User talk:JBW

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.

Deletion of GoalBus

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at JJULEN92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Which, after careful consideration and toning down of some of the spamminess, I have now done... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leisure Dome (Weston-super-Mare) --Simple Bob (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

James, I'm sorry that there has not any recent new articles as of late. I will get you the news worthy information that you would like to see for this to make it as a wikipedia page. I will be several week before I can do this. I will be getting back surgery on monday. I only mention this so you do not think that I am just blowing it off since I will not get it back to you asap. Thanks you. Ruinsofman (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Smurfie Syco

Hi James

I am contacting regarding you authorizing the delete of Smurfie Syco wiki page, It has been linked wrongfully under copyright infrigement, I personally wrote the content of the page for Smurfie Syco for his personal web page and the content has been copied by http://www.grimepedia.co.uk/wiki/Smurfie_Syco and http://www.ragomagazine.com/news/dirtee-stank-get-ready-to-unleash-sm , I have no problem with external sources using my content but I'd like to stress that I am the original owner of said material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole Caine (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you have seen the deletion log entry, since otherwise you would not have know that I deleted the article. You will therefore have seen that I gave "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" as a reason for deletion, which would have applied irrespective of any copyright issue. You will also have seen the deletion notification on your user talk page, which links to instructions on how to donate copyright material. Naturally we cannot accept the unsubstantiated word of an anonymous editor that they own copyright. However, it is very rarely worth the time and effort spent on donating copyright in these cases, as the copyright material is almost invariably promotional, so that the article is deleted anyway. Finally, the article gives no indication of notability of its subject, which again would be sufficient reason for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

--> Thank you for the speedy response I was/never has been my intention to come across promotional, I will still in the stages of fine tuning all the irrelevant information within the post. could you please advise of the next steps to take as this is my first time using wiki system therefore I am subject to teething issues, ultimately my goal is to have a Smurfie Syco content page up on Wiki's site with all relevant information minus the promotional/advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole Caine (talk • contribs) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to give your query the attention it needs now, but I will try to get onto it tomorrow. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Cole Caine"? Is it within the rules to have user ID's that suggest illegal drugs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To come back to your question. There are various requirements for a Wikipedia article, and unfortunately for a new editor it can be a minefield. All too often a new user has a page deleted for copyright reasons, re-creates the article carefully avoiding that problem, and then has it deleted again for reasons of promotion or notability. In your case I think it is almost certain that you should not be writing an article on this subject, because it looks as though you have a personal involvement with the subject, and so have a conflict of interest. There is also the question of whether he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I have searched, and the vast majority of material I have found on him is in sources which are (1) dependent on the subject, such as his own web site, or (2) in unreliable sources that anyone can post to, such as forums, blogs, etc, or (3) both of those, such as his MySpace page. The general notability guideline the notability guideline for people the notability guideline for music, and the guideline on reliable sources are relevant. Sorry that there are so many of these. Personally I would prefer a return to the way things were in the early days of Wikipedia, when there were far fewer guidelines, policy documents, etc etc to confuse everyone. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

--> I've definitely found myself way in over my head with this one. Nevertheless massive thank you James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole Caine (talk • contribs) 11:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD of Kolinchipatti

Hello James, I was on the point of deleting this article after your speedy tag, but when I Googled it I found it is in fact a village in India. So I declined the speedy, but the other problematic tags remain and of course if these are not remedied the article could be deleted in due course via WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandals

Why not? There not IP addresses. When an editors first edits are vandalism, there is basically no chance they'll make good faith edits in the future. When blocking accounts you're only blocking the one vandal and not IP addresses which might include good faith editors. The user just created another vandalism page. JDDJS (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Motivation for deleting Dream Hampton??

