflict of interest did not come into it. Conversely, despite your declared conflict of interest, I would not have deleted it had it not seemed promotional. (Naturally a promotional article is more likely to be written by an editor with a conflict of interest, but that is a different matter.) The discussion at Talk:PC power management is quite long and involved, with some of it somewhat wandering off the point, and I am unwilling to put in the amount of effort it would take to critically evaluate every detail. However, Wikipedia requires some evidence of notability for inclusion of information. There is a common tendency in the case of articles which give lists or tables for editors to take the fact of a subject's having a Wikipedia article as the criterion for inclusion of that subject in such a list or table. However, this tendency has no sanction from any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Whether some of the other products have more notability under Wikipedia's definition than yours I do not know, but the way to decide is to consider how much (if any) coverage they have in reliable independent sources, not to consider whether they have Wikipedia articles. I see that the question has been raised at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Links_in_PC_power_management_article, and the suggestion is made there that conflict of interest has played a significant part in editing of this article, and that an attempt has been made to deal with the problem. Finally, any decision about the existence or otherwise of Verismic has to be based purely to the content of that article: there is nothing in WIkipedia's policise or guidelines to support keeping an article in order to justify what happens in another article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In some ways I'll be glad to see the back of this because it has been a pain having to keep an eye on it due to other people's activities; it just seems odd that this is singled out when it is very similar to others on the PC Power Management article. Sources listed on the Verismic article were external sources such as Capita, Boulder Valley Schools, various press agencies and so on although yes, some was from the Verismic home site as would be expected. How much is required to justify its continued existence in comparison to the other vendors/products such as PowerMAN (Software), Verdiem etc? I need to understand the fairness in this and to be certain that this is a decision across the board as applicable recognising that some vendors/products based on these criteria would be more notable than ours. If only we have a bigger marketing budget to get more press. :) Mgmcginn (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The deletion was not because of a lack of sources, but because the article seemed promotional in character. If other articles on similar topics are no better then that is a reason for deleting them, not for keeping this one, but I have not investigated them. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Slightly frustrated because I had tried to avoid being promotional and making wild claims. I'd tried to be factual as far as possible by just stating what products there were, what they were designed to do without making huge lists of features, and details such as where the organisation was and in what countries. Promotional details are reserved for the website. Is there an example you could quote of someone that has balanced this well? I also realise you haven't reviewed others but maybe it might be worthwhile due to the reasons why this one was created in the first place. You aren't the first to comment that an article of our own is not required for notability as this was previously marked for deletion but then rescinded. This view certainly isn't being shared by everyone and I'm pretty certain me attempting to follow the pattern you've outlined here would be seen as me being fair at all, rather trying to affect competitors. Anonymity could have been far simpler. Appreciate you responding, will stop bugging you soon. Mgmcginn (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Put simply it feels like my article has been deleted for reasons not being applied to others in this space. Just asking for a level playing field. Please restore it or deal with others related to this in the same way. Too much to ask? Mgmcginn (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made a quick glance at the articles you seem to be referring to. They look as though they could do with some improvement, but none of them strikes me instantly as promotional. Restoring a promotional article because an editor with a vested interest in it wants it is totally against Wikipedia's principles. The other suggestion you make seems to be to delete the other articles you refer to, for the same reason that the article you want was deleted, i.e. because they are blatantly promotional. The way to ask for deletion of a page for being promotional is to add a speedy deletion tag to the top of the article. {{db-promo}} is a suitable tag. If you do that then it is possible that an administrator will think the articles are so blatantly promotional they should be deleted. You may also find WP:OTHERSTUFF useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please can you confirm if this article was tagged for speedy deletion before you deleted it? The article was about a notable product in the field and it is a shame it was deleted without a discussion. Could you have just marked it {{db-promo}} as you suggested? Perhaps you could restore it to my talk page and I will have a go and re-writing it to avoid any hint of self promotion. Many articles about companies/products work in a similar way so I don't quite get why this one was singled out for such harsh treatment. Hnobley (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You raise several points. Here are answers to some of them. Yes, it was tagged for speedy deletion before I deleted it. Therefore the question of marking it with {{db-promo}} did not arise. Could I have achieved much the same effect by just leaving the article as it was, with tag there? Yes, but the whole purpose of a speedy deletion tag is to ask an administrator to review the article, decide whether deletion is appropriate, and act accordingly. If "it is a shame it was deleted without a discussion" is just an expression of your personal feeling, then that is fine, but Wikipedia's deletion policies and guidelines do provide for deletion without discussion in certain circumstances, promotion being one of them. I don't think this article was "singled out": hundreds of promotional articles get speedily deleted. It is true, and unfortunate, that some of them escape, but that is not a reason for letting them all escape. You may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you haven't done so already. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

