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 Superruss (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 10 January 2012. 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, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.

Talkback

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

MfD nomination of User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show

User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ebineibgheniobg/web show during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Aron "Deuce" Erlichman, Aron Erlichman (aka Deuce)

In October you protected these pages to prevent them from being repeatedly recreated; that followed an AfD in April which closed as redirect (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron "Deuce" Erlichman).

In fact, there's rather more about this subject that just those two articles and one AfD; what I have been able to find includes an earlier AfD which closed with the same result (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deuce (singer)), an AfD for a forthcoming solo album which closed as userfy/redirect a couple of weeks ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine Lives (Deuce album) (2nd nomination))), other related articles which are currently also currently nominated for deletion (by me, on the basis the subject has no article): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron (album), Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_2#Template:Deuce, and a bunch of other articles which have all been created as, or since been turned into, redirects to Hollywood Undead, including Deuce (Artist), Deuce (Hollywood Undead)), Deuce (Hollywood Undead Member), Deuce (Tha Producer), Deuce (Vocalist), Deuce (producer), Deuce (singer), Deuce discography and Tha Producer.

Overlooked in all of this has been Deuce (musician) (formerly Deuce (singer)), which has existed alongside all the deleted / redirected articles since mid-2009. It should really have been turned into a redirect when the other articles you since protected were, but was overlooked at the time. Unsurprisingly, my attempts to do that now have been reverted.

Two days after you protected those two pages, the article which was the subject of the first AfD - now named Deuce (musician) - was recreated instead, as it remained unprotected. Unsurprisingly, my attempts to re-redirect it have been reverted.

Would you care to review Deuce (musician), and if you think the article should be redirected then consider doing it and protecting it also?

Many thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking, and sorry you had to do/undo everything. It's ridiculous that an AfD closing as "redirect" is almost completely meaningless. Per the multiply-established consensus, the article should be a redirect and it should not have come back without a new consensus being formed; editors/fans have "gamed the system" and been successful. As for the subject himself, I have no interest - I didn't participate in any of the previous discussions and I'm not even sure right now why one of the pages was on my watchlist. My only motivation for renominating it now would be to force the new discussion to take place and, frankly, it's probably not worth the effort given the past history. I've tagged the article for notability concerns and will leave it at that. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete?

With all due respect, James, I think your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Setareh Diba as a speedy delete (A7) was erroneous, since I had already declined a speedy deletion on the same ground. You have every right to disagree with me, but I think the general practice is that an article cannot be speedied after a previous speedy request has been declined. On the merits, also, I think this was not a speediable article. WP:CSD#A7 says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Here, there was a claim, even though it was not supported by a reliable source and probably did not satisfy the notability guidelines. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have questioned the deletion I have restored the article and reopened the AfD. However, I see no claim of significance: can you say what the claim of significance is? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The claim is that she is a published poet in Persian (alliteration unintended). As I said, it's probably not enough to meet WP:GNG without any published sources, but it's enough to give the author a chance to improve the article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see having a few poems published in magazines as being much of a claim of significance, but what constitutes a "claim of significance" is always ratehr subjective. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is subjective. I'd rather err on the side of a generous interpretation of "significance", within reason ("Terrence is the coolest kid in seventh grade" would not make the cut), given Wikipedia's ongoing difficulties in attracting and retaining new editors. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Curious has escaped again

That twat has escaped his ban again as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/192.148.117.99 Please block him.--Brainiac Adam (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce article redirects/protecting then unprotecting

Hello, I'm just a little bit confused as to why you redirected "Deuce" to "Hollywood Undead". Last year the decision was made that Deuce be removed and redicrected to HU until Deuce had gained notable recognition and have more works as a solo artist. He is now signed, with an album coming out in March (two singles of which have been released [one leaked illegally]) , sponsored by a clothing line, released an official mixtape and signed with Ten Street Entertainment (under eleven seven music [motley crue,papa roach, blondie, etc]) and performed at 2010 Epicenter, opening for Eminem, performing between KISS, Blink-182, Rise Against etc as well as reaching over 100,000 likes on Facebook; The decision was made a few months ago that Deuce did qualify for his own article.

I respect the fact that you know more about wikipedia editing and rules/regs than I do, so please message back!

Thank you, happy new year.