I saw that you deleted the article for Dream Hampton, despite the fact that it demonstrated pretty clearly that is a notable writer, and had quite a bit of good information about her. I can only assume that your choice to delete the whole article, rather than deleting the unsourced content was racially motivated? Would you ever delete the article of someone who had been the editor of Rolling Stone? Epukinsk (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I gave the reasons for deletion as unambiguous advertising or promotion and unambiguous copyright infringement, so I'm not sure why you think that demonstrating notability and having "quite a bit of good information" are at all relevant. I am quite used to new editors who come here to promote someone or something accusing me of lying about my reasons for deleting articles or supporting nominations for deletion. I have been accused of right wing bias and of left wing bias, and of secretly working for a competitor. As far as I remember this is the first time I have been accused of deleting an article for racial reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. Yes, I would delete an article about any subject whatsoever, including someone who had been the editor of Rolling Stone, if it was a copyright infringement, if it was purely promotional, or both. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Armand Cabrera page deleted

Hi James...I'm sorry...I'm definitely clueless because the Armand Cabrera page was my first entry and I'm finding Wikipedia a bit difficult to navigate. You mentioned about copyright laws. Armand has put up a notice on his website about copywriting...."The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

So what's a gurl to do now? Will you un-delete the section on this artist? How's it work?

Thanks for your help! Diane Diane Burket (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, and I was wrong to suggest there was a copyright infringement. I am sorry for that mistake. However, the other reason for deletion, namely that the article was promotional, still stands. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view which this one wasn't. In fact it is almost never useful to copy substantial material from the web site of the subject of an article, because even if the copyright is OK, it is usually not written from such a neutral point of view. I have restored the deleted article at User:Dianeburket/Armand Cabrera. However, please note the following two points: (1) This is a temporary measure to allow editing of the content to make it less promotional. If it stays in its present promotional state for long it may well be deleted again. (2) If you have a close connection with the subject then you have a conflict of interest, and you should probably not be editing on this subject at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello James! I've spent a ton of time on the post trying to get it to conform with the standard. inline stuff, non-promotional, wiki formatting, etc. Where do I go from here? Thanks for all your help. You have been very kind and patient. I realize the answers must be on the site...but for a first time user, it's a bit difficult. Actually---it a LOT difficut.  ;-) Diane Burket (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the page, and it looks pretty good to me. You clearly have put a lot of work into it. (Please note, though, that I have only looked quickly, and have not checked out all the references.) You can certainly remove the {{morefootnotes}} and {{wikify}} tags, which no longer apply. Then you can move it back to Armand Cabrera. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied on TomCat4680's talk apge. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Teambox page deletion -

You still have not given me a reason why our page was deleted when there are 50 other tools listed. I followed every instruction and made sure it was not promotional.

19:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Karlgoldfield (talk)

The reasons I gave in the deletion log were "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", though unfortunately the last few words were truncated because they ran over the character limit for log entries. I also gave what was intended to be a helpful response to your query for further clarification on 25 October 2010, and my answer is still available at User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 20#Deletion of Teambox page. The reasons I gave may not satisfy you, but it is certainly not true that I haven't given a reason. There is also a message on your talk page from MrOllie telling you the reason why the article was nominated for deletion. The discussion which led to its deletion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teambox. If you have a specific question I can try to answer it, but I see no point in repeating what has already been said, so please let me know what needs to be clarified. Finally, what other articles exist is not likely to be relevant, both because there may well be reasons why they satisfy Wikipedia's criteria better than the one you are referring to, and because of reasons described at WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol

I notice you blocked 67.234.167.254 for his edits at Civil Air Patrol. I think he might also be editing from a range of IP addresses that includes 67.234.99.17. Would a rangeblock be possible? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Block the edit warring IP on Mouse Wreckers

I have an IP that is edit warring on Mouse Wreckers. This IP is constantly removing info that I submitted last month and is not giving any explaination for his actions. Could you please block this IP? 98.254.83.35 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:194.82.227.23

Hi James. P'raps another schoolblock? A month? --Kudpung (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In view of (1) the long term vandalism, (2) the absence of constructive edits, and (3) the past blocks, I see 3 months as minimal. Thanks for pointing it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it :)--Kudpung (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 14:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for removal

Request for removal of Telereal Trillium page as information is out of date and incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue admin (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be better to update the information in that case? If you do want it deleted you can use one of teh following two methods

1. Propose deletion (commonly abbreviated to PROD) by adding {{subst:PROD|Your reason for deletion here}} to the top of the article. if you do this you should inform the author of the article on their talk page. A proposed deletion notice will appear in the article, and near the bottom of this notice there will be a template for you to copy and paste to the author's talk page to save you having to write a message out by hand. (It will be preceded by "Notify author:").
2. Start an "Articles for deletion" (AfD) discussion. Instructions for doing so are at WP:AfD#How to list pages for deletion.