When was this marked for speedy deletion and who by? I had been active on Wikipedia on this day and saw no speedy deletion notice. There had been one a week or so earlier that had been rescinded after discussions with another moderator. In this case the deletion happened so fast there was no opportunity to ask for anyone to hang on (which I know is an option available prior to a speedy deletion) while the article was justified. With the article gone I can't see history of updates but I know it couldn't have been there more than a few hours at most as I was moving between office and home at the time. Did you look at previous conversations regarding notability with Marknutley?

Is Hnobley's suggestion of restoring for him to have the opportunity as an independent to de-promotionalise (is that a word?) it an option? This was a VERY speedy deletion and came as a real surprise. Was this marked by another moderator/administrator? Mgmcginn (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was tagged for speedy deletion at 11:35, 21 September 2010 by 81.149.198.107, and deleted at 11:58, 21 September 2010. The time it takes between tagging and deleting varies considerably, from less than a minute to many hours, depending on when an administrator gets round to it. 23 minutes is not an exceptionally short time, by any means. I actually agree with your implicit criticism of the way the speedy deletion process works: there may or may not be time for an author to respond to a proposal, depending on rather arbitrary circumstances. I have often thought about raising this issue, but I have never really been sure what better system to suggest. Certainly some articles need to be deleted immediately (libellous pages, for example). We could have a two-tier speedy deletion system, with some criteria being only semi-speedy, but would this on balance be better? We already have four different deletion processes, which frequently confuse newcomers, and I don't think that having yet another one would be a help. I do tend to hold back from deleting to allow time for a response when the tag has been very recently placed, especially in the case of a newly created article. However, as often as not I find that the only effect that achieves is to give another admin time to delete the article. Marknutley had tagged the article for speedy deletion on 8 September 2010 under CSD A7 (no indication of significance), which is a completely independent issue from the question of promotion, and I don't see that an assessment of one should depend in any way on the other. Finally, I have userfied the article at User:Hnobley/Verismic. This is, I hope, a short term measure to allow it to be improved and then returned as an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

These things happen, I did try to find out how speedy 'speedy' was meant to be but couldn't find anything that discussed normal periods for response so thought this would probably fall into that grey area. Actually, 25mins wasn't too bad, but without the history I couldn't see it. Appreciate yours and hnobley's involvement here and look forward to the results of the update and hope it's a bit stickier this time. Mgmcginn (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Viscera Trail article

Why is this page so inappropriate? I mean, I created a lot of good pages such as Viscera Trail and Lehavoth which about known bands, plus I brought lots of info and references and all, and its get deleted without a reason. JackShestak (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viscera Trail. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Netcallidus

Hi there,

I am editing company pages that I know of and adding information. I just received the message and wanted to edit it to comply with the guidelines... I only manage to go to the toilet and when came back wanted to place {{hangon}} to edit it...but it was already deleted.

Can I still edit it?

Kind regards, Katy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katyperrylove (talk • contribs) 11:50, 22 September 2010

You are evidently referring to Netcallidus You can recreate this article if you like. However, if you do so, please make sure that you avoid writing it again in a promotional way, as repeatedly creating the same article without dealing with the issues that led to deletion is not a good idea. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Winbank page deletion

Hi there! Could you please provide me with some information on why the winbank page was deleted? I had started working on the internal links but did not have enough time. What should I change or write different ? Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankergreece (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was written in the way that the company might write its own promotional material for its potential customers, rather than in the way an uninvolved outside observer might write an impartial descriptive account for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. If you honestly did not see it that way, then my guess is that you are probably closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

AdventureQuest AFD nomination

Please undo this speedy deletion. I don't believe the nomination was appropriate, and had objected to the original speedy nomination. Rather than addressing my concerns, the nominator seems to have simply replaced the speedy. The AFD appears in the article history, and I see no gain in expunging this from the record, only the likelihood of increased confusion in the future. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this page. On the whole I agree that it makes more sense to preserve the history. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI re: returning vandal

Back on this archived thread on ANI you mentioned using some small range blocks. The user posted again to my talk page saying they plan to be back again tomorrow, and their past record suggests they'll stick around through the weekend. Not sure if it's worth re-applying the range blocks for a few days, or to just go on with revert/block/ignore. As far as vandals go, they aren't really a concern, although they do seem to think that they are the first to use dynamic IPs amd/or proxies, or a much bigger threat than in reality, or some other silliness. Just thought I would request your thoughts on it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC

