Jump to content

User talk:JBW

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.195.68.124 (talk) at 10:55, 30 November 2010 (→‎Dustin Zito: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, unless you request otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.


Camping and Caravanning Club

You haven't protected the article here the expirary time is set for the time you made the protection. Mo ainm~Talk 19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the protection log entry as saying "expires 15:11, 22 December 2010", and the time I protected it as "15:11, 22 November 2010", so it seems you must have misread it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your correct maybe it's time I went to Specsavers. :) Mo ainm~Talk 08:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhar

Thanks for your message. I'm glad you agree with me but am puzzled that you conclude the user should not be blocked. Another admin decided to assume good faith, but subsequent to that I proved with the page source analysis that all six sites promoted by this user are indeed from the same person and this puts beyond doubt that this is a spam only account. This came *after* the original admin's decision yet the user is allowed to continue. Why? Surely it merits a permanent block. Stopping spammers is more important than upsetting the feelings of an admin who is obviously logged off now (as no further edits have been made since warning Sambhar). --Biker Biker (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation (as well as my response to a similar question) at my talk page might clear some things up. Furthermore, I'm not logged off, I'm just not actively editing at the moment. I am, however, watching my talk page and keeping an eye on Sambhar's edits. — GorillaWarfare talk 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollybrook

Hi James, I see you deleted Hollybrook. Is there material there that could be contributed to Shirley, Southampton? I thought there might have been, but I don't really remember. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the text of the article at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hollybrook/107757412580811. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. It confirms that there's nothing there worth re-using unfortunately. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Page Deleted

Sir , My page got deleted titled "Chaudhari Technical Institute". I am ready with the new content in neutral way. Should i create the new page / or i can get my old page back. Ast.bhatia (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Dragons

Hi James! I was just checking on the Dublin Dragons American Football wiki page which I created. It says that it was deleted by yourself and I'm no sure why. I noticed another post on your talk that said someone else's page was vandalized and I'm quite sure this is what happened with my page. We are one of the Football Teams in the Irish American Football League (IAFL) and are non profit, nothing to sell etc.. Hope you can help to get our page back up and running. Look forward to hearing from you! AVP8472 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for deletion by Realkyhick because he thought it seemed to be purely promotional. Reading it I agreed. Here are a few quotes from the article: (1) "The Dragons are proud to be one of the founding members of the current Irish American Football League." (2) "We attract an array of talented players from all countries including the USA, while at the same time producing some of our best home-grown talent here in Ireland..." (3) "We are proud of the fact that we have one of the best coaching setups in the country." I have rarely if ever seen any article with more unambiguously promotional prose as that. The fact that the club is not for profit is irrelevant, as Wikipedia's policy is not to accept promotion for anything, commercial or otherwise.
Even if the article were written in non-promotional terms I am not sure that it would satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Both the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (sports) are certainly relevant, and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) may be worth a look too. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, That's sounds ok. A lot of the text was taken from the Club website and it would be more promotional stuff on there. I am happy to change the article, can I get access or a copy to change the article text please. Regards AVP8472 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have userfied the article at User:AVP8472/Dublin Dragons. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great James! I have Up-dated the text in the article and I hope it's ok now. Regards, AVP8472 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ignasipuig

I see that you have now twice nominated User:Ignasipuig for deletion under CSD U2, i.e. as a userpage of a non-existent user. However, the user account does exist, as can be seen at Special:Contributions/Ignasipuig. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. Yes, but that's not quite how things were supposed to happen. Yesterday I re-nominated that page here, but that didn't seem to put a tag on the page or even seem to notify anyone of what I was doing or why. So, I followed this up today, trying to use something other than Miscellany, but nothing else seemed correct, so ended up using the speedy deletion option again - which of course didn't give me the chance to explain my re-nomination.
Anyway, irrelevant of my poor use of wiki-tools, and from personal experience, it seems to me that this is not a 'real user' in the true spirit of the word. However, I rest my case. You decide. Rgds, Mannafredo (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homospaciens

Dear JamesBWatson, I have added three online external references (see links below) from reliable sources (articles from the Washington Post, from the European Space Agency, and from John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences) that prove that, Homo Spaciens, is a term commonly used in the field of space exploration to explain our future evolution. Then, this is not an original thought, nor a review, or an invention, and it's been there since many years. Therefore, I encourage you to re-consider your position before recommend its deletion. Thank you. Homospaciens (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny at all that the expression exists, but the article is an essay which makes an original assemblage of assorted ideas into a new synthesis, and I don't see any evidence that there is significant coverage that justifies that synthesis. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring on Show Biz Bugs