The essential difference is that PROD is intended for uncontroversial deletions: if anyone at all objects then the deletion will not go ahead. By contrast, in the AfD case there is a chance to discuss whether the article should be deleted, and it will be deleted if there is a general consensus to do so, even if there are objections.

Unfortunately the AfD method is a little complicated, and can be confusing if you have not done it before. PROD is much easier. Let me know if you want further help or advice. I am honestly not sure whether the article should be deleted, and am open to persuasion. However, "information is out of date and incorrect" is not, on its own, a good reason for deletion, as the article could be updated. On the other hand, if the company does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, that would be a reason for deletion, and at present the article lacks sufficient evidence of notability. You may like to look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The general notability guideline is also relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal

Hi James, my name's Hunter. I saw that you had given a final warning to an IP user a few weeks back who vandalized the same-sex marriage page. Just to let you know, he recently made similar edits at the page Boyfriend, as you can see from his contributions. The edits have been reverted, but wanted to bring this to your attention. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 16:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to tell you.

I mean he's all but effectively banned anyway, this is just making it official. HalfShadow 17:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Garbage Scow

Assuming that the deleted article doesn't have any copyright infringement, can I have it restored to my user space? Thanks. Buddy431 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See User:Buddy431/Garbage scow. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Buddy431 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wanker (surname)

You reverted an edit by User:Wankerdedia but I think you will find it was quite correct: it links in the appropriate de.wiki page. (The user in question has since been blocked for an inappropriate name) Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That revert was a mistake made with Huggle. Afterwards I realised that the edit was OK, and I must ahve forgotten I had already reverted it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Your Message about Deletion of Hyla aborea page

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Leighlynn89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

James, Sorry, I am writing you a message about this again because I haven't received a response from you, so I may have posted the other one incorrectly. Regarding the Hyla arborea page that was changed back into a redirect, I can see how it can be viewed as a duplicate. However, the reason that I created a new page instead of adding to the current one, European tree frog, was because that page is referring to the common name and includes 4 species within that common name. Therefore, I created a new link for Hyla arborea, like the other species that were listed on that page. The information that I added was only specifically about the species Hyla arborea, so I feel that it was acceptable and was following the existing format to create a new page. Thank you for your time reviewing my page. Leighlynn89 (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Help to get my article published

Hello, You've deleted the Gurumaa Ashram page stating that it was unambiguous advertising. The articles was not intended to be considered as advertising or promotion.In fact proper Newspaper, Magazines and websites reference were also provided. This is the first article i have created,i'd like your help to get my article published. Shweta Khanna2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweta khanna2 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I did not delete the article. I suggested that it be considered for deletion, but it was HJ Mitchell who deleted it. What references were provided is a completely separate issue from whether the article appeared to be promotional. It was written like a brochure from the organisation aimed at potential users, not like a description from a detached outsider. It even gave instructions how to get there. Looking at your other edits, some of them are clearly written from the point of view of an insider: at least one of your edits even uses the word "we". If you are personally involved in the subject you are writing about it is very difficult or even impossible to edit from a neutral point of view, even if you honestly intend to. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages us from writing about subjects in which we have a personal involvement. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WMUKBot

Its been approved for testing. Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/WMUKBot.

This is my first time running it and I kinda screwed up. I stopped the bot and reverted the mess. So much for the smooth testing I had hoped for. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 12:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Duck

Hi JBW, hope you don't mind but I chose to bring this to you as the most recently-active admin on my watchlist. Special:Contributions/Pedolicious seems to be a pretty blatant sockpuppet, though I'm unsure of whom. I've also reported them to UAA since their username is rather offensive. I thought I'd accelerate the process of dealing with it by informing you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very likely block evader, and the username as well as the two edits are sufficient in my book for an indef block. Favonian (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I had just decided to indef block myself, and found you had beaten me to it by about a minute. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response, guys. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oi.