This is all just ridiculous. RBI will probably work best. But this vandal is just nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.68.186 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 September 2010

I think that it's a question of whack a mole. The range blocks I tried were not very effective, as the vandal IP-hops too much. Most of the IPs that I know have been used fall into two ranges, one of which I have blocked, but the other one is rather large, and there are also a couple of isolated IPs used. (I have, however, blocked the IP that made the above comment, as this is clearly the vandal in person. Actually that comment is one of the things that encourages me to think range blocks might be worth while, as that comment and another comment the vandal made indicate that the vandal does not want range blocks, which suggest that they do actually inconvenience the vandal to some extent.) On balance my feeling is that for the sake of the small amount of time it takes to revert and block each time, we may as well just do that, rather than spending effort on other methods. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

It Has Been A Huge Inconvienience That On Email...You Said That My Info Was Wrong...Take A Look At This Page URL...http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/1408411/A-Conversation-With-The-Inventor-Of-Email.htm...If You Still disagree...then fair enough...but at least give me a hearing...(not literal)

Shaxelen (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In this edit you said that all of the existing information in the article was false. It is entirely possible that there are some errors there, but to claim that it is all false is absurd. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My Friend Did That At School While I Was In I.C.T Lesson Talking To The Teacher...

Shaxelen (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Cookies

		Cookies!
		Thank you for all your help cleaning up RC today. :) You seem to be a very active and competent administrator. Sincerely, Clementina talk 09:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

User:JuanF7

Hi, I always thought that disruptive edits was grounds to report a user that has done the same edits even after a final warning on back to back days, but I guess am wrong. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess this must refer to a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, to which I suppose I replied that the edits were not vandalism. It depends on the type of disruptive editing,but generally speaking for repeatedly making the same edits the place to report is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Otherwise, if you read the page Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to which you linked, you will see several suggestions, including reporting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is a very common mistake to think of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism as a catch-all place for any kind of editing that you think is unacceptable, but it isn't. vandalism is specifaically editing with the malicious intention of doing harm. Any edits which are intended in good faith are not vandalism, however misplaced that good faith may be. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me. By the way am just going to let him do whatever he wants, it is to much hustle at the end, thanks anyways. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I changed my mind, I will continue to revert his original research, since no administrators seem to care at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, thanks anyways. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Read. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy14and16

He admited to using Andy14and16 which was editing while Pooet was blocked as a sockpuppet. That is sockpuppetry right there. I mean I will assume good faith because his uncle has been editing fine. But just wanted to note, it was clear he was sockpuppeting and admits it even in his unblock request. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Secret Agent Lupin III

You cannot delete a real series. This is not a hoax. I happen to know James Adams in a comic book convention. I want you to return the series or next time I retype it, do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.7.115 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I will try to remember to look out for it when you recreate it. Please make sure you provide reliable sources so that the information in the article can be verified. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Saginaw Public School District

We had an edit conflict. Since school district articles make a good framework. I was in the process of removing the promotionalism So I restored the article with the promotionalism removed. Hope you don't mind, but it seemed the simplest thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Far from minding, I think you have done a good job. I will restore the edit history, for copyright attribution reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion summary

You forgot to leave one for Cristinel Gurguiatu, might want to fix that. — ξ^xplicit 21:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Block modified

Hello James. I hope you don't mind, but after continued disruption, I've modified your block of an IP from this morning. Considering the gross incivility and complete lack of maturity this editor has displayed, I revoked his talkpage access and extended the block to a year. Hopefully he will find some maturity in the coming months. If you have any problems whatsoever with my actions, please don't hesitate to let me know. —DoRD (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a Copyright problems with Reign Toni

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

Dear James B. Watson, and thank you so much for your information about the guidelines regarding creating pages. I have no problems with my page being deleted. Shall I do so myself, or wait for any of you doing it?

Beste helsing Mette Kalrsvik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mettekarlsvik (talk • contribs) 10:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A possible vandalism

Can you look at [7]? The numbers from IMF website has been changed by this user. It's possibly a vandalism to write 8480 instead of 8723. Maybe this user uses data from another website but he does not use it in references. Kavas (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Numbers game

This edit is valid, as discussed on my talk page, where I provide valid sources for it. I am not being disruptive. As I do not wish to be blocked, however, would you please kindly undo your revision of that edit? Thanks, 68.55.212.251 (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)