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, 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.

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.

Inappropriate Interaction and Ban of PhysicsDude21

I am disappointed that an administrator could interact with a new and confused user such as PhysicsDude21 the way that you did. He created an inappropriate article, yes, and clearly doesn't know the rules of Wikipedia, but rather than welcoming a new user and giving him guidance, you treated him brusquely and saw to it that he was quickly banned. All that is seems to me that he did was make an erroneous argument based on not understanding Wikipedia. I just don't get it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately PhysicsDude21 was not a good faith editor who unfortunately was not aware of Wikipedia's standards. He/she was a troll/vandal who told blatant lies. For example, he/she claimed to have received an email from the Oxford University Press stating that the word he had made up was now officially a part of the English language, and would soon be incorporated into the Oxford English Dictionary. Alas, there are several reasons why that story is totally implausible. For one thing, English, unlike many other languages, does not have a body that declares what is and what is not "officially" part of the language. The Oxford English Dictionary, like other English dictionaries, records what has become accepted usage: it does not decree what shall be accepted. The Oxford English Dictionary also records only usages which have already become widely accepted: it does not incorporate words on the day they have been made up. (PhysicsDude21 claimed on 12 January 2012 to have already received the email from the Oxford English Dictionary. He/she also stated that the word was "created" on 12 January 2012.) There is no way that anyone could possibly have received such an email from the Oxford University Press. Then we have the claim that the Scottish Qualifications Authority had also officially declared the word to be an accepted part of the English language. That is even more absurd than the claims about the Oxford University Press. The Scottish Qualifications Authority is a body that sets exams for school children. It does not even publish a dictionary, let alone decree that particular words are or are not part of the English language. That email, like the Oxford one, is totally implausible. Then there is PhysicsDude21's claim that the Scottish Qualifications Authority's "nuclear task force" was going to be called in to deal with Wikipedia editors that had done things that PhysicsDude21 didn't like. Is that claim the sort of thing we would expect from a good faith editor? Then there is the claim that the word was created by a team led by Sir H-Dawg. Then there is PhysicsDude21's modifying talk page warning messages to misrepresent what other editors had said. Need I go on? There is, in PhysicsDude21's editing history, abundant evidence that we were dealing not with a well-meaning editor who unfortunately did not know how Wikipedia works, but rather with a troll/vandal.

I am human, and sometimes I make mistakes. However, I assure you that my part in this case was not undertaken lightly. I spent a considerable amount of time checking every single edit from this person (including ones which are now deleted) to be sure that I knew what the situation was. Having done so I was, and still am, confident that I had a correct understanding of the situation. I trust that you, likewise, checked the relevant editing history carefully before you accused me of "inappropriate" treatment of this user. If, having done so, you really do think that my reading of the situation is mistaken, then please tell me where you think I have gone wrong. Explain to me how a good-faith editor can have the editing history that this editor has. I shall then be very willing to join with you in asking the blocking administrator to unblock this user. However, at present I find it difficult to see how your interpretation is consistent with the observed facts. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may, let me second JamesBWatson's comments. I read PhysicsDude21's article. It was a blatant hoax whose only purpose was to disrupt Wikipedia. There is no reasonable reading of the article that leads you to believe PhysicsDude21 was doing anything but trolling. While assuming good faith is essential, at some point the abuse and lies become blatant enough that one can see a user's true intent. It was clearly not the case that PhysicsDude21 just didn't understand Wikipedia's purpose, he was deliberately trolling . A good block that is a service to Wikipedia. Well done, JamesBWatson. Sparthorse (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I can't take credit for the block, as I didn't do it. The account was blocked by the person with the username 7. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As another who spent time with PhysicsDude21, I agree with JBW. He may have started off as an innocent newbie who doesn't understand WP:NFT and wants to post a joke article about a made-up word, but he rapidly progressed to undoubted trolling, making absurd claims and placing level 4 vandalism warnings. After I took the trouble to point him to NOR, NEO and NFT to explain why his article was inappropriate, he simply posted it again with a link to a Youtube page of a lot of lads dancing about in a classroom, claiming that this was "3rd Party Proof" that the word was not a neologism. I note that he was also blocked on Wiktionary after giving vandalism warnings to two admins there. On Wiktionary he signs himself "Sir Peter A. Bert", under which name he has previous form here - see User talk:Smyth/Archive 1#Mildly amusing message from child or lunatic and Special:Contributions/SirPABert. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize and retract any claims here if I didn't look at the record deeply enough to see the truth of this. A brief look at Physics' edits looked to me like naive argumentation, but I'll take your word for it that it went on into trolling. Thanks for listening. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Canidae