Why delete my page? Think you're ace, don't you? Cunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielKuhlman (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 December 2010 ! JamesBWatson (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

SharePoint scanning

Hi, The page on SharePoint scanning I have just created has been deleted on the basis that a page called SharePoint already exists. This article is about a specific application related to SharePoint and is not about SharePoint itself. I have checked the SharePoint article and it does not cover this topic at all because scanning and capture functionality is NOT included in SharePoint but is provided by a third party market. Many of the companies I talk to are confused about what scanning to SharePoint is about so I decided to create this page to provide guidance on what the options are for using capture technology to get digital documents into a SharePoint repository. I would appreciate it if this page was not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosta57 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is doubtful whether there is a good reason for having a whole separate article on this topic, rather than just including a note about it in the main article. However, even if it is considered worth having an article on the topic, the article as written was not suitable. It read like a personal essay, rather than an encyclopaedia article. I was also written in the style of a commercial brochure, rather than an encyclopaedia article, even including such rhetorical techniques as asking the reader questions and then answering them. It gave no sources, and appeared to contain a significant amount of original opinion, rather than reporting established published content. It included unsuitable external links to a blog and a commercial site. Consequently, if the article had not been deleted as an unnecessary content fork it might well be deleted for other reasons, and failing that it would certainly be edited beyond all recognition. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Article - Scanning to SharePoint

Ok, fair comment. I have removed the commercal site link and changed the blog links to sources. I'll have a go at writing in the right style. I still think it is useful informaton and is worthy of a seperate article. Scanning is not a subject covered by Microsoft but it is important to a lot of businesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosta57 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Chronology of the Harry Potter Series

why did you delete the Chronology of the Harry Potter Series? >:( $up3rg1rl (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It took me quite a while to find what you were referring to, as there has never been an article called Chronology of the Harry Potter Series. It does help to take the necessary care to get the title right. It turns out that I deleted Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (Note: stories, not Series) in November. Presumably you have seen the deletion log entry (otherwise how would you know I deleted it?) and I deleted it for the reason stated there: it was a redirect to an article which had been deleted. That deleted article was Chronology of the Harry Potter series. That article was deleted as a result of a consensus to do so at a deletion discussion. I took no part in that discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Should not delete of Techor

Should not delete of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techor since there are many similar pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumstix are here. and there is no copyright issue with www.techor-instrument.com since they poduce instruments, and we make modules, boards and embedded development tools. should it be revovered? sorry.

Som2416 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Som2416 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. As far as other articles are concerned, (a) there may be significant differences which make some articles justifiable and others not, even if they are in some ways similar, and (b) see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
2. I do not understand why anyone should think that what products are produced by companies decides whether copyright has been infringed. Copyright is a question of whether text has been copied from someone else's writing without permission under suitable licensing terms.
3. The article was nominated for deletion as a copyright infringement of http://www.techor-instrument.com. I did not find evidence of copyright infringement there (though that does not mean it does not exist: for example, that web page may have been changed since the copying took place), and I gave instead the unambiguously promotional nature of the article as the reason for deletion. It appears that I also left the original reason there, which was an error. Nevertheless, there certainly was copyright infringement in the article, as a section was copied almost verbatim from the Wikipedia article Gumstix without acknowledgement, which is contrary to the Wikimedia foundation's terms of service, and an infringement of the copyright of the author of that section. There may or may not have been other copyright infringements there too.
4. Your use of the word "we" in the above message indicates that you have a personal involvement with the company in question, which means you have a conflict of interest, and you should not be editing on this subject at all. It was no doubt this personal involvement which led to the unacceptable promotional nature of the article, which, as I have already explained, was the principal reason for deletion. The fact that editors with a personal involvement of this sort almost invariably edit in a promotional way (even if they appear to sincerely believe they are not doing so) is, in fact, one of the principal reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing in such cases. If the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria then sooner or later an uninvolved impartial editor will probably create an article on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Leighlynn89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

media censorship

James B Watson - trying to hide the truth are we? It is clear that you are a lobbyist that does not like damning facts about Taksin to be made public - shame on you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.23.189 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.23.189 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 6 December 2010