I've got an IP that is edit warring on Show Biz Bugs, and may also be using another address as a sockpuppet. If he continues this edit war, give him a warning or have him blocked. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything particularly wrong with his edit; if anything, he's actually tidying it up a bit. And I will remind you that it takes two to edit war... HalfShadow 21:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 81's version is a clearer explanation, and I have restored his edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see three copies of the same edit by 98.254.83.35 and two reversions by 81.135.x.x, so who is edit-warring? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention against vandalism

Thank you for you reply. I've pointed out Observerq's edits because practically all of them have only one thing in common: a nationalistic point of view which distorts the information already present on WP; needless to say that these edits are never sourced. In order to impose his/her particular point of view, Observerq uses several strategies:

As at least 95% of his/her edits are of this particular kind, I can hardly see how these contributions could be taken for innocent cases of content dispute. Burghiu (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, can you help me please?

I created a page for a MMA fighter from Romania, Bogdan Cristea. what did i do wrong? can you please tell and to make it permanent?

i know all the details of him from Sherdog, but you cant find his age and his birth on the internet.

HELP ME PLEASE, PAL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlabel337 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As recorded in the deletion log, and also on your talk page, the article does not indicate that the subject is notable. Apart from the general notability guideline, which is linked from your talk page, you should look at the guideline on notability of people. Those two pages will show you what kind of evidence is required to justify keeping the article. Finding personal details like his age on the internet are not enough, as all sorts of people have that kind of information recorded, and that does not establish notability. You should also look at the guideline on reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mini WP:RFC

Hi JBW,
About User talk:Skumar lyi. I wrote

Your conduct has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, for the reasons already pointed out on your talk page. You may wish to discuss this on the WP:AIV page; please also feel free to contact me if you think I have made a mistake.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I made two mistakes. The first was to ask the editor to reply at WP:AIV, the second was to ask the editor to reply to me. Though I would like to think that I have adequate cluefullness, I must admit I am concerned about these two mistakes. Your thoughts?
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was exactly the sort of thing which is considered desirable or even essential in the case of a report to admin noticeboards, but not for AIV. Generally speaking AIV is for quick action when the user has already been given several warnings and therefore has had plenty of chances to reply, but is making destructive edits which need to be stopped quickly. It is not principally used as a forum for a discussion, though it is by no means uncommon for editors to express opinions there, and although it is rare for this to include the accused person, there is nothing to stop them from making a comment. On the other hand, if an admin does block the user very quickly, the user may find that they are simply unable to take up the invitation to comment, so for that reason I suppose it probably was a mistake, but not a drastic one. As for inviting the user to comment on your talk page, you are of course perfectly free to do so, but the same applies about not being able to do so if they are blocked quickly. Finally, a comment that you did not request. It is not usual to inform a user that they have been reported to AIV, and I thought, when I saw you had done so, that it was a good step. The only reason I can think of against doing so is that sometimes users remove reports on themselves if they know about them. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response - most appreciated! Things I have learned:
  • I should not suggest that AIV be used as a forum
  • I should not invite users that I have possibly suggested to be blocked to comment anywhere else but their own talkpage
  • Other than that, I appear to be doing a fairly good job here! ☺
Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree: a pretty good job. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted page

Is it possible to get the page back (hamilton lane) and put it under a work in progress tag so I do not have to start all over?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcats9801 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Wildcats9801's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I would gladly oblige if it weren't for the fact that it appeared to be a copyright infringement. Unfortunately I can't legitimately make a copy of it available for that reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the picture or the text content is a copyright infringement? I pulled the information from the company website and public sources which I did not purposely plagiarize. Thank you for clarifying, I may just need to reword.

It was the text, which is very nearly verbatim the same as that at http://www.linkedin.com/companies/hamilton-lane, as stated in the speedy deletion tag placed in the article by Cindamuse. I actually remember checking this article, and finding that the wording was, as I said, very nearly the same as that at that URL, but even more exactly the same as that at http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Hamilton_Lane, so I gave that URL in the deletion log. However, that URL no linger contains anything remotely resembling the text of the Wikipedia article. Yes, it is basically a question of rewording.