TrueBlue9LIVES (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was to follow a decision made at AfD. I then reverted it when I realised that the matter had been discussed and a decision had been made not to prevent recreation of the article by protecting the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection of Climate of Northern Ireland article without consensus

I will now pursue the WP:DR policy. I am also very concerned about sock puppets being used to avoid detection. As this is my second day as a Wikipedia editor I am trying to learn how to deal with this problem. According to WP:DR, one is advised to try first of all to resolve disputes by using the discussion page - but how can this work when the page you are disputing skips to a different page when you try to view it? If you see the discussion of the original page, there was no 'consensus' to delete the page. There were clear objections by several users that they did not want the page to be redirected or merged with the Ireland page. The other users set out their reasoning for the page not to be merged very clearly. Please advise on how to deal with this problem, especially regarding the redirection aspect. I am afraid to revert any changes in case I will be blocked again. Seamus48 (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In declining your unblock request I did mention a factual inaccuracy in that unblock request, but apart from that I restricted myself to assessing the reason you gave for unblocking and the reason for the block. I did not get involved in the dispute that you were involved in, nor do I intend to do so. Disputes about Ireland are one of the topics that I avoid getting involved in, just as little way behind Israel/Palestine (which I avoid like the plague), and on a par with various other forms of nationalism in various parts of the world. It is true that your request is purely for procedural advice, but nevertheless in this case my involvement starts and ends with administrative tasks, such as assessing the unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whippany River Watershed Action Committee Deletion

Dear James, I just read your Delete on the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee article. I thought this was an organization that was notable. I just came across this live link on the United States Environmental Protection Agency website http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7144dd430c47561885257018004c77a3/d6165ffef5f792e18525716a005bccfb!OpenDocument on the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee, middle of page. To help me in future articles I may create, isn't something like this notable? The Whippany River Watershed Management project was New Jersey’s pilot watershed management project. The Watershed Action Committee is a coalition of citizens and municipalities dedicated to preserving and protecting the land and water resources within the watershed and achieving the goals of the watershed management plan. Among their accomplishments is the creation of model ordinances that have been adopted by watershed municipalities to address nonpoint source pollution. They have also undertaken a project to achieve a 58% reduction in fecal coliform to meet the Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, established by the plan. Through education and outreach they are engaging the entire watershed community in the effort to restore and protect its valuable water resources.

Thanks in advance for your comments. (LeonardC (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The page you link to has one brief paragraph on the subject. Generally speaking, to establish notability we require substantial coverage in multiple sources. Wikipedia's concept of "notability" is essentially to do with such substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, not to do with what you or I or anyone else thinks is the value of the work the organisation does. It is natural for someone involved in a subject to see it as notable, but the question at issue is how notable it looks to the world at large. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JamesB, I do appreciate all your time to date. I think you spend WAY too much time editing Wikipedia! But you obviously love what you do. I read your page. I found an article that appeared in the Star-Ledger, New Jerseys's largest newspaper, that is not listed/referenced on the page http://wrwac.org/news/SL_study_part1.jpg I found it on the committee's website. And another article that appeared in the Star Ledger earlier this year. I googled this one. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/storm-drain_filters_to_protect.html WOuldn't these two articles, coupled with the US EPA's brief paragraph as well as many mentions on the New Jersey Department of Envioronmental Protection website show notability? These coupled together must be notable sources? Thanks again for your time and reply (LeonardC (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You are 100% right about one thing: I do spend WAY too much time editing Wikipedia. In fact, I'm glad you pointed that out, because I need to stop now and do other stuff. However, I'll try to answer your message tomorrow, if I get time, and within the next couple of days if not. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

downy (band)

"Unsourced article about a non-notable band that fails." Well, if article is unsourced and/or not well written then it maybe deserves to be deleted, but "non-notable band that fails" is certainly not a valid argument, and not true at all if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.70.11 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for the deletion proposal was "Unsourced article about a non-notable band that fails WP:BAND." Being unsourced, being non-notable, and failing WP:BAND are all good reasons for deletion in line with Wikipedia polices and guidelines. The article was unsourced, and nothing in it suggested that the band is notable. Personally I wouldn't have cited WP:BAND, but it was not I that wrote the deletion proposal. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ikswodasb1

I think this guy just needs to be blocked. See his contribs. Calabe1992 20:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Calabe1992 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Indefinite IP block

I believe my actions are well grounded in the (other parts of) the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Myself and others have assumed good faith from them time and time again - and they've done nothing but completely ignore us all. I find it indicative that the said user has continued to ignore us - they haven't made a modicum of effort to appeal the block.

We know little about the IP addresses - they're both in the same huge 58.160.0.0/12 netblock owned by Telstra Internet. I don't see any particular indication from WHOIS that it could be a shared IP address. No other user seems to have come forward to complain. Obviously they may well exist, yet might simply be uninformed or confused about the matter enough to not to have told us.

I saw no hint of evidence that unblocking the addresses would produce a result that would not be harmful, so I left it as is for the time being.