Have you carefully examined my editing history before deciding that it is "clear" that I am a lobbyist? In my experience such accusations come most commonly from people who are themselves trying to use Wikipedia to promote a person, organisation, or point of view, and assume that everyone else works on their own level. However, if you have evidence that I am "a lobbyist" then please present it. Meanwhile I have no idea who or what Taksin is. Having said all that, I notice that your only edits apart from this post are vandalism, with a fake "reference" that does not mention the supposed fact to which it is linked, so I will move over to your talk page and warn you about that. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting pages

y are u deleting my article which i am creating.

is there any rules to create pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msgourrou (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the article you created was a complete hoax, consisting of a copy-and-paste copy of an existing article with the name changed, you can scarcely have thought it was acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Article

Hello, I want to know why Guilan Linux Users Group has been removed, That is a registered Linux Users Group same as other Linux Users Group in Linux User Groups category and have Article in Farsi Wikipedia. Thank you :) --حمید رستمی (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The article gave no indication that the group came anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. How far other Linux Users Groups satisfy those guidelines I don't know. My guess is that some do and some don't: there are some prominent widely notable groups and some local groups that have received little attention outside their own circle of members. In any case, the existence of other articles on what seem to be similar subjects is never a reliable guide to notability, for reasons explains at WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence of other articles on other Wikipedias is even less relevant, as different language Wikipedias are autonomous, and often have widely different inclusion standards. JamesBWatson (talk)

Talkback from Leighlynn89

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Leighlynn89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied on Leighlynn89's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Which CSD?: Peter Sellers AND Daniel Mendoza

Hi James. I just CSD blanked and blanked a long talk page message from article space as:
This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because Editorial message. NOT an article. Page has been blanked as a courtesy. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance. See CSD G6
I could not find an appropriate CSD key for it, but this kind of thing cannot be left to wallow for 7 days at PROD. What's the normal procedure?--Kudpung (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The message clearly did not belong in an article, so moving it from main space to somewhere else seems to me to be "uncontoversial maintenance", and I have deleted it under CSD G6, as you suggested. For future reference, another way to have dealt with it would have been to have moved the page into the user's userspace, leaving a note on their talk page to tell them where you had put it. This would leave a redirect at the original page, which you could tag for speedy deletion as a cross-namespace redirect (CSD R2). On the whole I think that would have been better, because it uses only methods which are clearly standard procedure, and any admin finding a page tagged for CSD R2 would have known what to do. However, it doesn't matter much, as it's done now anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The most important thing is that I now know what to do in future. --Kudpung (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I took the trouble to describe another way of doing it, rather than just saying something to the effect of "don't worry, I've dealt with it." JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Carrol Boyes

Hi James,

A couple of things: 1) I do believe that a page for Carrol Boyes is relevant because:

1. She is listed as one of the key alumni of Pretoria University. It seems bizarre that there is nowhere for that link to go to or explain to people why she is a key
2. She has really been innovative in funding a niche for art that is functional.
3. She is now creating an outlet for artists to bring their talents to the fore.

2) I did put up hangon tags, because I needed to get Carrol boyes or her people to look at the page and edit it for correctness and for her to be OK with me proposing. It seems as if this second point didn't sit well with you. In that I am a newbie, I guess you know Wikipedia better than me so OK.

3) I did a bit more research and it now seems to make sense that I should get a user page going and get them to edit that and then get some reviewing done.

4) Do you agree this point 3 is the way to go? If so, should I use articles such as those on Elon Musk as a good template.

5) If OK, then is there a way to send me back the text that you deleted. I did put some effort into it and wouldn't want to lose it?

Thanks Athorny (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You should look at the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people and the guideline on reliable sources to see what is required for a subject to qualify for an article. My own search failed to produce any coverage in independent reliable sources, though there is an abundance of promotional and marketing pages to be found. The article you produced seemed to fall into that category too. I do see the point of asking the subject of the article to vet it to ensure accuracy, but it is dangerous. Wikipedia does not exist to host a person's chosen or preferred account of themselves, and articles are supposed to be written independently, from a neutral point of view. Indeed, the fact that you are in a position to ask "Carrol Boyes or her people" suggests that you have a close involvement with her, in which case Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you from writing about her. Such a close involvement could well explain the promotional tone of the article: editors with a conflict of interest rarely edit from a suitably objective point of view. Apart from those who come here with the deliberate intention of advertising or promoting, even those who genuinely intend to be impartial are rarely able to stand back and see how their editing will look to an uninvolved outsider. I am sorry to be so discouraging, but I have seen many new editors come here full of enthusiasm to write on some subject close to their hearts, only to find everything they do destroyed, which can be very disheartening and frustrating. I really think it fairer to warn you at the outset, rather than taking a line which superficially might look more encouraging, but would in fact not be helpful to you.