Hello JamesBWatson, I did edit Canidae, but for various reasons. Why do you call taking away evolutionary facts and replacing them with true Biblical facts vandalism. Can you actually prove to me that evolution did take place, and not Creation? If so, show me. JoJaEpp (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two points there. Firstly, it is impossible to prove anything to religious fundamentalists, because they are determined to stick to their existing beliefs, no matter what reasons are advanced against them. Secondly, Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by individuals removing large quantities of content just because they personally disagree with the content. Those who persist in doing so after being warned not to are blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments. I am not a religious fundamentalist. Creation is not a religion, it is a fact. Do you know that evolution actually was made up; it never existed. I think you should research it a bit more before stating such things. In fact, evolution has never been shown to be true. Charles Darwin when talking about the complexity of the human eye in his Origin of Species said," To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Another evolutionist and an anthropologist (Sir Arthur Keith)said,"Evolution is unproved and uprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." ( in fact, Creation is very provable and probable compared to evolution.)Think of the "Cambrian explosion"; it is a complete contradiction to the theory of evolution. According to evolution, cells were supposed to gradually multiply and diversify; however, there pretty much was an explosion of fossils in Cambrian layer while there is no sign of life in the Precambrian. These are just some of the false facts of evolution. Think of the diversity of the world and the universe; it is simply impossible every thing could happen by chance. Does it take more faith to believe in a Creator or in chance? Also you cannot block me as I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia, I am trying to further it by putting right info in it. Thank you. JoJaEpp (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) None of this can be cited, you're blatantly inserting your own opinion into the article. Continue to do so and you will be blocked. Calabe1992 02:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read "The Origin of Species". I have also read the defences of "creationism", and their refutations. I would not like to guess how many times I have read the gross misrepresentation of evolution as coming about by "chance", which you repeat above. I have heard and read scientists carefully and patiently explaining why that is a mistake, only to see and hear "creationists" continue to play "I didn't hear that". And so on and so on with all the other arguments advanced by "creationists". As for your belief that you can't be blocked because you are "not trying to disrupt Wikipedia", unfortunately you have seriously misunderstood Wikipedia's blocking policy. Perfectly good faith editors who believe that what they are doing is right can be blocked if they persist in editing in disruptive ways, such as persistently trying to force their views through against consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Then think of it this way. I think we all agree that no humans were around when the world was formed. That means we all have faith about how we believe this world was formed ( whether evolution or creation). So, explain how you think evolution ( which is the belief in complete chance), is more likely at happening than Creation ( which is the belief that everything was created by a Creator). If you don't want me to force my opinion then, fine, I won't because obviously it won't work. But I am personally asking you a question about what you think. JoJaEpp (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we don't have an opinion on it, because everything must be written from a WP:NPOV. Calabe1992 06:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, my opinion is irrelevant. As Calabe1992 has said, Wikipedia works from a neutral point of view, and I do not allow my own opinions to influence my editing. I revert edits and delete content if they are contrary to Wikipedia policy, whether I agree with it, disagree with it, or have no opinion. I could point you to a case in the last couple of weeks where I not only reverted edits that I agree with, but even semi-protected the article involved to prevent continuation of the same problem. This was because the edits in question were intended to plug a particular point of view. The fact that I myself agree with that point of view did not affect my decision.

There are plenty of sources where you can find answers to the sort of question you have raised about evolution, if you want to. One that springs to mind is Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker". I personally found the book a little slow and tedious at times, but it is clearly written, and does address most of the relevant questions.