In any case, if you feel this caution is now outweighed by the possibility that another legitimate user is being prevented from editing, feel free to unblock the IP addresses.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article of Comext

Hello, my previous article on "Comext" was accepted by another moderator. You have deleted all my page. Could you please update my article without my modifications of yesterday ? Thanks in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.9.14 (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you mean you would like the article restored to the state it was in before yesterday. However, the article contained unambiguous copyright infringing material ever since December last year. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on User talk:Hafeezanwar/Editnotice

As you were indeffing and deleting, I was asking a procedural question on essays in Editnotices at WP:ANI#Question_on_user_posting_Essay.2FOR_in_User_Talk.2FEditnotice. I guess you have answered the question already by action but would you care to comment there? I was inclined to G11 immediately w/o CSD nomination, but wanted to avoid WP:BITE. Maybe we should include a mention of User Editnotice pages in Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. -- Alexf(talk) 14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to think a bit about this. The fact that it was some sort of essay, totally inappropriate in an edit notice, did not qualify it for speedy deletion, but it seemed to me that it was promotion, which did. I think this particular editor was beyond Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, having been around for over five years. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was not thinking of promotion at the time but trying to see where OR falls in this respect. I'm seriously considering adding mention of User Talk Editnotices (as an extension) in WP:TALK. -- Alexf(talk) 15:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Alexf(talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That loser has escaped his ban again

Mr Curious now as this IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.109.249.103 has escaped his ban again. Please block him and remove the message he put on my talk page please.--Brainiac Adam (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Jayeshjain88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayeshjain88 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's escaped his ban again

Mr Curious has escaped his ban AGAIN! As THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/192.148.117.95 Please ban him please

Oh and now he's escaped as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.163.175.178 Please block him--Brainiac Adam (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Talk Page Access

Dear, Mr. JamesBWatson

Read on the following texts.

to quote you:

"Since you have used an unblock request to commit yet more infantile vandalism, your talk page access will be removed to stop you wasting still more of our time. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)"

the above was your respond to this:

"Request reason: your reason here where is the reason!???????Weekeepeediaisthetruth (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: A very good point... Peridon (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)"

I'd like to ask this question: Where in the "Request reason" section did username Weekeepeediaisthetruth asserted that the use on unblock request was to "commit yet more infantile vandalism"? Clearly, the section only revolved around the inquiry of a location and lack any intention towards your assessment. How did you arrive with your conclusion that the said username has committed to add more infantile vandalism?

Sincerely yours, Weekeepeediaisthetruth1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weekeepeediaisthetruth1 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make an unblock request, giving "where is the reason!???????" in the place where there should be a reason for the request, is vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks much for blocking User Hubrast. I was put off and disappointed by another admin's initial response to my request for this action: The reasoning was incorrect. I had Obergriesbach on my watch list because I knew the person came back after time passed to misuse the article. I'll keep watching it because, if I remember correctly, other vandalism to the page was his without having signed in. SeoMac (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pjnkkt

You blocked this user for abuse of email. Couyld you please also oversight/revdel their talkpage comment at [1]. Thanks. RolandR (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel done. Oversight is probably not necessary, but if you do want it you will have sot ask a bureaucrat. Sorry about missing that edit. I did check for edits by the account, but the edit was made between that check and the block (edit and block within 1 minute). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; he continued sending me abusive messages, even after the logged time of block. I hope its sorted now. RolandR (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Wikipedia software takes a while to respond to a block: I don't know. Did you ever reply to any of his emails? If so he will have your email address. I always use a single-purpose email address for replying to Wikipedia emails, not the same one I receive emails on, to avoid such problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course I didn't, I wasn't born yesterday. The real problem here, which I am taking to AN/I, is the continuing use of Mailinator addresses (in this case, one racially abusing another editor) for sending such messages. We should be able to find a way to prevent this. RolandR (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the Professional disclosure Statement

I was wondering if I can edit more info on the subject.

Sincerely,

Aaron Rogers/Goatpunk4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatpunk4 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from May El-Khalil, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for your review. Please see a response to your post.

CosmicRibbits

Hi ya and ribbits to you

can you give me a bit more feed back on why you pulled my article on Fitzitus, I realise that it wasn`t fully formed and need work doing to it but I am reasonably sure I can find the right ppl to expand on the topic which in turn will fill it out into the definition it deservers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicfrog911 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would suggest starting by making it clear what the article is about. Then make it clear that the subject (whatever that is) is notable, and not something you have just dreamed up yourself, which is the way it looked. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [January 2012]

link=User talk:<Gsaxena1809>#[January 2012]
link=User talk:<Gsaxena1809>#[January 2012]
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at [[User talk:<Gsaxena1809>#[January 2012]|User talk:<Gsaxena1809>]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As you have mentioned in your section january 2012, "Please do not keep creating articles about works with no notability, just because they are connected with your family"

I would like to inform that I am not creating articles just because Bharat Bhushan ji was my maternal Grandfather. He was a noted poet here in India only for that reason I am creating articles about him. His works are notable. His books are very much in demand, of course by scholars as only they can understand standard poetry. Many students did Ph.D. on him, wrote thesis on him. The page which I had created naming it as Ram ki JalSamadhi is one of his most popular and most famous poetry. But still the page was deleted. I don't know why. So many times he has been awarded by different Governments and different Hindi Organisations for his notable work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 21:08, 9 January 2012‎ Gsaxena1809