I strongly recommend looking at the guidelines I gave you links to above. If, and only if, you can then convince yourself that Carrol Boyes does satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, that you can find suitable reliable independent sources to demonstrate that she does, and that you do not have a conflict of interest, then come back and let me know. I will then restore the old article to a page in your user space for you to work on until it is ready to republish. One final comment: if I do that it will be a temporary measure for you to improve it before relaunching it. Sometimes inexperienced Wikipedians think that "userfying" an article is a long term way of evading deletion, and are then disappointed or even angry when they find the page is deleted again after a time has gone by and it is still not suitable as an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi James,

Thanks for your comments and the guidelines on the articles. Your advice on looking strongly at the notability standard is accepted. The Wikipedia direction on independent, neutral point of view is of course accepted.

You are correct the style wasn't appropriate which I know I will have to work on.

Yes I am confident there independent non-promotional sources. Yes I am confident that these will produce an independent view. I don't agree that it is not reasonable to ask her people for a view on factual accuracy and completeness. In any case, Carrol Boyes has the right, as her own person, to challenge any articles put up or statements made about their accuracy.

As to conflict - I have spent many thousands of pounds on her merchandise over the last 10 plus years for personal use. The merchandise and the art it represents gives my wife and I pleasure to this day. So yes I am a fan. Because of being such a fan we have also now built this into a commercial relationship, within the last year. This probably means the article must go through a much higher test of independence, verifiable sources, and notability. Fair enough.

It would seem to make sense to use the userfy mechanism to get the article validated and invite people to comment. If that is not acceptable, then I guess I could circulate a copy by email and get people to comment before resubmitting.

AdrianAthorny (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, an apology for not expressing myself more clearly. I was not trying to say that it was unacceptable for Carrol Boyes to say if the article was inaccurate, just that consulting the subject of the article introduces a danger of making it reflect that person's point of view rather than a neutral point of view, so you need to be careful.

I have userfied the article at User:Athorny/Carrol Boyes, and you can take it from there. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - will work on it over Christmas break. If Christmas is your thing, have a good one.16:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athorny (talk • contribs)

Article

I made changes in my article but it is deleted Article was about " Raja Liaqat Ali" It was considered as same like deleted one but I made changes.There are so many articles which can be deleted why mine is chosen.? Secondly explain me please notability.And how can I make my article according to notability? Cj.Raja (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you made changes, but the changes did not address the issue which led to deletion, which was lack of notability. "And how can I make my article according to notability?" is, unfortunately, the wrong question, although it is a question very often asked by newcomers to editing Wikipedia. The question is not how the article can be made notable, but whether or not the subject of the article is already notable. No amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. Apart from the fact that the article gave no indication that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, my own searches have also failed to produce any evidence that he does. I found Facebook, Linkedin, YouTube etc, but little if anything that could be regarded as independent reliable sources. You may like to look at the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people, and the guideline on relibale sources. Raja Liaqat Ali does not appear to satisfy those guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I dunno...

...a rangeblock didn't seem to work so well the last time. But don't let it be said I'm not optimistic. Let's give it a try. You're not using the same range Dianaa was, are you? Because I know that doesn't work. HalfShadow 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Dianna had a rangeblock up and he found at least two ways around it before I asked for an SP. HalfShadow 17:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion GoalBus

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at JJULEN92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Answered. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Torry Harris Business Solutions

Hi JamesBWatson,

This is regarding the deletion of the page, Torry Harris Business Solutions. I have gone over the previous deletion discussion and have addressed the points of the company not being notable etc. The company has been identified as a leader in SOA by Industry analyst Forrester and has also been identified as a Cool vendor by Gartner. The article is not just about any company or product. It is an article about a company that has been identified by Industry Standard analysts. Kindly request you to let me know what changes you recommend for the article.