You seem to have overlooked, or not fully understood, what I said above about "chance", so I will elaborate a little.. Evolution is not about anything that happened by "chance": it is about a very systematic process. The stuff about "chance" is a Straw man argument: an irrelevant refutation of a position that one's opponent has not proposed. "Creationists" time and again come up with this irrelevant argument about "chance", despite the fact that that misconception has been answered time and again in numerous sources. There seem to be several reasons for the persistence of this misunderstanding. One such reason is an assumption that nothing systematic can happen without a conscious mind planning it, therefore the alternative to a conscious "creator" must be random chance. Another reason is a confusion between the process of evolution and the variation which is a prerequisite for that evolution. Which genes a particular organism receives from the available gene pool is largely a matter of chance, but which of the combinations of genes will more often survive and reproduce is not a matter of chance at all: genes that increase the chance of survival will be passed into future generations in greater numbers than those that increase that chance. Chance determines what genes an individual has, and chance plays a partial role in determining which individuals survive, but it does not determine which genes survive in large numbers, and which survive in small numbers, or not at all. Another reason is that many "creationists" have never heard or read the arguments for evolution, and base their views of it on accounts of it from other creationists.

No, we don't "all have faith about how we believe this world was formed". I have no faith in the matter at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, how is Evolution a neutral point of view? It has not been proved a fact, therefore it is still a theory. That means you cannot throw out Creation as some strong bias. Evolution is the same way, it also cannot be proved as something that actually took place. I agree with you that believing there is a Creator takes faith, but believing evolution took place also takes faith. The reason for this is just as I said before. No one was around to see how the earth was formed. Do you know what faith is? It is believing in something you can't see or for sure know that it happened. Therefore if you're so strongly arguing in favour of evolution, how can you say that you have no faith in the matter at all? I have heard talks on the subject by evolutionists who became Creationists just because of the sheer evidence against evolution. Did you read what I said about Charles Darwin? He himself agreed that evolution has a very small chance that it possibly could have happened. That Special Creation took place is a quite a bit more likely. Have you ever read the Bible? In it is the account of the world wide flood. There are many evidences like that of the Grand Canyon which favour it. The theory of Evolution says that the rock layers should show themselves in the right order with the fossils in their right places within the rock strata. However, there has never been one place that has this right order throughout the whole earth. Evolution also says that transitional forms should take place between different organisms as they evolve. This has also been proved wrong as there has never been one found. What do you think? Both Evolution and Creation are not proved facts, but which is the more likely? JoJaEpp (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

If I wished to argue about these issues I would look for an online forum or blog that deals with the subject: I am sure there must be some. That is not the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page. If you are really interesting in knowing what the answers to your points are, then, as I have already pointed out, there are plenty of published accounts you may read. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Extreme Adventure Travel

Could you take a look at the article Extreme Adventure Travel- trust me, it won't take long. It has recently been created by Andy Lee Graham. I was wondering if it should be proposed for deletion or put up for AfD. I'm not that familiar with doing either of these, although I do get involved in the AfD discussions. There are actually quite a few articles in this topic area that look very iffy. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Already PROD-ed Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

COI Template in my talk page

Hi!

Recently you left a copy of the COI template in my talk page. Since I haven't edited in a while, I was wondering if you did this because of an edit you saw or if you're just leaving these in other users' pages to build conscience about the issue?

Just wanted to make sure that nobody has "hijacked" my account or posted under my name...

PS: Would you be so kind to reply in my talk page, as I am not as active as I used to be? Thanks!!!

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks for taking the time to answer! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi Protected

Hi! how can i get a semi protected my own created Wikipedia Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddaadda (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Pages are not semi-protected pre-emptively. It's only done to prevent vandalism or other disruption.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you created the article is of no relevance at all: you have given the article to Wikipedia, and you now have no more rights over it than any other editor. If there is a history of persistent vandalism or other disruption to the article by unregistered users, then it is possible to request semiprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, at present there has been no such disruption, so there is no reason for semiprotection. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussions - other Wikis

Hi James. Do you happen to know if it is permitted to invite users of other Wikipedias to comment on our RfCs? Such as the wording of the {{Please see}} invite template that we put on project talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I have never come across this question at all, nor had any reason to think about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, never mind. It's just that I was considering suggesting that Germans come an comment on a Germany issue we have raging here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hacker T. Dog