If the subjects you write about are notable, and have received significant attention, then you need to provide reliable sources to show that that is the case. Otherwise there is a danger that it will look to others as though there is no notability. Evidently you know how notable the subjects are, but you need to make it clear to others too. Another thing you need to do is to make it clear what the articles are about. For example, in the article Sagar ke Seep you began "This was his first book published in 1958". I actually don't know whether the subject of the article is a person or a book. My guess is that you mean that Sagar ke Seep was a writer, and you are talking about Sagar ke Seep's first book, taking it for granted that we all know he is a writer, so that you don't have to tell us. However, I am by no means sure: for all I know you may mean that Sagar ke Seep is a book, and it is some unspecified person's first book. Even if I am right in guessing that Sagar ke Seep is a person, I have no idea who he was, where he was from, what his significance was, etc etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your most recent edit on Jimbo's talk page

Hi,

I reverted your removal of the blocked editor's stuff. My reasoning being they started that thread and that others were participating in it; as there is no REQUIREMENT to remove their edits it seems to me that either the thread ought to be removed or they ought to be allowed to contribute towards it. Feel free to revert if you feel I am in error, or of course to remove the thread entirely - I am not in love with their edits Egg Centric 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katia Tiutiunnik

Could you please take a moment to read Katia Tiutiunnik.If you do, you'll see that it does not even mention Lambert Academic Publishing, which User:Playmobilonhishorse claims it's promoting and is backed up by many more credible citations/references than numerous other Wiki pages. Coἁuld you please help me improve the article, if that's your intention? It's been up for over 3 years and quite a few editors have contributed to it. I'm sorry, but I've acted in good faith.LivingMuseLivingMuse (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether Lambert Academic Publishing is relevant or not, but without a doubt the tone of much of the article is promotional. If you sincerely can't see that, then I can only assume that you are so closely involved with the subject that you are unable to stand back from it and see how the article looks to a neutral observer, in which case you should not be editing the article. However, that is not the point: whether you or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with the characterisation as promotional, you should not be repeatedly removing the template. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your advice and feedback. However, I humbly request that you look at the list of references backing up Katia Tiutiunnik and compare it with other Wikipedia articles. If you do, you'll see that Katia Tiutiunnik has many more references than numerous other Wikipedia articles. Anyway, if you have time to improve the article, I'd be grateful.LivingMuse (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tachash article

James, Thank you for your assistance regarding the article Tachash and the sockpuppetry/own crap that has been going on. As you may have seen from the article history this has played out over the course of a year or more, with multiple SP accounts and has pissed off a good number of editors. Right now I'm a bit too burnt out regarding the article to wade though the revisions and sort the wheat from the chaff but maybe I'll get back on the horse in the future. For now, thank you again for your help. Joe407 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Barton

Remove Sales Brochure??????

This is FACTUAL information to anyone wanting to know what the company is about!!

This is information that was DIRECT from AlliedBarton.com in the "About Us" section!

IT IS NOT A SALES BROCHURE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Security50023 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. I have never edited AlliedBarton, nor, as far as I remember, seen the article before. Can you clarify your point please? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

James, apparently an editor is not happy with my editing, as he did on User talk: Abhijay. It appears to be that he is upset that I tagged a page of submission for deletion and the deleting admin agreed with the criteria, but no offence to him really but he's saying that I drive people away from the project, even though I spend 10 bloody minutes reviewing a newly created article before decided to place it for deletion or not. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Zanran entry

Hiya

I'd appreciate reasons for the deletion as (a) the service has been reviewed by many people in the industry - check on Google, or look at the references (b) the service is much used by information professionals (c) the content is neutral and verifiable

I'd also be happy to make minor changes if appropriate

thanks

Jon JonZanran (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what information you want beyond what is already available to you. If you have any specific question then let me know, and I will try to answer it. You were given a link on your talk page to the deletion discussion page, and, as you can see there, the problem was a lack of indication of notability. If you are not already acquainted with Wikipedia's notability guidleines the you may like to look at them. Blogs, forums, etc are usually not reliable sources. Neutrality and verifiability were not the issues, and how much it is used is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability requirements (surprising though that may possibly seem). JamesBWatson (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zanran - 2

I should add that the article submitted today is completely different from the one submitted last April

Jon JonZanran (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moulton college

Dont just delete things for a conflict on interest for the sake of it; that seems a very lazy solution. Why not check if the facts I put on were correct? All images were fine and in no way could the information be remotely interpreted with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superruss (talk • contribs) 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have now reverted the Moulton College page to one where it has both inaccurate and incomplete information. Well done.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW&oldid=470675731"