Regards, Bharat.mk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharat.mk (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The article was written in such heavily promotional terms that I do not doubt that it would have been deleted as spam had it not been deleted as a repost. The references in the article were to the company's own site or to other sources which were promotional, or which gave only brief mention of the company, or both. In addition, I have made my own searches, and have found no evidence of notability. (I found the company's own site, the company's own publications, press releases, linkedin, acronymfinder, job advertisements, business listing sites, etc etc, but nothing that could be regarded as significant coverage in independent reliable sources.) Articles on this topic have now been deleted ten times by ten different administrators, as well as being discussed at AfD with a consensus to delete. I wonder what it would take to persuade the owners and employees of the company that the company does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, and that no amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now seen that you made a request for feedback on this article. The response you got was very much inline with what I have written above, but you appear to have taken little if any notice of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

dab solver

hello,

can you give me the article, please? I couldn't find it in my contribs. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon Sexuality

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived. Please do not modify it.

The admin WhisperToMe (talk) is adament about adding sections about the possible homosexuality of the cartoon characters below. These sections are all based on the opinions of one man, JP Dennis, in one paper he wrote. Dennis is a gay man himself who seems to write exclusively about gay issues, so in my opinion, it's not surprising that he sees homosexuality where there is none. Also, there are already complete articles regarding this topic (LGBT themes in comics, LGBT themes in speculative fiction). If you believe these sections would place undue weight on this topic (which I believe is a non-issue), please comment on the talk pages below, otherwise WhisperToMe will add these sections back. Thanks in advance for your input.

Scooby-Doo (character) (talk), Shaggy Rogers (talk), Daphne Blake (talk), Velma Dinkley (talk), Pinky and the Brain (talk), Heffer Wolfe (talk) and Yogi Bear (talk). Judgeking (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to comment that I have seen this complaint before, at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Cartoon_Sexuality. User:Judgeking might have mentioned in his message to you that the paper by Dennis appears to be a reliable source. Whether it is being accorded undue weight was not, of course, a subject for RSN. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh golly, let's see: 1) Not relevant, since he's a dog, 2) Dating Velma as of the new cartoon, 3)Dating Fred (and what level of stupid do you have to be to not see that?), 4) Dating Shaggy, 5) Both have girlfriends, 6) Has had several girlfriends; Rocko has as well, 7) Hello? Cindy?

I don't even like half the cartoons here and I know more than this "JP Dennis" twit. HalfShadow 20:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

About the Scooby Doo stuff, let's look at the exact text and consider that.

From this revision of Daphne Blake

"Jeffrey P. Dennis, author of the journal article "The Same Thing We Do Every Night: Signifying Same-Sex Desire in Television Cartoons," said that several commentators argued that Daphne and Velma were a homosexual couple, citing Saturday Morning Fever authors Kevin and Timothy Burke.[1] Martin Goodman of Animation World Magazine responded, stating that "Any serious reading of this section in Saturday Morning Fever (pp. 105-111) quickly reveals that the Burkes were, in a most un-academic fashion, goofing."[2]"

This revision of Scooby Doo has the additional text

"Dennis argues that while Scooby and Shaggy hunt for ghosts together, they are not a homosexual couple since they do not engage in activities as a couple, share living spaces, or express any romantic feelings towards one another. Dennis said that their habits of jumping into one another's arms when threatened would usually be a sign of cowardice rather than affection."

What Dennis essentially said was (in my words) "Some people think they are gay" based on the Saturday Morning Fever source, and "but I conclude that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay."

And Goodman responded, saying that Dennis misread the Saturday Morning Fever and that the people who wrote that are joking; Goodman concluded that the SMF people did not seriously say that any of the Scooby Doo characters were gay

Now, your commentary:

"Not relevant, since he's a dog" - An objection based on Wikipedia:Original research, especially considering one can possibly write a cartoon dog character who falls in love with humans of any gender.