I am the original author. If I can get the linkedin page changed, can you put the page back up or is it already deleted forever?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcats9801 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 November 2010

Yes, I can put it back up. However, as far as copyright is concerned, Wikipedia requires verification that you are the copyright owner. (Since anyone can create an account and claim to be anyone.) Instructions on how to donate copyright material are given in a page to which there is a link in the copyright notice on your talkpage. However, the text would still need substantial rewriting to avoid being deleted as promotion, and you might find it easier just to rewrite it from scratch. Finally, you should be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, which discourages editing on a subject to which you have a close connection. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if you could put it back up and I could edit it from there. That was my first page so it took me a really long time. Also, the piece on Linkedin has already been changed. I am not directly associated with this company. Thanks for your help. I will be able to remove any promotional language tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcats9801 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 November 2010}}

While I fully sympathise with you, I'm afraid I must stick to what I have already said: I cannot legitimately make available a copy of what appears to be a copyright infringement. (Incidentally, the idea of a "talkback" tag is that you put it here to tell me there is a message for me on your talk page. It is not needed if your message is here. On the other hand the best way to sign a message is to put 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end. That is automatically converted to a signature, complete with a link to your talk page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

Apologies for deleting the section of your page, I thought i was supposed to clean up once finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcats9801 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfUD request

FYI Airplaneman ✈ 07:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pua training

Dear Mr. Watson,

I want to write an article about pua training that is informative rather than advertising. I saw your deleted the previous page. What do I have to do for it to be accepted?

Yours faithfully,

Darcy Plant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcyplant (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

scalado

hi i would like to provide information about scalado's technology and their background. Is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I.am.alex.smith (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:MickMacNee

Hi, would you please convey to User:MickMacNee that his comments are not welcome on my talk page? He is not to post comments under any ceircumstances except those notices required by WP, such ANIs. I consider this baiting, as he knows the restictions I'm under since my block was removed. This appears to be a stalking of either me or MJroots. Thanks. I'd also ask that me not respond in any way to my comments in AFDs, no matter what, but I uderstand if you can;t relay that request. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just said to BilCat on the Afd page, I had no idea he was 'banned' from talking to me. I certainly had no idea I was banned from his talk page - and based on the unblock discussions which I've only just looked at in his archive, the only person promising to stay away from anyone's talk page, bar ANI notices etc, was him from mine. This is the first I've heard of any full interaction bans as seems to have been promised by Mitchell, and I've certainly not received any formal notifications of such. I think the whole thing is absurd actually, I'm fine with him being beholden not to repeat the behaviour that got him blocked, as you originally seem to have offered, and leave it at that. I am not stalking anyone, but I have said before to him and I'll say it again, I reserve the right to comment in any location where my name comes up (subject of course to this apparent interaction ban being formalised), other than that, given past interactions, I've zero wish or even need to go anywhere near his talk page. If he was aware of this obligation he was under, the correct action would have been to have deleted the initiating post from Mjroots straight away, and avoid any suggestion he was even willing to discuss me and my business, rather than reply as he did. As such, I find his request to you here a day after that post, plus his calls for a block of me for supposed baiting with intent over at the Afd, rather rich indeed. If he really thinks I knew about this ban on him baiting me, does he really believe I would have let his first reply on his talk page just go without reporting it? I think not. MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not under any restriction against talking about MMN - I'm just not allowed to respond directly, as I understood the agreement. I'm going to file an ANI against Mick now for stalking - I think anyone in their right mind would know that commenting on the talk page of a user who was blocked for "baiting" - an unfair ruling in my case, but WP not being a court of law, I had no way of obtaining a fair hearing on the matter - is a bad idea. This sort of harassement is unwelcome. - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I found these messages, the ANI discussion was already very lengthy. I have read most of it, and also refreshed my memory about the past history, which I had largely forgotten. I do have opinions on the matter, but I don't think I have anything to say about it which would particularly help. I will leave it to the ANI discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uderstand, and thanks for reviewing the matter. If you have any personal critical advice or guidance on the issue, I would appreciate a private email. I try do accept responsibilty for my own actions, and any concrete advice whould be helpful. That's up to you. - BilCat (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Money as Debt for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Money as Debt, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Leisure Dome (UK) Ltd page

Hello,

You've deleted the Leisure Dome (UK) Ltd page stating that it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion"

The article was factual, and was not intended to be considered as advertising or promotion

As this is the first article I've created, I'd like your constructive input as to how I should get the article published on Wikipedia Dpwhatley 16:46, 29 November 2010

I have looked back at the article, and decided that, although it is somewhat promotional in tone, it is not totally blatant advertising, so I have restored the article. However, I think it only fair to inform teh user who tagged it for speedy deletion, so that they can consider whether they still want to pursue deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Bryan Larkin

Dear Mr Watson

I notice that you are a regular updater of wikipedia. I trust that it is a very demanding position and one that requires accurate data. I would like to draw your attention to the deletion of 'Bryan Larkin' a Scottish actor and entertainer. I am currently working as his publicist and would like to enquire about this deletion and to have it reinstated.

We rely on information about our clinets in the entertainment industry being visible on this site.

Kind Regards and thanks for your time.

