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 Dr. Ramav (talk | contribs) at 06:02, 17 June 2011 (→‎Virodhi Himsa). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

71.146.21.180

User 71.146.21.180 here, how was it a mistake?

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.

Niche market article

I noticed you reverted an external link I inserted in the niche market article without making any mention on the talk page. The site does comply with the policy mentioned in your editing reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_market

I have restored the link. Please commence discussion on the talk page why this external link isn't suitable. Thanks.180.191.82.41 (talk)

It's spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an outright abuse of authority. Are you the Holy Father Almighty? Is this what Wikipedia has become? A boys club of meglomanics? It is not spam. Read it, then discuss what about it is spam. That is the proper way to conduct things instead of announcing your heavenly authority as being the final word. What a dictatorship this site has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.113.106 (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not announced "heavenly authority", I have just expressed an opinion. I have not abused, nor even used, any "authority": I have simply done what any Wikipedia editor could have done. If you would like me to enlarge upon my reasons then you are welcome to politely invite me to do so. I will then be happy to oblige. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I made that intent clear with my original message here, hoping we could continue discussion on the talk page. Please do remove the link, and then let's commence discussion on why it is not a useful resource for the stub until it is expanded further. That is all I'm asking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.145.67 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your nonsense about "heavenly authority", and "dictatorship" does not fall under what I call politely inviting me, and your first post, despite containing the word "please", reads to me more like an instruction than an invitation or request. Incidentally, I find it interesting to see your use of the word "dictatorship". When one person persistently tries to enforce their view by edit warring, while several other people independently indicate that they disagree with that view, which of them is trying to act like a "dictator"? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: Klim3k

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Klim3k's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Son of return of the vandal

This vandal is back again, adding non-factual actors to cast lists, using User talk:64.75.121.3. Articles hit this time:

Maybe a block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just butting in: they seem to have stopped, for now. JBW, you know I'm new to this job--these edits are disruptive, clearly. In my opinion this rises to being blockable, and I'd very much like to hear what you have to say. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the IP address and semiprotected the articles for 3 months. I really don't like protecting pages for that long, but this vandal keeps coming back, and it really is necessary. Many of these articles have been protected before, some of them more than once, but the problem has just come back. Usually "they seem to have stopped, for now" is a good reason for not blocking an IP, as blocks are meant to be preventive, and you can't prevent what has already stopped. However, it is clear from this vandal's history that the stopping is likely to be only temporary. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the fast action on keeping this person at bay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back again as User talk:166.137.136.81. Articles hit:

Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
Message added 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

freshacconci talktalk 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Ryan Vesey's talk page.
Message added 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I also replied at Too much user information. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do you believe I am too bold? I noticed that I have made many mainspace edits, and rarely discuss them on talk pages. I do, however, discuss some edits on user talk pages. I have also created talk page posts for major changes such as Talk:Catholic Church#English. I was just wondering what your thoughts were. I was also considering putting myself up for editor review. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Storm

You previously one of the sock accounts related to this, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawn Storm. -- Cirt (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wrongfully deleted

My page Seth (pianist) has been wrongfuly deleted and i wish for it to be put back up. you said that there was no reason why i should be noted but i am a performer with an album coming out i have already sold over 4000 albums the digital download is released in summer as physical copies stopped being produces. and i also said that no references were currently avaliable and it says in your terms that as long as you will put them in at a later date that it is ok. my page did not brake any of your rules and i want my page back. i know that wikipedia keeps copies of all its pages in cached form so i want my page back as i havent broke your rules you have wrongfully deleted my page. it wasnt advertising, or spam or hoax you have wrongfully deleted my page and i want it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZSETHZz (talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A student who has performed in various churches and town halls, as many music students do. Someone who was going to appear in a documentary but now isn't going to. Someone who is going to release a record. I don't see a plausible claim of significance there at all. If it were undeleted it would be immediately nominated for a deletion discussion, and the fact that searches have failed to find any significant coverage in third party sources would be pretty likely to mean that it was deleted again. You say that no references are currently available. Contrary to what you seem to think, that is sufficient reason for an article to be deleted. You will be much better off realising that Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself or to publish your CV, and instead put your efforts into using a social network site or a personal web host. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am a recording artist and i have released the record it is now going to digital download as the physical copies stopped being made. and wikipedia stated that REFERENCES MUST BE INCLUDED EVEN IF THAT IS AT A LATER DATE BUT IT MUST BE STATED THAT THEY WILL BE ADDED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. and i am not promoting myself and also there used to be a page on here about lim hyung joo a world famous singer but that was removed because he isnt notable WTF!!!! hes world famous. my page did not brake any of your rules and i can provide some references but i didnt do so as they are out dated and would be even worst if i added them. if you can tell me one thing my page did that it was not suppose to i will say ok but i did not do anything to break your rules. i can provide evidence of the documentary claim that i was asked to appear through several emails. and i am not currently in the third party information because: APR is now doing my music where as before it was EMI so i am not currently in apr's pages as of this moment. i also had not finished the page i have yet to add lots of information as i wanted something to work with and was going to add to it in about 2 hours but it has already been deleted. my page did not brake your rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZSETHZz (talk • contribs) 02:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, do you understand conflict of interest? If you are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, someone will write one about you. Writing an article about yourself leads to bias and a non-neutral point of view. Another major policy of Wikipedia is that the encyclopedia must be based on verifiability, not truth. These are two of the three core policies of Wikipedia. If an outside observer were to write an article about you, with references, which established notability, it could be included; however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and cannot write about future events. I do not believe, from the information I read here, that an article about you would meet the notability requirements of a biography of a living person at the present moment. Here are the notability requirements of a recording artist or band. Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok thats understandable. is there anyway u can send me my page as txt so when the upto date information is avaliable i can remake the page with all the valid information and 3rd party information? and i will also include all the other information that i did not have time to include and also wikipedia says you can write about yourself they just advise against it and if that is so i shall get someone else to do it instead without my input. also as i live in elgnad it is no 3:49 am so im going to bed and shall carry on with this tomorrow that you for your input and correcting things — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZSETHZz (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more that I could have said, but since you seem to have accepted Ryan's answer I will leave it at that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have enabled the email. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZSETHZz (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed you the text of the deleted article. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cutter Aviation deletion