"Dating Velma as of the new cartoon" - He's looking at the original 1970s cartoon and not considering newer cartoons, and different continuities can have different situations

For other stuff (3-5): "Dating Fred (and what level of stupid do you have to be to not see that?)" - Dennis is not assessing whether the Saturday Morning Fever people have correct viewpoints of whether Daphne and Velma are gay, and Dennis says that the viewpoint on Scooby and Shaggy being gay is not correct.

Rocko: "Rocko has as well" - Uhm, the Dennis revision said that Heffer was "coded" as gay, while Rocko was straight - And he addresses the "Elk for Heffer" episode in his essay. BTW, Dennis is not considering the comic book, in which Heffer gets a girlfriend in one story.

Yogi: The Dennis essay does talk about Cindy. Let me see what he says about Cindy. Lemme pull up the essay.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

About Cindy: (Page 134 - EBSCOHOST PDF page 3 of 10) - If you want the document, please e-mail me or state your e-mail address in this page:

"In the second season, as if to defuse such a reading, the character Cindy Bear was introduced as Yogi's "girlfriend." However she was mostly consigned to dropping hints and handkerchiefs, to batting her eyes while Yogi walked by, oblivious. She appeals to Boo Boo for seduction advice, and while the "sidekick" may well have known how to pique Yogi's interest, he offered only half-hearted and ineffective suggestions. Because he and Yogi were already involved? the same-sex relationship certainly triumphed over the incursion of heterosexual desire: Today almost everyone can identify Yogi and Boo Boo, but few have heard of Cindy Bear."

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I still think he's trying too hard. Kind of sick, actually. HalfShadow 21:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) So is this the right place to be holding yet another round of this discussion? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• This topic is quite interesting, but I can't follow up everything of interest on Wikipedia, as I have a finite amount of time. When the original post on this came I read it and looked into the background a little, but decided I didn't want to spend time on it. So perhaps you could continue the discussion somewhere else. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's fine. I'll respond to other users on their talk pages, and I will respond to other inquiries on other talk pages WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You're looking for stuff that isn't there. You're trying to read 21st century awareness into characters which obeyed the social norms of the times, i.e. that males and females did not "shack up": males rooming with males and females rooming with females was the norm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why did you revert Goran Tufegdžić page?

I'm making the page better, corrected grammar, etc.

Why you reverted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.25 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 December 2010

What? The edit I reverted just changed the spacing and layout, it didn't make any change to grammar. Also, in what way was it an improvement? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at who made the additions between 3rd December and 5th December, it was me who added the extra content, such as "achievements". Basically I'm trying to perfect the page better. I didn't add the correct tag for Kuwait National football team but now I did. Also, the person who made the list before me had it all clustered up. Also, there are places that needed to have commas, etc. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.25 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 December 2010

Even if that is true (and I have better things to do than find out) it has nothing whatever to do with the edit that I reverted. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway it doesn't matter now. The current page looks better now. Thanks. :) comment added by 193.188.105.25

193.188.105.25 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

copyright policy

first thanks for the information. QA :if it was copy from a site what if the copy info is actually pure technical info that the device manufacturer released. Is this "copy" also forbidden under copyright policy ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonForst6 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The information is not copyright, but the wording in which it is expressed is. Even if the wording is changed, but follows the original closely enough that it can be clearly seen to be based on the original it may be a copyright infringement. Exactly where the borderline goes is impossible to define: it is best to play safe by not using anything that could reasonably be seen as a close paraphrase. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:208.190.202.70

I'm slightly puzzled by your decision to block this IP, since I'd declined the AIV report on the ground that they had been issued a final warning 20 minutes after their last act of vandalism and then the editor who gave the warning reported them to AIV without any further activity, yet you blocked them? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Joker264

Hi James. Could you take a look at this user's edit summaries and check out some of the edits that catch your attention, especially those at the very beginning of the editing history,the recent removal of ffd tags and th strange occurence at Talk:John Lennon. Do you think this is a 'vandalism only' account? Or is it an account that has been compromised?--Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

bishopmoore college

sir, i had given some changes to this page and now it found delited. i agree that the template bmcat is not properly added. it was my limitation. please add that template properly. the addition i given in the text also delited now. please re enter them. i assure i can add more text and photos shortly. thanking you