You deleted Hacker T. Dog and redirected to a page that doesnt exist , please reply to my talk page. Thom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.217.234 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I deleted it because it was already a redirect to a page which no longer existed. That page was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, in which it was decided that the subject did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is possible that Hacker T. Dog does satisfy those guidelines, in which case it would be possible to resurrect a version of that article which was not a redirect. However, the article gave no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines, and did not cite a single source. If you can find sources that do show notability then please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Deleting pages is more likely to get you a torrent of abuse than a thank-you, so to redress the balance - here's a thank-you note. You've hit virtually every speedy deletion I've put up today, and for performing this necessary and generally unappreciated task, I award you this barnstar. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Helga Barkhuizen

Hello James,

I feel it's completely unfair to remove the write-up on me from Wikipedia, as the sole purpose of it is to showcase what I'm busy doing and have done to gain the title of Miss South Africa International 2012.

You could argue that Elvis Blue cannot feature under famous people for George, South Africa, as well then. He just won Idols South Africa and is not making a considerable change in the world - merely singing, whereas I am punting nature conservation and environmental awareness.

Please let me know how I should change the page to reflect this as it does not make any sense why you would've removed me. Furthermore the write-up that you say is copied from Facebook is false. This write-up was done for me as Miss SA International 2012 and features on facebook as well, but is not copied.

Please respond to me as soon as you find the time? Thank you very much.

Kind regards, Helga Barkhuizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelgaB (talk • contribs) 13:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You have, in fact, given good reasons for the deletion. Saying that the article has the sole purpose of "showcasing" what you are doing is another way of saying that the article was written for promotional purposes. You should also not be writing an article about yourself, as you will have a conflict of interest. The content of the article is published elsewhere, on a page which does not assert that it is public domain or released under a free license. We cannot assume that one of those applies because some Wikipedia editor says so, as anyone can create a Wikipedia account, and claim to be the copyright owner. I could give you a link to instructions on how to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with evidence of copyright release, but doing so would be a waste of your time, as the material would be deleted as promotional anyway. (Such language as "Being a passionate, natural leader, Helga has made a noticeable impression on her peers and community" is promotional, with no two ways about it.) What other articles exist is largely irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why. (That links to a section of a page about unsuitable reasons to advance in deletion discussions, but the same applies in this case.)

I have searched for information about you. I found social networking sites such as FaceBook and LinkedIn, an advertising page hosted on blogspot for a model agency, various listing sites and promotional sites, and so on. I found nothing that by the remotest stretch of the imagination could be regarded as substantial coverage in independent sources. That being so, it seems very unlikely that you satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, in which case you are not suitable as the subject of an article. If and when you do satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, probably some impartial third party will write an article about you, so there will be no need for you to do so. That will have the advantage of avoiding any conflict of interest, or the impression that you are using Wikipedia for self promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd send my article for deletion

Hi. You proposed to delete my article Asit Vora because there were no reliable resources. But now I have added Reliable resources to it. So please cancel the deletion request. --Yasht101 (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would happily have done so, but see that you have already done it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

See my response to my talk page. Yosichen (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Help me

I wasent aware of the fact that you cannot copy from websites as I am new to this site. I am really extremly sorry for that. But please give me a chance. Please restore those articles and I promise to make them proper in 3 hours from the time I am online. Please do it and just give me one chance and if I fail you can even ban me from wikipedia, I wouldnt mind it as I was not good. I had worked very hard for that articles and had gathered the resourses but I didnt make it proper. I feel very bad for it. Please just give me one chance inorder to make those articles without the copied texts. If I again created them, it will take up very long time. Please consider my request and do it. I will take care about it next time for sure and this copyright thing will not be done again. Please restore those articles and I will surely improve them. Please just give me one last chance. Thank You. --Yasht101 (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately restoring articles deleted for copyright infringement is not possible. If I did that I would be breaking the law by publishing material infringing copyright. The only way to recreate the articles is to rewrite them from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I will do it. And I will take care of it properly that it is writtten by me only. One last thing I wanted to know that if you cannot restore, can you send me the material via email or anything? --Yasht101 (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bruce A. Langos

Why is there a COI tag on Bruce A. Langos? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