After being advised by other administrators and reviewing the Wikipedia policies, I now understand your rationale behind the deletion and agree with your action. Thank you for your work to maintain standards on Wikipedia. --Avolareaz (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for deleting the text of my previous contest of the deletion - I was not completely familiar with the proper etiquette for talk pages and have been advised accordingly. I will use the strike out text edit in any future retractions. --Avolareaz (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anger

If you check my contributions, you'll probably notice the recent arguments I have gotten in. I am going to step away rather than further any issues. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username

Thanks for showing me how to change my username! However, I have a little problem: I need easy4me to accept my usurpation request. How can I have him/her accept it if it's never been used? Please help me.

Hard4me (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know what you have done at User talk:Easy4me is fine. The message there says "If you do nothing: the request may be filled shortly, and your account will be moved to a generic username." Since the user has not edited in several years I think it's a pretty good guess that they will do nothing, and the change will go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the edit summary on this page count as a legal threat? Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much so. Thanks for the pointer. Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary was from three years ago. I assume you did the same thing that I did and read that to be June 7 of this year. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I saw your message just as I had to go offline, and acted perhaps too quickly. Technically speaking, it is an unretracted legal threat, so by the letter of the rules the block was correct, but it is probably not to be taken seriously at this date. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy decline Castanheiro

Hi, you declined my request for speedy deletion of the disambiguation page Castanheiro. IMO it meets the requirements for speedy deletion: it does not link to any pages about places, persons or objects named Castanheiro. It does link to two articles about municipalities that contain a village named Castanheiro (no further info about those villages in those articles), but is that enough to keep this disambiguation page? Markussep Talk 08:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see several possible ways of looking at this.
  1. The wording of the speedy deletion tag which you added said disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"... or disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Clearly the article does not satisfy either of those criteria.
  2. You say that the page "does not link to any pages about places, persons or objects named Castanheiro". However, there are plenty of useful disambiguation pages that link to articles where the title of the disambiguation page is not included in the title of the linked article. Wikipedia:Disambiguation gives this example which illustrates such use: "the Canton disambiguation page legitimately has an entry for Flag terminology."
  3. In my opinion, however, rather than quoting wording of guidelines as though they were some sort of rules, much more constructive is to consider whether the page has the potential to be useful. Is it plausible that someone or other may one day search for "Castanheiro" on Wikipedia? Yes, certainly. If they do, will it be more helpful to give them links to pages that mention Castanheiro, or to give them nothing? Clearly, to give them the links. Does keeping the disambiguation page do any harm at all to anyone or anything? Not that I can see. So, we have a page which might be useful to someone, and does no harm. Why delete it? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right. Thanks for your advice. Markussep Talk 07:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming Hong Kong

Message moved here from archived page. It refers to discussion at User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 28#The Fleming Hong Kong article. Although it makes sense to keep discussion of one topic together, editing archived talk pages can make it difficult to keep track of current discussions, so it is better to open a new section and link to the old one.