Martin Kemp

Martinkwmp (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are his publicist, the guideline on conflict of interest discourages you from editing on this subject. Generally speaking, Wikipedia articles should be neutral, and not written by an involved person. However, the article was tagged for deletion because it was a biography of a living person with no sources cited. In this situation the article is left for a week to allow time for sources to be added, and if there are still none it is deleted. If suitable sources can be produced that indicate sufficient notability then an article can be written. However, I have made web searches, and what I have found comes nowhere near indicating that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. For example, a Google search produces among its first couple of dozen hits IMDb, a commercial listing site, Wikipedia, YouTube, Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter, etc etc. None of these goes anywhere towards indicating notability, either because they are not independent of the subject, or because they are not reliable sources, or both. If, as seems to me to be the case, Bryan Larkin does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, then any work put into writing an article about him is likely to be wasted, as it will be deleted again. To see what is required you may look at the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people, and the guideline on reliable sources. Having said all this, in view of the conflict of interest issue I have already mentioned, you are not the person who should be writing this article, even if notability can be demostrated. If he is notable by Wikipedia standards then probably before long an uninvolved outsider will write an article about him. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Lou Engle (The Call)

My article had a dozen or so references, was connected with Bound4life, an already existing page on one of Lou Engle's groups, hard to see what else could have been done, for future reference why was it deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanszilvasy (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a redirect at Lou Engle (The Call). There had previously been an article at the same title. The article was identical or virtually identical to the existing article Lou Engle, and there is no good reason for having both of them, so another editor had converted the duplicate copy of the article into a redirect. The redirect, however, was not very useful, as, in the fairly unlikely event of someone wanting to find an article on this subject and starting to type "Lou Engle (The Call)" into the search box, they would have a link to the article Lou Engle come up before they even got as far as typing "(The Call)". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insatanity Wikipedia Page deletion

It was not completely the same or repost, I believe I should have redirected it instead of post it again, I did not understand to redirecting and did what i thought was right. Ruinsofman (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it is not clear, he is asking for a reconsideration of the deletion, which he believes was improperly done. Ruindofman and I have been in conversation on my talkpage, but as you were the actual deleting administrator, I directed him to your talkpage for the request. LadyofShalott 05:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Insatanity. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ruinsofman (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have spent some time looking at the history of this. Unfortunately I found it quite difficult to find the version of the article which had been discussed at the AfD discussion, as it had been moved, and it took me quite a while to find where it had been moved to. It really needs to be moved back to restore the editing history of the article, to avoid future problems. However, when I did eventually find it I compared it carefully with the latest version. It was essentially the same article, but with some additional material, and so the question to consider was whether that additional material answered the points which led to the decision to delete in the earlier discussion, that is to say the lack of sufficient references to establish notability. The sort of thing I found in the references was:
  • Posts on Answers.com and whyfame.com, neither of which is a reliable source, and both of which frequently simply mirror what is in a Wikipedia article, as turned out to be so in this case. Clwearly, therefore, they are of no value as sources for the Wikipedia article.
  • A dead link to metalpedia.com.
  • A page on transcend666.com which gives one brief passing mention of Insatanity in the course of writing about something else.
  • A promotional announcement of a tour at www.roadrunnerrecords.com
  • A page at www.joelmciver.co.uk/books.html with no mention of "Insatanity". Perhaps there is a mention somewhere in one of the books listed on the page.
  • A brief mention in what appears to be a page on a personal web page hosting site at bsbb.tripod.com
  • Very interestingly, two pages at unitedguttural.com and doom.wikia.com, neither of which mentions this band, but each of which mentions something else called "insatanity". These pages were linked in an attempt to support the statement "Their influence has brought the use of their name for many things, like song titles and most notably for the fifth map of DOOM II: Hell Revealed 2" which has been placed in the article. However, the page mentioning Wolftribe's song explicitly states that the title resulted from a drunken error in writing what was meant to be "Insanity", and makes no suggestion at all of any connection with the band which was the subject of the band which was the subject of the Wikipedia article under consideration. Likewise the page about the DOOM II map makes no suggestion at all that it had anything to do with the band, and my searches have revealed no source for this claim other than Wikipedia.
The speedy deletion was requested by LadyofShalott because she thought that the new version of the article had not adequately addressed the issues which led to deletion, and, as I have indicated above, I agreed. However, I have not just looked at the existing references in the article. I have also made my own web searches to see whether there were suitable sources which could be added to the article to establish notability. Unfortunately I found nothing at all that suggested anything like satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria.
I have spent a significant amount of time in searching and checking in order to be able to give this answer, in addition, of course, to the time I spent checking before deleting the article in the first place, and I hope the results of my work have helped to clarify the matter for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Zito

I represent Dustin J Zito... Please remove all information relating to a false identification as such.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW&oldid=399701409"