The relatively new User:Wikipeditist (1st edit Dec 19) looks much like User:CuriousWikian590 (1st edit Oct 28th, blocked Nov 26) who is a sock of User:Mr. Curious Man(blocked Dec 1). I accidently ran across this while explaining the problems in List of Tinga Tinga Tales episodes to DGG. Since you blocked CuriousWikian590 before, I wanted to see if you can look at this closer. Both 'created' List of Tinga Tinga Tales episodes separately, plus several of socks have worked on Tinga Tinga Tales, as well as Wikipeditist, right after the other socks were blocked. I haven't tagged as such yet, wanted your opinion, and if appropriate, action. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

JB

Re: this deletion it looks like the 20+ users who had that template on their pages are now all showing as db-attack. Know of any good way to unlink them all?  7  12:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have just finished going through the slightly tedious process of removing the box from user pages one by one. There may well be an easier way, but if so I don't know what it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

AWB? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have never used AWB, and know very little about it, but I must look into it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit foreboding at first but some kids here use it quite happily. I have very little experience with it except on my wife's PC because it won't work on Mac. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

why did you delete my article?

why did you delete the article that i created about the Act of 1819? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi-the-magnificent (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Factory Acts (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Beyond what AndrewWTaylor's message on your talk page tells you, and the deletion log entry confirming that the article was deleted for that reason, what more do you want to know? If you let me know I will try to help, but at the moment I don't know what is unclear to you, so I don't know what to say that would help you. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Sebastian80

OK, what exactly did this old boy, do? Was he banned, is he a sockpuppet, and are we sure? I was falsely accused of the same not too long ago and never got so much as an apology from the dirty rat bastard who said it.  :) In all seriousness, this kid was coming a long way. He has the potential to be a positive contributor and unless I'm missing something, I can't see what the problem is. I was asked to mentor him a few weeks ago and didn't see him going around on one skate or anything. Let me know. Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This account was used to evade a block on another account (VeronicaPR). Yes, we are sure. I don't need to spend ten minutes trawling back through the editing history to re-find all the evidence that led me to that conclusion in the first case (which is often what I have to waste my time doing in these cases) because the editor has since admitted to being the same person as VeronicaPR. Presumably you know that, as it is clearly visible on the account's talk page. I haven't a clue what you mean by "going around on one skate", except a vague impression that you mean that the editor wasn't doing anything very bad. Is that all you, mean, or does the expression have a more specific meaning? I assume that by "this kid was coming a long way" you mean that the recent edits via the block-evading sockpuppet account were better than some of the old edits that led to the original block. If so, I suggest that your best action, in your capacity as mentor, is to advise the user how to make an unblock request that is likely to succeed, and also to advise him/her to do so via their original account, or else to provide a good reason for switching to the sockpuppet account. You may like to explain to your mentoring client why just ignoring a block and evading it via another account is not a helpful way to go, even if it is done with noble intentions. I hope these remarks have been helpful to you. At the moment I can't think of anything else I can usefully add. Obviously, any concerns you may have about the declines of unblock requests should be addressed to the administrators who declined them. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Going around on one skate" is an idiomatic expression in the English language to denote that a person is acting in a bizzare manner, I forget some people have no humor, suffer from aspergers syndrome, don't speak American English, have too much soy in their diet, walk around with a board up there ass, or just read things too literal, present company excluded of course...it's probably late where you are, too! Pictur in your mind someone careening around while wearing one roller skate, to get the visual. As to the "coming a long way" remark, I meant that with regard to this account's history. I haven't had time to go through any but the last 50 posts on his other account (Veronica something or other), I had been away for a week but have been receiving numerous emails from the user about this. I'll take you at your word then about you being sure, but again as I was falsely accused, I felt I should ask. I do not really know this person beyond "coaching" him through a GA Review and subsequently being asked to mentor him. I just wanted to make sure he wasn't a total shitbird before I stuck my neck out to defend him. Since I've never been blocked/banned from here I guess I'll have to read up on it or suggest him to do the same. Thanks again, you've been helpful.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I spent a little of my time carefully thinking out a response to your original query that I thought might be helpful. I'm not sure I would have done so had I known you were likely to come back with stuff like "have no humor, suffer from aspergers syndrome, don't speak American English, have too much soy in their diet, walk around with a board up there ass". In my case the reason is that I don't speak American English: does that make be worthy of contempt and derision? Most of what you have written seems reasonable, but remarks like that are likely to antagonise people, and put them in a negative frame of mind towards anything else you say or do. I suggest thinking more carefully before using such language again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I did say, "present company excluded". Which is a way of letting the other person know that you are being facetious with a comment or going for humor. You write very well and if you had not told me you were not a native speaker I would never have tguessed it at all. My apologies, I did not mean to offend you. I guess it's like when this Dutch girl I know says something which means "and now the monkey comes out of his sleeve" and it makes no sense to me.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I didn't make myself clear. I understood perfectly what you meant by "present company excluded". What I meant to convey was not that I had been offended on this occasion, but that using that kind of language was probably unwise, as it was likely to prejudice people against you, even though you didn't mean it offensively. I deliberately put in the bit saying "Most of what you have written seems reasonable" to show that it had not prejudiced me against you. Your comment about the Dutch girl is interesting, because I know a young Dutch woman who most of the time speaks English virtually perfectly, and then suddenly she comes up with something that makes you think "What the hell?" :) Anyway, best of luck with the mentoring. You are probably right in thinking that the editor has the potential to move on from past problems and become a useful and accepted member of the community. I hope so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I'm kind of a smart alec in real life and through my non-wiki writing people expect that from me and I forget that I'm probably not as popular on here as on the gun/knife/mma forums(I think 90% of my activity is editing/writing and 10% is community type stuff). I will be serious with you from here on out. I had my doubts about this user when I first met him here (he admitted to plagurizing /close paraphrasing text) but seemed to move on from that and become very productive. When I did not see any similarity with what he had posted as veronica with what he posted as sebastian I was curious where the SPI came from, that's why I asked if you were sure. From my own experience running a knife forum with 40,000+ members I have tools at my disposal that can check for similar patterns, but have had a few false positives over the years. Again, I now can see where he admitted it was him in the past, so this makes me question his integrity. Is he sorry for what he did, or just sorry he was caught? I will read through all of his past transgressions in the morning and see where to go from there; then I'll read up on the blocks and advise him. Thanks again. And sorry if I came off like a bit of a jerk earlier--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Selva chess