Hello, hope all is well. I have rewritten the article and hope that you could review it before publishing it at User:Ghc.cecilia/Fleming Hong Kong. Thank you so so much! Ghc.cecilia (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article, and also searched online for information about the hotel. Neither of those has given me any evidence that the hotel satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are no independent sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian Children's Trust

Hi. You PRODded this, and it was deleted: undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so I have restored it, and let you know in case you want to consider AfD. I have explained about notability and pointed the requester to WP:NOBBLE. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thing on edit warring...

...was not a complaint with an administrator, it was a complaint with an apparent "good practice" here of blocking people hours after they have stopped. It's a policy thing, and as such I thought it would be appropriate to address it on the policy page. Considering it is not a complaint about an individual administrator (something which I did specify there iirc), where should I bring it up? VP/policy? Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for your help :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(on a slightly-related note, it appears that you got to be the "exasperated admin". Unfortunate all-around) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up the Ridge

While I am an intern with the company that holds the copyrights for up the ridge, the wikipedia article I created was completely neutral, and the material in it was notable and informative, not promotional. What do you suggest I do? Are there any specific parts of the page that seemed to be slanted to you? I will gladly edit them. I have only been with this company for two weeks, so I am not in a position to provide any opinionated information, I am simply stating the facts as they are. Please respond with a message to me instead of on your talk page. Jimbrey (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Jimbrey[reply]

The page was deleted as a copyright infringement. While the tone may have been a little promotional, I didn't see that as a significant problem, otherwise I would have mentioned it in the deletion reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am authorized to license any of the content that the plagiarism detector flagged for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markkidd (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean copyright, which is a very different matter from plagiarism. You may have a conflict of interest, in which case you are probably not the right person to be editing on this subject. However, if you do put copyright material in an article, if you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The necessary copyright info for Up the Ridge has been sent to wiki, so I am going to repost the page. Please let me know if there are any other problems with it instead of deleting it and banning me for a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbrey (talk • contribs) 14:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banning you for a day? Your account has never been banned or blocked. Do you mean that you have used another account which has been blocked? If so, what account? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, probably User:Thousandkites and User:Thousandkites13. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of those, but neither of them has ever been blocked for a day. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand Kites

Hello, you recently speedily deleted a userspace page about Thousand Kites, and I wrote my question on my own talk page as you requested. You stated that the article was too promotional. It was intended to be informational--as a new intern, one of my first responsibilities was to create a neutral, informative wiki page about the organization. If you could respond to my inquiry directly on my talk page, it would be greatly appreciated.

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Thousandkites13's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied at user's talk page, as requested. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Voice Cast Vandal"

I'm getting tired of reverting this character. He seems to have a particular obsession with Glenn Shadix, persistently adding him to the Frankenweenie film. Evidence of him playing games and trying to rewrite the career of this actor are his edits to Sleepy Hollow (film): he just reverted[1] Shadix's "role" there (which is correct), but seemed to have no problem when he added it[2] back in March. Annoying? Pretty much... Doc talk 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

Someone said that there was a manual for Huggle, where can I find it? Cheers ;-).--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Huggle/Manual JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people in Wilmington, Los Angeles‎

An IP added Synthetrix to the page of Wilmington, Los Angeles about two weeks ago. I reverted the revision. He just added it again, and I reverted it. I don't want to get into a slow-speed edit war and would like to affirm that because the page Synthetrix was deleted in the past, he cannot be added as a notable resident. This can then be seen as clear vandalism, and would not be considered an edit war. Am I correct? Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Synthetrix was deleted under CSD A7 certainly suggests that the person was not notable, but it doesn't necessarily follow, since it could just be that the article failed to show notability which could have been shown. However, the onus is on the person adding the information to provide evidence of notability, and if there is no such evidence then you can certainly remove it. In this case, I have looked both at the deleted article and at a Google search, and I see no evidence of notability, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to remove it. Your edit summary for the first revert was better than the second one, as the editor may well have done it in good faith. I suggest that if it happens a third time you post a talk page message questioning the notability, and mention the talk page in your edit summary. It looks to me as though the anon editor may well be none other than "Synthetrix". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I probably would have chose a different edit summary if it hadn't been the third time synthetrix was added. Especially since I had previously warned the user and he/she had not used an edit summary. If the anon is Synthetrix we may have a sockpuppetry issue because it was added the first time by User:Synthetrix. I am not sure how important it is to follow up on this because there have only been 3 edits on the two accounts in the last month. (All to add synthetrix to the page). If a correlation continues it might be necessary. 174.25.210.243 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- JuneGloom Talk 22:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle revert edit

While using Huggle I frequently find instances where dates (either days or years) are changed on an article. I saw one again just recently, and decided to contact you to ask about this. The edits I am referring to usually are written without an edit summary and no source is added. In the past, I have assumed good faith and left it, but I was wondering if an uncited, unsummarized change of date should be treated as vandalism. Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult situation. In my experience the sort of thing you are talking about is most often vandalism, but sometimes it is a legitimate correction. You just have to make a judgement. However, if you are in any doubt, you can revert, and post a talk page message asking for sources. That way if it is legitimate then you give the editor a chance to show that it is. Make sure, though, that you don't allow Huggle to give its default edit summary and talk page message, which are suitable only for unambiguous vandalism. In the sort of situation you are referring to vandalism is probable, but not unambiguous. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would choosing, failure to cite a verifiable source, be acceptable? 174.25.210.243 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I would go for. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adine Gavazzi Page

Dear Editor/Administrator

i can't see the page Adine Gavazzi any more. It does not violate any copyright and it is intended to orient scholars, researchers and students with a good bibliography on the subject. Can you pleas help me unlock the page?

Both publishers of the author - Jaca Book and Apus Graph- are happy with it. So are the Museums Tumbas Reales and the Museum Antonini.

Thank you.

If you need more published interviews or links demonstrating the truth of what stated, I will be glad to attach them

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adinegavazzi (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge nobody suggested that the article violated copyright, nor that the information in it was untrue. The article was deleted because it was about a person, but did not indicate that the person was significant enough to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. Apart from the contents of the article itself, I have made internet searches and have not found any evidence at all that you satisfy either Wikipedia's general notability criteria or the criteria for notability of people. The fact that such businesses as publishers of your work are happy with the article is scarcely a reason for keeping it. They clearly have a vested interest in any publicity for you, and I note that another editor has suggested on your talk page that the purpose of the article was self-promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:WDTN

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Chaswmsday's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Actually the message was at Talk:WDTN, not Chaswmsday's talk page. Replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sleddale Hall

Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Stronach (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Sorry if I reported the [{Merry men]] thing wrongly, normally I wouldn't go down the reporting route, and I just wanted to make sure someone was aware of the situation (I had also warned in edit summaries, i thought that was enough). Anyway, cheers for your swift intervention--Red Deathy (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leasowes Primary School (Stafford)

Hi, I have restored Leasowes Primary School (Stafford) because you should not should not have deleted it for two reasons:

  • I had redirected the page so it was no longer an expired Prod.
  • I had merged content, albeit very slight, so deletion breaches our GFDL licence.

As stated in WP:PROD it is not good practice to delete ones own Prods. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. Thanks for correcting me. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of the page Jean-Pierre Garnier-Malet

Hello Mr Watson,

I am the (French) editor of the page you deleted about Jean-Pierre Garnier-Malet. I am curious you deleted it as a hoax. I am his publisher in the US. All his scientific publications are true and can be verified. I have the paper presented at the Academy of Sciences in Paris where his demonstration, about the Laplace-Bernouilli equation, is presented with his name : Jean-Pierre Malet. He did received the Best Paper Award from the AIP in 2006 :I also have this publication. All the other references can be verified and true. Would you be fair enough to do so, please? Perhaps I did not include the right format of his publications: if it is the case I am sorry. If you can indicate me how to do it, I will be pleased to comply. As it is my first editing, I certainly can do some mistakes and I gladly accept all remarks. My name is my real name and the work, existence and publications of Jean-Pierre Garnier-Malet are true, real and no fantasy. I really appreciate your work on Wikipedia, but please, verify Jean-Pierre's publications and you will see by yourself that there is no hoax there. As a scientist yourself, I can imagine you verify what is easy to verify: scientific publications are so. And yes, it is more time consuming than just deleting the page as an hoax. I truly again appreciate your follow up on this matter. Thank you.

≈≈≈≈Veronique Crouzoulon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veroniquecrouzoulon (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pages

Is it possible to get rights to view deleted pages? Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check this?

I removed this post[3] on the Ghurid talk page which appeared to me to be in violation of WP:Forum, WP:NPA and WP:Outing. However user:84.59.186.208 reverted my removal.[4] Could you take a look at his lengthy paragraph? Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read through it, and undid it because it was obviously not written to discuss constructive improvements to the article. I warned him for using the talk page as a forum and for using a foreign language. I don't know if 3rr applies on a talk page if he re-adds them. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, the IP is clearly an uncooperative editor and I doubt it should be editing; however, I think I may have not been completely in the right here. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I think my report was out of order too. I looked at his contribs, and mistakenly thought one of the edits was new. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virodhi Himsa

You recently deleted a page called Virodhi Himsa. I believe this to be by mistake. I was wanting to add information to the article. I was once a student of the philosophy and received college credits for learning it. The philosophy is also used in youth homes all over the United States to help children. I beg you reconsider your deletion and allow others to enhance this page. I and many of my students find it an article of great interest. People should add information to this article from all over the world. It appears the page was just created and is already deleted. This is not common for Wikipedia. We have never had this issue at the college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ramav (talk • contribs) 06:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW&oldid=434714927"