Hi. Please see this user's edits even on Madurai Airport. Based on this is a two day block sufficient? — Abhishek  ^Talk 18:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite likely not, but this is the editor's first block, and can be regarded as a warning. Please feel very welcome to contact me if the problem returns after the block, and I will consider the possibility of a significantly longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Sure. — Abhishek  ^Talk 18:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Noah Lott Deletion

Dear Sir,

I am the editor for Noah Lott's page and I need to know why it was deleted. I did my best to format, site sources and so forth. I have a feeling that deleting a Wiki page is based on an editor's personal interpretation on the Wiki guidelines.

I'm not slighting you but Noah Lott is a legitimate wrestling worker and based on other pages, I thought it was I was meeting the standards.

Sincerely,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjrude (talk • contribs) 18:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Animation Source Choice Awards

It seems that the deprodder isn't clear on why the article has been prodded in the first place. Basically, that means it's all going to AfD. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Free Word and Excel password recovery Wizard

Hello, James!

I am begginer on Wikipedia . I write articles about password protection in the popular application. Recently You deleted my article " Free Word and Excel password recovery Wizard". Please, tell me why software in the

category doesn't include to G11. But my article included. Thank you.

You've ruined it!

I was hoping for another pithy comment in my talk from 90.199.27.242 (talk), but I supposed that is not going to happen now. Cheers! ;o) Jim1138 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry. Silly me, tryiing to discourage disruptive editing, instead of goading the disruptive editor on to more trolling. I will try to learn to do better. :) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You are now the third person who has intervened on this matter without apparently having appreciated the triviality. And surely Wikipedia was never intended to be taken so seriously and would be much more valuable if it remained a pleasingly friendly source of non-authoritative information.

Incidentally, your user page contains some oddly inconsistent attitudes - inter alia "I think I had probably made a few edits anonymously, but I don't actually remember." - to the values you seem so keen to impose.

90.199.27.242 (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 83.28.142.46's talk page.
Message added 12:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ankit Maity ^{Talk | contribs} 12:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)